Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_4/V13_463.ZIP/V13_463

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 16KB

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/cc5vyMm00WBwI2b055>;
          Fri, 26 Apr 91 01:50:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 01:50:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #463

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 463

Today's Topics:
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
     Shuttle Reliability (was: Re: Saturn V and the ALS)
               Re: Saturn V blueprints
             Re: ALS vs. Saturn V
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
           re: Uploading to alpha Centauri
          Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
          Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18
          Re: Energia (was 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: 25 Apr 91 21:04:18 GMT
From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!isis![e-mail]  (Glenn A. Serre)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS


Brent writes:
What we need is not just a launcher that is big.  We need a launcher that
is big AND chaep.  The goals of ALS are that, and we should make a launcher
that realizes those goals, or start over.
We don't need the huge Saturn capacity at $2000/lb.  We need that
capacity at $1000/lb or less.  I don't think a Saturn revitalization
will provide a 'truck' to space.

Me:
Indeed, two of ALS goals are to be big and cheap. However,
1) Current ALS designs are cheap only with high launch rates.
2) ALS will be very expensive and time-consuming to develop and build; starting
over if it turns out not to be cheap doesn't seem very likely.  Consider the
shuttle.  One of its design goals was to be cheap.  It is not cheap, and we
haven't started over, we've built another one.
3) Big and Cheap are only two of ALS design goals.  Henry pointed out earlier
that many other factors have control over the final design.
4) $2000/lb (your estimate for the Saturn V cost) is much cheaper than any
other US launcher.
5) We know the Saturn V design works and has lower launch costs per pound.

Unrelated:  We really should be building neither the ALS nor the Saturn V, we
should be experimenting with (building and launching hardware) big dumb
boosters.

I'll get my signature straightened out in a bit.


--
--Glenn Serre         |Soon-to-be former Payload Integration Engineer for
[e-mail] |Martin Marietta Aerospace Group, Space Launch System
                      |Company.
                      |Next job:  Script writer for Cayenne Systems, Inc.
--
--Glenn Serre         |Soon-to-be former Payload Integration Engineer for
[e-mail] |Martin Marietta Aerospace Group, Space Launch System
                      |Company.
                      |Next job:  Script writer for Cayenne Systems, Inc.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 09:25:59 PDT
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: Shuttle Reliability (was: Re: Saturn V and the ALS)


In SPACE Digest V13 #458,
 mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela![e-mail]\
 (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

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

This 97.4% figure for the Shuttle success rate is somewhat misleading.  It's
really just a measure of how many times the Shuttle has launched without
blowing up.  Just ask the people working on projects like Galileo, Astro,
HST, etc., etc., etc., how successful they think the Shuttle has been.  If
we looked at how many items in all the planned manifests of the Shuttle were
successfully executed, how low would the success rate be then?  Far below
50% I would imagine.  Can anyone out there venture a guess?

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
              "Facts are stupid...uh...stubborn things." - Ronald Reagan

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 16:58:37 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kieran A. Carroll) writes:
>[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>> >Summary:  Fixed price for Procurement = good.
>> >         Fixed price for Development = foolish.
>>
>> The Pentagon wouldn't agree. Nither would Lockheed which just
>> developed the winning ATF design on cost and on schedule. Their
>> Skunk Works has developed the worlds most complex aircraft in
>> short order on schedule and budget. It takes good management but
>> > it is routinely done.
>
>I saw a show on PBS a few nights ago (may have been the McNeil/Lehrer
>Newshour) talking about the ALS development and fly-off competition.
>It was indeed done under fixed price contracts, of about $600M
>as I recall. However, apparently >both< prime contractors spent
>more like $1B each on the project. I don't know about the schedule,
>but they blew the budget significantly...according to Norman Augustine,

The Sec. of Defence commented upon this; he noted that both companies took
it in the shorts and that future competitions would be less fiscally risky,
because of the disincentives to participate if you lose....


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

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 02:22:42 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: ALS vs. Saturn V

Several comments about rebuilding the Saturn V:

1: While it is, certainly, possible to re-build the Saturn V and all
   it associated technology, it would be easier to use hardware which
   is still in production today.

2: Using proven technology, such as the Saturn V, would be both cheaper
   and more reliable. However, the Saturn V is NOT the best proven
   technology available.

As for the ALS project,if they are trying to develop new technology. Or
in general, if they are attempting to improve the state of the art, they
are risking delays, cost overruns, and many of the problems which have
plagued the shuttle program.

I feel that the greatest reductions in launch costs, at least in the
near term, would result from a design that used the best known, proven
hardware available, while concentrating on reducing costs instead of
improving the technology used.

A rebuilt Saturn V, would not do this, since it uses proven 1960's technology
while there are many examples of proven 1980's technology around.

Building a high-tech ALS also would not do, since it would concentrate on
developing new, late 1990's technology.

                       Frank Crary
                       UC Berkeley

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 02:48:18 GMT
From: world!ksr![e-mail]  (Chris Jones)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]>, mvk@aix01 (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>Name ANY Western manned launcher that has a 97.4% success rate with over
>20 manned flights under its belt.  In fact, name any manned launcher (other
>than the Shuttle) with over 20 flights.  McDonnell Douglas would be damned
>proud if its Delta booster (currently the most reliable in the business) had
>a 97.4% success rating.  NASA's estimates predict a 98.7% rating for STS.
>

Since you didn't qualify your second sentence with "Western", I point out that
the Soviet SL-4 booster has umm, 2 Voskhod, 38 Soyuz, 15 Soyuz T, and 11 Soyuz
TM manned launches to its credit.  Two launches could be considered failures.

(If you're trying to do the calculation, I see Soyuzes numbered from 1 through
40, Soyuz Ts from 1 through 15, and Soyuz TMs from 1 through 11.  There are
also two unnumbered launches (the failures), and Soyuz 2, Soyuz 20, Soyuz 34,
and Soyuz T1 were launched unmanned.)

--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]    {uunet,harvard,world}!ksr!clj

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 20:42:53 GMT
From: van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!herald.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!draco!swrdpnt![e-mail]  (Scott Young )
Subject: re: Uploading to alpha Centauri


  Boy, this sounds a lot like Dr. McCoy's problem with the transporter
on Star Trek.  Scientifically, it's a more efficient way of transport,
but the ethics of it are up in the air.  It's even worse than Star Trek,
since instead of disassembling and reassembling an exact copy, you would
have multiple copies of the same person.  Generally a bad idea; I prefer
conventional methods of reproduction.
         Scott


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply to: [e-mail]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 15:25:49 GMT
From: idacrd![e-mail]  (Robert McGwier)
Subject: Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley):
>
>
> Federal law prohibits The Us Government ( including NASA )
> from purchasing launches on foreign launch vehicles.


You are incorrect.  There will be US built satellites launched on Long March's
sometime in the near future and there are now DOZENS of launches on
Arianes.  I have PERSONALLY built satellites in the US that were launched
on Ariane.

How's about checking your facts before making false flat statements.

Bob

--
____________________________________________________________________________
    My opinions are my own no matter    |    Robert W. McGwier, N4HY
    who I work for! ;-)            |    CCR, AMSAT, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 20:03:11 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] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> The point of this exercise is a launcher, not research.  Research does
> not produce good launchers, based on the (admittedly limited) experience
> with it to date.  I don't think anyone will dispute that reviving the
> Saturn V is not going to advance launcher technology.  It's not supposed to.

What we need is not just a launcher that is big.  We need a launcher that
is big AND chaep.  The goals of ALS are that, and we should make a launcher
that realizes those goals, or start over.
We don't need the huge Saturn capacity at $2000/lb.  We need that
capacity at $1000/lb or less.  I don't think a Saturn revitalization
will provide a 'truck' to space.

> >If we don't try to become better, we only go backwards!
> >(Many other nations would thank us for this)
>
> The Europeans thank you profusely for not coming through on the shuttle's
> promises; Arianespace has made a bundle out of your failure.  If you wish
> to repeat the mistake, I'm sure they'll thank you for it.  You *are* going
> backwards.

Hey, calm down.  You know what I was trying to say:  Trying to build a
better launcher is not a mistake.  When the mistake happens is when
you have built it and discovered it is not a good launcher and you
use it anyway.  THAT is the mistake.  As I said before:  Build your new
launcher and if it doesn't meet your design goals, scrap it and
try again.

You know that someday launch costs are going to hit about
$500/lb.  By trying to build the launcher we are making sure that
the technology of cheap rockets is a North American technology.

I am kind of tired of people using the albatross (shuttle) as an
excuse to end any new launcher designs.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine     |            These are MY opinions   |
| Malt Beverage Analyst     |            As if they counted...:) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 02:03:38 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>I disagree with you.  The Russian protron booster has a launch success
>>percentage LOWER than any US booster.
>
>I was thinking of the Soyuz launcher which has reliability much higher than
>anything we fly.

For the record: There have been 65 manned launches of the Soyuz (SL-4)
  launch vehicle. There have been 2 failures of manned launches. The
  number of failures of unmanned SL-4 launches is not known, so I have
  not included the number of such launches.

  The failures were: 5 April 1975, when a third stage failure left the
       manned capsule on a ballistic trejectory. The normal re-entry/
       landing procedures were activated, and the crew landed in western
       Siberia, near the Chinese border.

   Second: 26 September 1983, when a on-pad fire at the base of the SL-4
       began ~90 sec. before launch. The crew (not mission control, whose
       remote control capability had been eliminated by the fire.) activated
       the "rocket tower" (e.g. an emergency abort rocket on a tower above
       the payload shroud.) This rocket seperated the capsule before the
       lower stages caught fire and exploded. The capsule parachuted to a
       safe landing 2.5km from the launch site.

       There have been other failures in the manned Soyuz program, however
       these were associated with the orbital capsule. (these failures
       include all 4 of the Soviet space fatalaties.)

    A failure rate of 2 in 65 implies a 95.4 +- 2.6 % success rate.

                                   Frank Crary
                   UC Berkeley

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 00:14:31 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)



whether or not NASA "likes" to buy launches from other people
is moot.   Federal law PROHIBITS NASA from purchasing foreign
launch vehicles.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #463
*******************