Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_5/V13_505.ZIP/V13_505

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/Ic9ta6i00WBwQ5fE45>;
          Wed,  8 May 91 02:24:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  8 May 91 02:24:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #505

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 505

Today's Topics:
          Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI?
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #470
            Re: japans[Dese space research
  Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)
  Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)
                  a
               Re: Shuttle Reliability
            Re: Saturn V computers
            Re: Recovering Galileo
            Galileo's main antenna

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: 1 May 91 14:32:08 GMT
From: mips!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Smith) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Baker) writes:
> >My question -- and, I guess, my point -- is this:  Why rebuild the Saturn V?
> >Why not take the Saturn V design and incrementally improve it, with the advantages
> >of 30 years' improvement in practice, experience and technology?
> >
> >Don't rebuild it.  Don't start over.  Improve the existing design?
>
> In my mind there is no _technical_ reason why we could not build a better
> booster today.  We have the technology and plenty of smart people.  However,
> the politics (not just government, but company internal) that seem to
> inevitably follow these projects ensure that we can't.  The revival of
> the Saturn V, in my mind, is being pushed to avoid the endless paper studies
> and creeping featurism that have plagued all the other space initiatives
> in the last 20 years.

I agree!

>Once we have a working Saturn V, then we can go back
> and improve it to be the Saturn VI.  Let's get something that flies first,
> eh?

Sounds cool, but I think 'creeping featurism' will creep into anything
NASA does, or the government for that matter, even if it a Satun V, VI, ALS,
*HUBBLE*, etc etc

(By the way, I like the term 'creeping featurism,'  it describes
exactly what it looks like it is going on!)


--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Society of Philosophers, Luminaries,           | Brent L. Irvine       |
| and Other Professional Thinking People.....   | Only my own ramblings |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date:         Wed, 01 May 91 12:55:43 EDT
From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V13 #470

Re: Saturn V

All this talk about Saturn V has brought to the surface an interesting factoid
that may be somewhat relavant.

The computer that was used on the original Apollo Landings had only 64K of core
memory.

It's teeny sure, but they did it with tubes back then.  To give you an idea how
 that translates into lbs, a 40 BIT register that we have in a showcase here
weighs about 20lbs.  That means that 64K of tube-memory would translate to, say
40000 lbs?  That can't be right!  It must be really heavy tho.  That;s not even
talking about the coooling system they needed.

Anyway, point is, just with the changes in avionics and computers, there should
be enough space and weight savings to not only provide more payload, but also
to find space for any new stuff they want to add.

(That 40 bit job was about 2 cubic feet)

So, for what it's worth, I think we should bring back the Saturn V (or build a
Saturn VI)

Tommy Mac
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 2 May 91 03:33:55 GMT
From: uokmax![e-mail]  (Robert W Murphree)
Subject: Re: japans[Dese space research

[e-mail] (Gary Raines) writes:


>Watching the Astronomers last night, the segment highlighted the launching of
>a rocket by Japan.  It was noted that the Japanese have been active in
>rocketry for research since the 1960's.  Not being a follower of such things,
>I was a little surprised to learn that Japan is such an active participant in
>space research.  Although it makes a lot of sense considering the Japanese
>general scientific and technical orientation.

>Anyway, can someone fill me in on Japanese rocketry and space research?  Can
>you recommend a reference?  What is the biggest payload they have launched?
>The rocket in The Astronomers was small.  Do they have any plans on space
>travel?  Has a Japanese ever been in space (with the USA or USSR)?
>Send email if you feel there is no general interest in this topic.  Thanks.

The Japanese have two space agencies.  One is small and oriented towards
launching science packages.  They have their own launch system but if I
remember correctly are limited to smaller rockets.  They have launched a
number of important satellites including some with X-ray packages.

The other is commercial and is currently in the final stages of developing
an Ariane scale launcher called the H-2.  The H-2 is large enough to send
a large communications satellite into geosynchronous orbit.  I'm guessing
it will be ready by 92 or 94 (what's the date space-netters?).

The word on sci.space is that the Japanese are going to the moon in the 90's
with orbiters and seismic landers.  All those who know of the scientific
value and political failure of the NASA lunar orbiter will be pleased.
Bruce Murray once pointed out that there are two kinds of space missions:
Purple Pigeons ( very sexy missions that raise alot of public interest
among voters) and Grey Mice ( very dry missions that tend to exite only
scientists).  The Lunar orbiter is a grey mouse.

They have already sent some particle and fields probes to halley's comet
in 1986. And they have sent an engineering orbiter to the moon in the past
year.

Look in Physics today in 1985 +-2 years.  Also Aerospace Weekly or whatever
it is.

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

Date: 2 May 91 13:55:03 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> >The only serious creeping feature I think should be included is using
> >hydrogen instead of kerosene for fuel.  I know this is a big
> >difference but we have to stop thinking of rocket launches as special
> >cases with regard to pollution...
>
> Alas, hydrogen is a big difference in a lot of ways, most of them bad.

Technically difficult, not environmentally bad.

> As for pollution, I fully agree, we should stop treating rocket launches
> as special cases.  Compute the tonnage of hydrocarbons burned in, say,
> Florida every day, and then explain why the insignificant content of
> a Saturn V is somehow considered to be such a *special case* that drastic
> changes are needed before it can be allowed to fly.

Legally, people are trying to reduce emissions on cars.  On rockets
there are no restrictions.  Maybe start putting restrictions on
emissions of launchers?

After all, they do launch in the wetlands AND spew half burnt
hydrocarbons and other exhaust all over.



--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Society of Philosophers, Luminaries,           | Brent L. Irvine       |
| and Other Professional Thinking People.....   | Only my own ramblings |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 2 May 91 17:04:24 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!gecrdvm1![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(/dev/null) says:
>
>
>Legally, people are trying to reduce emissions on cars.  On rockets
>there are no restrictions.  Maybe start putting restrictions on
>emissions of launchers?
>
>After all, they do launch in the wetlands AND spew half burnt
>hydrocarbons and other exhaust all over.
Gee, if you thought SSME's were a hassle, just think of the giant
pump you would need to inject enough air into the exhaust fumes to
dilute em to spec...that's all they do to cars isn't it (you know..
the solution to pollution....)?

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

Date: Thu, 2 May 91 13:33:24 GMT
From: "George Barbanis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: a

a

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

Date: 28 Apr 91 04:40:41 GMT
From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Reliability

OK, here are the numbers:

Success rates          #launches
-------------          ---------
STS              .974    38
Titan            .965   141
Delta            .941   187
Ariane           .886    35
Scout            .875   112
Long March       .875    14
Proton           .866   134
Atlas/Centaur    .835    67

Last failure downtime (months)
------------------------------
Delta            4
Ariane          16
Atlas/Centaur   19
Titan           19
STS             32

Success, downtime, and launch figures as of December 1989 except STS
as of December, 1990.  From _Space Mission Analysis And Design_
ed. by Wertz & Larson, Kluwar Academic Publishers 1991.  The Shuttle
carries astronauts, and safety is politically paramount, so not
surprisingly it doesn't blow up quite as often.  For the same reason,
when it does blow up, your payload is the last thing anybody cares about
so you can kiss the Shuttle goodby as far as schedule reliability is
concerned.  Leaving aside the question of the $36,000 million we spent to
get that extra 1% in safety.


--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"Living below your means allows you to live better than living above your
means." -- Dave Boyd    The above opinions are my own and not related to
those of any organization I may be affiliated with.

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

Date: 2 May 91 17:45:25 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Perry G Ramsey)
Subject: Re: Saturn V computers

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tommy Mac) writes:
> >The computer that was used on the original Apollo Landings had only 64K of core
> >memory.
> >It's teeny sure, but they did it with tubes back then...
>
> Uh, no, sorry, you have your paleoastronautical eras confused. :-)  The
> Saturn V electronics were pretty well entirely solid-state.

The following is Figure 7-17 from the AS-507 flight manual:
--------------
Item         Description

Type         General purpose, digital, stored program

Memory       Random access, ferrite (torroidial) core with a
             capacity of 32,768 words of 28 bits each

Speed        Serial processing at 512,000 bits per second

Word make-up Memory =28 bits
             Data   = 26 bits + 2 parity pits
             Instruction = 13 bits + 1 parity bit

Programming  18 instruction codes
                10 arithmetic
                 6 program control
                 1 I/O
                 1 store

Timing        Computer cycle = 82.03 microsecond
              Bit time       =  1.95 microsecond
              Clock time     =  0.49 microsecond
----------
That clock time works out to 2 MHz.  Does anybody know what that
'serial processing at 512 k' means?  Does that mean that this was
effectively a '1 bit bus'?  And how about those 18 instructions?  The
original RISC!
--
Perry G. Ramsey         Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
[e-mail]  Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN USA
perryr@purccvm
He's Here!  Ariel Gilbert Ramsey, b. 24 APR 91, 8 lb 7 oz., 21".  Stoic.

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

Date: 2 May 91 21:27:05 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!samsung!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Recovering Galileo

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Phillipson ) writes:
>
>     Forgive this possibly silly idea, but could we just use
> Jupiter or one of its moons to send Galileo back to Earth/Venus
> for a gravity-brake back to earth orbit where the shuttle could
> do a repair mission and carry up another booster for it.  Or some
> other trajectory to slow it down and return it to Earth?  Would
> this be cheaper than sending a comm satellite to jupiter?
>
> Douglas Phillipson (EG&G)


        Forgive me, but I can just imagine how the fringies who reacted
        so extremely to the launch of Galileo in the first place would
        react to NASA sling-shotting the thing back at the Earth.
        Besides, I suspect that the additional expense due to the extra
        shuttle flight, maintaining operations for Galileo for an
        additional (what?) 5-10 years while we bounced it around the
        solar system like a billiard ball, not to mention the
        frustration of the scientists and engineers involved in having
        the real meat of the mission put off again, doesn't justify this
        as an approach. After all, this isn't HST or some other spacecraft
        in a low earth orbit we're talking about.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II    |  E-mail:                       |
|  Mail Code 933.9        |    (SPAN) NCF::Bell               |
|  National Space Science    |    or   NSSDC::Bell               |
|    Data Center        |    or  NSSDCA::Bell               |
|  NASA                |    or  NSSDCB::Bell               |
|  Goddard Space Flight Center    |   (Internet) [e-mail]       |
|  Greenbelt, MD   20771    |                           |
|  [phone]        |                           |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 3 May 91 13:09:42 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!nereid![e-mail]  (H. Peter White)
Subject: Galileo's main antenna


In article <[e-mail]> white@nereid (H. Peter White) writes:
>
>Once on its way to Jupiter at least, Galileo will be having its main antenna
>(assuming that they do get it all the way open) pointing roughly into the sun.
>Now I would have thought that having such a large, thin metal surface always in
>sunlight, with the other side always away from the sun, would cause it to
>become charged, due to things like the photo-electric effect, and the fact that
>its treavelling thru a variable solar magnetic field.
>
>Has anyone looked at this, or is it not a big problem for the operation of the
>probe?
>

Hmmmm., No comments, eh? Is this just considered a non-issue for reasons I
don't know about? If so, why?


******************************************************************************
*    H. Peter White        **  Society in general, which while dutifully  *
* ISTS/Space Astrophysics Lab **  praising knowledge and learning, lavishes  *
*       [phone]        **  riches and fame not on its thinkers,       *
* Internet:               **  creators, and producers, but on those      *
*   [e-mail]  **  who help it to defend its prejudices and   *
* Bitnet:              **  sustain its fantasies.                     *
*    [e-mail]    **  -James P. Hogan, 'Code of the Life Maker'  *
******************************************************************************

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #505
*******************