Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v12_5/v12_566.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 21KB

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/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/wbFCMVS00VcJMC1U4K>;
          Sat, 17 Nov 1990 02:26:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 1990 02:25:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #566

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 566

Today's Topics:
                Co-op opening
            heavy-expendable availability
        Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3)
Re: The Ariane V36 failure (was Re: Ariane launches ON TIME! (again))
            Re: Creationists and moon dust
            Re: Ted Molczan -- online !!!
           Re: Pity The Much Abused Shuttle
            Re: sci.space or talk.origins?
Re: The Ariane V36 failure (was Re: Ariane launches ON TIME! (again))
               Re:  New Shuttle Engines
             Misc: Space Station and ACRV

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Nov 90 17:04:34 GMT
From: psuvm![e-mail]
Subject: Co-op opening

I am currently on a co-op with GE Astro-Space in King of Prussia, PA but I am l
ooking for some place closer to my home in Piitsburgh to have a co-op.  Does an
yone out there have any ideas of somewhere either in the Pittsburgh area or wit
hin a 2-3 hour drive (Pittsburgh is in the southwestern corner of PA).  A co-op
 is when you take time off from school to work full time for a company.  I am t
rying to check into NASA Lewis in Clevland and a few other places but I m curio
us if anyone out there knows of any other plave (or the right people to contact
 at NASA lewis)  Any help would be appreciated.

                                            Glenn Szydlowski
                                            GWS102 at PSUVM.PSU.EDU

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

Date: 15 Nov 90 16:30:39 GMT
From: van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: heavy-expendable availability

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Radley) writes:
>Titan-IV has a heavy backlog, and is not available for anything.
>Latest NASA thinking on ELVs, according to Space News, would be to
>consider use of Atlas or Delta.  Titan-IV is not in the running.
>Hermes is designed to be launched on Ariane, and those will certainly
>be available.

Ariane currently also has a heavy backlog, and is not available for
anything.  By the time the US actually starts launching a space station --
at the current rate, the year 2000 or later -- both will have capacity
available if work is started now on providing it.
--
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 15 Nov 90 17:31:41 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wales Larrison) writes:
>    True, if run by the government for the bureaucracy.  But if you
>are in favor of turning ELV launch operations over to private firms,
>why not turn the Shuttle over to a private operation? ...

Well, the obvious reason is "because NASA will never give it up"... :-(
--
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 15 Nov 90 08:17:00 GMT
From: monsoon.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: The Ariane V36 failure (was Re: Ariane launches ON TIME! (again))

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael MRAZ) writes:
>
>I'd sure like to know what water is doing in a propulsion system.
>I don't know anything about the Ariane, but I've never heard
>of water used for anything other than cooling the pad or quenching
>astronaut/cosmonaut thirsts. ;->  Can anyone enlighten me, please?

Cooling, if I understand those engines right.
(not the whole engine, just parts.  and when those parts got hot,
the computer lowered the thrust trying to keep it from blowing up...
and the result was catastrophic.)


  == George William Herbert ==   **There are only two truly infinite things,**
 == JOAT for Hire: Anything, ==  *   the universe and stupidity.  And I am   *
=======Anywhere, My Price======= *  unsure about the universe.  -A.Einstein  *
 ==   [e-mail]   ==  *********************************************
  ==     ucbvax!ocf!gwh     == The OCF Gang:  Making Tomorrow's Mistakes Today

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

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 09:36:58 EST
From: "Lee S. Ridgway" <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Creationists and moon dust

>This is straying pretty far from immediate Space Digest concerns

Not really. Space exploration depends on science and engineering, and
that means honest education in such fields, unburdened by religious myth.

>... the 16 year reign of Creationists
>in the selection of Texas schoolbooks has been broken!
>This is important to
>the rest of the country because (for some reason) most states follow the
>Texas lead in schoolbook selection.

The reason is that Texas - and California, the other state with major
textbook influence - approve and purchase textbooks at the state level,
in such large quantities that publishers generally publish what those two
states want, which is what others states will get also, because that's
all that the publishers will bother publishing, etc., etc.
Besides, if Texas and California approve, it must be good...

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

Date: 15 Nov 90 14:50:09 GMT
From: ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird![e-mail]  (TS Kelso)
Subject: Re: Ted Molczan -- online !!!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A. v.d. Kooij) writes:
>The orbital elements of T.S. Kelso were very useful for our work and
>hobby, and we also miss them very much. So if there is another source we
>would be very interested.
>B.T.W. does anyone have current orb.elements of Dr. Kelso himself, i.e.
>knows why he stopped his service to this newsgroup ?

The rumors of the demise of posting elements to the network are premature.
I still continue to post the elements weekly to *sci.space* -- they have
never been posted to sci.astro.  If you are having problems with not getting
the elements, it is probably due to one of the network links between us; drop
me a line if this is the case.  I will continue to post the orbital elements
as long as I have the ability to do so (which should be for quite some time
to come).  I'm glad to hear that you all find them so useful and hope we can
iron out any distribution problems soon.  - TS

--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]          Air Force Institute of Technology

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

Date: 15 Nov 90 15:12:33 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Pity The Much Abused Shuttle

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Barak Pearlmutter) writes:

>NASA has always been a dual purpose agency, pursuing civilian goals
>which frequently have clear and important military utility, and
>coordinating their activities closely with the military.

Going to the moon was military? Skylab was designed as a glorified spy
platform? Excuse me, let me call the National Enquirer and let them in on your
schoop....

>For
>instance, many of our ballistic missiles are based on civilian
>launchers,

<bzzt> Wrong. Other way around, in the Early Days (ie: Pre-60s). The only
example you can give here is Titan series. Minuteman, Polaris, MX, Trident
and prob'ly a couple of others (ie: the current basis of the strategic
deterrent force) were ALL developed separately, and have NO basis in the
"civilian" arena.

>many of the shuttle's missions are military,

Many? I don't have averages, but it's not "many." There's a sick story about
how the Military first wanted the shuttle and expendables, but only got the
shuttle. Sorry, my brain has faded out on this point.

>and most astronauts are members of the armed forces.

Well, in the early days, yeah, but only because the "armed forces" had
experienced people.

>Viewed in this context, the shuttle should be seen as a dual purpose
>vehicle.  Rather than a space truck, it's more like a space pickup or
>jeep.  In a space battle, it would be a formidable weapon.

It's a SITTING duck. You cannot (can NOT, nonono) launch it on anything like a
48 hour basis, or with any sort of predictability (Quiz question: How long has
the Shuttle Atlantis been posponed from launch?) Several novels (including _The
Third World War_ by Gen. Sir John Hackett, and _Silver Tower_ by Dale Brown)
have illustrated the vulnerability of the shuttle to attact, and the
HELPLESSNESS of it's situtation should it get attacked by a Killer Soyuz or
Soviet SpaceFighter.

r.  In the event that manned space stations are
>important, people could be tossed in a pressurized can in the cargo
>compartment, allowing a considerable boarding party to be transported
>to an enemy space station if necessary.

Why board? Kill it. Lot easier for everyone. Besides, how do you get in the
airlocks when they leave the inner door open. You're effectively sealed out by
14.7 psi (Or whatever cabin pressure the Soviets use).

>If our spy satellites have
>been taken out, and our ground stations are in disarray, the shuttle
>can just fly by with a telescope and a couple 35mm cameras.

It's a hell of a lot easier to kill a shuttle flight than it would be to kill a
spy sat. Assuming you could get the shuttle off the ground before the war (?)
ended.

> If we think a satellite is nasty but aren't sure, or aren't sure what it's
>for, the shuttle can just mosey on over and have a look.  And--here's
>the coup de gras--it can just reach out it's arm and plop an enemy
>satellite in the cargo bay!  This would be of incalculable
>intelligence benefit.

Mr. Buck Rogers, what do you do if the intel sat has been fused with
explosives? What do you do when the Soviets declare war because you've plucked
one of their sats are out of the sky.

>consequence of being just human.  And maybe the shuttle actually
>prevented the militarization of space, by being such a big gun that
>the USSR would have been crazy to try to fight it.  If so, maybe it
>actually saved us a lot of money and anxiety.

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

Date: 15 Nov 90 15:18:12 GMT
From: eagle![e-mail]  (Ronald E. Graham)
Subject: Re: sci.space or talk.origins?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes...

>In article <[e-mail]>
     [e-mail] (Larry Wall) writes:

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

>>: In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:

>>: >This is coming from the point of view of a "creationist" who doesn't
>>: >care how old the world is, or the mechanism by which it was made: only
>>: >who started the mechanism.  [...]

>>: I've got to ask what a creationist with this unscientific attitude is doing
>>: in a sci group or for that matter receiving my tax dollars at a public
>>: scientific institution. Don't you belong in a Monastary sir? I've
>>: got no quarrel with someone who might say God created the big bang, now
>>: let's work out the science from there. But someone who says God created
>>: the Universe and then declares that that is all that counts and disavows any
>>: interest in working out the science can't claim to be a scientist or be
>>: trusted to do scientific work.

>>Could it perhaps be that you've misread Ron's article?  I read the "doesn't
>>care" as an assertion of open-mindedness on the means, not lack of interest.
>>As such, there is nothing there inconsistent with a scientific attitude, apart
>>from any emotional baggage you wish to attach to the word "creationist",
>>which, after all, he did put into quotes to tell you it wasn't being used in
>>the ordinary sense.

>>While we're on the subject of being in touch with reality, you shouldn't
>>assume that everyone who works at a scientific institution is a scientist,
>>either.  (I think there are more secretaries than scientists at JPL.  Which
>>is not to say that the rest of us aren't keenly interested in science...)
>>Using such an assumption as the basis of a quasi-diatribe is not in the
>>best interests of net harmony.

>Ok, I probably over-reacted to what may have been merely an unclear choice
>of words on the original posters part. Sorry net.

Mr. Coffman, let's get one thing straight: I said what I meant.  Any lack of
clarity is on your part alone.  "Over-reacted" is a under-statement.  How
dare you take it upon yourself to decide, without looking at the facts, who
is qualified to do scientific/technical work, and who isn't?  You apologize
to the net, but you should be apologizing to me: I'm the one you chiefly
offended, and you did it purposely and with malice in mind.  (If this were
not the case, you would not have tried to shift your blame to me.)  And then
you "apologize" for being unable to take this to e-mail.

In the future, I hope to participate in *scientific* and *technical*
discussions in this forum.  How about you, Mr. Coffman?  Grrrr.

RG

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

Date: 15 Nov 90 18:22:48 GMT
From: van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The Ariane V36 failure (was Re: Ariane launches ON TIME! (again))

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>>I'd sure like to know what water is doing in a propulsion system.
>
>Cooling, if I understand those engines right.

No, it's messier than that.  The fuel is used for cooling; the amount of
water involved is small by comparison.  They inject it into the chamber
to influence the combustion process in some manner, but I don't know the
details.  I was hoping somebody who did would comment.
--
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 16 Nov 90 06:42:14 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton![e-mail]  (Brett Vansteenwyk)
Subject: Re:  New Shuttle Engines

My impression was (especially from reading Feynman's book) that the SSMEs were
virtually rebuilt after each launch--the component parts going into a system
of inspection and repair such that when a given engine was rebuilt, many
of the pieces in the new build came from other engines that were also in the
rebuild process at the time--the original engine's parts by and large would
not find one another again, except for statistical chance.  It seemed that
each engine was disassembled into some pretty small pieces, where they could
be inspected, repaired, etc., and that the rebuild was as involved as building
a new engine.  Cracked turbine blades were a big item here.  Anyway, this is
what I referred to as the "enormous refurbishment cost".  If this sort of
undertaking is no longer as extensive as I have described, then it would
seem that these engines have come quite a way, and would be quite happy
to hear of it.

I am curious as to how much of a design difficulty it is to have an engine
operate (well or otherwise) at both sea level and in the vacuum (just a matter
of ambient pressure or much more?).  If this is a heavy constraint, why light
the SSMEs at sea level at all when it would seem that you could replace
that thrust (1/6 or so of the total) by adding another booster and then
lighting them high up at, say, the booster separation?  I realize that there
is a certain reluctance to tacking on an SRB, but if LRBs get developed,
could this become a viable option?

By the way, I remember that there is some consideration (or ongoing effort)
to adapting the RL-10 to operate at sea level.  Is this a good example of
this sort of design "difficulty"?

[Really random question]  Aside from the weight consideration, how close do
automobile turbochargers come to the operating conditions of their
counterparts (with a stretch of the imagination) in some of the lower
performance rocket engines?

        --Brett Van Steenwyk

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

Date: 14 Nov 90 02:58:10 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Misc: Space Station and ACRV

Allan, you've made a couple of statements that I might be able to
shed some light on...

>4. Conceptual Design Study for Modular Inflatable Space Structures,
>   a final report for purchase order B098747 by ILC Dover INC. I
>   don't know how to get this except from LLNL or ILC Dover. I
>   don't have an address for ILC.
  Try ILC Dover, P.O. Box 266 Warrington Rd, Frederica, DE 19946.
Phone [phone].  That's the group at ILC which manufactures
spacesuit parts and life support systems.

   Also, I'm surprised why no one has discussed a prime factor
regarding the possible use of a Soyuz for the Space Station ACRV
role -- the Soyuz is rated only for a duration of 120-160 days in
space.  After launch of a Salyut or Mir crew,, the Soviets rotate
the on-orbit Soyuz spacecraft with each "visiting" Cosmonaut crew,
having the visitors come up with a "fresh" capsule, and return with
the "old".  A few years ago, this became a major concern when the
Soyuz on-orbit exceeded its design life, and a replacement mission
was rushed off the pad (the planned cyclic mission had a guidance/
software failure, and had to abort - leaving their space station
crew with no "assured crew return" capability.)
    We would either have to redesign Soyuz, reuse them, or rotate
them.  Redesigning them, we might as well design in compatibility
with other U.S. systems (like ELVs), and compatible subsystems.
But, I don't think we'd save money - to get 10+ years in space we'd
need to rework and change every subsystem.
  Soyuzes are not designed for reusability.  I've seen no evidence
of reusability, particularly in the structure and the heat shield
design. The structure takes a severe up/down impact from their
landing retrorockets going off about 2 meters above the ground, and
then an second impact when it drops the rest of the way.  Reuse
would need (at least!) a complete tear-down, inspection, and re-
certification of all structures and subsystems.  I think it'd be
cheaper to produce another - particularly if there's a production
line open. (Which is what the Soviets do...)
  If we rotate Soyuzes to keep a fresh set on orbit (we would need
at least 3 for a 8 man space station crew -more if we assume 1 may
be unavailable when needed), the cost is $150 M every 120 days in
procurement (using your $50M per Soyuz value and assuming no
learning curve since the Soviets are already far down the curve).
If we can stretch the space-qualified period to 180 days (added
costs...), we can get by with $300 Million per year.  Since it'll
probably take an Atlas II to launch each at about $60 M per launch
(not including orbital rendezvous capability, which also needs to be
added in...), so there's another 6*60= $360M per year.  Sums to
about $660 Million per year for a Soyuz-based ACRV.
   IF Soyuzes are chosen, we could bring unused Soyuzes down via
Shuttle (it does provide a pretty soft landing...), refurb them on
the ground, and relaunch them.  Figuring refurbishment at about $10
M each, we could save $600M per year (exclusive of transportation).
Since the shuttle can easily carry 3 Soyuzes up at once, this is a
going proposition if Shuttle launch costs are kept below
$300M/launch. (A challenging goal, but not unachievable...)
   Or, we could spend some DDT&E money and develop a system to last
10-30 years on orbit, and be maintainable on orbit.  Compared to
$6.6 B per decade derived above, a $2-3 B development cost (if we
believe that number...) is preferred.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor



--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #566
*******************