Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_0/v13_094.txt

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/kbdy:Ga00WBwA2GU5r>;
          Thu, 31 Jan 91 04:25:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 04:25:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #094

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 13 : Issue 94

Today's Topics:
    What the Shuttle is good for (was: Re: Why man rate?)
              Magellan Update - 01/25/91
    Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST)
           Re: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST
          Re: Commercial Space News (4 of 4)
    Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST)
              Re: More on space cameras
    Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST)

Administrivia:

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

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

Date: 25 Jan 91 20:21:29 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!freedom![e-mail]  (David Cornutt)
Subject: What the Shuttle is good for (was: Re: Why man rate?)

[e-mail] (Craig L Cole) writes:

>If we don't learn to operate shuttles, we'll be lauching atop ELVs
>forever. The NASP program wouldn't exist either. The shuttle isn't
>what it was expected to be, but it still is a major step in the
>right direction.

That's one of my points.  Saying that we'll rely on ELV's into the
indefinite future is shortsighted at best, and shortsightedness has
been one of our biggest problems in space program planning.  (By "we",
I mean the whole country.)

>What is true, is that the shuttle, being the expensive vehicle it is,
>is being used for what it is best at -- life sciences, micrograv
>research, delicate deploys, etc. No more run-of-the-mill satellite
>deploys. They SHOULDN'T be launched via the shuttle. Its not only
>cheaper to do it with ELVs, but it takes away from true sciences
>and experiments only the shuttle can perform.

I'll buy that.  Someday, spaceplanes will probably perform *all*
satellite deploys, but the current vehicle costs too much too
operate for that.  Keep the Shuttle for science missions, free
fliers, fetch-and-retrieve missions, and precision shots such
as plantaries.  (One vastly unappreciated capability of the
Shuttle is its precision to perform precision launches which are
so important for planetary probes, to help them conserve precious
thruster fuel, and their ability to perform on-orbit checkout of
these one-of-a-kind probes and bring them back if a problem is
found.)

Looking at the current manifest, it appears to be moving in the
right direction.  The main thing that I would do, still, is get
the TDRS launches onto an ELV.  Then, maybe there would be a
chance for an Astro-2.


--
David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL  [phone]
([e-mail]; some insane route applies)
"The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer,
not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."

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

Date: 25 Jan 91 21:15:28 GMT
From: swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 01/25/91


                         MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                           January 25, 1991

     The Magellan spacecraft and its radar system continue to perform
nominally.  All STARCALS (star calibrations) and DESATS (desaturations) of
the past 24 hours were successful with four foreground star rejects.  The
attitude updates ranged from 0.017 to 0.030 degrees.

     The spacecraft controllers are predicting an increase in the number of
background rejects over the next few days due to solar flare activity.

     Late today the mapping command sequence M1026 will be sent to the
spacecraft, along with the associated parameter files.  This 4-day sequence
returns Magellan to its non-occulted mapping mode.  It is for 4 days rather
than 8 days because of the return to the normal Tuesday upload next week.

     On Monday, 28 January, commands will be sent to perform the first of
several in-flight tests on the DMS-A (Data Management Subsystem-A).  These
tests are designed to determine the cause of the tape recorder deterioration,
with the hope that corrective actions could restore it to partial use.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab |
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | It's 10PM, do you know
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | where your spacecraft is?
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | We do!

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

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 20:46:39 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>:

>>We use Soyuz. We mount it on a Delta for 20% the cost of a Shuttle
>>flight. We could also put it (and 50K to 100K pounds extra payload)
>>on a Delta or Titan derived HLV for half the cost of a Shuttle flight.

>Are you saying that you could design a Titan with 130-150K lb payload
>capacity?

Me? No. But Martin Marrietta can. They and McDonnald Douglas offered
to build heavy lift versions of the Titan and Delta several years ago
as part of the SDIO Zenith Star program. For details see:

1. Zenith Star Launch Vehicles in Aerospace America, (I think) June
   1990.
2. Launch Options for the Future: A Buyers Guide by the Office of
   Technology Assessment
3. A few articles in Avation week in 87. Look under Zenith Star
   in the readers guide.

>There's no way that it could ever be man-rated.

Nonsense. The vibration load is acceptable and it is just as
safe as the Shuttle. If you are going to send people on the Shuttle
there is no reason they couldn't go on a Titan IV or V (unless you
get off on wasting money).

>You can't go on adding thrust to a vehicle forever.

I didn't say you could. I just said you could put up 100K to 150K
pounds with it.

>>That's the problem. We double the cost of everything to get 0.01%
>>more safety out of it. It's just not worth it.

>Actually, I agree with you.  But Congress and the American public
>don't agree.  In their minds, 0.01% risk is not acceptable for
>a manned vehicle.

I'm glad you agree. As to Congress, many of them are very willing
to accept what we agree on: ELV's are just as safe as the Shuttle
so the lack of 'man rating' shouldn't stop us from saving tens of
millions by using them.


    Allen

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: |
|[e-mail]   |       "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!"                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 25 Jan 91 21:00:48 GMT
From: idacrd![e-mail]  (Robert McGwier)
Subject: Re: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (David Cornutt):
> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>
>
>>The public will accept risk if given an accurate assessment of the risks.
>
> I realize that this is getting way off the thread here, but IHMO this
> statement is fundementally untrue.  Today's American public will accept
> NO RISK WHATSOEVER, no matter how small, if it is not something that
> David Cornutt



I basically agree with David.  This is partially a result of a really basic
mistrust of authority, and a unbelievable set of liability laws and common
law and how it is practiced in the U.S.  Many blame the Vietnam era and too many
lawyers for most of the trouble, IMHO, there is SOME truth in this.

The very thought of someone in (say) Germany suing Daimler-Benz for hundreds
of millions of DM and winning because of a nut and bolt which failed, NOT
becuase of negligence, but because nothing made by man is perfect, is too
ludricrous for me to believe could happen.  Can anyone think of a country
other than the US that is totally and completely unwilling to take risks
in `daily life' as part of the price of `modern civilization'?

Bob

--
____________________________________________________________________________
    My opinions are my own no matter    |    Robert W. McGwier, N4HY
    who I work for! ;-)            |    CCR, AMSAT, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 26 Jan 91 04:35:31 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Re: Commercial Space News (4 of 4)

the first significant win for that entrepreneurial startup, and
should allow them to see some positive contractual cash flow for the
first time in several years.  However, they have never successfully
performed an orbital flight, or tested their 4-stage version of the
Conestoga, so they will have a tough time to get the system proven
and ready for flight in 18 months.   This may stretch their funding
to the limits - particularly as they seem to be taking this as a
loss-leader in the expectation of future business in this area.]

COMMERCIAL LAUNCH FIRMS SET LAYOFF DUE TO MARKET DECLINES
   All three of the major U.S. commercial launch firms have set
employee layoffs due to slowing production rates of their rockets.
McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company (Delta), General Dynamics
Space Systems (Atlas), and Martin Marietta's Astronautics Group
(Titan) have all recently announced layoffs.  MDSSC said this week
it laying off about 300 employees.  GDSS said it will reduce its
work force through attrition and layoffs by 500, and Martin Marietta
Astronautics also cutting some jobs related to the Titan booster
program (specific number was not announced).
   Both MDSSC and GD specifically cited the cuts as being mainly due
to a reduction in the number of launch contracts expected over the
next few years.  In GD's case, they were very vulnerable to
reductions in DoD funding which had provided a major portion of
their commercial launch services business.  MDSSC last year launched
11 commercial payloads last year (primarily DoD GPS satellites), but
after launching 1 Delta this year, has only another 4 commercial
payloads remaining on their manifests. .
   [Commentary: From my last count there were about 80 planned
commercial orbital launches over the next 5 years.  This split
approximately 50/50 between the Ariane and the U.S., with a few
going to China's Long March.  Furthermore, the expected number in
the near-term is expected to decline as much of the current market
is replacements for the previous generation of GEO satellites, and
once the constellations are replenished, they will probably not be
replaced for another decade.  Similarly, the commercial contracts
for DoD launches were driven by the Reagan era funding, and many of
these satellite constellations are also nearing completion.
Competition for this market is intense, and given that there are 3
U.S. manufacturers vying for the same market there have been some
doubts raised as to whether the existing launch market can support
all three major U.S. ELV competitors.
   These problems have been compounded with recent problems at a
couple of the parent firms. GD and McDonnell have had to take large
losses when the A-12 was cancelled, plus their expected business
base has declined substantially as the DoD budget plans have
declined.  McDonnell is under particular financial strain, and there
has even been speculation in Forbes and Av Week about their ability
to continue to operate - although this is dependent upon all of
their major programs having serious and unforseen problems.]

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

[I apologise for breaking this up into several message.  The gateway
I use only allows messages of 60 lines or less.]




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

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

Date: 25 Jan 91 21:09:35 GMT
From: idacrd![e-mail]  (Robert McGwier)
Subject: Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST)

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi):
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>
>    There is no need to ask them. We HAVE sent people up on Delta's. Funny
>    how they managed to make it do something it was never intended to do :-).
>


It is difficult for me to tell who said what above so I have included both
references.  NAME ONE manned launch that was done with a Delta.

Bob

--
____________________________________________________________________________
    My opinions are my own no matter    |    Robert W. McGwier, N4HY
    who I work for! ;-)            |    CCR, AMSAT, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 26 Jan 91 00:20:39 GMT
From: usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Doug McDonald)
Subject: Re: More on space cameras


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Cornutt) writes:
>Thanks for a fine article, Charles.  A couple of questions?
>
>(1) Does exposure to vacuum effect film?  (Apart from the thermal problem)

Yes, but very slowly. Generally speaking it decreases reciprocity
failure. For ordinary exposures less than 1/5 second, it has little
effect on most films. At room temperature it takes days to do much.


Doug McDonald

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

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 20:12:57 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]> Chris Jones writes:
>The effort to man-rate the Atlas was non-trivial.  In fact, the original Atlas
>failed in its first flight with a Mercury on top of it, and quite a bit of
>effort went into beefing up its structure and adding redundancy.

I don't doubt that is true. I also don't doubt that is was needed to make
it safe enough for people. But the Atlas of today is far far more reliable
than the Atlas of 30 years ago.

The Atlas of today is just as safe as the Shuttle. Given that, what reason
is there not to use is for humans? If two launchers have identical operational
safety records, how can one be considered safe and the other not?

>In fact, the Titan uses the
>exact opposite of the Shuttle's ignition strategy...  It takes off under solid
>propulsion only, and doesn't ignite its liquid fuelled engines until some time
>has passed.

Given that both put their payloads in orbit 97%+ of the time I don't see
that that is a big deal. However, I can think of two solutions:

1. Change the sequence by firing the liquid engines at 10% thrust and
   keeping them on.

2. Put an escape tower on the capsule (there will be one anyway). If the
   liquid engine fails to ignite, punch out.

But as I said, anybody who is afraid to fly in one should also be afraid
to fly in the other since both are equally safe.

  Allen


--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: |
|[e-mail]   |       "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!"                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #094
*******************