Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v12_5/v12_590.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

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/MbJSFv600VcJA5kU4o>;
          Thu, 29 Nov 1990 23:47:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 1990 23:47:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #590

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 590

Today's Topics:
              Re: Photon engine
              Re: Photon engine
              Re: Photon Engine
        ELV Support to Space Station (1 of 2)
              Re: Save our Shuttle data?
                  Re: Zero-G
          Re: space news from Sept 17 AW&ST
                   signoff
        Recent DoD Space System Cost Data ...
             Re: The Space Plane
              Re: Photon engine
              Re: USENET Apology

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: 23 Nov 90 15:05:13 GMT
From: ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (Brian or James)
Subject: Re: Photon engine

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (*Greg*) writes:
>
>Just think!  You can even heat up the chicken soup for dinner!
>:-)
>
>I like the Photon engine.
>
>Somehow, some shmoe will figger a way to make a photonic engine faster than
>the mass engine.  And leave one in his wake.

    If said 'wake' includes the output from the photon drive, the
only thing left behind with an expanding cloud of plasma. A 100 tonne
ship accelerating at 1 g requires a 3x10**11 watt powerplant. How
does that compare to the human species total power output these days?
(What's that, ~100,000 Pickerings?)

                            James Nicoll

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

Date: 23 Nov 90 21:08:05 GMT
From: bu.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu![e-mail]  (David W Langford)
Subject: Re: Photon engine


 Someone mentioned something about a 'Jell-o' laser. (in reference to the fact  that almost anything can lase) I was wondering if anyone had info on this, as I have not heard of this. It sounds quite amusing if it realy works (even at very low power.

    Thanx,
David Langford
[e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Nov 90 19:05:01 GMT
From: usc!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!src.honeywell.com!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!quest!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]  (S Schaper)
Subject: Re: Photon Engine

The ground based version also has certain interesting military applications.
**************************************************************************
Zeitgeist Busters!
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Nov 90 03:15:05 GMT
From: rex!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: ELV Support to Space Station (1 of 2)

>>... Sums to about $660 Million per year for a Soyuz-based ACRV.
>
> These costs seem reasonable to me.  Now for the interesting part:
>If we use Soyuz as the main method of transportation, is this
>cheaper than using the Shuttle?  It seems to me that the answer is
>yes since we are getting a year's worth of rotation for less than
>the cost of one Shuttle flight.

   Allen, I ran some rough numbers, and surprisingly enough I found
the answer to be the exact opposite.  Here's my calculations.....

   Let's see - we need to use supporting space transportation to
the Space Station for two purposes - logistics resupply and crew
rotation (I'm ignoring expansion of Space Station capability for
now..).  For a rough estimate, I'll use the 40,000-45,000 lb
every 90 days resupply requirement as identified for SSF (noting the
MIR resupply requirement is about 1/2 of this for a space station
approx 1/4 to 1/2 in size).  For resupply I'll assume use of the
Titan-IV.  Furthermore, the shuttle recovers and reuses the SSF
logistics module.  Based upon my limited data on the logistics
module from Boeing, I would estimate a replacement logistics module
to run in the vicinity of $20-40 M each, at constant rate
production.  Refurbishment of the logistics module for reuse, in my
estimation runs about $1-5 million per use (basically a systems
pressure test and checkout of the interfaces and thermal covers).
I'll use $3 M in my calculation.
   I've been relooking at the Titan-IV costs.  Target performance
listed for the Titan-IV is about 40,000 lbs to 100 nmi 28.5 degree
orbit (current performance is about 39,000 lbs) (Source: USAF
Systems Command "Titan-IV Users Handbook"). Moving the destination
to a more typical 250nmi space station orbit cuts the Titan-IV
performance from 40Klbs to about 38,000 lbs.  This excludes the cost
of the transfer and rendezvous system, which adds to the cost, and
reduces the payload available. I estimate we should be able to do
that with about a 1000 lb add-on module, costing about $20 M per
module in rate production.
   For Titan-IV launch costs I'm using the latest data I've found
from the 30 Sept DoD SAR report (see my other message posted on
this), which is about $227 M per flight.  Adding in the reduced
performance and transfer/rendezvous system gives
(227+20+30)*1e6/37e3 = $7490/lb to resupply Space Station.

    But, we still have to account for 2 other factors - crew
rotation and reuse of space experimental apparatus .  For crew
rotation I'm assuming that we uprate the Atlas II system used to
launch the Soyuz, and also launch the crews on it.  This will
require adding a launch escape system and upgrading the ELVs to
"man-rated".  Looking at what was done in the early 1960's to man-
rate the Atlas and Titan-II, the basic launch vehicle remained the
same.  However, added redundancy was added into the avionics system,
each part was spec'ed to a higher tolerance, and in production each
component and system was checked and rechecked several times at each
step of the production process, over and beyond the normal quality
control for a launch vehicle. (Each man-rated vehicle was broken out
of the usual production flow, put into a special area, and worked
and reworked as a unique, on-of-a-kind production item.)
                                                (cont)



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

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

Date: 23 Nov 90 05:55:13 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!censor!geac!aimed!torag![e-mail]  (Walter Dnes)
Subject: Re: Save our Shuttle data?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>Pretty bizarre to think we've come 20 years, with CAD/CAE and materials
>engineering and we can't build something which was put together in the '60s.
>Kinda scary.

     I can see it, 10 years from now. Erik von Daniken's "Space Capsules
of the God's". Conclusive proof of advanced alien civilizations, space
vehicles that mankind cannot duplicate today. Forget this crud about the
"knowledge of the ancients of the 60's". It had to be space aliens.

--
Walter Dnes     [e-mail]
                [e-mail]
                [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Nov 90 16:32:36 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Zero-G

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>>Soviet crews have stayed in orbit for over a year. They have demonstrated
>>that with advanced exercise machinery and lots of exercise it is possbile
>>to return to the Earth after a year in a 0g environment and completely
>>recover.
>
>"Recover" is the key word. Apparently nobody stays up there that long and
>remains what could objectively be called "healthy"...

Depends on what you mean by "healthy".  Bear in mind that the Soviet
one-year cosmonauts were in considerably *better* shape than the earlier
six-month ones; the worst of the scare stories are obsolete, thanks to
changes in procedures (and possibly diet and drugs).

The price for all this, unfortunately, is a *lot* of time spent exercising.
Eliminating, or greatly reducing, that would definitely be an improvement.
--
"I'm not sure it's possible            | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
to explain how X works."               |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 22 Nov 90 11:12:54 GMT
From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Nick Watkins)
Subject: Re: space news from Sept 17 AW&ST

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Henry Spencer):

> the secret Titan IV mission slated for that day.  (This suggests that the
> Titan mission is not considered crucial to the Gulf crisis, since the USAF
> could have bumped the shuttle in that case.)  The earlier leaks are now
> thought to be the result of a valve seal that was damaged when it was
And indeed it probably isn't crucial if it is, as reported, a DSP early warning
satellite. These are useful for spotting tactical missile launches & it
will undoubtedly be useful to have this one positioned in a
geostationary slot where it has a good view of the gulf, however.
Reports have said that an existing one will have been moved to get a
better view.

Nick
--

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

Date: 23 Nov 90 11:08 +0100
From: Jeff Raynor <[e-mail]>
Subject: signoff

signoff space

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

Date: 22 Nov 90 03:13:52 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Recent DoD Space System Cost Data ...

On the net, we've been discussing costs of various space systems.  I
recently ran across the following data from a recent Department of
Defense document which reported to Congress on the current expected
total cost of several satellite and launch vehicle programs within
the DoD.  This data was released on 30 Sep, and includes the
"Selected Acquisition Report" costs for several systems.  Dollar
values are in millions, and are the estimated costs to completion of
the program.  I calculated the current unit average to get an
average unit cost in current dollars.  Current year $ is FY 1991$
(Oct 1990)
                      SAR CURRENT ESTIMATE
                                                         Current
 System              BASE    BASE       CURRENT  SYSTEM    Unit
                     YEAR    YEAR $      YEAR $     QTY  Average
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
 DMSP                  75      696.0    1,771.5    10.0    69.6
 DSCS III              77    1,055.2    2,016.0    15.0   134.4
 DSP                   78    5,663.6    8,314.1    25.0    33.2
 IUS                   75      835.7    1,678.2    11.0   152.6
 NAVSTAR GPS           79    2,402.4    4,366.5    66.0    66.2
 TITAN IV              85   12,620.3   17,009.1    75.0   226.8

   Editorial Notes: These DoD satellite costs are from $33-134 M per
satellite, exclusive of the upper stage costs, which is probably
typical of similar DoD satellites, and are pretty much in agreement
with similar commercial satellites.  The IUS (Inertial Upper Stage),
which has had a troubled cost history, is very expensive - costing
about 5 X the cost of at least one satellite it deploys (the DSP).
   Note also, the current average cost per unit of the Titan IV is
about $226.8 Million with 75 vehicles to be produced, and at about
40,000 lbs into LEO, this is $5670/lb!  This was very suprizing to
me, moreover since this cost cannot include upper stage costs since
IUS costs (used on the Titan IV) are called out as a separate
system.  To perform a typical GEO insertion mission for a
DSP+IUS+Titan IV, it costs $412.6 M on average. Since each DSP
weighs 5200 lbs (Source: AvWeek 19 Nov 90), this is $79,350/lb into
GEO!.  For another typical mission of DSCS+IUS+Titan IV, this would
cost $513.8 M.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                          Space Technology Investor



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

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

Date: 20 Nov 90 18:40:14 GMT
From: igloo!ddsw1!corpane!disk![e-mail]  (Lee Wells)
Subject: Re: The Space Plane

[e-mail] (DAVIS, SW) writes:


>    I was curious if anyone out there knew anything about a possible space
>plane. Some magazines mentioned a experimental high altitude "space plane" that
>could be used to ferry cargo into low earth orbit and could be used commercialy
>to fly passengers from say...New York to Sydney in five hours. I believe it was
>called the "X-87" or something like that. Does anyone know what I'm talking
>about??

The National Aero Space Plane (NASP) is the X-30 series I believe in honor
of the famous X-series of aircraft.

Its first flight is due in '95, and I think they are trying to cut funding for
it. I believe I read this in the MIT technical Review within the last year.
[Call your congressman, and voice your support.... I think getting NASA out
of the rocket business would do wonders for accidents, as in make them
survivable]
--
Lee Wells (pick one address)        [e-mail]
DISK Inc. [a Nixpub machine]        att!chinet!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!disk!wells
502 968 5401 to 5406 [modems]       uunet!ukma!corpane!disk!wells
Louisville, Kentucky U.S.A.         arpa!e.ms.uky.edu!corpane!disk!wells

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

Date: 23 Nov 90 18:27:48 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!bwdls61.bnr.ca!bwdls58!bwdlh490![e-mail]  (Henry Troup)
Subject: Re: Photon engine

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Brian or James) writes:

|>only thing left behind with an expanding cloud of plasma. A 100 tonne
|>ship accelerating at 1 g requires a 3x10**11 watt powerplant. How
|>does that compare to the human species total power output these days?

Well, it must be less than the power output of a shuttle at launch, right?
I don't know how much a shuttle stack weights, but since the payload to orbit
is ~20,000 lbs (10 tonnes), a takeoff mass over 100 tonnes seems certain.
And it pulls more than 1 g.

Remember that 'total power output' and 'total electrical power output' are
quite different.  There are various ways of getting things to lase - and
nearly anything will.  Remember the Jell-O (tm) laser?  There's probably
some rocket fuel that would produce an exhaust plasma that could be excited
into laser action.

And MHD provides some hope of converting rocket energy to electrical.

Math check:

the watt is a unit of work equal to 1 Joule/s

100,000 kg x 10 m/s^2 = 10^6 N (force)

Did you multiply by the speed of light? Why?

Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | The .signature is the
P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4H7| lowest form of humour
uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 [e-mail] [phone] |

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

Date: 24 Nov 90 01:44:36 GMT
From: manta![e-mail]  (Mark H. North)
Subject: Re: USENET Apology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Miles ONeal) writes:
>Dear Mr. White:
>
>Your apoplexy was no doubt excepted with good grace
>in those other places, but such are neither allowed
>or tolerated in t<carasso>b[1,2].
>
>Management has discussed this with legal, whom, after
>a brief flurry of memos with accounting, shopping,
>and the male room, has decided not to press charges
     ^^^^
Pray, tell us more about the male room. Pant.


Rick

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #590
*******************