Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_1/V15NO118.ZIP/V15NO118

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 12KB

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 15:00:52
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #118
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 16 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 118

Today's Topics:
                Energiya's role in Space Station assem
                  Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV
                            Saturn's moons
                        Tether and Space Junk
                          What about Saturn?

    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 92 13:57:54 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Name *one* major military procurement that
>>proceeded on a fixed price basis with *no* adjustments.
>
>The ATF prototype
>LACE
>RME
>DC-X

None of these are *procurement* contracts. They are R&D proposals.

>>Congress is
>>notorious for "stretching out" procurement in a way that saves money
>>this year, but adds horrible extra costs in the "out years" if the
>>full procurement ever is actually filled.
>
>Not a problem here since I'm not asking the government to spend anything
>for development. You still seem to have problems understanding that.

No, you seem to have problems understanding the difference between
development, a one time cost, and procurement, a recurring cost.
When the government decided to buy only 16 B2s over the next 10
years instead of 120, the cost per each skyrocketed.

NASA currently can't sign a guarrantee that it will buy a fixed number
of anything over a multi-year period because Congress only funds
NASA year by year. Therefore procurement costs are highly variable
depending on the whims of Congress.

Gary

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

Date: 15 Aug 92 14:56:00 GMT
From: Mark Goodman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

To:    sci.space
From:  Mark Goodman ([e-mail])
Re:    Space Station support
Date:  15 Aug 1992

>>>[Freedom has support in Congress]

>>I am not aware of any huge and lasting support.  The House votes have
>>been about 230-180, far from 2-1,

>The past two votes where far closer to 2-1. Either way, this is still a
>sizable majority made even larger when you realize what went into it. The
>Congress rarely changes an appropriation like this after it is reported out
>of committee. In addition, a very powerful member did huge amounts of
>lobbying to make it happen and still failed.

This year's vote was 237-181, and Space Station funding was included in
the committee report, unlike last year.

>To those who say social spending will beat NASA every time, look at these
>votes. Freedom was carved up and $$ given to every constituency in the
>house. It still failed.

>At the level we are talking about allocations tend to be based on clout
>first and need second. NASA has enough clout to get about $15 billion
>every year and it will get it regardless of how it is spent.

>If Mr. Coffman's model was correct, Freedom would have been dead a long
>time ago.

>>and then only because the aerospace
>>industry has already received such a big hit from DoD cuts.


>So?

If the aerospace companies hadn't been hurting, Congress would have
been more willing to cut the Space Station.

The biggest reason Congress hasn't killed the space station is that it
doesn't want to go back on its commitment, both in money and to foreign
partners.  Congress was sold a bill of goods -- an $8 billion cost
estimate for a much more ambitious station -- and is now stuck with it.

>>There is
>>tremendous opposition to the space station, which is based on the
>>essential question: what good is it?

>That is a technical question, not a political one. It's not nearly as
>relevant as you think.

I still haven't seen a good answer.  Of course it's relevant.  That's
the main reason people oppose it (that and having better ideas about
how to spend the money).

>>>Since these will open the space frontier and produce far more tax income,
>>>it seems a good idea.

>>Allen, if you are refering to the Space Station, a Moon Base, or planetary
>>exploration, my reaction is: Come on, give me a break.  If you are
>>refering to investments in near-term space technology (improved ELVs,
>>perhaps SSTO, improved automation and remote control, lightsats, etc.)
>>and R&D on more distant prospects (NASP, etc.), I agree.  Which is it?

>I am refering to the growth which would occure with the development of
>a spacefaring civilization.

In whose lifetime?  Seriously, this is such a remote (in time if not in
probability) that it has at best minimal relevance to current policy
debates.  I'm not convinced that it will ever happen.  If you want to
argue about economic returns from investment in technology, you need to
look at the near-term practical uses of space, and those do not include
people.

For years to come, space exploration must be considered as an activity
for its own sake, not justified by supposed practical benefits.  I have
nothing against that, as long as we're honest.  But then NASA belongs in
the same category as basic research "for its own sake".  It then becomes
very difficult to justify spending more money on the Space Station than
on the entire National Science Foundation.

+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
|       Mark W. Goodman       | What a terrible thing it is |
| [e-mail] -- econet | to lose your mind.          |
| [e-mail]  |                             |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+

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

Date: 16 Aug 92 15:23:22 GMT
From: "J. D. McDonald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn's moons
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> Earl W Phillips <[e-mail]> writes:

>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...............  *
>*****************************************************************


You are in luck! And its free.  My special version of Elwood Downey's
"Ephem" for the PC will do this. It will give either just a list
or a screen display of the positions (needs VGA for this). It's not hyper
accurate for the outermost moons, but its good enough to locate all I can
see with my 8" scope. It also, of course, does the rings. It does not
predict eclipses of the moons by the rings or Saturn.

It is available by anonymous FTP from c.scs.uiuc.edu in file "ephemvga.zip".


Doug McDonald

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

Date: 16 Aug 92 15:25:18 GMT
From: clifford bettis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tether and Space Junk
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have been waiting to see this issue discussed: in the event of
serious difficult with the tethered satellite experiment, I understand
that one option was to cut the tether. Wouldn't a 20 km cable in orbit
be the environmental equivalent of a drift net for space craft and
pose an unacceptable hazard?
Cliff Bettis

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

Date: 16 Aug 92 16:29:38 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What about Saturn?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>I am proposing using the F1A engines and a new set of tanks to launch both
>medium and heavy payloads.

I encourage you to look into this. The more options the better. However,
I note two things:

1. This would make one of the same mistakes of Shuttle again. Making all our
    launch capacity d3ependent on F-1s isn't good when the F-1s are grounded.

2. I note with interest that you have a lot of confidence in this yet you
   have almost none in HL Delta or Titan V. This seems odd since the latter two
   have had far more design effort put into them and require far less
   development.

>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.
{That was me. The numbers for Saturn development are (in billions):

Item           Original       Restart        First Unit
S-IC STAGE      2.88           1.73           0.20
S-II STAGE      3.66           2.19           0.16
S-IV STAGE      2.09           1.25           0.07
F-1 ENGINES     1.80           0.54           0.10
J-2 ENGINES     1.73           0.52           0.06
Instrument      0.05           0.52           0.06
Unit
   SUBTOTAL    12.21           6.77           0.66

Vehicle         0.30           0.33           0.03
Integration
Software        0.10           0.14
Program         0.20           1.45           0.03
Support
Fee             1.00           0.87           0.07
Subtotal        1.60           2.79           0.13

Facilities      2.17          2.51
   KSC          2.00          1.97
   SSC          0.17           0.54
Shrouds         0.20           0.52           0.02
Operations                                    0.05

Grand Total    16.18          12.59           0.86  (first
                                             flt)
                                              0.59  (50
                                             flt ave)
   Table 1 - Saturn V Original and Restart Estimates ($ in
                         billions)1



This shows that Saturn restart is likely to be a bit more expensive
than NLS.

I also did analysis of launch costs of Saturn and other HLV's. This includes
both launch costs and amortization costs (including interest). The results
where (assumes 50 flights and 9% interest):



Vehicle   DDT&E  Amortization    Launch   Total   Payload  Cost/lb
                                 Costs    Cost
HL Delta    500    14.6          152      166.6   100,000  1666
Titan V     500    14.6          187      201.6   115,000  1753
Titan V+    500    14.6          187      201.6   150,000  1344
Saturn V 12,590   367.71         590      957.71  275,000  3843
NLS 3    12,000   350.48         100      450.48  100,000  4505
  Table 2 - HLV Launch costs



As you can see, the real problem with launcher development is the huge
developmant costs which dominate the final cost of the vehicle for
Saturn and NLS. The Delta and Titan derived HLVs however emphasize
maximum leverage from existing parts and wide saftey margins. This
\allows them to deliver payload at lower costs than even today's
launchers. NLS and Saturn with their high devleopment costs actually
make getting payload into space MORE expensive than with MLV's.

   Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------250 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 118
------------------------------