Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_1/V12_110.ZIP/V12_110

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 21KB

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/saect5600VcJQ88k5A>;
          Mon, 23 Jul 1990 01:42:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 1990 01:41:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #110

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 110

Today's Topics:
             space news from June 4 AW&ST
          Negative Matter [was Anti-Gravity Devices]
              Re: man-rated expendables
            Space Station Freedom
          Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL
            Re: HST, Perkin-Elmer and NASA
              Re: HST and KH 9s
              Re: Nasa's budget

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: 23 Jul 90 02:14:14 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from June 4 AW&ST

South Korea's Institute of Space Science and Astronomy announces plans
for a Korean-built-sounding-rocket launch next year and a Korean launch
of a small satellite in 1996.

Negotiators at the Bush/Gorbachev summit discuss possibilities for space
cooperation including a Soviet cosmonaut on a shuttle mission and a US
astronaut visiting Mir.  One complication is that neither side wants
to do it purely as a public-relations stunt [that's novel!], so it
will not happen unless worthwhile science can be done that way.

Hydrogen leak halts Columbia/Astro-1 countdown at T-6h, schedule slip
likely.  [As usual, I'm not going to spend bytes on detailed coverage
of already-obsolete news that has been reported well by others.]

First space-accident jury trial in history absolves Thiokol from most
damages being sought by insurance companies hit by the Palapa/Westar
boost-motor failures in 1984.  The jury found no liability for damages
because of detailed prelaunch testing that found no problems in a design
used 18 times before without trouble.  However, the jury did find that
the failures breached the warranty and Thiokol is thus liable for small
failure-under-warranty payments to the insurance companies.

First commercial Atlas suffers slight damage in a pad accident, as a
high-pressure helium line fails and slightly damages the interstage
structure.  On-pad repairs are probably possible but the schedule is
going to slip a bit.

Arianespace gets the job of launching Helios, the first non-superpower
spy satellite, in 1993.  Helios is based on the Spot 4 bus.  It's being
built by Matra for France, Italy, and Spain.

Mir's Kristall add-on industrial module is finally launched.

Alexei Leonov comments that leaving Mir unmanned for budget reasons is
not a good idea, because considerable effort is required to prepare it
for unmanned operation and there are failures that could disable it if
no maintenance were available.

MIT Lincoln Lab shows off the first space-qualified laser-communications
transmitter, intended for a USAF intersatellite-link experiment aimed at
220 megabits/s communication at a 40000km range with 30 milliwatts of
laser power.

US Navy to buy ten UFOs from Hughes.  Relax, those are "UHF Follow-On"
comsats to replace the older FltSatCom and Leasat birds.  It's being done
as a very commercial deal, with Hughes providing launches (on Atlas via
General Dynamics) and paying heavy penalties if launches are delayed or
satellites are lost.

Northwest Airlines and Honeywell to flight-test Soviet Glonass navsat
receiver, as part of a longer-term effort to build receivers that can
use both Navstar and Glonass.

German Ministry of Research and Technology is told by technical advisors
not to pursue use of Glonass, on the grounds that it is less accurate
than Navstar and the Soviets are reticent about certain important details.

Letter from Geoffrey Landis observing that the price-tag difference between
LLNL and NASA Moon/Mars proposals is not primarily the result of technical
differences, but of different assumptions.  First and foremost, the LLNL
study assumes "generic waiver of procurement regulations", which even the
contractors estimate would give a factor of 2-3 reduction, plus whatever
is saved on the government side due to reduced supervision.  Second, the
LLNL program is "success oriented", with little subassembly testing
beforehand and little provision for failure.  [Color me skeptical, but
NASA tends to plan things the same way nowadays... witness the complete
absence of backup hardware in current space-station plans.]  LLNL also
generally assumes zero or very low costs for contractor supervision,
management, and ground-based R&D.
--
NFS:  all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and its performance and security too.  |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 22 Jul 90 21:49:10 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (Brian or James)
Subject: Negative Matter [was Anti-Gravity Devices]


    How would one remotely observe 'negative matter' if such a beast
existed? I assume that photons would be 'negated' by hitting NM rather
than reflected. NM strikes me as very much a black cat in a coal room at
midnight situation.
                                 JDN

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

Date: 14 Jul 90 13:09:00 GMT
From: mailrus!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!f906.n250.z1.fidonet.org![e-mail]  (maury markowitz)
Subject: Re: man-rated expendables


 s> things happening.  You lose power in Pegasus, you drop like a rock.
 s> You lose
 s> power in the X-30, you'll slow down and become a glider.

  Actually, you slow down and become a convetional airliner (abeit
expensive!).  The designs that I've seen require the X-30 to have several
large (here comes GE) turbofans to get the thing up there.  If the main
engines fail, you coast back down and just fly to the nearest airport.
But don't worry too much, even if congress axes it, you'll be able to usse
the Sanger (sp?), or HOTOL, or SATAN... The time for this idea has finally
come, SOMEONE is going to build the thing, and I really don't care who it
is.

                                                       Maury

--- Maximus-CBCS v1.00
 * Origin: The Frisch Tank, Newmarket, Ontario, CANADA (1:250/906)

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

Date: 22 Jul 90 15:38:29 GMT
From: dftsrv!amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: Space Station Freedom

UPn  07/20 1752  Feasibility of proposed space station questioned

By ROB STEIN   UPI Science Editor

   WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The proposed U.S. space station will begin to wear out
while being built, requiring an unrealistic number of spacewalks for repairs
before astronauts are even aboard to do them, a NASA study released Friday said.
   The findings raise questions about the feasibility of the proposed $30
billion space station, seen as the centerpiece of NASA's future space program,
at a time when the space agency is already reeling from a series of setbacks.
   But space station director Richard Kohrs said he was confident the agency
could overcome the potential problem and reduce the need for maintenance to a
more realistic level.
   "I'm confident we'll get it down. It's going to take us two or three months
but we ... will be well within reason," said Kohrs after a news conference at
NASA headquarters where the study was released.
   John Pike of the American Federation of Scientists, however, was skeptical.
   "I think they still have some serious unsolved problems that they're going to
have to solve before they get the show on the road," he said.
   NASA is already under fire because the space shuttle fleet has been grounded
by fuel leaks and a defect in the $1.5 billion Hubble Space Telescope has
blurred the observatory's potentially revolutionary view of the heavens.
   The blunders have triggered a storm of criticism in Congress, which is
considering NASA's $15 billion proposed fiscal year 1991 budget, including $2.6
billion for the space station.
   NASA hopes to begin building the 500-foot-long space station Freedom in 1996
or 1997 as an orbiting outpost where astronauts can conduct scientific
experiments and stage exploration into the solar system.
   Astronaut William Fisher and robotics expert Charles Price of the Johnson
Space Center in Houston raised questions about the station in March when they
released a preliminary estimate that the station would reuqire 2,284 hours of
spacewalks each year for routine maintenance, such as replacing batteries and
lightbulbs.
   That translated into the equivalent of more than three spacewalks each week,
which would mean astronauts would have to spend too much time outside the
station doing spacewalks, which can be dangerous.
   NASA officials asked Fisher and Price to continue their analysis and
predicted the final report would produce a lower, more realistic estimate of the
number of spacewalks needed.
   Instead, the pair's final report estimates that under current designs the
station would require 3,276 hours of spacewalks each year after it is built,
which translates into more than five spacewalks each week.
   But the pair, along with an independent team headed by William Simon of the
Johnson Space Center, concluded the number of spacewalk hours could be cut to
about 500 each year if about 100 recommendations were implemented.
   The recommendations, most of which Kohrs said were realistic, include doing
more maintenance with robots and moving parts inside the station.
   "I think (the recommendations) put us back into things that are doable,"
Kohrs said. "Thirty-two hundred hours is not a doable space station. Five
hundred hours we still want to get down but that's doable."
   The pair's recommendations also include using a new spacesuit, which has been
eliminated from NASA's proposed budget.
   In addition, Fisher and Price said they were surprised to also discover a
significant need for maintenance while the station is being built -- the
equivalent of more than four spacwalks each week. The researchers had not had
time to assess how those needs could be reduced.
   "That is not doable so we have to go back and re-look at our approach to how
we're doing the assembly," Kohrs said.
   Pike called that problem, which Fisher and Price called their most important
finding, a potential "show-stopper." Pike even questioned the solutions offered
for reducing the maintenance needs after the station is built.
   "The problem originally arose from a set of assumptions and to a large
measure they've just sort of changed their assumptions to assume the problem
away," Pike said. "Whether all the new assumptions are going to work for them is
really unclear."
   There are also concerns about whether the station weighs too much and needs
too much power.

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

Await:
Fisher & Price answer to how many astronauts it takes to change a lightbulb
on space station Freedom.

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 15:44:00 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!f906.n250.z1.fidonet.org![e-mail]  (maury markowitz)
Subject: Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL


 G> be an equal research platform to a shuttle.  besides, where would they
 G> put the port-a-potty?

  That question may not even be as mundane as you think.  Apollo's
solution of having plasic bags that you tape to your butt (look it up)
certainly doesn't seem like that great a way of making happy campers in
space.  Plus the fact that it's a desidedly MALE solution too, using
"relief tube" that doesn't work too well in the current co-ed space
environ.
  However, the rest of your letter requires a change of perspective.  The
thread lately has been, what good is the Shuttle once you have the
station?  Look at it this way, here's what the Shuttle does now:
a) Space station for experiments...
b) Human shuttle to/from space...
c) Cargo lifter.

  Well, for c, it a disaster.  For a, we won't need it soon, and that
leave b).  Once we have heavy lifters (or Shuttle C, what happened to that
thing, I though they gave it the green light), the shuttle becomes really
a waste.  At that point it's time to go back to capsules.
  I hate to say this and sound NASA-bashing (which I'm not), but the Sovs
eneded up having the right idea.  This isn't becuase they're better, it's
just because they couldn't build a shuttle when NASA did, and had to live
with older stuff.  In retrospect, this turns out to be the way to go.  I
feel quite confident that had the Sovs been able to build a shuttle,
they'd be in the same position as us.  It's only now that they have one,
but now they can't figure out what to use it for!!

                                                      Maury

--- Maximus-CBCS v1.00
 * Origin: The Frisch Tank, Newmarket, Ontario, CANADA (1:250/906)

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

Date: 22 Jul 90 16:36:48 GMT
From: drivax![e-mail]  (Kral)
Subject: Re: HST, Perkin-Elmer and NASA

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Apparently it was in the Perkin-Elmer contract NOT to test and
>that is why they got the contract.  Since they had so much
>experience with the spy satellites they felt they could get by
>without it and save money.  Hence they were the low bid and
>why NASA chose not to test.

From the testimonies I've seen, PE got the contract, not because of low bid,
but because of their experience with 'scope pointing technologies (as opposed
to Kodak, who did have something like $10M budgeted for testing).

--
kral * 408/647-6112 * {uunet|amdahl}!drivax!braun * [e-mail]
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
  -- Isaac Asimov              [Friends don't let friends use DOS]

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 15:33:00 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!f906.n250.z1.fidonet.org![e-mail]  (maury markowitz)
Subject: Re: HST and KH 9s


  Actually, I was under the impression that only the very latest of the KH
series look at all like Hubble.  Aviation Leak and Spy Tech had a great
"primer" article on spysats, and the article game me the impression that
the older (KH-9 al least) were based on passive REFRACTING optics, with a
primary about 6 feet across.
  It went on to explain that the newer models (the KH-12 I think) are much
like the Hubble, but with major amounts of active mirror-bending equipment
to remove that unwanted atmosphere.  One example of the resolution given
was that it could see a grapefruit (barely, I have my doubts too, the
example was quite specific that it could see the CHANGE if you had three
then removed one...).  Now, let's say the grapefruit is about 6", and the
sat is at about 100 miles (others please correct this figure), that gives
me about 5e-5 degrees, or about 0.2 arc seconds.  Hubble smokes it.

                                                    Maury

p.s.  Even NOW.

--- Maximus-CBCS v1.00
 * Origin: The Frisch Tank, Newmarket, Ontario, CANADA (1:250/906)

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

Date: 22 Jul 90 20:09:17 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!rpi![e-mail]  (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Nasa's budget

Allen Sherzer writes:

>Actually, I had not looked at the maifest. Thanks for your correction. Now,
>let's look at the numbers. You say 30 to 50% of flights will be spacelab
>which means 3 to 5 flights a year. Let's assume an average of four flights
>for each of the next five years. Let's also assume each flight lasts two
>weeks. At $300M per flight that gives us over the next five years:

>Number of days in orbit:   280
>Cost (20 shuttle flights): $6 billion

While I don't have any complaints about the logic of your argument, I'm still
not satisfied with the numbers.  It seems to me like you are using the highest
cost estimate you can find for the Shuttle and the lowest one you can find for
the Heavy Lift Delta.  According to Aviation Week (18 Jun 90, p26), NASA and
OMB estimate a Shuttle flight at $130M in 1988$.  This is undoubtedly flyaway
cost, you seem to be quoting flyaway cost for the Delta, so this would be a
fair comparison.  BTW, I usually use $200M / flight in calculations.
>
>Now, let's assume we have a space station like LLNL's Earth Station and
>use expendables. We will charge half the development and launch costs
>of the station to Spacelab. We also assume two full heavy lift launches
>are needed every year for support (although I suspect one would be enough).
>Finally, one shuttle launch is budgeted to put Spacelab in orbit (although
>it might be cheaper to send it on an expendable). To even it out, we will
>also add in $875M for misc expenses.
>
>Station development & launch
>(Spacelab 50% share):         $325M
>Shuttle launch:               $300M
>5 years expendable launches:  $1.5B
>Misc. expenses:               $875M
>                              ------
>Total cost                    $3B
>Total days in orbit:          1825
>
Again, I have trouble believing your numbers.  I just can't believe we can have
a viable space station for $650M.  I we we could, but I don't believe we can.
Nor do I believe it can be ready in three years.  The LLNL people are great at
what they do, but they don't have any experience with manned spaceflight.  I
think they are (probably unintentionally) underestimating many expenses and
engineering difficulties.  Like the saying goes, if it sounds too good to be
true, it probably is.

>Freedom will not be on line in 5 years. Not even NASA says that and current
>(not released) figures indicate that it won't be on line this century. I also
>point out that NASA has no plans to put Spacelab in orbit with Freedom.

Unfortunately, I don't have my manifest on my Unix account, but the figures I
(might) remember from the January manifest are:

09 Mar 95   first Freedom assembly flight
   Nov 95   Freedom obtains man-tended capability
       96   U. S. Lab and pressurized logistics module
       97   habitation module and permanent manned capability
       98   Japanese Experiment Module and Columbus Attached Lab
       99   Initial Operating Capability
  past 2000 Freedom Phase II (hopefully, possibly, maybe?)

Note that Freedom will be worthless as a science lab until the fifth assembly
flight.  At that time, if everything I've read is correct, the Shuttle will be
able to dock to Freedom to perform science (Spacelab-type) missions in the
Shuttle.  Plans are to be able to draw power from Freedom to expand the cap-
abilities of Spacelab.  Freedom won't have much power by then, but it should
have more than Spacelab.

So the question becomes, what should we do for the next five years?  While
yours is an interesting idea, I just don't think it's doable.  I have no doubt
that when the Heavy Lift Delta is launched, it will work -- I have faith in
McDonnell Douglas for that (I also work for them :).  But considering the
financial difficulties we are in right now, I don't think we have half a
billion to spare.  I'd be surprised if we launch the first one before 1995.

I also don't like the idea of buying Soyuzes from the Soviets.  Maybe it's
just the defense contractor in me, but I think we should remain independent in
launch capability.  It's in our national interest.  I have far fewer concerns
with using Hermes as a crew transfer vehicle for the space station, however.

>>Granted, Shuttle
>>and Freedom seem to be having some problems right now, but do you honestly
>>believe Heavy Lift Delta and your capsule won't either?
>
>I suspect it will. I also suspect McDonnell Douglas has taken that into
>account. Remember, they are betting half a billion of their own money
>(not ours) that they can do it. That gives me a great deal of confidence
>and tells us we have nothing to loose.
>
See above.

>>While it is good to hear some new ideas on what could be done, let's not lose
>>sight of what we are doing.
>
>Agreed. I'm trying to reduce the cost to orbit so we can do more in space.
>By advocating low cost alternatives I am not loosing sight of that goal.
>
>What is your goal?
>
My goal is to create a spacefaring civilization.  Hopefully, America will lead
it, but I'm beginning to have some doubts...

>  Allen
Mike                                           [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #110
*******************