Message-ID: <MZTpRZ-00VcJQFfE5V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri,  8 Dec 89 01:40:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #323

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 323

Today's Topics:
		Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
		   Ideas on Spacecraft Design Info?
		       Re: Mars Mission Agenda
		Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
		       Re: Mars Mission Agenda
	       Kvant 2 has successfully docked with MIR
	       Payload Status for 12/07/89 (Forwarded)
	     Re: The International Space Habitat Program
		       Re: Mars Mission Agenda
		       Re: Mars Mission Agenda
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 89 00:51:07 GMT
From: microsoft!davidle@uunet.uu.net  (David Levine)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

In article <10897@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@cezanne.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>In article <49059@bbn.COM> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>>In article <20177@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> scott@scheme.berkeley.edu writes:
>>>Aren't unmanned probes far less expensive and more efficient?
>>Yes.
>
>Unmanned Mars mission -
>  Earth: "Viking, please point your receiving antenna at the ground."
>  Viking: "OK"
>    end of mission
>
>Manned Mars mission -
>  Earth: "Neil, please point your receiving antenna at the ground."
>  Cdr. Colstrong: "Please confirm, Houston."
>  Earth: "OOPS! Cancel that order."
>    mission continues

Jon,
	I think that the enhanced capability of manned missions is
a bigger plus then a possibility of enhanced reliability.

	Nobody argues that failure modes exist for unmanned missions
which could be fixed by a crew.  It is much harder to estimate the
portion of such failures.

	Manned missions have a host of new failure modes, most of
which involve death or incapacitation of the crew.  The life of
the crew is dependent on many systems which don't even exist on
unmanned missions.  The weight of such systems makes the entire\
mission more complex without even the requirement of man-rating them.

	Many failures of unmanned missions could not have been fixed
by the crew.  If an electronics module fails and their is no redundant
spare aboard (most (all?) vital systems on Voyager/Galileo type spacecraft
are redundant) then I'm not sure what a human with a soldering iron could
do.  Much of Voyager's electronics were sealed units encased in a
wax-like potting compound.

	I'm not saying that manned missions are not sensible, just
that I tend to focus on the mission goals men can satisfy which
machines cannot, not on the benefit of sending along a repair person.
If an unmanned mission to Mars is 1/10 the cost then we could send
four spacecraft and still come out way ahead.

David Levine

=====================================================
=== The opinions expressed above are entirely mine ==
=== The facts expressed above are probably wrong   ==
=====================================================

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

Date: 7 Dec 89 23:35:17 GMT
From: agate!monsoon.Berkeley.EDU!gwh@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Ideas on Spacecraft Design Info?


	I'm involved in teaching a class here next semester on Spacecraft
Design.  If anyone has partticualrly good ideas for reference materials
or topics to cover [we already have a bunch of material, but more is always better]
send me some mail.


-george, publications editor UC Berkeley Students Promoting Aerospace Careers
	and Education 
****************************************************************************
George William Herbert |  UCB Naval Architecture [On schedule? at UCB? Yes!]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu       ||||||||| "And What if I Don't?"  "Then, You Die, 
gwh@soda.berkeley.edu      ||||||||||||||| the Girl dies, Everybody Dies..."
maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| -Heavy Metal

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

Date: 8 Dec 89 04:06:12 GMT
From: pasteur!sting.berkeley.edu!scott@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Scott Silvey)
Subject: Re: Mars Mission Agenda


> big ticket item space exploration.  If NASA isn't plugging that each
> and every day with the president, they should all be thrown out on their
> buns for stupidity.

Here, here!

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

Date: 6 Dec 89 17:40:42 GMT
From: thorin!homer!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

In article <1989Dec5.233637.7389@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <49170@bbn.COM> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>>But this is, of course, exactly the point.  Voyager's *overall* mission
>>can, and did, survive problems like this.
>The point is, this was more luck than planning.
>...
>Entirely true.  You need to fix such systems promptly, or at least
>improvise a temporary kludge.	As was done on Apollo 13, and to some
>extent on Skylab.

    While I generally agree with Henry, Apollo 13 was definitely a
caseE of "more luck than planning," too.  Luck that their "temporary
kludge" was still attached to the CSM instead of left behind on the
Moon.
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``One objective of the Lunar GetAway Special proposal was to
    *finally* prove that solar-ion rockets are a workable way to
    propel spacecraft, so that space-probe propulsion can be brought
    into the 1970s'' - Henry Spencer

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

Date: 7 Dec 89 14:00:14 GMT
From: sei!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Mars Mission Agenda

In article <1989Dec6.234500.9687@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Tell you what.  We'll split that second $100 billion up into two parts.
>The first goes for five $10 billion prizes to the first five companies
>which can launch one 100-ton payload a year to 10% of the speed of light.
>Use your imagination for the second half.

OK. $10 billion for the first person or organisation that can
demonstrate instantaneous displacement of a mass of 1kg a
distance of 1km.

For each subsequent $10 billion prize, the mass scales up by 10^2
and the distance by 10^3.  To win the fifth prize, you build a
starship.

It probably can't be done, of course; but even so we'd get a lot
of fun physics experiments and keep the prize money too.

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

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 09:54 EST
From: APSEY%RCSMPB@gmr.com
Subject: Kvant 2 has successfully docked with MIR


	Radio Moscow reported last evening that Kvant 2 has successfully
	docked with the MIR space station.  This is the largest object ever
	to have docekd with another object in space.  The Kvant 2 module is
	as large as MIR, itself.  It contains a new cosmonaut maneuvering
	unit to permit greater freedom of movement in space.  Also, there are
	additional scientific experiments on board Kvant 2.  Spaceflight, a
	publication of the British Interplanetary Society will carry more 
	details of the new complex in a couple of months.
								Jim Apsey
								GM Research
								Laboratories

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

Date: 7 Dec 89 20:59:48 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 12/07/89 (Forwarded)

Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 12-07-89
       
         
- STS-31R HST (at VPF) -
      
The GST-8 test continues with no problems reported.  All     
facility environmental readings remain nominal.  ECS support
and monitoring continues. 
        
- STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) -
       
SYNCOM battery charging was performed yesterday and will continue
on a daily basis.  PCR GSE was removed and shipped out. 
       
- STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) -
        
MIU cable mod was completed.  PAR cable clearance PR was worked   
off.  HUT preps were completed and the OSP retest was completed. 
Spacelab experiment train interface test is due to begin this   
morning. 
       
- STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) -
        
Rack rotations were performed on racks 6 and 12.  Rack 4 and 10 
side structure mods continue.  Rack 6 and 8 back panel removal       
was worked.
       
- STS-42 IML (at O&C) -
      
No activity.

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

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 09:06:54 PST
From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!scubed!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ames!lll-tis!mordor!angband!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: The International Space Habitat Program

Kieran A. Carroll writes:
>Well, Jim, there's a difference between having the capability to make
something
>work (a solar power satellite system, say), and making a venture profitable

Exactly, and this is the distinction between development and operations.
Operations must pay for themselves, development costs and provide a 
reasonable ROI for investors.

>... For example, private investors like to see the profit rolling in pretty
>well right away -- 2 years is a long time to wait for a ROI, these days, 

Even though you exaggerate (there are many places in the economy where
amortization on investment is between 3 and 50 years) it is true that
we have caused much of our industrial base to regress into infantile 
"now nowism" by providing government development funding to large
companies protected from competition through corrupt contracting
practices and deliberate nonenforcement of antitrust statutes.  Get the 
kid off the tit and it might grow up.  

>let alone 20 or 40 years. Just because investors aren't queueing up to put 
>their money into a venture doesn't mean that the venture isn't viable.

An "investment" that provides no return on investment for 20 to 40 years 
had better be VERY certain -- new technology development in a new market 
isn't the place for such an "investment".  Whenever someone talks about 
investing in development of a new product or service system with an expected 
pay-back period of 20 to 40 years, they are ripping off the investors. 
I've seen enough of it to know -- and so have you, which is the main reason 
I have contempt for your efforts to support yourself in this way.  You 
don't have an excuse.

>> ...did you think that money is no object as long as The Government engages
>> in enough Long Range Planning?
>
>If they're >good< plans :-) Seriously, if governments don't do long range
>planning, then who will? Private investors? It is to laugh...

Right, and I'm sure you and your friends have just The Plan -- send
lots of contracts to University of Toronto Aerospace Institute ASAP
and lots of wonderful things will happen just about the time you are
ready to retire.  Sorry Kieran -- better stop sucking blood out of that
vein -- the host is almost dead.  No self-respecting parasite kills
its host.

>Anyway, what's your point, Jim? (Do you have a point, Jim?) Are you arguing
>that there should be >no< government space funding? Or that just >space
>science< should be funded? If the latter, what do you include in your
definition
>of space science? Is it just taking photographs of outer planets (the one
>activity that unmanned probes are clearly better at than manned ones, for
now)?
>Or does it include investigations into microgravity materials science? How
>about funding of a proof-of-principle solar power satellite demonstration?
>How about funding advanced launcher-propulsion development? In short, do you
>have some rationale for deciding which types of government research you lash
>out at? If so, then >explaining< it would contribute a lot more to the
>discussion, than would posting endless insulting replies.

The entire body of patent law is based on the idea of "reduction to 
practice."

Research provides non-patentable knowlege.

But then, I'm sure you didn't need that little educational exercise.
I stated those definitions for the benefit of readers who aren't
"research and development professionals."

Asking that I be very very precise in these definitions is your way of 
trying to get away with being a tit-sucking brat.  I only become insulting 
to people who are attempting to remain infantile at the expense
of everyone else, when they should have grown up a long time ago.
---
Typical RESEARCH grant ($ = 1million):
$
Typical DEVELOPMENT contract:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

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

Date: 7 Dec 89 16:21:35 GMT
From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu  (Robert McGwier)
Subject: Re: Mars Mission Agenda

From article <1989Dec6.234500.9687@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> 
> With budgets like that, it's easy.  I offer prizes of $10 billion each
> to the first five companies who can launch large amounts of payload into
> orbit at $200/lb or less, and similar prizes to the first five companies
> who can launch large amounts into orbit at $20/lb or less.  (Actually it
> might be better to spread the prizes out over the scale, rather than


FINALLY someone on here understands that the way to lead or govern in this
is what I call contructive greed.  It will work if implemented.  Which means
that it won't, since we are going to be engaged in welfare for the aerospace
industries that would otherwise collapse in the face of falling defense
budgets.  I predict that we space cadets will get to see many of our dreams
come true at an unbelievable and (as Henry points out) unnecessary cost
to the global taxpayers because of the desire of politicians here and
abroad to keep their aerospace industries fed the big bucks.  We have to
do something with this huge aerospace infrastructure we have built up
since WW II, and I predict that as the cold war freezes it will go to
big ticket item space exploration.  If NASA isn't plugging that each
and every day with the president, they should all be thrown out on their
buns for stupidity.

Bob

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

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

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 23:29:09 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Mars Mission Agenda


>From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
>Subject: Re: Mars Mission Agenda

>With budgets like that, it's easy.  I offer prizes of $10 billion each
>to the first five companies who can launch large amounts of payload into
>orbit at $200/lb or less, and similar prizes to the first five companies
>who can launch large amounts into orbit at $20/lb or less.

It's easy to win that prize. Just borrow a large amount of money, offer
heavily subsidized launches for a while, then collect your winnings and
pay off your debt! :-)

Just kidding. I understand what you're driving at. Various national
governments have used this approach, and obtained considerable savings
over direct payment for development. I think the British government
financed the development of the chronometer in this fashion.

In this particular case, the problem would be the possibility of cheating.
A sufficiently large organization would not even have to borrow the money.
You could counteract this trend by careful audits of the companies involved,
in the way that the Commerce Department sought to determine whether Japanese
companies were "dumping" dynamic RAM chips on the US market (they were).
Some companies might consider this an unwarranted invasion of their privacy.
However, government contractors should be used to this by now. :-)
You could put in a provision that low launch costs must be maintained, or
the money would be taken back. An honest company might hope that the
initial large volume would help it to obtain true lowering of costs. However,
an unscrupulous company could just point out that the money had already been
spent, and declare bankruptcy. You would have subsidized a large number
of launches for random customers. (Not necessarily a bad thing - it would
demonstrate the elasticity of the market.)

>At $20/lb, we don't *need* to optimize everything for low mass, and we
>can launch a repair mission when something breaks, so we don't need to
>optimize for reliability either.  If it *has* to work, just send ten of 
>them.  Costs will plummet.

That may be effective, *provided* launch costs are low. On the other hand,
where failure rates are extremely high and there are many possible types
of failures, a moderately redundant system may still be more cost effective.
An example of this is the recent effort to add redundant elements to very
large integrated circuits, to improve chip yields.
                             John Roberts
                             roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #323
*******************