Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_2/v16no233.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 05:04:52
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #233
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 28 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 233

Today's Topics:
             Beamed power transmission on Mars? (2 msgs)
                          Freedom refueling
                          hijacking Toutatis
                    Mars Rescue Mission, what if!
                       Nobody cares about Fred?
                    Opening up Space to everyone!
                          Refueling in orbit
                Spaceflight for under $1,000? (2 msgs)
       SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) (2 msgs)
         SSTO HELP NEEDED, funding decisions being made now.
                          The Future of Fred

    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: 25 Feb 93 14:07:35 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Beamed power transmission on Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>   I will express the opinion that this is not a practical idea. First, since
>>Mars has little atmosphere, an orbiting receiver will not be all that much more
>>efficient than solar cells on the ground (or on a rover, etc.). Nothing to be
>>gained by being in orbit, except maybe size.
>
>Actually, the atmosphere isn't the only problem with ground-based solar
>power: There is a horizon, which blocks sunlight about 50% of the time;

The orbital power station is also is shadow for part of each orbit. It's
also over the horizon a larger percentage of the time than the Sun unless
it's in a Mars-synchronous orbit, which increases path losses for power
transmission and limits power transmission to one third of Mars' surface.

>there are dust stroms (which very effectively block sunlight and cover
>surfaces); there is gravity which increases structural weight;
>there is the planet's rotation, which requires a ~15 deg/hour tracking
>rate, to remain pointed at the sun. Also, there are transportation
>problems: It's easier to leave a power system on obrit, instead
>of fitting it into a lander, sending it to the surface and
>assembling it there.

But there are native materials available for construction on the ground.
Simple dirt berms are sufficient to incline the solar collectors to the
right angle. Pure perpendicular tracking increases efficiency somewhat,
less than you would think except at dawn and dusk, but not enough to offset
the cost savings of fixed collectors.

>>...However, the notion of beaming power down by miocrowaves has
>>been explored for the earth, and found impractical from an engineering standpoint.
>>As I recall there were severe problems keeping the signal from various parts of
>>a large antenna (or antenna array) in phase, to prevent destructive interference.
>
>That isn't generally a problem: If, for public safety reasons (or public
>misplaced and irrational fears...), you insist on an extremely low
>power flux (i.e. less than that of sunlight) then antenna size and
>and phase errors aren't a problem. For a Martian system (where there
>aren't any idiots or cows to wander around near the antenna), there
>isn't any problem with a flux of, say, 50 kW/m^2 and a 5-meter
>wide antenna.

No problem aside from the diffraction limit, which would require truly
*enormous* arrays in space to focus a microwave beam to 5 meters at the
surface. I'm not even sure it's *possible* at microwave wavelengths, no
matter how large you make the orbital array.

>Of course, given the distance between the Sun and Mars, nuclear
>power is a generally more effective idea...

Absolutely.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 15:35:15 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Beamed power transmission on Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry A Worth) writes:
>
>   It's really a shame certain parties rejected beamed power on Earth as
>unsafe without any real study or basis in fact, simply on the basis of
>technophobia, while at the same time turning a blind eye toward the very
>significant, and quite possibly greater, negative impacts of existing
>power sources (better the devil you know then the angel you don't?).

Hidden, or not so hidden, technophobia is the reason certain back to
the dark ages tree huggers hate SPS systems. But there are reasons
for technophiles to disparage the systems as well. Their net efficiency
is low, their dependence on untried complex space technologies is high,
and their projected costs are astronomical. Doing things because they
are neat technical exercises just isn't good enough when the object is
as important as bulk power supply for a nation.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 15:39:25 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Freedom refueling
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>>>Again, it's not the lack of EVA, it's the fact that you don't want
>>>hydrazine all over the EVA crew.

>>But the Russians with their backward space program don't find that to
>>be a problem. Surely with our better technology we could refuel them
>>in orbit possible saving billions of $$ in life cycle cost.

>Allen, could you (or perhaps Dennis Newkirk) post a description of just how the
>Russians refuel Mir?  It's not imediately obvious to me that they do an EVA to
>refuel.

Not only is no EVA required, no cosmonaut activity is required.

They send up a Progress vehicle which uses an automatic docker to dock
(I think it docks at the opposite end of the Soyuz). The docking mechanism
has pipes in it for fluid transfer to the station. The act of docking
connects the pipes and fuel and other liquids are pumped to the station.

Later on, the tanker is opened and other supplies are unloaded. Trash is
put in the Progress and it undocks and burns up on re-entry. If they want
to return something, they also have a version which can return various
size payloads.

>>Well then maybe they can be refueled with expendables. That will save
>>even more money.

>Freedom would have weighed roughly five times as much as shuttle and shuttle
>needs its OMS fuel to get back home.  In light of this, I can't figure out what
>your last comment means.

Just brainstorming.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------110 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 16:32:39 GMT
From: Matthew Kaiser <[e-mail]>
Subject: hijacking Toutatis
Newsgroups: sci.space

dudes...

i've just read an article in AdAstra
about asteroid Toutatis comin within 1.6M km of Earth in 2004

what will the statis the our space program be by then?

can we (America) get going and hijack this thing and
pay off our national debt with a mass-driver

i mean it's only 3.5km across so its not a Ceres class asteroid

MY GOD (forgiveme) we could put a second moon in orbit around us!!!!

*******************  let's do it  **************************

Matthew
[e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 06:11:21 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Rescue Mission, what if!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
 [ I write]
|> Lots of military operations are done on a no pick-ups basis.
|>
|
|Problem with not doing anything, that if the Mars mission has a real problem
|and we don't do anything, we might as well kiss Space Exploration for 20 or
|more years.. Also the US Military has a "proud" tradition of doing everything
 Nonsense.  Hyperbole.  Grissom,Chaffee and white died.  Apollo stood
down for a while (<1 year) for re-design, and ceremonial ass kicking.(not
so ceremonial in some cases).  Challenger was lost we stood down for 3
years and maybe some of the problems were fixed.  Some people
have doubts.

|possible to bring our pilots back.. Even if a few more people get killed.
I think the POW_MIA committee might dispute this.

|The russians might not care about their astronauts, but I think the US might
|care more for them...
|
|What could we do to make it easier if a rescue mission is necessary?
|
>

Simple.  Make the systems reliable, and redundant.  so any big problems
occur they tough it out.  Medical emergencys they cope.

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 13:44:48 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>Tom munoz does an excellent job of explaining the PM changeout
>sequence, the costs, weights, hazards and times involved.
>My original post which started a lot of this was that Freedom
>should have been designing on hte basis of Methane thrusters.
>Methane/LOX is close in impulse to hydrazine.  Plus Methane
>can be generated from byproducts of a station life support system.
>Methane is also not toxic(in low quantity), corrosive(much)
>and doesn't have to hauled up to orbit in  10KDollar/lb  rockets.
>
>plus the LOX can be diverted to and from life support, and the methane
>can even be cracked as fuel stocks for basic chemical
>processses.
>
>All in all, a reasonable alternative fuel, but my understnading
>from the trade press was the Freedom PMO waived off because not
>enough knowledge base existed on methane thrusters.
>
>This kind of failure seeking management ultimately brought the
>prgram down.

Hold on, again. Freedom is supposed to require 10,000 pounds of
propellant a year for station keeping. Before PMC there won't
be much life support activity at all. And even after PMC there
will only be 4 people on board. That's an awful lot of beans
for 4 people! The orginal alternative to off the shelf exchangeable
hydrazine thruster packs used newly developed H2/O2 thrusters operating
off of electrolyzed water from Shuttle fuel cells. Shuttle offloads it's
excess water and Freedom electrolyzes it with solar cell excess power
and stores it for stationkeeping burns. *That* was clever, but had too
high an upfront cost for Congress to swallow. The thruster development
had to be funded, on orbit electrolyzers had to be developed, and water
transfer systems designed. Nothing earthshaking, but impossible without
the upfront funding assured.

Here's a chart of SSF funding history from Wales. Note that OMB and
Congress have cut requested upfront funding *every* year. That's driven
scaleback after scaleback in the program as development stretches
out, causing downstream cost escalations, and reduced capabilities.


            NASA SSF REQUEST AND ALLOCATION HISTORY
FY   NASA    OMB    Congress Total  Total   Congress Holdback
Bdgt Request Change Change   Change SSF($M) Holdback Release  Notes
 --- ------- ------ -------- ------ ------- -------- -------- -----
85     235    -85        0.0  -85.0   150.0     57.5  4/1/85  [A]
86     280    -50     - 29.7  -79.7   200.3      0.0
87     600   -190        0.0 -190.0   410.0    150.0  ???
88    1055   -288     -374.7 -622.7   392.3    225.0  6/1/88
89    1872   -904.6   - 67.4 -972.0   900.0    515.0  5/15/89
90    2130.2  -80     -300.6 -380.6  1749.6    750.4  6/1/90
91    2693   -242     -551.0 -793.0  1900.0    1260.0 2/3/91  [B]
                                    -------
                                     5702.2   Total FYs 85-91
Notes: [A] Holdback to ensure Congressional requirements implemented
       of 37.5 Kw for users, and launch of fully equipped US MPS
       lab, early user payloads, life science facility before lab
       module launch.  [B] Holdback until SSF program restructure
       complete.


Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 14:22:17 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Opening up Space to everyone!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marvin Batty) writes:
>
>With equal opportunities legislation, coupled to a good standard of medical
>support (not unlike standard life-support!) the presence of disabled people
>in space seems a real possibility. There really isn't any need that I can see
>for astronauts etc to be predominantly male (white) and square jawed types of
>the space-race.

What you say is basically true. The reason that astronauts have been
primarily white males of the square jawed variety is that's the profile
of the military test pilot, and most astronauts were recruited from that
pool of already trained and experienced people. Since space travel to
date has required dealing with highly complex and finicky equipment in
a somewhat novel environment, it's been natural to draw astronaut candidates
from a pool of people who already have some related experience. There
just aren't that many "rides" available, and the pool of potential
astronauts is large. As the number of rides become larger and pilot
experience becomes less important, such as with mission specialists,
there's little reason to rule out people with disabilities that don't
interfere with the tasks to be accomplished.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 05:42:39 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling in orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
|>But what is the point if those some technologies are never used.
|>I am glad ORS was done, and safer  and the MMU is refueled.
|>But look at NASA's own planning.  The Now dead SSF was going to
|>have no on-orbit refueling.  How is that useful?
|
|   Why take the technology risk when you have the capability
|   to do a comparatively simple "swap out" of thruster modules?
|

Well.  Would the phrase faster, cheaper, better come to mind?
As TOm munoz pointed out,  the THrusters carry 6,500 lbm of fuel
and weigh 5,000 lbm.   given the fact you are having to haul the
thrusters back to orbit that's a lot of money.  at 10,000 dollars/pound.
that's 50 million dollars.  Doesn't money mean anything to you?

From what i've read,  the shuttle could carry the tankage up and pumping
gear for a significantly less mass penalty.  rather then carrying
2 thruster (PMs).  the shuttle could carry up the fuel for 3 thrusters
and still have weight budget for hoses and tankage.
COnsidering that means you'd save 1 shuttle mission for every two
refueling flights compared to thruster changeout.  maybe you'd even
a 2:1 savings.  At 500 million a shuttle flight, that adds up fasst.
But then again. I forget.  if it hasn't been done , why it must be impossible?

|>The Centaur which could have benefitted from on-orbit refueling
|>never had a test program to achieve this mission.
|>What kind of bargain is it, when ORS is done, quite well from your
|>description, and then not placed into the technology bed for the
|>largest program in NASA history.
|
|    Centaur is an application, but how many payloads would require
|    this application? Just one: Galileo. Galileo was already way
|    over budget and behind schedule without attempting a new
|    technology to get the job done. Sure, a Centaur launch would
|    have eliminated the antenna problem. Hindsight is 20/20.
|

Sure.  galileo could have used centaur re-fueling,  but my post speculated
that any number of other missions could also have used the high performance
centaur stage.  From what I hear, the planeteary science people
avoid the shuttle like the plague.  launch cost is too high.
availability is too low and schedule slippage is way too high.
Any sort of heavy weight outer planets mission could benefit from
having a shuttle centaur.  the fact they don't indicates a joint laack
of trust in centaur availability and a lack of will on NASAs part
to make it happen.

|>IT would be like Gemini testing Orbital rendevous and docking
|>and Apollo saying no docking is too risky and dangerous.
|>We'll use giant NOVA rockets instead.  at 100 billion dollars.
|
|    Gemini and Agena demonstrated Earth Orbit Rendezvous as well.
|    Two missions were boosted to higher orbit after docking with
|    Agenas. There was consideration for this approach to get Apollo
|    to the Moon. Even though Gemini showed it could be done, Apollo
|    didn't do it.
|

I don't know what you are talking about.  Lunar rendevous and docking
is ultimately no different from earth rendevous.  Also  apollo would
dock the LEM while in circum terra space.  they would burn for luna
and then turn around to dock the LEM.   Apollo was a success because
docking was a proven reliable technology.  The soviets at that time
were having a tough time with their own docking program.


|>If you prove a technology and technique, use it.  if not, it's as
|>bad as never having done the test.
|>
|>|The most expensive technology is forgotten or shelved technology. One
|>|can say that the shuttle is now expensive to run and made of outdated
|>|technology. Uhh,,,,yea, I guess thats right. In the same light I can
|>|scoff at my neighbor and his four year old antique home computer, while
|>|I hold out for more power and lower cost. But you and I should think
|>|carefully about how much benefit was obtained and is still coming from
|>|that old bucket while snipers sit on the sidelines with only inaccurate
|>|criticism in hand. Unlike the computer case though, as Gary C. pointed
|>|out, "The Shuttle is a marvelous workshop *solely* because it is the
|>|*only* heavy lift workshop *flying* regularly to various orbits..."..
|>
|>Isn't this last statement the damnest criticism of NASA i can think of.
|>20 years after apollo,  and where are we?  8 flights/year ina workshop
|>whose owners are afraid of gassing your car.
|

If the computer business was run the way the Manned space business
is run, we'd still be using IBM 704 computers and Guys like you and
Gary would be shouting about how RISKY Semi-conductors are and that
Tube Technology is marvelous because it is the only technology.
( not that I odn't admire tubes, and still think they have uses.>
|>
|>|*Someone else* may buy those computers to drive up capabilities and
|>|drive down costs for you, but in the space biz, we're it. You wait, you
|>|lose.
|>
|>  Kinda the way galileo waited?  or HST waited . or Skylab waited?
|>  lots of missions wait for shuttle.
|
|    Lots of missions are currently waiting for Titan IV/Centaur too.
|    Not to mention the two payloads GD dumped in the Atlantic
|    recently. Someone's waiting for Atlas, too.
|

I'd be willing to bet that there are more payloads on average that backed
up waiting on STS then on T-4, T-3, atlas or Ariane.  And that doesn't
count the payloads that planned on shuttle and switched away.

|>   My point was that no on-orbit cryo fueling has been tested or is
|>planned to be tested.  THis is a useful technology  and would make
|>lemonade from lemons.  I would suggest that you look into pushing
|>this sort of research from within.
|
|    Please note that the frequently touted Russians have now cryo
|    upper stages, hence they haven't done cryo refueling in orbit,
|    either.
|

AH.  Now here's a new excuse.  ALan note this one.  THe russians haven't
done it, so we can't either.  With men like this,  hillary would
still be walking the hills in wales.  Did I ever say Russians?  in my
posts on cryo refueling.?  Not that I remember.   no,no,no.  I said
WE..  The Americans.  THe good, ole, US of A  should develope cryo
refueling in micro-g,  and that It should be a NASA engineering
test priority.  Not because a specific mission needs it, but because
a mission could use it.

|>No doubt money is short in important areas,  but it's also poorly
|>allocated in others.  NASA should return to their basic mission of
|>testing technologies and advancing research and not driving a bus
|>or running a business.  they aren't that good at it.
|
|    Apparently, neither are General Dynamics or Martin-Marietta.
|    These firms took over launch of their Atlas and Titan boosters.
|    Launch rates and success rates have fallen since they did so.
|

And the Japanese can't get a H-2 launch to work, and ariane went 0-4?
a while back too.  so by your logic, governments can't launch expendables.
Please use rational arguments.   GD and MM are for-profit businesses.
they are launching payloads, because they believe they can do it
and make money at it.  NASA runs the shuttle for many reasons, many of
which are budget and turf oriented in nature.  And the people outside
of manned space are at best ambivalent and worst openly hostile
to the shuttle.  Sure the shuttle had some wins, but at the cost sunk into it,
it's like the trident missile program.  Yeah we won,  now what.

My argument is that NASA should be out doing research.  testing concepts
and materials.  let private industry turn it into profit.
By your logic.  All nuclear power plants would be run by the department
of energy.  why look at TMI and browns ferry.  Private utilities
are incompetent at running nukes.   No the DOE should be testing
reactor concepts  inherently safe, breeders,  liquid metals, etc...
and eltting  the GE's, westinghouses and B&W's of the world build
these.

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 14:31:15 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Spaceflight for under $1,000?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marvin Batty) writes:
>Space travel, and indeed pretty much anything to do with Space
>seems to require billion dollar budgets. But is this absolutely necessary?
>In an organisation like NASA, or the ESA for that matter, there must be
>many people employed (paid) whose jobs have little or nothing to do
>with actually building a space-craft and launching it. Long term planners,
>financial liasons, Presidential Advisors, caterers, tea-ladies etc, etc.
>The list must be endless.
>
>If, therefore, a company got together for the sole purpose of building
>and launching one rocket, presumably the costs would be considerably smaller.
>But does anyone have an idea what would be the minimum cost of putting one
>man in orbit? Presumably the main costs are launchpad, fuel, lifesupport
>and rocket. I heard somewhere that the latest Space Shuttle has five
>computers which combined have less memory than a good PC. Is this really true?
>
>Is it really possible for a small organisation to launch a man into space, if
>that is all it intends doing? I know this has shades of "The Mouse That Roared"
>but the possibility intrigues me. Ray Bradbury wrote, in The Martian Chronicles
>of families building their own rocket to get to Mars. James Blish wrote
>"welcome to Mars", about a boy who gets to Mars by himself.
>
>Any serious possibilities?

Bob Truax and Evil Knivel(sp) thought it could be done, a sub-orbital
hop, for a few million. No backers were willing to fund them though.
NASA has done, and published, most of the necessary R&D to do sub-orbital
and orbital flight. That database reduces costs enormously for someone
intent only on bending metal and flying.

Andy Griffin's junkyard spaceship still remains a TV plot device, however.
The "magic" fuel doesn't exist, and there's no reason to believe it ever
will.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 15:03:15 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Spaceflight for under $1,000?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>Remember that good technical people cost you circa $1000/person/week even
>>if you don't pay them terribly well.
>
>I take it graduate students are only worth about one quarter of a
>"good technical person"?

Even grad students are expensive to support. Aside from direct payroll
costs, you have the issue of supplying tools and workspace plus administrative
overhead. The industry says that the average electrical engineer costs about
$250,000 a year to maintain as a productive asset when you figure in indirect
costs. In the days of paper, pencil, Simpson 260, and an American Beauty
soldering iron, costs were lower.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 15:24:41 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>>What about Titan IV ?

>>Well I would prefer either Atlas or maybe a Titan III. that would
>>save you about $100 million.

>Perferable yes, but is there a 14 '' in diameter faring for the above? Maybe
>for Titan III but not for Atlas.

Pity NASA didn't design it so it could fit into cheaper launchers. Supporting
ComStack's efforts would also help.

It would still likely be cheaper to redesign again.

>No what you forget is that all you need is a faring with the proper diameter.

You need a lot more than that Dennis. You also need the an automated docking
system. You can't just stick it on a Titan and send it up.

>Titan IV has a Shuttle class payload faring and can carry most payloads that
>Shuttle can, although as you point out, not much cheaper.  Kinda shoots your
>HLV cost savings idea down for large payloads don't it.

Titan III could carry it. Titan IV's bought commercially could also be had
for roughly Titan III costs. Almost all the extra costs associated with
Titan IV are NASA paperwork.

BTW, don't try and blame this on the FAR's. NASA could get around them
if it wanted to.

>>Now if we bought the Russian docking technology and made a lot of
>>modifications we could.

>Could what? You still have to get the weight up there.


No problem. Use a Titan or redesign the payload for Atlas or even Delta.
(Using Delta would save you an additional $80 million or so a year).

>You would still have
>to completely redesign the system for on orbit refueling.

Pity it wasn't designed that way from the start. Look at the money
we could have saved.

>Since you have
>this wonderful Shuttle capacity for returning large payloads why not use it?

Because it costs a hell of a lot more than the alternatives. I myself find
that reason enough.

>>A few months yes but not a year. About 180 days after missing a firing
>>(and there is one every Shuttle flight) it will re-enter.

>Care to put up any numbers on this?

If you don't like that number, use Tom's which is twice as long. Either
way, another chalenger will cause Fred to burn up. Now if it where
designed with alternative cheaper logistics options this wouldn't
be a problem.

>With an altitude of 270 nautical miles, and
>the fact that Mir, which has nearly the same frontal area needs reboost less
>than the interval that you state, suggests otherwise.

I believe Mir reboosts every month which is quite a bit more than I
state.

>>apparently it also means they may not exist.

>I am truly glad that you put the "may" in there. This suggests that you may
>at least think there is a possiblility that everyone in NASA are not flaming
>idiots who only think about their paychecks.

Never said that. Parts of NASA are doing an outstanding job. Other parts
do an equally poor job. The problem is that the NASA organizational
culture simply doesn't work very well in many cases.

    Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------110 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 14:52:55 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>>...Since you have
>>this wonderful Shuttle capacity for returning large payloads why not use it?
>
>Because you shouldn't count on that Shuttle capacity. The Shuttle
>isn't exactly famous for keeping schedules reliably, nor is it
>immune to long down times. Worse, the station's design lifetime
>is 30 years. I don't think anyone seriously thinks the Suhttles
>will still be flying in 2025. Their expected lifetime, at the
>current launch rates, is expected to last no later than 2010.
>Since the resupply of the station is dependent on the Shuttle,
>how will it be resupplied after 2010? If the station is expected
>to remain on orbit, there can't be more that a year or so delay
>before a new Shuttle replacement is flying. Given the delays in
>the Shuttle's first flight, I don't think that's very realistic.
>There isn't anything wrong with using the Shuttle's orbit-to-Earth
>payload capability, but there is a problem with being absolutely
>dependenton it.

As was noted, Shuttle sized payloads can go up on Titans in the
short run. As for the thruster modules, since they are swapped
out every 180 days, it would be a simple matter to *add* valving
and fittings to a replacement pack to allow on orbit fueling at
any time. We aren't locked in to module replacement for the entire
30 year life of the station. If the Shuttle replacement can't
convienently recycle thrusters, we can easily modify them not to
require recycling. Since we *are* counting on Shuttle for the
short run, there's no reason to incur the upfront costs of modifying
off the shelf thruster packs now.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 15:54:21 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO HELP NEEDED, funding decisions being made now.
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In the next few days Al Gore will be meeting with his science
advisor John Gibbon. They will be deciding on funding levels for
some key programs. SSTO is one of the issues being decided on.
We need to get at least $50 million allocated so that requirements
can be completed and preliminary design finished. For $100M they
cold also build prototypes to answer all open questions about
feasibility. There are already people inside the Science Advisor's
office pushing SSTO but there is an urgent need to show VP Gore
that there is public support for this effort.

Please call Gore's offices at: [phone] and [phone]
and ask Gore to fund the SDIO SSRT program and support SSTO research.
You can also write to VP Al Gore, Room S-212, US Senate, Washington
DC 20510. This address is more effective than his VP office because
not many people write there.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------110 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 13:55:18 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: The Future of Fred
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>BS>    What on Earth are Canada, ESA, and Japan going to do with all
>BS>    their Freedom hardware? After ISPM and Freedom, international
>BS>    cooperation in space is likely to be dead, dead, dead.
>BS>
>BS>    Oh well, I guess our youth can look forward to building nice
>BS>    highways in the future, not much else.
>
>
>Since the design for Freedom obviously wouldn't work, I'm not shedding any
>tears for its' demise. NASA will certainly work with the other countires
>to ensure that their modules will interface with both the new station and
>Mir II. The Canadians work may go for naught, however, but its early yet.

Aside from some slippage in WP2, there's no indication that Freedom
wouldn't work. Most of that slippage is the result of mandated changes.
All the other packages are more or less on schedule.

>The rumor is that the new station will be orbital within 4 years. I would
>prefer a real station in orbit to one that will permanently be on paper.

Freedom was scheduled for first launch in late 95 with PMC in 97, and
*was on schedule* (+/- 3 months). So it looks like any new station will
*delay* our chances of having an operational facility. And will definitely
*reduce* our on orbit capabilites if built.

>Furthermore, even if it turns out to be a Space Winnebago, with a couple
>of foreign modules attached, we honestly could use a flight prototype for
>a followup now, rather than attempt the whole shebang with no flight
>experience. After all, most of the folks who built Skylab are long gone.

And most of the folks building your Winnebago, and the Winnebago itself
will be long gone before Congress funds *another* space station. Abandoning
Freedom throws away 8 years of work and $5 billion dollars of upfront costs
just as they are getting ready to pay off. Now you want to spend *another*
4 years and another $4 billion to put a Winnebago in orbit?

Gary


--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 233
------------------------------