Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_1/V13_176.ZIP/V13_176

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/AbkVMX600WBw4Iak5c>;
          Wed, 20 Feb 91 01:24:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 91 01:24:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #176

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 176

Today's Topics:
           Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
         Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
            Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia
         Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
     One Small Step for a Space Activist... (vol 2 no 2)
            SPACE Digest V13 #164

Administrivia:

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

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

Date:     Tue, 19 Feb 91 14:23 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
Original_To:  SPACE

Allen:

What has been the fate of poor old Lunar Observer in the new FY92 budget
proposal?  I haven't seen any mention of it in the press yet.  (I will post
this question to Space Digest as well, in case anybody out there has any
information.)

Lunar Observer is a spacecraft, built from the spare bus for Mars Observer,
destined polar orbit around the Moon.  It should carry a suite of capable
instruments that will attack lunar-science questions with Nineties Technology.
LO got stomped on last year, when its startup funding was buried in the $200M
request for Moon/Mars/"Space Exploration Initiative" funding.

The LO instruments should include:

--High-resolution mapping cameras

--A gamma-ray spectrometer (cooled silicon detector) of far better energy
resolution than the sodium-iodide crystals flown on Apollos 15 and 16 and
intended for SSI's Lunar Prospector mission; this is for making a global
geochemical map of surface composition.  [You don't really expect me to say
"selenochemical," do you?]

--An imaging spectrometer (I think), a nifty gadget that takes pictures, but
every pixel of a picture is a 256-channel spectrogram.  Mars Observer's IS was
kicked off to save money.  Earth Observation System seems to be planning a
couple such instruments.

--Laser altimeter

--A relay subsatellite to measure LO's Doppler shifts as it passes over the
far side; this will enable gravimetric mapping of that side

as well as a bunch of others.

Lunar Observer should be able to produce much better maps than we currently
have, and so would be a valuable precursor to future manned (and unmanned)
exploration of the lunar surface and lunar-base planning.  This is a drawback,
I suppose, in the eyes of SEI opponents!  But the Moon is overdue for further
scientific study; plenty of questions still need to be resolved.  At present
all scientists can do is study the Moon through telescopes and pore over
twenty-year old spacecraft data.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 16:35:06 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]> Bill Higgins writes:
>Allen:
>What has been the fate of poor old Lunar Observer in the new FY92 budget
>proposal?  I haven't seen any mention of it in the press yet.

Alas there is no mention of it in the budget. It looks like this very
worthy space science effort was killed by the SEI backlash of last
year. I doubt it would be possible to resurect it this year.

It looks like our only shot at lunar exploration in the forseable future
in SSI's Lunar Prospector. Maybe when it launches we can use the publicity
it generates to motivate something.

   Allen

PS. I was just about to send this out when I had a thought. NASA is
    donating a gama ray spectrometer to the Lunar Prospector. If they
    also donated the backup mars Observer bus as well could a better
    probe result? After all, it would look much better in lunar orbit
    than rusting in the Air and Space Museaum!

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: |
|[e-mail]   |       "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!"                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 10:12:01 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <DZ=&71=@rpi.edu> Mr. Kent writes:
>>Tell me, if the actual
>>flyaway cost of a mission is $193 then what happened to the other $1.5B?

>To whom do I write my check?   :)  :)

Ummmm.... Me. Yeah, that's it, me. :-)

>Actually, I don't say we collect $1.5G in user fees for the Shuttle.

Then how much do we collect? With a DoD launch there will be a transfer
of funds from one account to another.

>Neither NASA nor the OMB believe they are taking a loss, or so it would seem
>from statements it made recently.

Yet you say above they aren't collecting any money. How can they launch
without collecting money and NOT take a loss?

>The article in AvWeek seemed to me to be
>saying this was their estimate at the flyaway COST, not just their price.

What article is this?

>but perhaps they are including
>ASRM and P&W SSME development in there as well, I don't know.

No those numbers are factored out of my estimates. They are funded from
Shuttle Production and Operational Capabilities. Next year the request is
for $1.29B to cover this.

>Because the gov't
>system is so complicated, I am content to use published figures for costs.
>NASA's accountants hopefully have a much better grip on the system than I do.

And because the numbers don't seem to add up to me along with the fact that
NASA accountants are motivated to make the Shuttle look good I am not
content.

I just got off the phone with one of my sources. I asked him to give me the
numbers from next years budget for Shuttle Operations. The amount is $3.0236B
which is close to my estimates from last years appropriation.

Now NASA claims the cost is $1.5B yet they spend $3B. Question: where is the
other $1.5B going?

>P.S. Allen, do you have any detailed figures on Bush's FY92 budget request for
>NASA?

I have some general numbers. I hope to have somthing for the March column.

  Allen
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: |
|[e-mail]   |       "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!"                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 22:09:20 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:


I just found some more relevant infomration on Lunar Observer. When
I first responded I was just looking at the budget numbers given
to Congress. This evening I looked at NASA's request to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). It turns out that NASA did request
$10.6 million for Lunar Observer new start but was turned down by
OMB. OMB lists the line item as 'defered' so it may show up next
year.

Therefore if you want to complain (which would be a good idea) you
should write to OMB. These guys get fewer letters from us citizens
so you might even get a little more attention.

  Allen
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: |
|[e-mail]   |       "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!"                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 10:13:29 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: One Small Step for a Space Activist... (vol 2 no 2)


                  One Small Step for a Space Activist...
                                      by
                            Allen Sherzer & Tim Kyger

One of the major findings of the Augustine Committee was that the US should
build a new Heavy Lift Vehicle (HLV). The House Science Committee is beginning
to hold hearings on this issue. So far, most testimony from the government
indicates that they want to make the Advanced Launch System be that vehicle.
ALS is a ten year $10 billion Air Force/NASA program to develop a family of
launchers. Many wonder if a program like this can ever work given the budget
problems and long schedule. Odds are that ALS will turn into another Space
Shuttle: complex, unreliable, and expensive. What alternatives exist?

A few years ago the Star Wars people where looking for a way to lift a 100,000
pound payload into LEO for an experiment called 'Zenith Star'. They let a few
contracts to look for cheap near term ways it could be done without in-orbit
assembly. In an unusual step, they made this a commercial procurement. All they
asked was that the payload be delivered to orbit for a specified price. The
contractor would own the vehicle and there would be no government oversight in
the design process.

One contract went to McDonnell Douglas who examined an alternative called
Heavy Lift Delta (HLD) based on their existing Delta launcher. They hit on a
technique of clustering Delta's together to form a larger rocket similar to
what was done for the Saturn 1B. HLD's first stage consists of six Delta first
stages connected together in the shape of a  triangle (two Deltas on each
side). At each point of the triangle, a Shuttle SRB is connected.

The second stage is a single Delta first stage with a Titan IV fairing on top.
The fairing is lengthened by almost 20 feet by the addition of a special
collar on the bottom. The second stage is connected to the first so that the
second state Delta fits inside the hole formed by the triangle of the first
stage.

Avionics and control computers are all made up of existing Delta hardware.
Finally, fuel is pumped to all engines from all delta stages. This way if
an engine cuts out early its fuel can be burned by the other engines. All
together HLD weighs 5.5 million pounds and produces 10 million pounds of
thrust. It will put a 100,000 payload into a 150 mile 28.5 degree orbit.

Cost and schedule? McDonnell Douglas offered to build it for $500 million
(about the cost of one Shuttle flight) in 3.5 years. A far cry from the
ten year multi-billion dollar efforts proposed by the government. But it
gets better; the second HLD flight will cost $200 million with the price
dropping even more as the learning curve is traversed.

Twice the payload of a Shuttle for half the cost per launch -- this is the
power of commercial procurement.

                               Legislative Roundup

                        NASA Says NO to Commercial Space
NASA has informed General Dynamics that it is not to get a license for the four
Atlas launches it currently has scheduled. For justification NASA refers to a
Justice Department ruling stating that if NASA controlled the launch then it
isn't commercial and no license is needed. This means that the launches can no
longer be considered commercial which means NASA is in violation of Title II
of the NASA 91 Authorization Act.

                             HLV New Start in NASA Budget
The 92 budget has a new start for a Heavy Lift Vehicle. $175M is in each of
the NASA and DoD budgets to begin work (which is 70% of what it would take
to build one of the commercial alternatives). In addition, NASA has $15
million for advanced engine studies.

Two interesting questions here. First, why are we spending billions for a
vehicle design when we could have one for millions? Second, why is NASA
spending money on designing what amount to conventional engines? Why not spend
the money on ion engines or some other high risk high payoff technology like
a research organization should?

                             Space Exploration Initiative
$3.5 million has been release by Congress to be spent on mission studies for
moon/Mars exploration. There is a chance that another $3.5 million may be
released later. Congress wants this money spent on planning and wants to see
well thought out budgets and schedules for a moon/Mars effort. IF a reasonable
plan living within realistic budget and schedule numbers is produced, we may
see more $$ next year. This represents a crack in the wall of opposition put up
last year to SEI. The administration is going to try again this year: they put
$94M in the 92 budget for the Exploration Office.

                             Stafford Commission Report
Although most of the publicity went to the Augustine Committee, of no less
importance is the Synthesis Group led by Tom Stafford. This group is tasked
with generating ideas for US long term space goals and architectures for
moon and Mars exploration programs. They have been looking at a wide range
of ideas in addition to bases (EG. Solar Power Satellites) and their report
is due any day now. If Stafford has been working as closely with OMB and the
Space Council as Augustine did, expect to see their recommendations put in
place very soon.

                             The Great Exploration
As reported last year Congress restored all the internal research money for
the Department of Energy labs (thanks in part to grassroots help and the NSS
Legislative Committee). This means that LLNL has funds to begin work on the
Great Exploration but not permission. Sources say that permission to start
developing prototypes is expected after the Synthesis Group issues it's
report. This implies that the Synthesis report will be very supportive of
the LLNL Lunar Mars architecture and may indicate that the Administration is
ready to push it aggressively.

                               Catherine Rawlings
Many of you who where active in pushing HR 2674 know Catherine Rawlings. I am
sad to say that she has resigned her position and is returning to private life.

Catherine was new to space issues when she started working HR2674 but quickly
grasped the importance of the issue. It was largely through her skills and
knowledge that the bill was enacted. In addition, she worked on other ideas
in support of commercial space because she recognized its importance not only
to space activists but to the nation as a whole. She was a major help in
producing this column and her absence will be sorely felt.

                            Tidbits
Ralph Hall (D-TX) is the new head of the House Space Subcommittee...Expect to
see a new version of the Omnibus Space Act at the end of Feb... Rep Walker has
said he wants to see all the bills passed by the Space Subcommittee by May
15... In the 92 budget EOS is only funded at 2/3 of their request. Maybe some
people are having second thoughts?

Allen Sherzer: [phone] (W) [phone] (H) [e-mail] (net)
Tim Kyger: [phone] (W) [phone] (H) [phone] (voice mail)

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

Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 22:29:29 EST
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 02:09:18 EST
Resent-From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #164
Resent-To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Resent-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Comments: To: [e-mail]

Re: BIG DUMB BOOSTERS           -    also: Saturn V launch costs

Jack Dietz Writes:

>It was in Newsweek.  The article pointed to the possibility only of
>launching expendable boosters at 1/25th the shuttle's cost.  The
>author used possibly erroneous speculation as to the true cost of
>launching on the shuttle, including the cost of Endeavor and of
>keeping NASA idle for two years (his figure was about $6,800/lb.) and
>quoted hydrazine/nitric acid or kerosene/lox, without regenerative
>cooling, turbopumps or gimballed engines at $350/lb for 50-ton
>loads.

>That article was very interesting, but I would have appreciated
>something more substantial.

I'll say.  Since that article referred to the Ariane, Proton, Delta's, and
Energia as comparison vehicles, I decieded to try to find out how much the
Saturn V cost per launch (at 90,000 tons to geo).  I spent most of the summer
wasting my free time in the Gov. documents section of the Library, learning
over and over again that the WHOLE project (capsules and all) cost $25E+9.
But I could not find a THING about per-launch cost.

Can anyone help?  Guesses or references, but tracable is better.

Tommy Mac
[e-mail]
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #176
*******************