Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_1/V15NO117.ZIP/V15NO117

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 35KB | 776 lines

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 14:59:16
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #117
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 16 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 117

Today's Topics:
                    ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
                  Deep-sea Diving on Europa (2 msgs)
              Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
                           Fermi's Paradox
                          Home made rockets
                        Meteor Soaks Datona FL
                            Saturn's moons
    Saturn Class Dreams (was RE:  ... and other space development)
                        SPS fouling astronomy
                     What about Saturn? (2 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 1992 07:34:35 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>>[e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>>>    Soyuz is great, Soyuz is God, Soyuz can carry ONE passenger.  The
>>>other two occupants must be qualified as pilots.
>> [Allan questions above]
>You may be right here Allan, The Soyuz is usually pretty much automated.

Allan is right.  The Russians fly one passenger on the Soyuz for one
reason and one reason only:  they're piggybacking guests on two-man
crew exchange flights to Mir, not "maxing out" on potential passengers.
Only one of the two "crew" has to be pilot rated.  The difficulties
involved in Soyuz pilot-rating a few US astronauts for Station ops
are trivial compared to the difficulties and costs involved in
building a new ACRV and training people to use it 8-)

>>But I point out that if in fact you are correct, this is still a problem
>>for Shuttle. Soyuz WILL be the ACRV. Congress isn't going to fund anything
>>else.
>Allan you have still not addressed with numbers the propostion that the
>Shuttle will become MORE useful as the return of large payloads grows more
>common in the SSF era.

Oh, ok.  What large payload returns?  I haven't seen one manifested
thru oh 2005 or so 8-)

>>>    If the station EVER (and I doubt this for a LONG time) gets to
>>>8-person capability you will need 6 Soyuz flights to recrew.
>>I'm assuming three although even with six we still save money.

Use three.  there's no reason why the Soyuz pilots aren't otherwise useful
SSF crew.

>>[...allan re: shuttle costs]
>What is your source for this statement Allan. The maximum flight rate for the
>Shuttle is about one per month.

Wrong-o.  Nobosy's _planning_ on more than ten a year.  Eight is
a better assumption (look at recent history).  Shuttle refurbishing is
and will always be the critical path.

>>>Before you argue
>>>that costs would go DOWN as a result of a larger production line, keep in mind
>>>that you will need more launch pads, more ground support, etc.
>>A government report (I think it was 'Launch Options for the Future') said
>>that there is plenty of facilities available to greatly increase the
>>rate of Atlas launches. [...]
>I wonder where all of these facilities are at. They certainly aren't at KSC.
>[...]

Pads are cheap.  If you're going to commit to 25 launches a year,
you can streamline pad ops a lot and build a new pad or two and
amortize the cost REALLY QUICKLY.

>>>You can't
>>>simply double or triple the flight rate of any rocket without taking into
>>>account the cost of these factors.  Therefore, I don't think your savings in
>>>production quantity would help, it would end up being eaten in launch support
>>>costs.
>>
>>The relevant government reports says larger launch rates can be sustained.
>>This will provide better utilization of ground facilities which will reduce
>>costs even more.
>>
>see the above

Where did you learn your ground operations and engineering economics? 8-)
Building a new pad is a capital expense.  It's a pretty minor one, on the
order of the same cost of a launch or two.  If the customer base is
sufficient to guarantee a lot of use of that capital expense, it will
get amortized pretty quickly and you can find financing for the project
with little trouble.  If, for instance, we were going to launch 10 more
Atlases per year for Freedom ops, we could buy another pad on the
guarantee of those launches having to take place and pay it off over
next year or two.  Businesses make investments like that all the time:
Oil tankers, production facilities, etc.  All you need is evidence
you're going to use it.  Once you've made that capital investment,
you often on a per-unit basis experience a significant cost reduction.
Including paying off the investment.  Just about everything in this
world gets cheaper in quantity...

>>>Two: Boeing is operating in the real world with real customers who
>>>WON'T allow them to underbid and get away with it.
>>
>>EXACTLY. Since we are making the government a real customer it will
>>work just like Boeing. Now the govenrment is simply another buyer of
>>launch services just like Intelsat (which McDonnell Douglas and GD
>>already serve).
>
>That ain't the way Boeing does it in Reality Allan.  Boeing before they
>even begin development REQUIRES a certain number of firm orders.
>[...]
>Now to be honest, in your arguments favor is the commitment of General Dynamics
>commercial space divison to build a large number of Atlas's without firm
>orders. BUT, in this case there is an identifed market with a large
>customer base AND the mass procurement of Atlas vehicles makes sense in this
>competitive environment where they can not use the procurement to lower
>prices for launch service.  BUT there ain't no way on God's green earth that
>any of these guys would go for a contract that says "no deliver no pay"
>without a hefty insurance policy.

    I would think that 62 Atlases with no orders is a pretty
strong argument for companies taking risk for potential payoff.
Even more significant was the hundreds of millions invested in
R&D on the vehicle when the Commercial Atlas startup occurred.

    When GD sold their board on the Commercial Atlas, they had
no guaranteed market.  Arianne looked like it could take everything
that wasn't already booked.  Until recently, now that they've sold
their 42nd or so vehicle, they were pretty worried about it all.
Now, they're looking at a lot of profit.

    As for "no deliver no pay"; I know several companies who will
do that for launch services on large (multi launch) contracts.  They're
just betting on their own launch reliability.  In most cases, they
add 15% to the contract price and end up with a profit overall.
In today's market, presuming that you won't end up paying for a failed
launch anyway is pretty silly; you lose customers at least, and at
most someone sues you for a whole lot (witness the nearly half-billion
suit against Martin Marietta over the Intelsat oops).



-george william herbert
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail] until 28 aug

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

Date: 16 Aug 92 01:53:43 GMT
From: Casey Carlton O'Hara <[e-mail]>
Subject: Deep-sea Diving on Europa
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc N Barrett) writes:
>
>   I have heard that Europa's oceans are quite a lot deeper than the oceans
>on Earth, even though Europa is a much smaller world.  My question is: do we
>have any deep-sea diving equipment that could survive the great pressures
>that exploration of the bottoms of the Europan oceans would entail?  I know
>that the Mariana Trench on Earth has been visited before, but that trench is
>only eight or so miles deep, which is nothing compared to the figures of 20
>or more miles that I have heard bandied about for the possible depth of the
>oceans on Europa.

The formula for hydrostatic pressure (the pressure exerted by a fluid
due to the weight of the fluid above it) is something like:
    p(h) = p(a) + d*g*h
where p(h) is pressure at depth h, p(a) is atmospheric pressure, d is
depth below surface, and g is acceleration due to gravity.

I have NO clue about the value of g on Europa, but I'll assume it's
less than that on Earth's moon, which is about 1/6 that of Earth's
gravity.

Also, Europa's atmospheric pressure is probably pretty low, but that
term is usually pretty small anyway.

Anyway, assuming g(Europa)=g(Earth)/6, water 20 miles deep on Europa
would exert as much pressure as water about 20/6 or 3.33 miles deep on
Earth.  So, no problem there.  The real problem would be getting all
that shit to Europa in the first place.
Wow, I'm actually applying stuff I learned in class.  Probably
applying it wrong, though.
>--------------------------------------------------


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   __________/  bonz R godz!  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Casey O'Hara              (_|____|___\__________
[e-mail]             _|_|___________)
Disclaimer:  All opinions expressed here are yours.   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: 16 Aug 92 08:41:55 GMT
From: Jeffrey Alan Foust <[e-mail]>
Subject: Deep-sea Diving on Europa
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Casey Carlton O'Hara) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc N Barrett) writes:
>>
>>   I have heard that Europa's oceans are quite a lot deeper than the oceans
>>on Earth, even though Europa is a much smaller world.  My question is: do we
>>have any deep-sea diving equipment that could survive the great pressures
>>that exploration of the bottoms of the Europan oceans would entail?  I know
>>that the Mariana Trench on Earth has been visited before, but that trench is
>>only eight or so miles deep, which is nothing compared to the figures of 20
>>or more miles that I have heard bandied about for the possible depth of the
>>oceans on Europa.
>
>The formula for hydrostatic pressure (the pressure exerted by a fluid
>due to the weight of the fluid above it) is something like:
>    p(h) = p(a) + d*g*h
>where p(h) is pressure at depth h, p(a) is atmospheric pressure, d is
>depth below surface, and g is acceleration due to gravity.

It looks like you've got some terms confused: you have both d and h
representing depth below the surface, but no term for the density of the
fluid.  Let's try a more rigorous derivation:

The equation of hydrostatic equilibirum states that:

    dp/dr = -rho*g                    (1)

Where p=pressure, rho=density, g=acc. due to gravity, and r=radius here.
Actually, p, g and rho are functions of r, but for this simplification
we will assume that the density remains constant (the fluid is incompressible,
which is reasonable enough), and that g is also a constant (a reasonable
assumption if we limit ourselves to values of r that are near Ro, the
planetary radius).  Now we can easily take the integral of (1):

    /r     /r
    |    |
    | dp = -|rho*g dr                (2)
    |    |
    /Ro    /Ro

Which simplifies to:

    p(r) - p(Ro) = -rho*g*(r-Ro)            (3)

or:
    p(r) = p(Ro) + rho*g*d                (4)

where d=Ro-r => depth below the surface.  Given that p(Ro) will represent
only the pressure exerted by the atmosphere (which is negligable at great
depths on Earth and at any depth on Europa), we have the equation which the
previous poster wrote, with the needed correction.

>I have NO clue about the value of g on Europa, but I'll assume it's
>less than that on Earth's moon, which is about 1/6 that of Earth's
>gravity.

Another quick and easy derivation:

Using the expression for the force of attraction between two masses by
gravity:

    F = GMm/r^2                    (5)

Where G=gravitational constant (6.67x10^-8 g^-1 cm^3 s^-2 in CGS units),
M and m represent the masses of the planet (or moon) and another arbitrary
object respectively, and r is the distance between them.  Combine this
with Newton's 2nd Law:

    F = ma                        (6)

which represents the acceleration on the object by the force of attraction,
and we get:

    ma = GMm/r^2                    (7)

The other object's mass drops out (as it should) and we get for the
acceleration due to gravity:

    a = GM/r^2 = g                    (8)

Which we call g.  For Europa M=4.8x10^25 g and r=1.569x10^8 cm, so
g = 130 cm/s^2, which is just over 13% of the value of g for Earth
(980 cm/s^2).

Now back to the equation for pressure.  For water, rho = 1 g/cm^3, so
for Earth:
    P = 980*d g cm^-1 s^-2                (9a)
      = 980*d dyne/cm^2                (9b)
      = 0.000967*d atm                (9c)
where d is in centimeters.  For Europa:
    P = 130*d dyne/cm^-2                (10a)
      = 0.000128*d atm                (10b)

Now for applications to exploration of Europa.  Bathyspheres have gone down
to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, approx. 11km below the surface. So,
the pressures experienced down there are about (0.000967*1.1X10^6) atm, which
is just under 1100 atmospheres.  On Europa this would correspond to a
depth of about 83 km.  It's impossible to say if this would take you to
the bottom of the Europan ocean, but it's no doubt quite possible to build
submersibles capable of withstanding much greater pressures if need be.
It's a long way down the road, though...

Incidentally, Charles Sheffield's recent novel _Cold_as_Ice_ features
submersibles prowling around in the Europan ocean.  The figures he uses for
pressure compare very well to those I computed above.

>Wow, I'm actually applying stuff I learned in class.  Probably
>applying it wrong, though.

No, you got it right, save for a few details.  As for the volume and detail
of what I wrote, all I can say is that the three years I've spent so far
at Caltech have done nasty things to my brain... :-)

--
Jeff Foust                        Senior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
[e-mail]                       [e-mail]
   "In other sports like tennis and basketball, the team that scores the most
points sometimes loses." - an International Amateur Boxing Federation official

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

Date: 16 Aug 1992 07:53:05 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>[e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>>
>>    Ok, we now have 4 potential solutions (HL-20, Soyuz, 2xPLS above);
>>Soyuz is $65 million per flight and $500 million to adapt (massively
>
>This is a questionable number.

Bullshit.  That number is derived from:
1) a hard quote on buying Soyuz vehicles that I got, multiplied by three
    to handle currency fluctuations.
2) the reported price from a GD Senior Engineer in the Commercial Atlas project
    for a Commercial Atlas vehicle.

When I parametrically estimate, I say so.  This is not a paremetric
estimation.  Right now I'm expecting a set of mechanical drawings
of the Soyuz (I hope...) to do a detail engineering design on the
payload interface for structure, vibrations, etc. and I hope to
get some handle on the systems aspect as well.  Since we're
going to fly a bunch of these, the integration design can be
amortized very easily.  The $500 million I quoted for adaptation
is a massively paranoid parametric estimation.  The per-flight is solid.

>>    As you've said, neither PLS nor HL-20 is going to Phase B anytime
>>soon, though it's easy to point out that if they don't, we won't have
>>a ACRV for PMC Freedom (or for several years later 8-( ).  NASA gets
>>half credit for knowing it needs one and fails the exam for not
>>acknowledging it and trying to solve the problem by the time the need is
>>real... 8-(
>
>But we will have long duration Shuttles by the time of PMC. So the
>Shuttle can be crew transport, resupply, material return, and ACRV
>until we get something better. Not great, but workable with the current
>fleet. We also get the use of the docked Shuttle's middeck and Canadarm
>at no extra cost.

    Oh great.  We're eating up months of shuttle time just sitting them
at Freedom.  With a four orbiter fleet and one permanently on station,
the number of flights per year will drop around 25% due to less time to
refurbish (or the same time with a two month delay).  We don't need the
middeck or Canadarm; we've got plenty of lab space (well, not enough, but
_enough_) and an arm on the station already.

    Think these things through...

-george william herbert
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail] until 28 aug

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

Date: 16 Aug 92 16:46:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Fermi's Paradox
Newsgroups: sci.space


   You got it all wrong. ;-) When disruptive little lifeforms develop
   on planetary surfaces  *something*  evidently wipes them out fast.
   My bet is on comets which may be alive and sentient.    Expect the
   bombardment any time.      Perhaps just this once in this cosmos a
   technical socety has risen that  can  keep ahead of their cleansing.
   Credible possiblity?             ---
   We need to turn the divertible debris of the solar system into
   can openers before it is used to turn us into popsicles.
   Any sceptics need convincing comets are alive??
                                       ---         Lawrie Williams

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 01:36:22 GMT
From: "Steve J. Quest" <iowegia!quest>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
> The primary concern here is human life and safety, not lawsuits. Some
> fool had the audacity to e-mail me and say "Thank God Robert Goddard
> didn't listen to people like you." Well, Robert Goddard was a professor
> of physics, and more importantly, *knew what he was doing*, because he
> had the brains to find out, and to pay attention to safety. It does NOT
> further the cause of space flight to get people killed or injured - it
> sets it back, look at Challenger.


Fred,

        I think the point that should be made is "maybe the guy
who wants to build engines IS more intelligent and safety
conscious than you have given him credit for"?  All you really
should have said was "do you know what you are doing" and if they
respond with "I think so" then help them out.  That is my two
cents worth..........sq

(usually it is quite obvious when someone is NOT competent...)

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

Date: 15 Aug 92 21:16:14 GMT
From: Michael Wallis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meteor Soaks Datona FL
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (DURDA) writes:

>   I am skeptical for the following reason: an object a meter across traveling
> through the atmosphere would be extremely bright. The night sky should
> have been lit up across north Florida. There should have been reports from
> thousands of people about shooting stars and UFO's. (It seems that at worst
> the cloud cover was scattered to broken across most of the area at the time.)
> The only person to date to report anything at all was a single sailor. I
> do not discount his observation - I merely wonder if it was coincidental.
> The data are there - it just needs to all be looked at together - the timing
> of the arrival of the wave at various locations along the coast, the weather
> conditions at the time, perhaps relevant radar data from the time (missile
> defense radar would be nice), etc. Until someone comes up with a way to
> hide a meteor as bright as the Sun, I'll stick with the squawl line
> hypothesis.

Excuse me, but what makes you think a 1 metre rock would "... be extremely
bright ..." or be "... as bright as the Sun ..."? A metre isn't very big
at all. My concern would be that something that small should create a wave
of (presumably) several feet in height. Also, an impact would create
multile waves, not a single wave, though the following ones would be
smaller. Is that the recorded pattern at Daytona?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - Michael Wallis
            Oakland lost the Raiders. Now SF has lost the Giants.
            Guess that makes then even again.               8-)

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

Date: 16 Aug 92 03:06:41 GMT
From: Earl W Phillips <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn's moons
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

There are many programs that predict and displB{y the{ positions
of{ the moons of Jupiter..... {my question:{ Are there {any{
programs out there, written for the IBM-PC, that will do the
same for Saturn's moons?

*****************************************************************
*                                    | ====@====      ///////// *
* [e-mail]|     ``________//         *
*                                    |       `------'           *
*                 -JR-               | Space;........the final  *
*                                    | frontier...............  *
*****************************************************************

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

Date: 16 Aug 92 05:35:32 GMT
From: Brett Vansteenwyk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn Class Dreams (was RE:  ... and other space development)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>5.  Using an F-1 will imply a design philosophy that is variant with what has
>>prevailed in recent years.  It would seem that the vehicle has a whole booster
>>stage, and does not really depend on strap-ons.  Or---could you develop a
>>strap on booster with an F-1?
>
>This design philosphy comes from trying to get as much as possible out of
>the infrastucture of basically small payload vehicles.  The cost for
>manufacturing tooling for longer tanks with strap ons is small. Building new
>jigs for larger diameter tanks is hellishly expensive.  That is the primary
>reason for using the solid strap ons in recent years.  Usually the cheapest
>part of the existing launchers upgrade in capability is from the strap ons.
>With the big bird and little bird Saturn you build two jigs and stretch the
>tanks to fit the desired payload class.

Okay, the only question I have here is whether or not these engines are part
of a stage that will eventually drop off so that a LH2/LOX burning stage can
take over.  From my understanding, a kerosine burner does a great job for
vehicles getting off the pad and accelerating through most of the atmosphere
(its a dirty job but somebody's got to do it), but when you need more
efficiency higher up, you can't beat LH2/LOX.  Is there a big penalty in
keeping an RP1-burner going up to orbit, or is this tradeoff overshadowed
by other factors?

By strap-on, do you mean strap-on booster (self-contained), or do you mean
strap-on engine (a la Atlas)?

I would love to see a picture of an F1 firing again, especially since I seem
to be out of earshot :-).

        --Brett Van Steenwyk

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

Date: 15 Aug 92 22:48:19 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS fouling astronomy
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Steve Willner) writes:

> Seriously, if we are building enough space infrastructure for SPS's,
> it should be easy for professional astronomers to have access to
> space instruments.
>

Uh-oh. Looks like your assumptions (albedo = 30%, number of satellites
> 1000) are more convincing. That means the Milky Way is toast.

But, most of this thread is pointing in the direction that SPS is a
very advanced project, and maybe has to be. So, in the meantime, any
number of things can happen.

> > Also, the objection that
> > "there'd be nowhere on Earth you could get away from the handiwork of
> > humans - no remaining true wilderness" isn't really true: try Alaska
>
> I give up.  The lattitude is only 60 to 70 degrees or so, and there
> are plenty of flat places where the horizon is visible. And the
> aurora is seldom bright enough to obliterate the bright planets.
> Maybe you were there during a _really_ bright display. :-)

Trees could block objects near the horizon, but come to think of it,
you'd have to be above latitude 82 degrees, which is more northerly
even than Point Barrow, to get completely away from the
Con-Ed-stellation. GEO is about 6.6 Earth radii away, and
arctan(6.6) = 81.4 degrees (My thanks to Mike McCall from Rutgers
for pointing this out.); atmospheric refraction will give
another 34'.

And I never saw the aurora from Alaska; I saw it from Arizona.
(The famous 1989 March display: no kidding!)

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

Date: 15 Aug 92 21:26:25 GMT
From: Michael Wallis <[e-mail]>
Subject: What about Saturn?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Chase R. Laurendine) writes:

>         Maybe this topic has already discussed, if so, sorry for waisting
> your time.  With all the interest in using Energiya's payload capacity for
> SSF and the fond memories of the Saturn V program, I am curious to know how
> the payload capacities of the two compare.  If the Saturn rockets had
> comperable payload capacities, what would it take to bring the Saturn out
> of mothballs.

At least 2 of the 3 remaining Saturn Vs, I'm afraid. Among other problesm
(like the missing ring segment from the one they had to cut in half to fit
in the Smithsonian), the initiators on the S-I engines (those nice BIG
engines) were all hand wired, each one individually according to the
specifics of that one's manufacture and sequencing the things was
similarly custom work. The paper trails are gone. They're more likely to
blow up than go up, and there's no guarantee that what worked for one
would be transferable to another, even if you DID manage to get one of the
pad. The costs of re-engineering the Saturn V would be compribale to the
original development costs scaled up to 1990's prices. It's a LOT cheaper
(IMHO) to put money into SSTO-type vehicles than to try recapturing our
"glorious youth". Enough nostalgia ... let's get on with the job.

        Michael

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - Michael Wallis
            Oakland lost the Raiders. Now SF has lost the Giants.
            Guess that makes then even again.               8-)

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

Date: 16 Aug 92 03:34:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What about Saturn?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Wallis) writes...
>[e-mail] (Chase R. Laurendine) writes:
>
>>         Maybe this topic has already discussed, if so, sorry for waisting
>> your time.  With all the interest in using Energiya's payload capacity for
>> SSF and the fond memories of the Saturn V program, I am curious to know how
>> the payload capacities of the two compare.  If the Saturn rockets had
>> comperable payload capacities, what would it take to bring the Saturn out
>> of mothballs.
>
>At least 2 of the 3 remaining Saturn Vs, I'm afraid. Among other problesm
>(like the missing ring segment from the one they had to cut in half to fit
>in the Smithsonian), the initiators on the S-I engines (those nice BIG
>engines) were all hand wired, each one individually according to the
>specifics of that one's manufacture and sequencing the things was
>similarly custom work. The paper trails are gone. They're more likely to
>blow up than go up, and there's no guarantee that what worked for one
>would be transferable to another, even if you DID manage to get one of the
>pad. The costs of re-engineering the Saturn V would be compribale to the
>original development costs scaled up to 1990's prices. It's a LOT cheaper
>(IMHO) to put money into SSTO-type vehicles than to try recapturing our
>"glorious youth". Enough nostalgia ... let's get on with the job.
>
>        Michael
>

First of All you would not use the three existing Saturns. They are just rust
buckets now. There are enough engines in storage at the Marshall Space Flight
Center to build at least one and maybe two Saturns. BUT that is not what
I am proposing using the F1A engines and a new set of tanks to launch both
medium and heavy payloads. There would be two different diameter tanks that
would lift a variety of payload weights to orbit The largest of which would
lift over 300,000 to LEO which would be a Saturn V with STME engines in the
second stage in lieu of the J2's.  The cost of this for the the smallest
(50,000 to LEO) would be less than Arianne or Titan IV or V. Using common
engines would also help to drive down the costs for a Lunar version. remember
we are talking about going back one day.  There is congressional testimony
that states that the cost of reviving the Saturn is no more than for NLS and
that is by someone that opposes the Saturn.  I don't have the reference anymore
but Wales I think does.  So enough talk without any backup.


Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 
P
From: 
P

From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Saturn Class Dreams (was RE:  ... and other space development)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Aug 92 22:05:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: University Space Society <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Houston
Lines: 95
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>>Subject: SPS feasibility and other space development
>>I heard some interesting news today.  The NASA Marshall Space Flight Center,
>>the birthplace of our Saturn Class dreams has awoken the giant.  The only
>>test stand in the West that was ever used to hold down a Saturn Class rocket
>>for a full up test firing of the Saturn V first stage is about to rumble again!
>>*************************************************************************
>>Revive the Saturn V!
>>*************************************************************************
>
>This, along with the comment (I have forgotten the attribution here) "Everyone
>knows what the ALS should eventually look like, a Saturn V clone" has me
>wondering if this is somehow tied to ALS activities (like someone has actually
>moved from paper chases to hardware).  Some of the questions I have here may
>not be answerable if this is the early stage of some project, but in hopes of
>starting a thread, here goes:
>
>1.  Has anyone identified the most likely engine configurations possible with
>a Saturn V clone ("ALS") launcher?  Do we intend to build the same giant, or
>a smaller version with, say, a 3-engine configuration?  Is the design of an
>F-1 so specific that it will only tolerate a 5-engine cluster (resonances and
>the like).

The Buzz word today is NLS.  Our studies here have two different configurations
One is a one or two F1A engine design for + Titan IV class payloads and then
a three-five engine bird for the +150,000-300,000 pound stuff.

>2.  Are these the 1.5M lb generic F-1's or are they the 1.8M lb ones developed
>not long before the development was halted?

No these will be the F1A's. In a recent article in the Brevard County Florida
(Cocoa Beach and KSC county) paper, Rockwell talks about a cost of 12 to 14
million per engine out the door after start up costs.

>3.  Is adapting tooling for building engines an easier job (more standard
>parts?) than generating tooling for the rest of the launch vehicle?

It is easier to build the engine tooling. And for the skeptical out there. The
engines for the Delta, Atlas and Titan lines had been discontinued due to the
theoretical reliance on the Shuttle for all launches.  The production lines for
those were restarted and the Rockewll folks say that the F1A restart would be
the same.  Yes Virgina some of the suppliers for F1 and F1A parts are gone but
the Rockwell people said the same thing about the other engines and they were
able to get other suppliers for componets of the engines.


>4.  Will the costs of a Saturn V like vehicle actually come down if there were
>a production line?  It seems true for various other rockets, but will there
>be factors that will always require special care?

Using modern construction techniques and materials along with already existing
Saturn V facilities that have not been used in 20 years the cost comes down,
I do not know how much. The one or two engine design would certainly be cheaper
than Titan IV or Arianne 5 AND would put up more payload.

>5.  Using an F-1 will imply a design philosophy that is variant with what has
>prevailed in recent years.  It would seem that the vehicle has a whole booster
>stage, and does not really depend on strap-ons.  Or---could you develop a
>strap on booster with an F-1?

This design philosphy comes from trying to get as much as possible out of
the infrastucture of basically small payload vehicles.  The cost for
manufacturing tooling for longer tanks with strap ons is small. Building new
jigs for larger diameter tanks is hellishly expensive.  That is the primary
reason for using the solid strap ons in recent years.  Usually the cheapest
part of the existing launchers upgrade in capability is from the strap ons.
With the big bird and little bird Saturn you build two jigs and stretch the
tanks to fit the desired payload class.

>6.  How easy is it to refurbish a used F-1 considering hat it burns RP-1?
>If I remember right the high temperatures will crack the fuel into a gunk
>that is tough to remove from the tubing.

At a cost of 12 to 14 million a piece you do not refurb you throw away. This
was proven in some of the ALS tests where an Atlas was launched at a low angle
in order to recover the boosters. Did not work too well from what I have heard
and it imposes quite a payload to orbit penalty.

>7.  It sounds as if the intent right now is to be able to build the engine
>now as it was built back then.  Is this a good idea?


No that is not the intention.  The intention of bringing out some of the
existing F1's and refurbing and firing is to gain experience with a big LOX
RP1 engine and to refurb the test stands to support such a beast.  We would not
fly the standard F1's for a production program.  It is also far cheaper to
use existing engines that have been in storage than it would be to wait for the
new ones (which are not funded YET) to come on line.  Also the politics of
seeing an F1 Class engine firing would be by far the most effective lobbyist
for the revival of the program.

>        --Brett Van Steenwyk


Dennis Wingo, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 117
------------------------------