Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_0/V16NO004.ZIP/V16NO004

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 23KB

Date: Wed,  6 Jan 93 05:15:14
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #004
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  6 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 004

Today's Topics:
   DC-Y Funding (was: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? )
                           DCX tech. info?
                Fabrication (was fast track failures)
foreign partnerships was(Re: How many flights are Orbiters)  (2 msgs)
                  launcher costs by type of economy
       Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
      Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
                      Magellan Update - 01/05/93
       Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specifi
                        Soviet space disaster?
   Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity (2 msgs)
                      Ulysses Update - 01/05/93

    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: 6 Jan 93 01:04:41 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-Y Funding (was: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>The one way to make certain there is no private financing is
>to place all your eggs in the DoD basket and not look for any.
>This is very dangerous unless you believe DoD funding is a
>sure thing.  (In which case it's still dangerous, because
>you'd be wrong.)

DoD it the only thing. Much as I wish it where otherwise, the fact
remains that the launcher buisness is a small market, not profitable
for anybody, competes with government subsidzed competition, and currently
suffers from an oversuply of launchers and too few payloads.

Nobody is going to invest the billions needed for the proof of concept
vehicle under these conditions.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:08:01 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DCX tech. info?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>: >flight 1 is a low altitude hover test. Test two is a high-Q hover test.
>                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry, that should read high-Q accent and hover test.

>How can you have dynamic pressure when you're hovering???

Tornado.

>Also, will these flights be pre-programmed onboard, or will they be
>controlled from the ground?

I blieve they are pre-programmed with ground override.

I will post some more details of the three test flights on Thursday
(I'll be out of town tomorrow).

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 23:26:49 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Having design engineers apprentice on
>the shop floor for a few years *before* they get to design a product
>would do a world of good for our manufacturing sector. It certainly
>has for the Japanese and old school Germans.

You mean like that horrid know-nothing, Wernher von Braun? ;-)

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:31:10 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: foreign partnerships was(Re: How many flights are Orbiters)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Interesting street rumor reported on the business report of NBC Sunrise
>program this morning. Apparently, Boeing is negotiating a partnership
>with a Japanese and a German firm to underwrite the development of the
>next generation widebody airliner, reportedly seats 600. The report
>indicated that even Boeing isn't healthy enough to risk going it alone
>on that one, and the US airlines are too strapped to place speculative
>orders.

This is "news" only to NBC.  Boeing has been negotiating the 777
project for several years now.  If you want to build a successful
airliner in today's market, you set nationalism aside and find the
best possible partners for the job, wherever they are.  Of course,
saying "Boeing isn't healthy enough to go it alone" puts nice,
protectionist slant on it, which the networks like.


>If Boeing can't fund a new widebody, MacDD is in deep doo
>with DC without a deep pocketed partner to back them.

McDonnell Douglas is in deep doo with or without DC.  They
desperately need a new, profitable product line or six. The
problem is finding the money to get them off the ground. (No
pun intended.)

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

Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:31:02 -0500
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: foreign partnerships was(Re: How many flights are Orbiters)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>Interesting street rumor reported on the business report of NBC Sunrise
>>program this morning. Apparently, Boeing is negotiating a partnership
>>with a Japanese and a German firm to underwrite the development of the
>>next generation widebody airliner, reportedly seats 600.

>This is "news" only to NBC.  Boeing has been negotiating the 777
>project for several years now.

The 777 is not the plane in question.  If memory serves, the 777 will be a
twin-engine plane with a seating capacity between that of the 767 and 747,
whereas the plane Gary mentioned will be signifigantly larger than the 747
and probably will be a four-engine plane.

According to CNN, Boeing is holding preliminary talks with Deutshce Aerospace,
although the expectation is that eventually the talks will include the
Airbus consortium.  No Japanese involvement was mentioned, but CNN is hardly
omniscient.  It was also mentioned that the proposed plane wouldn't fly until
after the turn of the century.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:41:43 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: launcher costs by type of economy
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>I agree that, other things being equal (an important precondition!), free
>societies are more efficient than command economies.  Nobody has yet tried
>building a space program on free enterprise.

That's because nobody can show a high enough return on investment to
interest private capital markets. Meanwhile, banks fall all over themselves
trying to loan you $1 million to buy a MacDonalds franchise. Space programs
haven't turned a decent profit for anyone but government contractors. Even
the comsat industry wouldn't exist if it had to pay the development costs
to get the first GEO bird in place and operational. NASA and DOD paid those
development bills.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue,  5 Jan 93 17:49:53 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Well, after the first Pegasus flight, they had to build another one.
>Not because it failed, but because it worked.  Unless something
>catastrophic happens on the first test flight, you won't have to
>build another DC-X before the second one.

  Are you saying that they had not even started production of
  Pegasus No.2 in April, 1990? Maybe this is true, but it seems
  a very strange way for OSC to be operating.

  By the way, please do not take my pointing out Pegasus
  difficulties as being an indication that I am anti-Pegasus.
  I like this system, alot. I am merely using it as the most
  recent example of a space booster which has not maintained
  its schedule, something it is my contention will happen
  to DC as well.

  -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:54:41 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>Which is indeed half the battle. But since you back Shuttle no matter what
>>>it costs, I don't see your point.
>
>>I back Shuttle because it's flying *now* and nothing else flying *now*
>>has it's capabilities at *any* price.
>
>I say again, since you back Shuttle no matter what it costs what's your
>point?

My point is that the heavy costs have already been paid. The $34 billion in
development money can't be retrieved, the $1.5 billion per each construction
cost has already been spent, the VAB is built, Pad 39A is operational, etc,
etc, etc. We better get some use out of those investments until something
better comes on line, otherwise the entire investment is a write off. And
nothing better *is* online yet. So Shuttle remains the *cheapest* manned
western launcher since all the others have infinite costs (*any* non-zero
cost divided by zero availability is still infinite).

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:44:00 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 01/05/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE [phone]


                     MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                         January 5, 1993

     The Magellan spacecraft continues to operate normally,
orbiting Venus 50 times each week and transmitting a carrier
radio signal which is precisely tracked by the Deep Space Network
stations to extract gravity data.

     By analyzing the subtle changes in the Magellan orbit,
scientists are able to map the variations in the interior of the
planet, and compare those variations with surface features.
Unlike Earth, there is a strong correlation between the internal
concentrations of mass at Venus and its surface topography.

     Magellan arrived at Venus August 10, 1990 and has completed
6,478 orbits; 842 orbits have been completed so far in this
fourth 243-day cycle which ends on May 25, 1993.
                              _____
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life.

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

Date: Tue,  5 Jan 93 17:50:28 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specifi
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Francois Y
e
>rgeau) writes:
>
>>If I build a custom laser in my lab, and then operate it purely
>>as a tool to support my research program, I think I am still doing
>>research.  Likewise, when NASA is using the shuttle to fly Spacelab,
>>TSS, Hubble, etc, it's doing research.
>
>If you pay Air France to fly your laser to the research site,
>does that mean the Airbus is a research vehicle?

   Sure. If you use the laser while aboard the Airbus. Their is
   a distinction here. There are plenty of research ships at
   sea, does this mean unless the ship tries out a hydrofoil
   design or something it is not doing research? Jacques Cousteau
   and the crew of the Calypso may disagree.

   Now, the Shuttle itself is not the subject of the research, but
   it is the only current transportation available for this
   research. You can go buy Soyuz (and hope Yeltsin remains in
   power) or wait a few years for DC-1, but until you do, the
   Shuttle is still at least partially a research vehicle.

>If you call someone in New York to discuss your research, the
>call goes via Intelsat or undersea cable.  Does that make the
>Intelsat or the cable a research venture?

   Agreed. TDRS is not a research project and would be better lofted
   by Titan III or IV (which is planned for TDRS-G).

   -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:21:00 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Soviet space disaster?
Newsgroups: soc.history,sci.space,soc.culture.soviet

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Stavar) writes:
>I recall reading that at some point earlyish in the Russian space
>programme that there was a retro mis-fire on one of their missions.
>This lead to the unfortunate situation of the space craft in question
>flying off directly into the sun.  The story mentioned something about
>the wife of the cosmonaut in question being in radio contact with him
>up to the very end.
>
>I have no hard material evidence with which to back up this story - it
>may be plain wrong.

Well the part about flying off directly into the sun is definitely
hogwash. That requires something like 30 km/s delta vee which is
orders of magnitude more than any retro on a Soyuz can generate,
even if it were operating properly.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:19:35 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>>We could fly Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan.

>Why?  If we're buying Soyuz spacecraft from the Russians,
>it would make a lot more sense to buy the boosters also
>and skip the integration problem.

Because I want the US to form a spacefaring civilization. Making some use
of foreign technology so we can get out from under a dead end system seems
a great idea to me.

>>We could build a small station with room and power equal to Shuttle. We
>>could dock the two and get far more work done for far less money.

>Who is "we?"  If you mean NASA, I don't think so.

Agreed. I was thinking of SSI's ISF. That way the taxpayers aren't
stuck if it fails and the builders will have a real incentive to actually
do the job.

>However, we haven't man-rated the Atlas or Titan since the 60's.

No need. Man rating doesn't add anything to the safety of the
launcher. All it does is add costs and I see no point in doing it.

>The current assembly lines for those vehicles are pretty much
>booked already.

Not so. Both have plenty of un-used capacity.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue,  5 Jan 93 17:51:03 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
h
>.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:
>
>>       If men are part of the payload, the Shuttle is (currently) the
>>only way to fly!
>
>I think if you consult the Russians they can show you the error in
>this statement.
>
>BTW, the team evaluating Soyuz has finished its work. They concluded that
>there is no reason Soyuz couldn't be used as ACRV. It should also be
>possible to use Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan for US manned space.
>
>    Allen

    Excellent news about Soyuz ACRV, but even considering Shuttle
    launch costs, it seems cheaper to launch by Shuttle or Russian
    booster instead of Titan or Atlas. Neither is man-rated, and
    neither has existing facilities for manned launches. Atlas-Centaur
    has never been man-rated, and after Challenger, it would be
    difficult to man-rate the Titan SRMs. Let's send the two Soyuz up
    on one Shuttle if we decide to not let the Russians deliver.

    If it is your contention to replace Shuttle with Atlas-Soyuz, that's
    another matter. I think it would cost too much to reconstruct Atlas
    manned launch facilities for just two or three launches per year,
    and I think manned Titan III/IV is now a pipedream.

    -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 23:50:00 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ulysses Update - 01/05/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE [phone]

                     ULYSSES MISSION STATUS
                         January 5, 1993

     All spacecraft and science operations are performing well.
Ground controllers are carrying out routine data-gathering
activities and experiment reconfigurations as required.  The 34-
meter ground antennas are being used for ranging when the
spacecraft is sending data at a low bit rate.  Seventy-meter-
antenna ranging passes are also performed periodically.

     Earth-pointing maneuvers were carried out on Dec. 27 and 30,
1992, and on Jan. 3, 1993.  The next maneuver is scheduled for
Jan. 7, 1993.

     Today Ulysses is about 688 million kilometers (428 million
miles) from Earth, traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about
32,000 kilometers per hour (21,000 miles per hour).  Ulysses is
about 15.5 degrees south of the ecliptic plane in which the
planets orbit, slowly looping its way back toward the sun.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life.

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


To: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!hermes.chpc.utexas.edu!news.utdallas.edu!convex!ewright
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DCX tech. info?
Sender: news access account <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:22:03 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.convex.com
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 13
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

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

>How can you have dynamic pressure when you're hovering???

I haven't seen the flight plan, but I believe the high-Q
and hover refer to two different portions of the flight.

>Also, will these flights be pre-programmed onboard, or will they be
>controlled from the ground?

Don't know.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 004
------------------------------