Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_6/V12_670.ZIP/V12_670

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 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/gbP6Jbu00VcJM5004I>;
          Mon, 17 Dec 1990 01:27:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 1990 01:27:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #670

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 670

Today's Topics:
    Re: $$/pound of Freedom vs LLNL (was: ELV Support...)
    Re: Air pressure questions   (A human being in vacume)
             ISDC 1991 Conference
           Payload Status for 12/11/90 (Forwarded)
      Astro-1 Status for 12/10/90 [1200 CST] (Forwarded)

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: Sun, 9 Dec 90 13:51:26 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: $$/pound of Freedom vs LLNL (was: ELV Support...)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>:
>+Tension from pressurization:    190 klbs
>+Tension from rotation:           40 klbs

>+This is a very small increment, ~20%.

>For the unpressurized portion, the centrifugal loads are much more
>significant.

I don't think LLNL has any upressurized parts. Even the airlock will
be pressurized. Either way, the material is well suited.

>I have never seen a picture of LLNL showing solar
>arrays and unpressurized external palletts which are the main reason
>for Freedom's Truss. Where does LLNL attach its arrays and palletts?

First of all, LLNL (as I have said several times does not have those
pallets. LLNL's intent is to support a lunar base and not compete with
Freedom.

However, if one where to use LLNL as a Freedom replacement, a truss
could go along the zero G axis. A better alternative would be to
use the billions saved and buy free flying platforms. For micro-
gravity you would want the free flyers anyway since crewed platforms
(like Freedom) have way too much vibration. Life science work can
be done throughout the station.

My preference would be to have no truss and emphasise free flying
platforms.

>LLNL puts multi+-level floors inside their
>vessel for mounting equipment and for personnel to walk on.
>Freedom has no need of these floors, so avoids that mass penalty.

Since this approach reduces life cycle cost, it is not a problem. In
fact, it is an advantage. LLNL has ~28 compartments so that if there
is dammage to one others can be used. The current Freedom however, is
much more vunerable. A big hole in the habitation module would mean
nobody eats or uses the bathroom before it is fixed.

>You get more science data per kilo on a zero-g station than a spinner.

You have yet to establish this with any solid fact. You have yet to
show that Freedom costs less per pound than LLNL (your original
statement). I wonder if you could give us a summary of the capability
of each system and weight for that capability? We can then compare
those costs of using the Shuttle vs HLV's to answer the question.

>   A 20% weight saving would be a compelling reason to make a station
>nonspinning.     So far nobody has presented an equally compelling
>reason to make it spinning.

You have yet to address my life cycle cost arguement. By having a
spinning station, crew can be rotated to Earth less often (say
one time a year). This will reduce station logistics costs by
one to two billion dollars a year. Then makes a reduction in
total cost of over *THIRTY BILLION DOLLARS*.

Now I have asked this quesiton several times in the past and you have
just ignored it. Could I trouble you to address this issue? Reducing
the LLNL weight will save maybe a few million $$. Why is it that you
think it is worth adding $30 billion to life cycle cost in order to
save a few million today? After all, we could use the savings to send
up another station every year. Wouldn't we be berrer off building more
stations over supplying the ONE station?

>Haven't LLNL decided what their air pressure is?

The station is at 7.5 PSIA with a mixture of 50% N2 and 50% O2.
The outer bladder is pressurized to 2.5 PSIA.

>Why do I expend my time worrying about LLNL, it sounds
>like they do not have a basic design defined.

Mr. Radley, how can you say they do not have a basic design when you
havn't read a single thing they produced? That is just plain close-mined.

Worse yet, you have yet to bring up a single issue which they havn't
addressed and addressed well.

>But it increases risks of decay due to failure of a resupply flight.

I wonder if you would be so good as to assess the odds of that relative
to Freedom? After all, LLNL can be resuplied by ANY launcher in the
world today, Freedom can only use the Shuttle.

>I am really
>concerned that LLNL has not properly addressed ACRV, Resupply and
>Crew Rotation spacecraft.    These are big ticket items, whose
>costs do not seem properly recognized by the LLNL plan.   And they
>are also mission critical.   The only proposal I have seen from
>Allen was to use Soyuz, but Wales Larrison has shown that Soyuz is
>not capable of the roles required for LLNL logistics.

I already presented one. Mr. Larrison's rebuttal only showed that
it would cost about as much as the Shuttle. If you change a few of
his selections, costs are cut by over a billion a year.

But this assessment assumes rotations occure every 90 days. If you
make them happen every six months to a year, several hundred
million more can be saved. In the absolute worse case, expendables
and Soyuz cost about the same as the Shuttle. If you use the
advantages of the LLNL system those costs are cut by over a
billion per year.

   Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation |
|   [e-mail]  | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it      |
|                | works or not?  - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts    |

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

Date: 11 Dec 90 19:01:35 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!ghostwheel.unm.edu![e-mail]  (John Prentice)
Subject: Re: Air pressure questions   (A human being in vacume)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>2.2)  What is the highest alt/lowest p. that people live at?
>>Is it the pressure that limits them, or just cold and inaccesablility,
>>no food, etc, that keeps them from going higher?
>
>Altitude sickness (oxygen shortage) is a serious problem for people going
>from low to high altitude, and I believe it limits even people who are
>somewhat adapted to it by generations at high altitude.  I don't know the
>numbers offhand; I would say that the natives in the Andes probably hold
>the record.
>

Curiously, altitude sickness affects even people who grew up at altitude
but have been away for as short as a week or so.  I doubt it is much
problem for people who grew up at altitudes of a couple thousand meters
or less (I did and I don't notice much difference after returning to
this altitude from an extended time at sea level -- some effects maybe, but
no sickness).  But if you live in the Andes at 4 or 5 thousand meters
and go to sea level for awhile, it is my understanding that on return
you are at risk for the various high altitude problems.  The key is
acclimation.

By the way, the India and Pakistan have been at war on one of the
passes between the two countries now for several years.  I believe
the altitude is something like 6,000 or 7,000 meters (anyone know for
sure?).  It is reported to be the highest "permanent" encampment
in existence.  Pretty crazy.  I have heard they are losing up to
30% of their troops to pulminary or cerebral edema.  The most insane
part of it all is hardly anyone else in the world knows (or cares)
about the war (where is Bush when non-oil producing nations are are
at war?).

Sea level dwellers are also at risk as low as 3 or 4 thousand meters,
the height of most western ski areas.  We lose a couple people a year
in Colorado to this.  Again, it is mostly a question of acclimation.
Be care out there!

John Prentice
[e-mail]

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

Date:     Tue, 11 Dec 90 17:56 CDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject:  ISDC 1991 Conference

The National Space Society's 10th Annual International Space
Development Conference (ISDC) will be in San Antonio, Texas,
at the Hyatt Regency Riverwalk Hotel, May 22-27, 1991.

The overall theme of this ISDC is SPACE: A CALL FOR ACTION.
The intention of the the conference is for the attendees to
take action and acquire tools to take actions that will
create a spacefaring civilization and establish communities
beyond the Earth. ISDC 91 will feature an open exhibit area
where aerospace contractors, agencies and space activist
organizations will display their aerospace activities to the
public free of charge. Dr. Hans Mark, Chancellor of the
University of Texas System, will be honorary Chair of the
Conference.

For more information, contact Dr. Carol Luckhardt-Redfield,
Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio,
TX, 78228 or call [phone].

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

DISCLAIMER: any opinions stated or implied above do not
            necessarily reflect MY opinions.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Cheryl Hoefelmeyer
Southwest Texas State University
[e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Dec 90 01:56:22 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 12/11/90 (Forwarded)


    Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 12-11-90


    -    STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at Pad B)

    Support of DFRF operations continue.


    -    STS-39 AFP-675/IBSS/STP-01

    At the OPF, CRO cable connections will continue today.  At
    the VPF, the AFP-675 interface test will be performed today.


    -    STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C)

    RAAB modifications and paper closure continues.


    -    Sts-37 GRO (at PHSF)

    Functional testing continues.


    -    STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C)

    PR troubleshooting and paper closure continues.


    -    STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C)

    Experiment and pallet staging continue.


    -    STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C)

    Partial pallet destaging continues.


    -    STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C)

    EPDB modifications will be performed today.


    -    STS-67 LITE (at O&C)

    No work is scheduled for today.

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

Date: 12 Dec 90 01:49:01 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Astro-1 Status for 12/10/90 [1200 CST] (Forwarded)


         Astro-1 Shift Summary Report #26
         12:00 noon CST, Dec. 10, 1990
         8/11:10 MET
         Spacelab Mission Operations Control
         Marshall Space Flight Center,
         Huntsville, AL


         During this period (4 a.m. to 12 noon CST), the Astro-1
         instruments successfully observed a number of celestial targets,
         ending with a dramatic acquisition of a comet before being
         "buttoned up" for an early return flight home.

         At the beginning of this timeframe, the crew completed its study
         of Alpha Orionis, or Betelguese, with all ultraviolet instruments
         obtaining good data.  Primary instrument for observation was the
         Wisconsin Ultraviolet Photo-Polarimeter Experiment (WUPPE).

         The crew next turned its attention to a pre-main-sequence star, a
         young celestial object still forming out of interstellar dust that
         has not achieved a core temperature sufficient to begin nuclear
         reactions.  In this observation, the WUPPE studied on the nebula
         surrounding the star -- matter left over in the formation of the
         object -- while the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (HUT) focused on
         the star itself.  This object, for which the WUPPE was primary
         observer, is too young to have begun its nuclear reaction, and its
         light comes from the heat generated as it contracts.

         Because of the possibility of an early landing by the orbiter, the
         Astro-1 targets were reprioritized early this morning.  For the
         remaining targets, HUT was the primary instrument of observation,
         and WUPPE and the Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (UIT) joined in
         the study.

         At about 7:20 a.m. CST the first of these reprioritized targets --
         supernova remnants N49A & B -- were acquired and studied by all
         three ultraviolet instruments.  The supernova remnants are
         producing high-velocity emissions of neutral hydrogen.  N49A is
         quite young and is the highest surface-brightness supernova
         remnant in the Large Magellanic Cloud.

         The next observation was of SS Cygni, a bright cataclysmic
         variable binary.  The study of this object may yield information
         about its evolutionary state -- whether these double stars may be
         proceeding toward becoming true novae (erupting stars), or whether
         they may be dying out after having been true novae.

         The final target, Comet Levy, named for astronomer David Levy, was
         observed by all ultraviolet instruments.  Discovered only last
         May, the object has been crossing the inner solar system during
         this mission and provided the Astro science team an excellent
         opportunity for study.  The International Ultraviolet Explorer, a
         satellite observatory still in orbit, has revealed that Comet Levy
         is producing as much gas and dust as Comet Halley did.

         The Broad Band X-Ray Telescope (BBXRT) twice acquired the
         supernova remnant Puppis A during this timeframe, and just before
         noon was still studying it. The telescope investigation team plans
         to observe galaxy M87 before concluding its studies later this
         afternoon.

         Deactivation of the instruments was scheduled to be carried out as
         follows:  the HUT will begin deactivation at 12:13 p.m. CST ending
         at 12:23 p.m. CST; UIT will begin deactivation at 12:23 p.m. CST
         ending at 12:33 p.m. CST; and WUPPE will begin deactivation at
         12:41 p.m. CST, ending at 1:01 p.m. CST. The BBXRT will continue
         observing until 1:51 p.m., CST and will begin deactivation at that
         point, ending at 8:11 p.m., CST. The final powerdown for the
         ultraviolet instruments will be at 2:11 p.m. CST. Instrument
         Pointing System deactivation will then follow.

         At this morning's mission science briefing, which followed the
         announcement that the crew was coming home a day early, Mission
         Manager Jack Jones and Deputy Mission Scientist Dr. Eugene Urban
         congratulated all who had been involved in Astro-1.  Dr. Urban
         stated that, according to his own unofficial figures, the Astro-1
         crew and science teams has observed about 140 targets in
         ultraviolet and X-ray and declared the mission to be highly
         successful.

         When the observation of Comet Levy concluded, members of the
         science teams applauded and shook hands all around.  Some hugged
         one another, and some shed some tears at the dramatic ending of
         this mission.  Obtaining the comet had been a very high priority,
         and an Operations Change Request had been submitted to move the
         comet forward to a point in the timeline when it could be obtained
         early -- all this without knowing whether the mission would be
         returning sooner than scheduled.  "Acquiring this comet ended us
         on a high note," said Mission Scientist Dr. Ted Gull.  "What a way
         to end the mission!"

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #670
*******************