Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_4/V13_458.ZIP/V13_458

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

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/kc5bAjK00WBwEp=U4f>;
          Thu, 25 Apr 91 02:11:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 02:11:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #458

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 458

Today's Topics:
          Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
               Re: Saturn V blueprints
                  Incentives
                   tethers
          Fixed price (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)
               Re: Saturn V blueprints
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
               Re: Saturn V blueprints

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: 24 Apr 91 14:23:20 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>I agree that nothing NASA is doing couldn't wait a couple of years (subject
>to launch windows). However, that is not what I am talking about. I would
>like to see an active US space program which produces a spacefairing
>civilization.

A spacefaring civilization is not going to be created by a single country, due
to the economic resources involved. Period. Especially on a shoe string budget.
Multi-national efforts will be required for space exploration and colonization.

>To do this the Soviets are not reliable enough.

You think Congressional Funding is?

Further, instability in the Soviet Union will result in a direct shift of
resources from "Space Exploration"(TM) to defense budgets. Sorry, Al, but if
they aren't reliable, we're going to have to worry about them, which translates
to LESS money available for civilian space, and more money put into other
things, including "National Technical Assets."


     Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 16:51:30 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:

>The ALS is being designed around
>reliablility and cost.  While actual research can be expensive, the product
>you get (cheap effective launchers in this case), will be what
>you aim for.

Boy I got a feeling of deja vu reading that. It took me a while but I finally
tracked down why. The following is from the Congress Record of Feb. 29, 1973.
It is part of a early hearing on the Space Shuttle.

Senator Snerd: Mr. Nasa-guy I see this budget for lots of research for a
               radically new vehicle, this 'Space Shuttle'. Now it seems to
               me that putting all that very new technology into an
               operational vehicle is asking for trouble. How will you know
               if it works? Wouldn't we be better off sticking with what we
               have and what is good enough?

Mr. Nasa-guy:  Senator, the Pentagon has given a bad name to this sort of
               thing. The Space Shuttle is being designed around reliability
               and cost. The actual research is expensive but the end result
               will be cheap, reliable access to space because that is what
               we are aiming for. Putting the latest technology in will work
               to reduce costs.

Now history has shown that Senator Snerds concerns where indeed valid and
that Mr. Nasa-guy was wrong. Question: what has changed about the current
situation as regards to ALS which would cause us to expect ALS to be any
different?

  Allen

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back |
|   [e-mail]   | to you, hunt it down and kill it.                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 13:14:36 GMT
From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>Good luck trying to get any aerospace contractor to take a fixed price
>contract.  I know McDonnell Douglas, General Dynamics, and Lockheed are
>staying far away from them.

Sure whenever possible. On the other hand, the government is requiring
them more and more. At least one of the companies you name has offered to
build a HLV on a fixed price contract.

BTW, did you see this weeks Avation Week? The Systhesis Group is also backing
a HLV (although theirs lifts 600K pounds). The core of this vehicle is (in
essence) a Saturn V. They think it can be done for reasonable cost.

>>>I don't think ALS is trying to push technological envalopes.

>>That's not what NASA says.

>The main thrust (pardon the pun) of ALS is to reduce the cost and increase
>the reliability of ELV's.  ALS is not being designed to push the performance
>envelopes but the cost and reliability envelopes instead.

That depends on who you ask. Like the Shuttle ALS is being designed by a
committee. For example, NASA thinks ALS is a family of heavy lift vehicles
but the Air Force thinks it is a cheap Titan followon. In Congress, some
think it is a brand new vehicle and others think it's a research program
to develop the next generation engines using the latest technology while
still others think it is no more than Shuttle-C.

What we have here is the exact same situation we had while the Shuttle was
being built. Since nothing has changed the end result should be obvious:
ALS will fail for the exact same reasons that the Shuttle failed.

   Allen
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back |
|   [e-mail]   | to you, hunt it down and kill it.                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 17:21:56 GMT
From: usc!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Incentives


If Congress were interested in developing a lot of private
experience for a private buisnesses in space exploration
and development of space resources, I heard somewhere
something like what I propose.

Congress should allocate (through lotteries, appropriations,
etc) a large cash prize on the order of
US$100,000,000 for the first person/organization to
go to the moon and spend an amount of time on the surface.

Any comments as to how to make this work?



--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine     |            These are MY opinions   |
| Malt Beverage Analyst     |            As if they counted...:) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 18:26:07 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zazen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: tethers

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>How many tether studies have you read?  Did you ever read anything
>>about non-synchronous tethers...
>
>He may be talking through his hat, but as far as material strengths are
>concerned, there is no practical tether material (for lifting from the surface)

"Read his lips:  non-synchronous tethers."  If you *don't* insist on building
a pure space elevator, all the way to Clarke orbit, existing materials *are*
adequate for lift from the surface.  Supporting 400km of tether takes much
less strength than 40000km.

>His lack of thourough research does not change the fundamental problem.

No, it just means that he doesn't understand that there is more than one
way to use tethers.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 03:15:23 GMT
From: bu.edu!transfer!lectroid!sw.stratus.com![e-mail]  (Tarl Neustaedter)
Subject: Fixed price (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> The vast majority of all products which exist or have ever existed are done
> on fixed price efforts. Consider Boeing; if the 777 costs much more than
> budgeted to develop then is budgeted then Boeing will go belly up.

Gee, maybe aerospace companies are under more stress than computer companies.
I have never heard of internal development (as opposed to on contract)
being on a fixed price. Usually you have an idea how much the project should
cost and will fund it some amount of overrun based on the company's financial
well-being and the political savvy of the project manager.

I have worked as an engineer for three computer manufacturers, on probably
some 15 major projects, and *NOT ONE* project came in on schedule or under
budget. (admittedly, one of my previous employers is presently flowing down
a sewer, but the other two are still going strong).

This failure tends tends to be true of most new development - more so if
there is any research involved. We have a saying that you can control
any two of: Budget, Schedule and Quality. You pick which two.

-----------------------------------------------------------
         Tarl Neustaedter    [e-mail]
         Marlboro, Mass.    Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
In particular, my current employer is not responsible for most of the
projects mentioned above.

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 20:50:26 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi![e-mail]  (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints

I wholeheartedly agree on this point.  But my other point is that re-designing
a Saturn V is going to require extensive development.  Thus, contract = bad.
Rebuilding a Saturn V will require almost as much money as a new launcher.

--
Michael Kent                                  [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                             Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
St. Louis, Missouri                           Troy, New York
                               Apple II Forever!

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 21:18:58 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:
>
> >> Boy I got a feeling of deja vu reading that. It took me a while but I finally
> >> tracked down why. The following is from the Congress Record of Feb. 29, 1973.
>
> >I  recall no Sen. Snerds, or anyone by the name of Nasa-guY.
> >  Where did you get this dialogue?
>
> I made it up. I'ts called an analogy. You will note that there is no such
> thing as the Congress Record nor is Feb. 29, 1973 a real date.
>
> >Your assumption:  One mess up = Always mess up.
>
> No, my assumption is that is that if a system messes up for reasons
> X, Y, and Z and that if later X, Y, and Z still hold than the system
> is still messed up.

But you don't KNOW if the system is messed up or just the shuttle program!
You are ASSUMING that because the shuttle was a poor performer, that
the whole design system was bad.

I also remind you that the same design team will be in charge of the
retooling!  (Gotta redesign those rigs).

>
> >Your ficticious dialogue does not prove that ALS won't work.
>
> Agreed. However, I have yet to see any evidence that it will work
> other than vague statements like "this time it will, really. We mean it.".

And so have I about the 'rebirth' of the Saturn V.

>
> >I will state this again:  Re tooling and parts finding for the old
> >Saturn V is a nightmare
>
> The people responsible for the main components say it is rather
> straightforward. Why are you right and they wrong?

I have only heard of one, Rocketdyne.  The other, more sundry
components (fasteners, electronics, etc) will have to be either
redesigned themselveS or redesign something else so the ones that are
available will fit.  In other words:  you have to redesign!
and its not neccessarily(sp) 'straightforward.

>
> Also, you seem to think it is impossible to conduct research except
> on operational vehicles. Why is this? Henry put it very well: you
> don't build 747's to do engine research.
>
Yeah, but the Saturn V ain't no 747.  It is darn expensive (over
$1000 a pound).  ALS might be that expensive, but we don't KNOW if
it will be.  If it uses modern manufacturing techniques and modular
design it could really bring costs down and open space for
everyone!  Possibly a redirection of ALS more in the cost
cutting arena.

How much will it open up space if it costs over $1000/lb ?
(Both ALS and Saturn V)

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine     |            These are MY opinions   |
| Malt Beverage Analyst     |            As if they counted...:) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 01:36:41 GMT
From: mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>If ALS is as much of an improvement over the today's launchers as the
>Shuttle is over the launchers of the 1960's, then it will be money well
>spent.

The Shuttle roughly doubled the cost of putting a pound into orbit. Call
me wild and irresponsible but I don't think that is money well spent. If
ALS does as well as the Shuttle then it will take 20 years to develop,
cost $25 billion. Its operationl costs will be $12,000/pound to LEO.

>You scream almost daily of the Shuttle's "poor" reliability rate.

I don't think I scream but let's face it; that vehicle is pretty delicate.
Want to delay a Shuttle launch? Just sneak up behind the SSME's and shout
"BOO". You'll crack a turbine or blow a sensor. The thing has spent something
like 25% of it's operational lifetime grounded. It has flown fewer times in the
last ten years then it was projected to in it's first year. It has never
even come close to{flying one years scheduled flights successfully.

>Name ANY Western manned launcher that has a 97.4% success rate with over
>20 manned flights under its belt.

Who cares if it is 'manned' or not? Delta success rates for the last 13
years has been 98.3%.

>McDonnell Douglas would be damned proud if its Delta booster (currently
>the most reliable in the business) had a 97.4% success rating.

Since it does, I assume MdDonnell Douglas is indeed proud.

>NASA's estimates predict a 98.7% rating for STS.

Read Richard Feynman's book "What do you care what other people think?".

   Allen
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back |
|   [e-mail]   | to you, hunt it down and kill it.                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 21:22:51 GMT
From: rex!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:
> I wholeheartedly agree on this point.  But my other point is that re-designing
> a Saturn V is going to require extensive development.  Thus, contract = bad.
> Rebuilding a Saturn V will require almost as much money as a new launcher.
>

I agree.   BUT when rocketdyne offers to deliver X number of F-1 engines,
for a fixed price, then that's ok.

Rebuilding the Saturn V WILL cost more than ALS.  I said this
all along!


--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine     |            These are MY opinions   |
| Malt Beverage Analyst     |            As if they counted...:) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #458
*******************