Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_4/V13_466.ZIP/V13_466

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/wc5wSB:00WBw42uU53>;
          Fri, 26 Apr 91 02:24:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 02:24:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #466

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 466

Today's Topics:
          Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)
               Re: Saturn V blueprints
               Space Camp info
       slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...
          Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D
               Re: Saturn V blueprints
          Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18

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: 26 Apr 91 02:41:30 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert McGwier) writes:
>> 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.

While US companies may launch on foreign launchers, and have, NASA (as
part of the US government) may not.

                     Frank Crary
                     UC Berkeley

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 17:42:10 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kieran A. Carroll) writes:

>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.
                             ^^^
I assume you mean ATF.

>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

No this is on budget as well as schedule. Unlike other fighter
competitions this time the Air Force required significant buy
in by the contractors. Both where expected to put up about half
the development money. In fact, they may have come in a tad under
budget.

Good engineers CAN estimate the cost of building things; even advanced
products.

  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: 25 Apr 91 20:19:19 GMT
From: haven.umd.edu!cs.wvu.wvnet.edu![e-mail]  (James D Mooney)
Subject: Space Camp info

The following is a summary description of current U.S. Space Camp
Programs, taken from the current brochure.  For further information
or applications, please contact:

        U.S. Space Camp
        One Tranquility Base
        Huntsville, AL 35807-7015
        1-205-837-3400

        RESERVATIONS:  1-800-63-SPACE


My daughter makes the following comments:

    1.  The schedules are *highly* subject to change.

    2.  At Space Academy, expect a lot of lectures.
    ___________________________________________________

SPACE CAMP

    For children in (or just completed) grades 4,5, 6, or 7.

    Two locations: Huntsville AL and Cape Canaveral, FL.

    5 days (4 PM Sunday to 9AM Friday).  Programs most weeks
    year-round.

    TUITION:  $425 to $550, depending on season

    SCHEDULE:

        ROCKETRY DAY: Tour rocket facilities, build model
        rockets and learn about rocketry.

        ASTRONAUT TRAINING DAY:  Experience aspects of
        astronaut training, including simulators, etc.

        MICROGRAVITY DAY:  Experience simulated
        weightlessness; learn about robotics.

        MISSION DAY:  Plan and carry out a simulated
        space shuttle flight.

SPACE ACADEMY (LEVEL I)

    For students in or just completed grades 7, 8, and 9.

    Five-day program (2PM Sunday to 9AM Friday) most weeks
    year-round at Huntsville only.

    TUITION: $475 to $600, depending on season.

        SHUTTLE OPERATIONS DAY:  Learn space shuttle
        operation using simulators.

        MISSION ASSIGNMENTS DAY:  Train for specific
        missions.  Learn crew, science, and ground
        responsibilities.  Study life support systems.

        MISSION EXPERIMENTS DAY:  Study for mission
        experiments.  Learn satellite deployment, etc.

        MISSION DAY:  Conduct two simulated missions
        in teams.  Conduct spacelab experiments and
        simulated spacewalks.  Work with Hubble Space
        Telescope simulator.

SPACE ACADEMY (LEVEL II)

    A program emphasizing academic foundations of aerospace
    careers.  For students in or just completed grades
    10, 11, and 12.

    "8-day" program (5PM Saturday to 1PM Saturday), most weekends
    year-round, Huntsville only.

    TUITION:  $675.

    PROGRAM:  Based on student's choice of one of three "tracks:"

        TECHNOLOGY TRACK:  Design and conduct space
        shuttle experiments;  instruction in solar
        and space plasma physics, space biology, astrophysics,
        fluids, materials, optics and computers.  Train
        in SCUBA techniques in Underwater Astronaut
        Trainer.

        ENGINEERING TRACK:  Study robotics, engineering fields,
        materials and structures.  Train in SCUBA and
        microgravity techniques.

        AEROSPACE TRACK:  Focus on educational requirements
        for aerospace engineers.  Study celestial navigation,
        meteorology, orbital mechanics, space piloting.

OTHER PROGRAMS:

    All of these are at Huntsville only.  Some are offered only
    in summer months.

    AVIATION CHALLENGE (BASIC):  For grades 7,8, and 9.  Intended
    for previous space camp attendees.  Focus on aviation
    training.

    AVIATION CHALLENGE (INTERMEDIATE):  For grades 10, 11, 12.

    ADULT PROGRAMS:  Space Academy Level I or Aviation Challenge
    (3 days) or Space Academy Level II (8 days).

    TEACHER PROGRAMS:  Two levels, 5 days each.  Academic credit
    available.

--
Jim Mooney                Dept. of Stat. & Computer Science
[phone]                West Virginia University
                    Morgantown, WV 26506
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 22:31:50 GMT
From: usc!sdd.hp.com!samsung!rex!rouge!pc.usl.edu![e-mail]  (Phil Fraering)
Subject: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...

Anyway, while the whole net (at least it seems) is arguing about the
merits of adopting the Saturn V (or a Saturn VI) as this nation's
heavy lift launch vehicle, I would like to bring up a different
question, a meta-question as it were.

Or rather, I would like to bring it up again, I've brought it up often
enough in the past.

Is a heavy-lift launch vehicle really needed? The vast majority of
commercial payloads are rather small compared to the payloads of the
large vehicles being developed, and I suspect that it would be easy to
break up the larger payloads into smaller payloads assembled on-site
if the smaller vehicle proved cheaper.

Especially if new technology is going to be developed, it would be
easier to develop it on a small test vehicle; also, a launch failure
on a vehicle carrying 10,000 pounds (a figure I picked because I'm
pretty sure none of the proposed small vehicles use it as their
figure) would be much less disastrous than losing several payloads
packed into a 100,000 lbs. payload bus. If the payload on the smaller
vehicle is a part of a larger payload, then only the part need be
replaced, not the whole vehicle. As (I think, but don't quote me on
this) Dee Ann Divis pointed out once, the insurance for the heavy
launcher is going to be a lot more than for the light launcher,
because more is risked each launch.

Or consider the case where the small and large launcher are equally
reusable or expendable (whatever configuration the vehicle is). The
assembly line for the large vehicle is going to be physically larger
_and_ amortizes its cost over a much smaller number of vehicles for
launching the same payload. Also, the "learning curve" (which I don't
understand in the strict engineering sense, I only have a layman's
grasp of the meaning of the term) may prove a factor: by the time five
launches (arbitrarily picked number, again) is finished and design and
operating changes are made in order that the vehicle only costs twice
as much as it was sold to Congress on :-) 50,000 pounds is launched
with the small booster, while for the 100,000 pound model 500,000
pounds has been launched, (probrably all of several projects) and for
the 600,000 pound class booster, things only get worse.

Finally, most of the grandiose projects these boosters are being
proposed for _can_ probrably be broken up into smaller packages and
assembled on orbit, or have a very large mass fraction in the forms of
provisions and fuel, which doesn't really care about being launched in
a large number of small lots rather than one large one... besides, the
reason many of the payloads weigh as much as they do is that they're
designed for a specific launch vehicle like the shuttle. With a
smaller vehicle the module sizes would be smaller, and so on.

Besides, trying to build an experimental vehicle to lower launch costs
the size of the proposed ALS is tempting fate, IMHO. To bring up the
old airliner analogy, it would be better to develop and test the idea
of cheap jet engines on a smaller vehicle before strapping them under
the wing of an experimental 747; and what's more, imagine that said
747 has no predecessor like the 707, but the piston-powered Spruce
Goose, and the analogy becomes more accurate.

--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
Joke going around: "How many country music singers does it take to
change a light bulb? Four. One to change the bulb, and three to sing

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 00:11:15 GMT
From: sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>Sounds like the Japanese aren't nearly as smart as people seem to give them
>credit for.  This is the same media that claims the Japanese people are from
>Mars, right?
>
>Sounds like the seeds of Japanese decline are starting to sprout...
>

    Actually it is kind of funny that you say that.  Cliff are you there?
If you turn on the T.V. (I think either 6 or 7 am here), then they have a
special show on America.  Now, this show has been dubed by the Japanese
press as "Look at the stupid Americans show".  They only portray the worst of
America, and make it look like a dieseased country.  One reason, at least in my
opion that this anti-American propaganda is being showed is because many of the
women here are getting out of japan, mostly to Americans that live or travel
here.  In fact, "Cliff you may want to add something here", you can go to just
about any japanese girl that speaks english here and ask, why do you like
foregners?  And vertually all of them will say that they are better than the
Japanese counter-part.

    In fact I once took a shinkansen to Tokyo and I happen to set by a very
lovly young lady.  She could have anyone of her she choice,  she asked me to
marry her and take her to America.  I asked her why.  And she said, she hates
Japan and hates japanese people and just wants to get out.  And the more I talk
to these girls, the more they want to leave.  She is now married to my friend
and lives in the States and enjoys her life much more now.  But it is not an
isolated case.  In fact many girls have even told me that if their company ever
found out that they had foreign boy-friends, then they would be fired the same
day, because their company believes that the place of a women is with the male
counter-parts that work for that company.  In fact many companys try to force
the match-up of japanese women to the males in that company, even to the point
of rape.  Which after that the girl is forced to leave that company, because
of the imbarasment.  There is no legal recourse for the girl, because if she
try's to say something, then her next employer will find out and not hire her.

    By the way, Japan has had a 3 year record high in high-school drop-outs
and teenage suicides, and teachers murdering students.

    Since this has nothing to do with space, but I think is of general
interest.  I will not follow up to this.

                        Will.

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 03:33:20 GMT
From: olivea!samsung!usc!rpi![e-mail]  (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kieran A. Carroll) writes:
>This doesn't necessaarily reflect on the management of the programs,
>by the way. It >may< have been a calculated business risk.
>Both companies would likely have been willing to take this risk,
>given the size of the production contract that they stood to win
>if their design was chosen by the USAF. So, the loser has to swallow
>a $400M marketing cost...

I don't have anything to do with the ATF, but from what I have read, I think
you are right.  The ATF competition was designed that way.  Winner wins big.
Loser loses big.  Of course I have no official knowledge of any of this.

We (the govt.) could issue a contract for more Saturn V's, but we would have
to make sure there are approriate safety measures in place.  After all, what
good are a few Saturn V's if half of our aerospace industry goes backrupt to
produce them?

Mike                                                [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 14:57:17 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> We already know. Their approach is to use what works and to improve it step
>> wise as time goes on...

>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.

>I do not have the specific figures, but
>our boosters: Atlas, Delta, Titan, Saturn, Shuttle  have launch successes in
>the high 90's.  The Russian boosters are in the low 90's

It depends. Over the entier lifetime of the launchers ours are also in
the low 90's. Recently ours have become ~98% reliable. I don't know what
their recent history is but I would be suprised to see it was that bad.

>The Atlas has been in continous use for over 25 years.  The titan was developed
>in the 1960's and has been continously improved over the years.

And I would consider them something we have done (by and large) right.

>All of our unmanned boosters have gone thru weight reduction programs,
>component replacement programs (new parts to replace ones that are not
>available any more), and major upgrades.

Indeed they have. Over time the current Delta bears little resembelance
to it's 30 year old ancestors. This is why they have high reliability
and low cost compared to the Shuttle. Our problems arise because we
insist on throwing this away for untried technology. If Chalanger hadn't
failed, we might not have Delta's or Atlas's today.

>In my opinion, NASA was faced with the undesireable choice of continuing the
>Saturn 5 or developing the Shuttle.  I think NASA made the right decision.

Why?

  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.                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #466
*******************