Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v10_0/v10_075.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.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/IZ7mEWS00VcJM0b04=>;
          Tue, 26 Sep 89 03:24:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 89 03:23:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #75

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 10 : Issue 75

Today's Topics:
Atlas Centaur-68/FLTSATCOM prelaunch news conference set -- preparations proceed on schedule for Sept 22 launch (Forwarded)
         Re: Economies of Scale in Launchers
            Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars.
Study identifies economic benefits from NASA technology spinoffs (Forwarded)
           Re: Analysis of Martian "Face" Announced
              Re: Saturn V & F-1
               Re: VOYAGER 1 and Pluto.
Re: First group of prospective astronauts to arrive at JSC (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 89 00:33:51 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Atlas Centaur-68/FLTSATCOM prelaunch news conference set -- preparations proceed on schedule for Sept 22 launch (Forwarded)

George H. Diller                                   Sept. 14, 1989


NOTE TO EDITORS/NEWS DIRECTORS:

ATLAS CENTAUR-68/FLTSATCOM PRELAUNCH NEWS CONFERENCE SET--
PREPARATIONS PROCEED ON SCHEDULE FOR SEPT 22 LAUNCH


     The pre-launch news conference for Atlas Centaur-68 which
will loft the FltSatCom F-8 communications satellite into orbit
for the U.S. Navy has been scheduled for 2:00 p.m. EDT on
Wednesday, Sept. 20.  Participating in the briefing will be:

James L. Womack, Director, Expendable Vehicles,
NASA Kennedy Space Center

John W. Gibb, Launch Vehicle Project Manager
NASA Lewis Research Center

Frank E. Watkins, Director, Base Operations,
General Dynamics Space Systems, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

Commander James O. Hall, Deputy, FltSatCom Project,
U.S. Navy


     The briefing will be carried by NASA Select television on
Satcom F2-R, transponder 13.  Audio only is also available on the
V-2 circuits which may be dialed directly at 407/867-
1220....1240....1260.

     News Media representatives wishing to attend the briefing
should be at the KSC News Center by 1:15 p.m. for transportation
to the E&O building on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.  Those
needing accreditation should call the KSC News Center at XXX/YYY-
ZZZZ before 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, Sept. 19, to arrange for badging.



REMOTE CAMERA SET-UP FOR LAUNCH

     On Thursday, Sept. 21, photographers may install remote
cameras at Launch Complex 36.  Transportation to the pad will be
provided and will leave the KSC News Center at 4:00 p.m. EDT.



LAUNCH DAY:

     On Friday, Sept. 22, the launch window for AC-68 and
FltSatCom F-8 extends from 4:15 a.m. to 4:45 a.m. EDT.  Media
representatives covering the launch may obtain badging at the
Gate 1 Pass and Identification Building on Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station from 2:45 a.m. until 3:15 a.m.  All media will then
be escorted to Press Site 1 on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

     NASA Select and V-2 coverage of the launch will begin at
3:00 a.m.


     The FltSatCom satellite, encapsulated in the nose fairing,
was hoisted into position atop the Atlas Centaur at Complex 36 on
Sept. 12 and integrated testing with the launch vehicle is
presently underway.

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

Date: 12 Sep 89 18:58:57 GMT
From: hpl-opus!hpccc!hpcc01!hp-ses!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclove![e-mail]  (Bob Campbell)
Subject: Re: Economies of Scale in Launchers

> Mass flow rate affects injector design, thus, more mass flow rate means
> bigger nozzles.  But the shape and expansion ratio will be the same for
> a given design spec, even if you increase mass flow/thrust.

Ahh, biased towards engines over motors . . .

Given a choked, fixed nozzle; mass flow rate is a function of
upstream stagnation pressure.  What determines U.S.P. is left
as an exercise to the reader.

As for nozzles, I seem to remember something along the lines of
a Rao approximation for nozzles.  (Rao being a last name)  Unfortunatly
all that is currently in boxes awaiting a move.  If you are interested
in nozzle design, I could look through my old notes after the move.
As for theory, any good aerodynamics text is a good place to start.

I am amazed by the amount one person can forget in 5 years . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Campbell                Some times I wish that I could stop you from
[e-mail]        talking, when I hear the silly things you say.
Hewlett Packard                                    - Elvis Costello

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

Date: 14 Sep 89 16:27:58 GMT
From: tekbspa!optilink![e-mail]  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (S Schaper) writes:
> At least the Vice President is strongly pro-space. IF he did say that, I am
> sure he has already been corrected. He seems to be an intelligent fellow who

For an elected public official, sure.  But not compared to the average
person, or an electric toaster.

> has enough stage fright to make some truely remarkable gaffs on camera. On the
> other hand, the news media hates his guts and has a history of mis-quoting and
> fabricating speech fragments for others in office that they disagree with.
>
> UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper

I'm inclined to agree with you on this -- sort of like the way the
news media turned Gerald Ford into a clumsy dunce by concentrating on a
small number of accidents.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
"No man is an island" is the beginning of the end of personal freedom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

Date: 15 Sep 89 00:36:44 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Study identifies economic benefits from NASA technology spinoffs (Forwarded)

[Nothing like a bit of spinoff reporting to get the postings flowing. :-) -PEY]

Jim Ball
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                 September 14, 1989

RELEASE:  89-142

STUDY IDENTIFIES ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM NASA TECHNOLOGY SPINOFFS

    A study examining in detail some 250 commercial uses of NASA-
furnished technology has identified estimated economic benefits
totalling nearly $22 billion in sales revenues and cost savings
and an employment impact of more than 350,000 jobs.

    The study, entitled An Exploration of Benefits From NASA
"Spinoff," was conducted for NASA by the Chapman Research Group,
Inc., under contract to NERAC, Inc., a NASA Industrial
Application Center located in Tolland, Conn.

    More than 400 companies were contacted to research the
economic benefits derived from NASA-developed or provided
technology in terms of sales revenues and cost savings,
generation of jobs and contributions in federal corporate
income taxes.  NASA's annual Spinoffs report, first published in
1976, provided the source of the cases studied.

    Based on discussions with the firms that used the NASA
technology, researchers identified 259 cases where the
contribution of the technology to sales or cost savings was
quantifiable.  In these cases, the technology spinoff resulted in
or contributed to sales of $21.3 billion and realized savings of
more than $315 million.  These commercial applications also
produced an estimated $356 million in federal corporate income
taxes.

    The cases, all reported between 1978 and 1986, studied in
this research represent only a small portion of the thousands of
applications of NASA technology.  A follow-on study, currently in
process, will attempt to estimate the full impact of the
estimated 20,000 to 30,000 NASA technology applications.

    Copies of the report may be obtained by writing the NASA
Scientific and Technical Information Facility, P.O. Box 8757,
Baltimore, Md., 21240.

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

Date: 15 Sep 89 00:53:52 GMT
From: tahoe![e-mail]  (queen)
Subject: Re: Analysis of Martian "Face" Announced


    Well I heard on the radio today 9/14 that in today's
_Wall_Street_Journal_ on page 2 there is an article about
this in which apparently a Congressman in a position of
power over NASA is forcing them to alter their next flight
so the new flight will include a close pass over the region
of interest.  Once again.  Some congressman wants NASA to
get some more photos of the area, better photos, and he is
powerful enough to make them do it.  I heard this on a
national talk show.  It should be true, however the following
is a complete lie.  The Pres. denies any interest in U.F.O's
and claims that area 51 is "just a mess of bushes".  That's
not what the alien's told me.  I saw the smoking pipe come
roaring out of the sky, and the nightmarish grin drove me
completely mad.

    "Control this is shuttle 375, over///"

    CONTROL/central

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

Date: 14 Sep 89 21:58:52 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!ttidca![e-mail]  ( Avatar)
Subject: Re: Saturn V & F-1

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
+I should reply on this, since I wrote that one for Eugene.  Note that Eugene

 I think Henry, the dialog needs to include a complete explaination. I thank
you for taking the time to do so. It's sooo easy to just sit back and muse:
 "..eh? Freakin California-Dweeb!.." My major point is this: We *can* do it!
..and it'll cost less if we get started NOW!
+
+Boeing is; they investigated the matter at great length for the Jarvis
+project, for which they very badly wanted to use the F-1 and J-2 engines.
+They concluded that it just was not economically practical to put them
+back into production.
+
 One of the problems with Boeing's worksheet is that the labor figures were
way-high. They concluded that the engine line would have been transplanted
(in one sceneario) and that a "seed-crew" would then train new-hires. Wrong!
 The way around this is to re-hire the old-timers, pay 'em a good salary,
but keep a lid on it, the current learning curve on things like building a
complex piece of machinery is what makes it *seem* "too expensive". The
real cincher here is find people to apprentice to the old-timers, without
demanding a 6 figure salary. Not impossible..go figure. Find some bad-boys
and offer them a new job as an apprentice instead of a janitor!
+
+Sigh.  The shape of a component is the least of your problems.  Things like
+exact composition, heat-treatment methods, etc. are also of great relevance
+to structural strength and the like.  Re-engineering all this is possible,
+but it is not much easier than starting from scratch -- the result is quite
+likely to be different enough to require a whole new series of tests.
+
 None of which is lost! It's stored in the minds of a aging crowd of guys
and gals that built the orignals! They're all sitting around and getting
older! We need to tap this resource before it dies off.
+
+Uh, are they equipped to test for space qualification?  (Vacuum, heat, high
+vibration, etc. etc.)  I doubt that very much.  Besides, here again we are
+talking about starting from scratch rather than reviving the old design.
+
 We're not talking about any such thing. Scratch means "without a clue"..
..the clue is those 3 units that are on display. And as for the testing phase
of certification, let me remind everyone that there are facilities lying
very dormant, right now, to do just this.  Lockheed Air has mothballed an
entire building that has just such equipment.
+
+Do you have references for this?  What's their price for reviving the
+production line?  (If you mean they still have a few in storage, yes,
+they do... but I wouldn't fly on one, not after two decades of storage.)
+
 Sure, talk to some Apollo-era engineers. To a person, everyone of them
will tell you the same thing: That we can do, and that it's not too late to
try! Most will be quite vocal about the screwups in NASA planning, the fact
that most of those involved in killing (yes, that's what I said!) the Saturn
were 'Empire Builders'..and that the Shuttle, despite being a fab-piece of
hardware, has sucked the life out of what was once a well-organized space
effort. Bad planning, bad management and lack of foresight. Once they tell
you the horror-stories about the Attack of The Weenie-weemba's circa 1974
they'll also tell you that Apollo/Saturn was the height of their careers..
and most (like 90%+!) would be willing to do it again.

+And remember that you've got to find somewhere to launch the things from,
+since all the Saturn V facilities at KSC have been extensively modified
+for the shuttle.  (And no, they did not preserve Saturn compatibility.)
+
+It's just not as easy as it looks.  Alas.
+--

 This is a real problem. No doubt a new launch complex would have to be
built. Again, bad planning to have not seen the need for heavy-lift launchers
and I think that the bozos at NASA HQ should be drawn and quartered for their
stupidity. Tough, so we buid a new one.

 A plan might help, I offer this one. It's simple, it's just about reviving
heavy-lift capability. It offers nothing for the 'Empire Builders', it's not
going to appeal to the armchair-experts, or the MBA assholes that ruined us
in the first place..but for those people who have *ever* turned a wrench, or
built a machine, or hacked a line of code, or done any real-work, this plan
(or something like it) is the cornerstone towards restoring a capacity that
should never have been "lost" under the mountain of red-tape BS that NASA's
'mis-managers' generated, or the smokescreen of "costs"! To wit:

 1) Raise enough funds thru the space interest groups to buy a suitable plot
of land, buy the machinery (CNC's etc=very costly!).
 2) Lobby Congress for a sweet-deal on those 3 remaining Saturn V's.
 3) Erect the needed structures ajacent to the launch facility..like a large
prefab vehicle assembly room, etc.
 4) Get in touch with as many Apollo-era engineers as possible, offer them a
chance to make the history books a second time! Most will be unable to resist!
 5) Reverse-engineer whatever can be gleaned from the 'surviving Saturns'.
 6) Build a new vehicle.
 7) Get a payload contract for the new bird. (here's the business-end)
 8) Launch it.
 9) goto 6

 The problems are technical, the need is for funds. It's cheaper than doing
Yet-Another-Oneoff-Design. We don't need anymore nepotistic NASA managment
screwups, all we need is a program that is oriented towards building a new
set of Saturns. Nothing else. Just more of what we once had..the Chinese
Long March is a freaking crude machine, it's manufactured to loose-tolerences,
but it works! The effort to revive the Saturn V cannot be written-off as
"too expensive"..this is not an accurate picture. It is a myth, that NASA
management has spread to keep the Shuttle Program from having to compete
with the Saturn. We should all be aware (by now) that if the Shuttle cannot
compete on a costs basis, it should be set aside. It's real hard to beat
a dumb booster for getting stuff into orbit. It's the difference between
taking a bus and driving a Formula 1 racecar to work. Yeah, the bus is an
ordinary way to travel, but it gets a lot of people to where they are going!

 It's real easy, the question is are we interested enough to DO it or do we
just want to play the paperwork game??!! I respect you, Henry, your ascerbic
wit and posture about the business of spaceflight has made me glad you're on
and talking to us. Think about this, because if we do it today, it's possible
..if we wait another 5-10 years..some of the expertise will be dead and buried,
with only their loved ones to mourn their passing..and we still won't have
the heavy-lift capability they once gave us.

--
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI                          *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   [phone], ext. 2973 +-------------------------+
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz **

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

Date: 15 Sep 89 03:58:13 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: VOYAGER 1 and Pluto.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>...Looking at the whole solar system, V1 is sort of vaguely near
>>Pluto.  That means a few hundred million kilometers from it.  It's not
>>going to get any closer.
>
>So would a Voyager picture of Pluto be better than an Earth based picture?

I think not.  It's much farther away from Pluto than V2 was from Neptune
late last year, when V2 Neptune images started being better than Earth ones.
--
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Sep 89 04:58:55 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: First group of prospective astronauts to arrive at JSC (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>     Approximately 100 of the nearly 2500 total applicants are
>expected to be interviewed here over the next several weeks for
>an opportunity to be among the final 15 to 20 who will be named
>as astronaut candidates in January 1990.

and he then lists the first 20 of this first 100, complete with full
names and places of origin.  Happy as I am for these folks, I hope
we will not have to wade through the same info about the other 2480 :-)
--
'We have luck only with women --   ((O    Tom Neff
         not spacecraft!'           \\\   [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #75
*******************