Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_4/v9_430.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/0YOuocy00UkZJdLU5E>;
          Sat, 13 May 89 00:20:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 13 May 89 00:20:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #430

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 430

Today's Topics:
               News of the Week, May 11
        Re: funding large scale space hardware
                  Re: Giotto
          Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
                Rad hard IC's
        Re: funding large scale space hardware
        Re: funding large scale space hardware
            Re: Citizens in Space
           Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
      Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #421
              Phobos replacement
            Re: Phobos replacement
        Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #421
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 May 89 15:04:30 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: News of the Week, May 11


Jonathan's Space Report

May 11, 1989 (no. 15)

The space shuttle Atlantis landed at Edwards AFB on the main runway (RW22)
on May 8.

The Magellan Venus Radar Mapper probe was launched by IUS rocket into solar
orbit on May 5 after its deployment from Atlantis.

A Titan 34D/IUS payload was launched toward geostationary orbit on May 10
from Cape Canaveral; its payload is probably a pair of Phase III Defense
Satellite Communications System (DSCS III) sats. This is the 5th US space
launch of the year.

The second 'Foton' satellite, launched on Apr 26, carries a French
materials processing experiment. It is due to land on May 12.

Kosmos-2019 was launched on May 5; no data yet.

The Kosmos-2017 Vostok-class recon satellite landed on about Apr 20
after 14 days in space.  Kosmos-2005, a long duration recon satellite,
landed on Apr 25, 5 days after being replaced by Kosmos-2018.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell, all rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 6 May 89 17:12:48 GMT
From: shlump.dec.com!jfcl.dec.com!imokay.dec.com![e-mail]  (Doug Borsom)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Boeing spent $1 billion of its own money on the 747.  (Note:  not even
>borrowed money, *its own* money.)  And did the same thing again with
>$2 billion for the 757 and 767.  Airliners have payback periods somewhat
>longer than three months.  Nobody has yet mounted a takeover attempt.
>
While this refutes the statement in the posting Henry was replying to, it
shouldn't make anyone optimistic about the prospects of Boeing or any
other private company spending billions (or semi-billions) on projects
for which the market prospects are *very* questionable.  Compared with
the payback chances for a space plane or shuttle-type vehicle, the
chances for the 7(456)7 were a sure thing.

Boeing and the rest are going to invest big bucks only if they believe
there's a good chance they'll make bigger bucks.

Of course I could be wrong.  That must be why Boeing, McD-Douglas, and
Lockheed all build commercial supersonic transports.

>....  Remember
>that they (with Hughes) offered to build the Jarvis heavylift booster out
>of their own pockets, if NASA and the USAF would guarantee a market.
>....

How daring of them. This usage badly stretches the notion of a privately
funded space program. Did Boeing demand a similar market guarantee from the
airline companies when it developed the 7(456)7?

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

Date: 9 May 89 15:34:34 GMT
From: jarthur![e-mail]  (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Giotto

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Gray) writes:
>
>Giotto will use the Earth's gravity during its close approach
>on July 2, 1990 to alter its course to intercept comet
>Grigg-Skellerup on July 10, 1992.

I heard some (*gag*) press reports that they were going to recover
Giotto and check out some neat Halley's Comet samples that it got
sandblasted with.  Is this true (eventually?)
--
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
[e-mail] | think of something very clever
uunet!muddcs!jarthur!jokim  | to use as a disclaimer)

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

Date: 10 May 89 15:18:38 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!briar.philips.com![e-mail]  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

I believe I once heard that Enterprise was damaged (bent frame? or something)
and was not flightworthy.  Any truth to this?

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

Date: Wed, 10 May 1989 16:34-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Rad hard IC's

Harris makes them.

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

Date: 10 May 89 16:28:38 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John B Scalia) writes:
>>Boeing spent $1 billion of its own money on the 747...
>
>the 747 series was originally designed for a DOD request for a large troop/
>cargo carrier. Boeing lost to the C-5 design. Essentially, they were then
>stuck with a huge craft...

Partially true.  The design originated as the C-5's competitor.  However,
on losing that competition, the billion dollars got invested to turn that
military airlifter into a civilian airliner -- not a small job, and not
a trivial set of changes.  You can still see the airlifter in some overall
aspects of the design, notably the overhead flight deck -- to leave the
nose clear for cargo doors -- but the resemblance isn't that close any more.

>...Thus, Boeing didn't design it for altruistic reasons.

Boeing doesn't design *anything* for altruistic reasons!

>... Prove to me that I can make money there, and
>obviously a whole lot of money, and I'll race to the bank to arrange
>my products and people being there.

The problem with space is the "prove" part.  In the absence of something
like the air-mail subsidies that got aviation going, profits from space
look very uncertain and very speculative.  Boeing (for example) does have
billions to throw around if it wants to, but it can't spend them without
being able to make a fairly good case that profits will probably ensue.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 May 89 21:51:34 GMT
From: vygr![e-mail]  (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO})
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

There was an item on Boeing last night on Lehrer/MacNeil.

Boeing currently has a $70 Billion dollar backlog of planes
ordered. This is over 500 planes. Boeing has over 60%
of the market for commercial aircraft.

Boeing can produce 1 aircraft per day.

So at ~ 140 Million per plane, Boeing will make
$35M per plane(25% profit), times 365 planes per year, is
12 Billion dollars. Profit.

(I might have got the backlog number wrong).
# mike (sun!mae), M/S 8-04
"I'd rather sniff French shit for 5 years then eat
Chinese shit the rest of my life"  -Ho Chi Minh-

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

Date: 9 May 89 23:37:04 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Citizens in Space

In response to a posting of mine, Mike Van Pelt makes the point that the
engineers who said no launch were overruled by their mangements, not NASA.
So, sue Morton Fireball (which I think they did.)  Keith Henson

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

Date: Wed, 10 May 89 13:07:35 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?


>Subject: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
>Could someone with the technical know-how build a
>useful satellite out of components bought at the local Radio Shack
>and hardware store?
>(Remember, for the purposes of this exercise, you aren't NASA, you
>are J.Doe, building your own space probe. We'll leave aside for
>the moment the problems and costs of actually launching the thing)
>Jeremy Edward
>EDWARDJ@RMC

There's a wide range in the reliability/price tradeoff between what NASA
and the military do and what you can do with off-the-shelf Radio Shack
parts. With a little care and a slight increase in cost, you can greatly
increase the probability that your satellite/probe will work properly,
which makes a lot of sense when you consider launch costs and your
investment of time.

  - The environmental conditions most likely to be a problem are vacuum,
    extreme temperatures, and thermal cycling. Find out what components are
    most likely to survive the expected conditions, by asking or by
    experimentation. This can be especially critical for components such
    as batteries and electrolytic capacitors. The shock of takeoff is
    another factor which the completed structure of your device must be
    able to withstand.

  - If your design uses TTL digital logic, using 54-series parts is not
    much more expensive than using 74-series chips, and greatly extends
    the rated temperature range (some thermal protection may still be
    required). Other technologies may be even better. A wide assortment of
    parts are available through mail order or from local distributors.

  - Good radiation hardness is difficult to achieve without specially-selected
    parts. Some circuit technologies are more resistant to radiation effects
    than others (I forgot which ones).

  - Consider using other techniques for reliable system design (redundancy,
    safety interlocks (an amateur satellite design a few years ago forgot
    about that), diagnostics, status reports, reset capability, etc.)

  - Remember which parts of the satellites work well, for inclusion in future
    designs.
                                    John Roberts
                                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 9 May 89 11:39:53 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!acorn!ixi![e-mail]  (Clive)
Subject: Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>Arthur C. Clarke's book "Rendezvous with Rama" postulated that Earth needed to
>be warned about approaching meteorites after several near-misses such as those
>described above.
It wasn't a near miss. After the hit, there was no more Venice.
--
Clive D.W. Feather           [e-mail]
IXI Limited                  ...!mcvax!ukc!ixi!clive (riskier)
                             [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 10 May 1989 11:17-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #421

> dedicated their entire lives to.  Just another indicator of what a sick,
> litiguous society this can be.

Should I ever be so lucky as to fly in space, I intend to add a clause
to my will that states that anyone who sues anything involved with
space gets zilch. And maybe I'd even add a letter damning them to
eternal hell fires and promising to haunt them for going against my
deepest beliefs. (@i(I) may not believe in such supernatural claptrap, but
maybe I'd make the guilty one(s) lose sleep the rest of their lives!)

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

Date: 10 May 89 15:54:48 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Phobos replacement

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Firth) writes:
>Obligatory spacey content: has Russia announced any plans for a new
>Mars probe to replace the lost Phoboses? (phoboi?).  Given their
>engineering attitude, I'd have expected one by now.

Advance peek at AW&ST:  there has been discussion of launching the third
Phobos, previously earmarked as a ground test article, in either the next
launch window (1990) or the one after (1992).

It's pleasant to see that the Soviets are willing to consider using such
hardware when it can no longer be of use to the original mission(s).
The Smithsonian is full of the US equivalent, notably Viking 3 and
Voyager 3.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 May 89 22:43:05 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Phobos replacement

Henry Spencer writes:
> [speculation about Soviets using 3rd Phobos probe]
> It's pleasant to see that the Soviets are willing to consider using such
> hardware when it can no longer be of use to the original mission(s).
> The Smithsonian is full of the US equivalent, notably Viking 3 and
> Voyager 3.

Ahh..back to *that* subject again! :-)

There is a *slight* difference though; both the Viking and Voyager easily
accomplished their primary missions, and more. But if the money had been
available, those extra missions could have been quite interesting...landing
the Viking lander in an area deemed unsafe for the first two, or flying
the Voyager on some very interesting but potentially hazardous Jupiter
fly-by, for instance. Ahh...dreaming is free!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | [e-mail] (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

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

Date: 10 May 89 15:50:50 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know *why* the USAF did this?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
> (1963)   The U.S. Air Force launches 400 million tiny copper needles
>          into Earth orbit, despite protests they might play havoc with
>          radio and optical astronomical observations.

It was an experiment at producing a radio reflector (sort of a passive
comsat) that would be effectively indestructible.  Basically didn't work.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:    Wed, 10 May 89 08:38 EDT
From: BJ Backitis (656-3799)               <[e-mail]>
         (Information Systems Development)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #421


>
> Date: 7 May 89 22:20:21 GMT
> From: blake![e-mail]  (William Lewis)
> Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
>
> (some stuff deleted)
>
>     Seems to me I remember an article about this in a magazine a while back,
> maybe a year or 8 months ago. It covered some people who built satellites
> on their own. The satellites were called OSCAR ### (i.e., OSCAR 1, OSCAR 2,
> and so on) They were launched in extra spaces of boosters being used for
> other purposes (communications satellites) and so they didn't have much
> choice about the orbits. However, the article said that many were operating
> at the time it was written. I forget what theyw were geing used as.
>
> ------------------------------
>
OSCAR stands for Orbital Sattelites Carrying Amateur Radio, and are
funded and built thru private concerns.  It is thru organizations such
as AMSAT-NA here in the US, plus other similiar ones in other countries,
that small communications sattelites are placed into orbit for use by
Amateur Radio Operators (i.e., Hams).  The original ones were in LEO,
are a number still are (FUJI-OSCAR 12, launched by Japan, and RS-10/11
launched by the Soviets), whiles others are in highly elliptical orbits
with apogees approaching near-geosynch orbital heights.  If I am not
mistaken, these sattelites have been built and launched without using
any Government funding.

************************************************************************
* Frank J. "BJ" Backitis, Jr.     * Disclaimer: My views are shared by *
* Information Systems Development * over 1 million inebraited tribbles *
* Clemson University, Clemson SC  * _________________________________  *
* [e-mail] or        * Ham Radio Operators Do It With     *
* [e-mail]         * More Frequency -- de KM4RB         *
************************************************************************

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #430
*******************