Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_1/V12_100.ZIP/V12_100

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

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/IadelPi00VcJI3z05g>;
          Fri, 20 Jul 1990 03:01:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 1990 03:01:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #100

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 100

Today's Topics:
               Re: Soyuz stuff
            Chinese Launchers Information
            Re: World Space Agency
                 unsubscribe
  Re: MIR cosmonauts do 7 hour space walk to fix Soyuz TM-9 blankets
          Re: Wall Street Journal column (115 lines)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Jul 90 00:34:20 GMT
From: ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Soyuz stuff

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Perew) writes:
>>For the cost of one space shuttle, you could purchase, say, 200 Soyuz
>>capsules.....
>
>David, David, David.  You really expect me to buy this line?

Mark, Mark, Mark. Why not?

>And even if we did get a Soyuz or twenty what have we got.  We have a
>cramped capsule that carries a MAXIMUM of three people sitting down
>all the time.

They will only be sitting in it long enough to take them to the space
station where the work is done. Couple of hours tops, they can take it.

>No room for science on a Soyuz!

Of course not. That's what the station is for. Of course, wiht the HL Titan
or Delta, lots and lots of stuff can be carried in addition to the Soyuz. If
you wanted to operate the Soyuz in a "shuttle science" mode, then have the
Soyuz dock with a payload ala Apollo. But I don't see why you wold want
to do that since we built a dandy space station with the money saved from
abandoning the Shuttle. After all, why spend billions hauling your labs up
so you can use them for a few days when you can haul them one time and keep
them there? If you keep them there, you will save billions and then can build
more labs.

>Um, lesse, what else don't we have?  Oh. how about a vehicle to
>put it on.

Heavy lift Titan or Delta. Can be available three years from word go.

>How much will it cost to mate a Soyuz to say an old
>Gemini style Titan II?  Betcha nobody even has a reasonable guess.

So let's find out! Remember, it's got to be pretty damned expensive
to kill the idea. In fact, Soyuze integration could almost double the
costs and it would STILL be a good idea.

>Oh, and what about GROUND SUPPORT!  We ain't got no software to
>support a Soyuz!

Buy it wiht the capsule.

>We have no procedures.

I'm confident the Soviets have all the procedures and documentation
we will need.

>We have NO EXPERIENCE!

So?

>Where is it going to land?  (I suppose that it could land at Edwards,
>but will the pilots like the hard-landing idea?)

If they don't like it they can quit. Apollo founds lots of people.

>Oh yes, speaking of pilots, do you really think that our Air Force
>and Navy pilots will want to fly in a second-hand Soyuz?

Are you saying it is worth $1.5 BILLION every year to prevent them
from having hurt feelings?

If that's a problem, let them quit. I'll fly it (any more volunteers?).
I scored in the 95 percentile in the USAF Pilot Aptitude Test so I'm
sure I can manage.

>Remember
>that our general perception of Russion technology is that they don't
>do things as well as we do.  Can we really expect to trust a Soyuz
>capsule?

It is likely the single most used man rated peice of hardware in the
world today. Why not?

>I'll ask a question related to one I asked Alan Sherzer.  If the
>Soyuz is such a hot idea why is Hermes being built?  Surely the
>Russians would have sold a Soyuz to France even before peristroika
>and glasnost.

Which I already answered. The Shuttle is not a bad idea. Our implimentation
of the concept is bad. We pushed every technology in building it and then
expected to use in operationally. Maybe Hermes will fail too. Now, let me
ask you: If the shuttle is such a good idea, why haven't the Soviets
abandoned Soyuze in favor of Buran?


  Allen
|                          |      In War: Resolution                      |
| Allen W. Sherzer         |      In Defeat: Defiance                     |
|   [e-mail]            |      In Victory: Magnanimity                 |
|                          |      In Peace: Good Will                     |

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 19 Jul 90 13:38:49 EDT
Resent-From: Harold Pritchett <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: Space discussion group <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 09:10 N
From: "Rob A. Vingerhoeds / Ghent State University" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chinese Launchers Information

At 09 Jul 90 Paul Shawcross <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >Anyone out there know the stats for Long March (payload to LEO, GTO, GSO,
> >etc.)?
> >--Glenn Serre
> >[e-mail]
>
> This info is a couple years out of date, and I don't have
> the references anymore.  But anyway, . . .
>
>
> Launcher              payload     orbit
>
> Long March 1           -  360kg  440km/70 deg   2 launches
> CZ1D (LM1 derivative)  -  900kg  300km/70 deg   offered
> Long March 2 (CZ2)     - 1700kg  440km/70deg    16+ launches
> CZ2-4L                 - 9000kg  LEO            proposed
> CZ2-8L                 -13000kg  LEO            proposed
> Long March 3 (CZ3)     - 1400kg  GTO            3+ launches
> CZ3-4L                 - 3000kg  GTO            1991
> CZ3A (sometimes LM4)   - 2250kg  GTO            1992
> CZ3A-4L                - 5000kg  GTO            proposed
> Saturn 1 class -20000kg LEO                     late 90s
>
> The Long March 1 used liquid and solid fuels, the Long March
> 2 used liquid fuels, and the Long March 3 used cryogenic
> fuels (earlier than the USSR!).  The program has only had
> one recorded failure, the third stage of the first CZ3, but
> a second CZ3 was launched successfully only 3 months later.
>
>
> Paul Shawcross
> [e-mail]
>

As far as I know, there was more than one failure:

date           launcher

01-11-1969     CZ-1
12-07-1974     FB-1
04-11-1974     CZ-2
30-07-1979     FB-1

CZ-1 stands for Long March 1, CZ-2 for Long March 2 and FB-1 for 'Feng Bao'
(storm), which is a variant of the CZ-2 launcher.

Some more information about the launchers:

Launcher   stages   launch mass   payload

CZ-1       3        81600          300 kg to 440 km (70 deg)
CZ-1C      3        88000          400 kg to 600 km (70 deg)
                                   400 kg to 400 km (99 deg)
FB-1       2        191000        2500 kg to 200-400 km (63 deg)
                                  2000 kg to 200-2500 km (63 deg)
CZ-2       2        193000        3000 kg to 200-400 km (63 deg)
CZ-3       3        202000        1400 kg to 200-35786 km (31.1 deg)
CZ-4       3        ??            2500 kg to 800 km sunsynchroneous

New variants of the existing launchers for the (near) future (under
development):

Variant 1 of CZ-2 : A launcher that should be able to launch a comsat of the
type Hughes HS-376 to a geostationary orbit, with a PAM-D as extra stage.

Variant 2 of CZ-2 : A launcher that can launch a comsat of type Hughes
HS-399, that should then use an apogee booster.

Variant 3 of CZ-2 : A launcher that can bring a Molniya satellite to a
drift-orbit of 400-40000 km.

Variant 4 of CZ-2 : A launcher with 4 or 8 strap-on boosters (designated
CZ2-4L and CZ2-8L in the list of Paul Shawcross) and an improved second
stage.

Variant of CZ-3 : A launcher with an improved first stage (CZ-3A). This
rocket can bring 2500 kg to a geostationary transfer orbit. It can be used
with strap-on boosters as well. These variants are probably the ones
mentioned by Paul Shawcross as CZ3-4L and CZ3A-4L.

A new variant of the Long March 4 with 4 strap-on boosters should be able to
bring 5300 kg to a geosynchroneous tranfer orbit. First flight expected in
1991.

Anyway, there are some differences between our two lists, but I hope that
this information will help.



Rob Vingerhoeds

***************************************************************************
* Rob A. Vingerhoeds                        Ghent State University        *
* member scientific staff                   Automatic Control Laboratory  *
*                                           Computer Science              *
*                                                                         *
* Grotesteenweg Noord 2                     tel: [phone] ext 320  *
* 9710 GENT - Zwijnaarde                    fax: [phone]          *
* Belgium                                   email: [e-mail] *
***************************************************************************

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

Date: 19 Jul 90 13:14:30 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: World Space Agency

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> NASA comes in for a lot of abuse for doing complex things clumsily at times
> while the Soviets are alternately lauded and abused for sticking to simple
> and robust methods. It seems to me that a combination of these two
> approaches is needed. The shuttle is a marvellous machine, but is too
> complex to be reliable. Freedom is far more complex than it needs to be,
> and is almost guaranteed to be very late, very much over budget, prone
> to frequent breakdowns and the source of massive tensions in political
> and scientific arenas. If we could use the Soviet approach to launching
> (mass production of ELVs, gradual design improvements, low cost per
> launch) and station design and construction (maybe a bit more room inside)
> - and add to that robust base the high-tech skills of the U.S., we would
> really have something that might work. Now that the walls really are
> falling and the Soviets are broke, a World Space Agency with a sensible
> mix of skills and approaches might finally have a chance. How about
> political action to make that a goal for 2000?

I doubt that if it were not for the Cold War that there would be much
space activity at all.  The Soviet Union is broke, the US is broke, the
ECN is broke.  It was only the threat of losing military of political
position which got us anywhere.  If we had cooperated with the USSR in
the 50s, at most we would have big bumbling satellites with small payloads.
Cooperation will only work in the very short run; it takes competition to
advance.

A World Space Agency would have to fight a World Hunger Relief Agency for
funds.  It would lose.  Only the minority are willing to make an investment
in space; military and political competition can force a nation to do what
its citizens would rather not spend money on.

I believe the following is a quote from GBS.

    The reasonable man adapts himself to the environment.  It is only
    the unreasonable man who attempts to adapt the environment to
    himself.  Therefore, progress depends on the unreasonable man.

'Nuff said.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)    {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!cik(UUCP)

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 13:36:29 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: unsubscribe

Date: 19 July 1990, 13:36:07 EDT
From: CS819    at OUACCVMB
To:   [e-mail] at EDU

unsubscribe space-request Scott Mash

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

Date: 19 Jul 90 22:43:00 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: MIR cosmonauts do 7 hour space walk to fix Soyuz TM-9 blankets

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>    Congratulations to the Soviet Cosmonauts Anatoly Solyov and Alexander
>Balandin,  for their bravery and expert work during yesterday's seven hours in
>raw space,  a task for which they were not specifically trained!  Their seven
>hours in space was unexpected and unplanned for, yet they did what they had to
>do to maintain their space complex.

No, they did what they had to go to get their rears safely home...

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

Date: 19 Jul 90 07:22:18 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Mark Perew)
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal column (115 lines)

[e-mail] ("1st Lt. Henry S. Cobb") writes:
>[The following is copied without permission from the Wall Street
>Journal op-ed page, Friday, July 13, 1990.  My comments follow.]

> ...the space shuttle, which NASA designed to have its own
>space-launch monopoly.

This is not correct.  The shuttle was designed to be the transportation
vehicle to get to and from our space station.  The space station was
axed by the congresscritters which left us with a shuttle and no
mission. (Odd isn't it that the congresscritters axed the space station
but not the shuttle nor had they the wisdom to do it the other way
'round.) Now, 'tis true that in a mode of "we have to keep the manned
space program alive at all costs" (which some have described as
"self-preservation") NASA did prostitute itself to the DoD. The
resultant bastard child is the shuttle we have now which bears only
passing semblance to its mother.  The cost of raising the mutant child
was such that to justify it NASA had to reduce launch costs.  It was
believed that by increasing frequency the per flight cost would drop.
This led to the elimination of American ELVs competition.  One wonders
(at least this one wonders) what would have happened if congress had
either let both the original shuttle and the space station proceed or
if we had built the station and used the Saturn IB/Apollo to get there.

>   Another bad habit is NASA's gold-plated giantism.

Again I will blame (flame?) the congresscritters.  They just do not
understand small numbers.  (A case could be made that they have no
comprehension of large numbers, too.)  In order for a 100% valid and
useful project to get funding NASA has to turn it into a megaproject
with broad science appeal or the infighting among the science community
will kill the project.  Congress just can't seem to figure out that
we don't have to have 1 project with 6 backers, we can do science with
6 projects with 1 backer apiece.  Perhaps this a marketing problem at
NASA.  But I think that the congresscritters should have the smarts
to understand this.

It is also easier for a congresscritter to self-justify axing a $2M
project rather than a $2G project.  (If it costs too little then it
can't be important, right?  Right...)

>As a platform to go to Mars, the
>station is the wrong design.  As a science laboratory, it may be
>superfluous.

But do you really think that congress will let us build two stations?
One as a permanent LEO research post and another as a way-station to
Moon/Mars?  If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.  Better yet, I
have two bridges.

>   All of this cries out for reform, but Congress can't see much
>beyond the budget.

I wish that I could believe that the congresscritters could see this
far.

Perhaps it is time that the NASA engineers just quit.  If Congress
won't let them do the job right them perhaps the job should not be
done at all.


--
Mark Perew
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #100
*******************