Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_6/v15no600.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 19KB

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 05:00:01
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #600
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 27 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 600

Today's Topics:
                       asteroids beyond Jupiter
                  ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Was Re: MOL)
                           BUSSARD RAMSCOOP
                          Centaur on Saturn
                          ground vs. flight
                            Justification
                  Manhattan DISTRICT (not Pr......)
                         russian solar sail?
                       Saturn lift capabilities
        Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
    Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
                        Titan and Shuttle SRBs
                         University standards
                  University standards (esp. Purdue)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Dec 92 00:54:19 GMT
From: Jonathan Papai <[e-mail]>
Subject: asteroids beyond Jupiter
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.folklore.urban

[e-mail] (Warren Burstein) [and others] ask:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry Chan) writes:
>>Whaddaya say?  10.5 Shergolds?  Where is snopes where you need 'im?
>
>I've been wondering about that, too.

[e-mail] (Rose M. Delckum) asks:
>     I realize this is off the subject, but what happened to
>Cindy?  (I've been away for a while)
>
>Rose

    Many other regulars (if I may use that term) besides just
Snopes and Cindy seem to be missing since the Pluto/Neptune
thread erupted.  I conjecture that Bill Nelson sent them on a
fact-finding mission to the nether reaches of the solar system to
determine where Pluto originated.

Jon "Feet firmly planted on earth" Papai

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

Date: 26 Dec 92 23:12:10 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Was Re: MOL)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>Gov writes:
>>>...The third stage (S-V) was to have been powered by 2 RL-10
>>>engines. The S-V was NOT Centaur...
>>
>>I can buy the four engines and 6 engine bit, but according to document I
>>have found here and the Book "Rocket Scientist" and Medaris's " Cound down
>>to Decision" These were desginated the Centaur, although I will go back and
>>look and make sure of this just in case.
>
>Stages To Saturn, NASA SP-4206, says specifically that the original S-V
>stage was to be a Centaur.  It was slated to be the third stage of the
>Saturn C-1 and the fourth stage of Saturn C-2 (which used the S-IV as
>its third stage and was to have a new second stage).  (The Saturn C-3
>moved things up one more stage, with the S-IV as fourth stage, the
>C-2's second stage as third stage, and another new second stage.)
>
>Incidentally, it's important to understand that (a) there were a lot
>of Saturn designs proposed -- the same study that nailed down the C-1-2-3
>scheme also recomended against proceeding with the Saturn A-1, A-2, and
>B-1, and those were only the most promising survivors from a longer list --
>and (b) the same name sometimes got re-used (there were at least three
>different vehicles named "Saturn C-3" at various times).
>
>>>The 'C' designation was dropped somewhere along the way, with the Saturn C-1
>>>becoming simply Saturn 1...
>>
>>According to Dr. Sthulinger and Konrad Dannenburg the C-1 designation was
>>dropped when the CSM was put on the stack...
>
>The C designation was dropped in Feb 1963 when terminology was tidied up.
>Before then, it was a C-1 whether or not it had Apollo hardware on top.
>--
>"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry
>
   Thanks for all that info, my copy of 'Stages to Saturn' is in a box
   stored away somewhere. But wasn't this discussion REALLY about
   whether Centaur actually flew on a Saturn? Not was it intended to,
   but did it ever go up on one? It didn't, to the best of my knowledge.

   -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 00:00:24 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: BUSSARD RAMSCOOP

-From: [e-mail] (Jason Cooper)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-Subject: ** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP **
-Date: 24 Dec 92 17:18:53 GMT
-Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

-Was told to put this message in this area to get more replies, so here
-it is.  I'm doing a science fair project on the Bussard Ramscoop, and am
-looking for ANY help I can get on the scientific end of it.  I'm looking
-for help specifically on the general theory end of it (things like what
-polarity the field must be, how best to ionize the hydrogen, how best to
-FUSE the hydrogen, etc, all already worked out, but in need of checking
-by somebody who KNOWS what they're doing).

There's an article on interstellar travel in the January/February 1993
issue of Stardate magazine, which contains a three-page section on
ramscoop spacecraft. It also mentions that R.W. Bussard's original paper
came out in 1960, and that one variant of an electromagnetic collector
was proposed in 1977.

The magazine is put out by McDonald Observatory of the University of Texas
at Austin. The phone number for the magazine is given as [phone].

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Dec 92 23:38:45 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Centaur on Saturn
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>   ... But wasn't this discussion REALLY about
>   whether Centaur actually flew on a Saturn? Not was it intended to,
>   but did it ever go up on one? It didn't, to the best of my knowledge.

What this discussion was originally about is perhaps debatable... :-)
No Centaur ever flew on a Saturn; the S-V stage was dropped from "mainline"
Saturn planning in June 1961, although Saturn/Centaur persisted until
1965 as the intended launcher for the original Voyager project.  The first
four Saturn I launches (and possibly the fifth, it's not entirely clear
from my references) carried dummy S-V stages with the right shape and
mass, but none was ever real hardware.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 14:23:19 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: ground vs. flight

-From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: Re: ground vs. flight
-Date: 24 Dec 92 06:05:43 GMT

-In article <=[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
-...
->    Also, given that the bottom of the shuttle is covered with
->tile, can the orbiter exert a Y+ (i.e. vertically up) translation?

-There aren't any RCS nozzles on the orbiter's belly, but both the forward
-and aft RCS systems have nozzles angled down so that they can (somewhat
-inefficiently) thrust upward.

I believe that capability was used extensively during the Intelsat capture
this year.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 12:27:51 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification

-From: [e-mail] (Herman Rubin)
-Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
-Date: 25 Dec 92 17:43:41 GMT
-Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

-And those who do not recognize the value of human ingenuity want us to
-waste the time of the productive people by making them wait for public
-transportation,

You mean by implementing HOV lanes on highways near cities?

-and keeping the bright from getting an education by
-putting them in classes with the mentally deficient.

Has anyone had personal experience with magnet schools? I'm curious about
whether they provide any benefit.

-What else can one call the government blocking of
-human endeavor, including going to space?

If you're referring to the government's policy of holding people who launch
accountable for damage their spacecraft might do on the ground, I disagree.
A similar policy is applied to people in the US who want to drive automobiles
on other than private land (with the permission of the owner).

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Dec 92 10:09:21 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Manhattan DISTRICT (not Pr......)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Burstein) writes:
>
>For example, the movie "Beginning or the End" which is a
>semi-fictionalized documentary of the program has the top people sitting
>around the table.  The actor playing General Groves says "You'll be
>working on the Manhattan District.  Project 'Y' is uranium purification,
>project 'X' is the bomb site."  (this is not the exact quote from the
>movie, but the DISTRICT vs. PROJECT distinction is correct)
>

Actually, I thought it was the Manhatten Engineering District.  I don't
have a copy of "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" handy to check... :-)

---
Dave Michelson
[e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Dec 92 17:16:32 GMT
From: David Goldschmidt <ida@atomic>
Subject: russian solar sail?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I saw something a few months ago about a Russian plan to test a small solar
sail from the Mir space station on Dec 10. of this year.  I haven't heard
anything about it since - does anybody know if it happened?

You can email me at [e-mail], or post to the net.

Thanks in advance,
           Dave Patterson, guest on this account.

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

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:25:15 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn lift capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

I wrote:
>... the docking adapter was tiny, weighing only 2 tons.  The
>combination weighed about as much as Apollo 7's CSM, and only about 800kg
>less than the Skylab CSMs...

Oops, for "less than", read "more than".
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 26 Dec 92 21:18:33 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Also the Titan SRM's are direct developments from the
>Shuttle program. You gonna include the R & D for the Shuttle SRM's in
>your Titan cost accounting?

   I don't have any references handy, but how in the world are the Titan
   SRMs related to the Shuttle's SRBs? For beginners, the Titan SRM first
   flew in 1965 (Titan IIIC) while Shuttle SRB did not first fire until
   1977 and did not fly until 1981. Titan SRMs are manufactured by
   Lockheed and Aerojet, I think. Shuttle SRBs by Thiokol.

   Even if you are referring to the new 7-segment Titan IV SRMs, still
   the answer is no. These were designed, but never built, for the
   MOL program. I believe that if there is any connection, it's vice
   versa.

   -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 26 Dec 92 19:56:23 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>The fact remains however that we did spend $34 billion to develop Shuttle...

>The numbers that I have seen from the Congressional budget office are 8.8
>billion dollars in 1974 dollars. Are you saying that we have had 400 percent
>inflation from 74 to 86?

400% is only two doublings which would be about right given 70's inflation.
I also have no idea what the CBO included or didn't include in the estimate.


>No what I said was that only if you included every single item that could
>possibly related to *any* US manned space program, would you get a number
>greater than 500 million dollars. This is what Pike did.

Ah but Pike, doing what you describe above, came to a figure of about
$750M per flight. You are distorting what Pike said.

The $500M per flight is confirmed by NASA AND the Aldridge Commission. What
is it that you know which they don't?

>A great portion
>of these costs would be there no matter what system it is that is flying

Then charge them accordingly.

>men in space. This includes maintaining the test stands at Marshall and at
>Stennis and at Edwards and at Simi valley where the RL-10's are tested.

Since all RL-10 variants in the past 10 years have been paid for with
private funds, I'm sure they paid for their use of test facilities.

>This also includes the hangers at 501 Bolsa Avenue
>in Huntington Beach (McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Plant) where the
>DC would be built.

DC is being developed by SDIO, not NASA. It wouldn't have shown up in
Pike's analysis. Please be honest Dennis.

>>I just looked up the exact numbers. At 10 flights per year (roughly 80%
>>the US MLV market) a DC-1 should (if it works) cost $2700 per pound. This
>>is a third the cost of Shuttle and about 25% less than existing expendables.
>>If flight rate goes to 12 a year then costs drop to about $2300 per pound.
>>This assumes a $3B (twice McD's estimate) DDT&E cost over 10 years.

>Allen did you include the $9.9 billion dollar (1960 dollar) cost of the
>development of the Titan?

Did Boeing amortize the development costs of the MD-11 as part of the 767?
Your question has about the same level of meaning.

>Creative accounting does wonders when you sin by omission. As for some earlier
>commets of your about the shuttle being at maximum flight rate, it is obvious
>that NASA can launch one per month.

I have stated my criteria before. When they can do it for two years then
I'll accept it.

>Also for your comment that the Shuttle can't handle more than 50 launches, I
>would love to hear your references for that.

Since I didn't say that I can't give you a reference.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------119 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 05:36:20 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan and Shuttle SRBs
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Brian Stuart Thorn writes:
>
>    SRMs related to the Shuttle's SRBs? For beginners, the Titan SRM first
>    flew in 1965 (Titan IIIC) while Shuttle SRB did not first fire until
>    1977 and did not fly until 1981. Titan SRMs are manufactured by
>    Lockheed and Aerojet, I think. Shuttle SRBs by Thiokol.
>
>    Even if you are referring to the new 7-segment Titan IV SRMs, still
>    the answer is no. These were designed, but never built, for the
>    MOL program. I believe that if there is any connection, it's vice
>    versa.
>


        Correct - the Shuttle SRBs are derived from experience gained with
the Titan boosters, not the other way around.  From "Advanced Chemical Rocket
Propulsion" by Y.M. Timnat:

        " The high reliability demonstrated by the Titan III solid boosters
was the main reason that NASA decided, after studying the advantages and
disadvantages of solid versus liquid boosters, of parallel and series burning
and of various sizes, to use two solid-propellant boosters having a diameter
of 371 cm, 38.1 m long and containing 502580 kg of propellant, using a
segment configuration with the same [as the Titan] PBAN propellant."

        Both solid boosters use a segmented design, fabricated out of Ladish
D6ac high strength steel.  The thrust vector control however differs: the
Titan uses N2O4 injection into the nozzle to deflect the exhaust, while the
Shuttle boosters have a nozzle whose throat is attached to a flexible collar
which allows the nozzle to be steered by a hydraulic system.






--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 23:49:27 EST
From: Brad Porter <[e-mail]>
Subject: University standards
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space


>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
I apolgize for assuming in the previous article that you were a professor.
What is your position?  From now on, I'll ask things like this in the education
area.  By the way, I'd like to take this chance to apologize for the typing
mistakes in the 1st article I submitted to this forum - my connection was
not responding to my keys immediately, so I couldn't edit the message as
I was typing it.
                             -Brad Porter
DRPORTER@SUVM

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

Date: 27 Dec 92 03:45:15 GMT
From: Brad Porter <[e-mail]>
Subject: University standards (esp. Purdue)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:

>The
>universities are giving in to the almost illiterate (at least in
>mathematics and the sciences) high school preparation of the students,
>and contributing to the demise of our academic and research capabilities.
I'm digressing a bit, but I felt I had to respond to this statement by
asking if you truly believe this?  Do you believe that's true of all public
schools, or just the schools in Indian, from which the majority of Purdue's
students come?  I tend to feel it's the univerity's standards that are lower,
not those of the public schools.  If the professors at Purdue have this
low of an opinion of the students, I'm going to have to reconsider Purdue
as a possible school for me (I've been accepted into Freshman Engineering).
                              -Brad Porter
Skaneateles, New York
DRPORTER@SUVM

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 600
------------------------------