Return-path: 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/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Wed, 25 Jul 1990 03:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 25 Jul 1990 03:03:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #123 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 123 Today's Topics: Re: Freedom Re: Nasa's budget Space Shuttle and the Ozone layer Re: SPACE Digest V12 #112 CRC ERROR IN PROJECTIONS PROGRAM Re: Negative Matter [was Anti-Gravity Devices] Space shuttle Re: Discussion on engineering education newsgroup RE: hubble trouble Re: Software data on Apollo space program Re: HST Re: Is an asteroid capture possible/feasible? Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jul 90 00:38:40 GMT From: apple.com!heksterb@apple.com (Ben Hekster) Subject: Re: Freedom Henry Spencer writes: > "Mir" means "peace through overwhelming superiority". How appropriate... That IS funny--I also understand that 'glasnost', rather than 'openness', means "the selective release of knowledge." Ben ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 90 12:58:55 GMT From: ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@CS.YALE.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Nasa's budget Michael V. Kent writes: >>Number of days in orbit: 280 >>Cost (20 shuttle flights): $6 billion > >While I don't have any complaints about the logic of your argument, I'm still >not satisfied with the numbers. It seems to me like you are using the highest >cost estimate you can find for the Shuttle and the lowest one you can find for >the Heavy Lift Delta. I thought I was bending over backwards to give the Shuttle extra advantages. I didn't count: 1. Amoritization of the Shuttle 2. Amortization of Spacelab (far more expensive for the shuttle since it is used 1/7 as much). 3. Spacelab prep work for every flight 4. I added no misc expenses for the Shuttle (I added almost $1B for an expenable approach). As for the HL Delta, I am using moderate prices. The first two will be more expensive and launches after #17 will cost less, perhaps a lot less. >According to Aviation Week (18 Jun 90, p26), NASA and >OMB estimate a Shuttle flight at $130M in 1988$. We spend about $3B on shuttle operations every year and get about ten flights. That means the COST is $300M per flight. Maybe the charge is less, but the cost is $300M. >This is undoubtedly flyaway >cost, you seem to be quoting flyaway cost for the Delta, so this would be a >fair comparison. If you like, I will be happy to charge ALL the amortization of HL Delta development to Spacelab and charge NONE of the Shuttle amortization to the Shuttle Spacelab. This will make the expendable cost (in round numbers) $4B over five years. Still a third less than the Shuttle yet gives 7 times the utilization. >BTW, I usually use $200M / flight in calculations. OK. That ignores lots of costs for the Shuttle but still only makes the costs equal (assuming we burden the expendable amortization on Spacelab). However, I still utilize Spacelab seven times as much as you do. >>Total cost $3B >>Total days in orbit: 1825 >> >Again, I have trouble believing your numbers. I just can't believe we can have >a viable space station for $650M.I we we could, but I don't believe we can. >Nor do I believe it can be ready in three years. All I can say is to read their reports. I would be interested in your comments. >The LLNL people are great at >what they do, but they don't have any experience with manned spaceflight. In ten years NASA went from no experience with manned spaceflight to a man on the moon. The people at LLNL are just as smart and have the right attitude. >>Freedom will not be on line in 5 years. Not even NASA says that and current >>(not released) figures indicate that it won't be on line this century. I also >>point out that NASA has no plans to put Spacelab in orbit with Freedom. > >Unfortunately, I don't have my manifest on my Unix account, but the figures I >(might) remember from the January manifest are: I'll accept your memory. However, a redesign and rescoping is happening (yet again). The figures have not been released, but currently is seems unlikely that any more than the truss will be done by the end of the century. >So the question becomes, what should we do for the next five years? While >yours is an interesting idea, I just don't think it's doable. I have no doubt >that when the Heavy Lift Delta is launched, it will work -- I have faith in >McDonnell Douglas for that (I also work for them :). But considering the >financial difficulties we are in right now, I don't think we have half a >billion to spare. I'd be surprised if we launch the first one before 1995. As I said, your company has ALREADY committed themselves to do it. All the government needs to do is sign. I believe the program is called "Zenith Star" so you may want to contact them for details. >I also don't like the idea of buying Soyuzes from the Soviets. Maybe it's >just the defense contractor in me, but I think we should remain independent in >launch capability. Fine. I have always said that Soyuz was a temporary choice. I suspect we will want to build a larger one for routine use. I only propose Soyuz as it will enable us to save more money by phasing out the shuttle sooner and to reduce program risk. >It's in our national interest. I have far fewer concerns >with using Hermes as a crew transfer vehicle for the space station, however. I suspect that will be more expensive, but OK. >>What is your goal? >> >My goal is to create a spacefaring civilization. Hopefully, America will lead >it, but I'm beginning to have some doubts... I'm glad we have the same goal. However, I don't think we will achieve it if we continue to help our critics. Allen | | In War: Resolution | | Allen W. Sherzer | In Defeat: Defiance | | aws@iti.org | In Victory: Magnanimity | | | In Peace: Good Will | ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 90 16:25:02 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!aoab314@ucsd.edu (Srinivas Bettadpur) Subject: Space Shuttle and the Ozone layer Howdy folks, I was reading this rather interesting article in the third world business magazine SOUTH (issue of June 1990, pg 105). This article reports a study by two Soviet scientists V. Burdakov and V. Filin on the effects of space shuttle flights on the depletion of the ozone layer. Some salient numbers from that article are : U.S. Space Shuttle : Solid propellant fuels; Before reaching an altitude of 50 km, one flight emits 187 tonnes of Chlorine 7 tonnes of Nitrogen 177 tonnes of Aluminium Oxide aerosols estimated destruction of 10 million tonnes of ozone, requiring a total of 300 flights to completely destroy the ozone layer. The Delta rocket destroys about 8 million tonnnes of ozone and other culprits include the Titan II, Ariane V and other rockets using solid propellants. Incidentally, the Energiya, with its mix of oxygen and hydocarbon fuel for first stage and a mix of hydrogen-oxygen for second stage, destroys only 1500 tonnes of ozone. Knowing squat about either the shuttle or the chemistry of its propulsion, I thought this might be a good place to start to cast about for further information. S. Bettadpur Bitnet : aoab314 @ utchpc Other : aoab314@frio.chpc.utexas.edu aoab314@emx.cc.utexas.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 12:10:16 CET From: GUNNAR RADONS Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V12 #112 Mike wrote > ... negative matter is just matter with negative mass o.k., it'a a way to define it. I suppose you won't mean Antimatter, which is just ordinary matter, having the charges the other way around (protons are negative, electrons positive). Btw: what is 'negative' in the context of matter? By now you may go down to gluon level and yet you won't see a particle whichs gravitational interactions could be explained by negative exchange particels (as far as I know). I think we have to wait for an answer on this until the exchange particle of garvitation is known. Gunnar ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 13:04 CST From: Subject: CRC ERROR IN PROJECTIONS PROGRAM To: Dear Mr. Sokolowski: My name is Jeffery A. Collins. I am an M.B.A. candidate at Governors State University. Today I have attempted to down load your program from the SPACE listing, and have been experiencing great difficulty. The uudecode that I have access to, is a pc version I do not have access to uudecode through mainframe. My procedure was to download the raw file, chop out the unnecessary portion and uudecode x The problem arose when I used arc x predicti.arc When the process reaches the predict.doc stage, it starts to indicate cyclical redundancies. the end of the doc file is somewhat unreadable, and the exe file, when executed, drops below the cursor and little colored squares appear on the screen. Would it be possible to obtain a working copy through regular mail.. Any suggestions would be more than appreciated. You people on the list(Space) Really make my day better! Thank you, Jeffery A. Collins A.K.A. RUA University Park, Illinois U.S.A. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 90 23:19:40 GMT From: crabcake!arromdee@umd5.umd.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) Subject: Re: Negative Matter [was Anti-Gravity Devices] In article <1990Jul24.161034.7598@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> neufeld@physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes: > Note that there is no experimental evidence to suggest the existence of >"negative matter," but that doesn't keep us from speculating about its >possible properties, if it does exist. The newest Analog has an article by (I think) Robert Forward which is about negative matter. (Which is not known to exist, of course; the article is speculation.) -- "I will not instigate revolution..." "I will not instigate revolution..." "I will not instigate revolution..." --The Simpsons Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm; INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 90 21:13:55 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!David.Anderman@ucsd.edu (David Anderman) Subject: Space shuttle The space shuttle is probably the most dangerous space vehicle ever designed (except for the Soviet Voshkod). THere is no way to survive a first stage engine failure. -- David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 90 02:30:44 GMT From: usc!wuarchive!mailrus!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Discussion on engineering education newsgroup In article <1990Jul20.194837.28449@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov writes: >... "good oral and written communications skills". Where do >you get these skills, in an engineering curriculum? In my own background, >I was required two quarters of English and one of Speech as an undergraduate, >and that wasn't enough ... It would help, considerably, to undo the old merger that united Composition and Literature into English. English teachers like to teach Literature, which does little or nothing for the communications skills, because Composition is hard to teach. -- NFS: all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology and its performance and security too. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 90 16:49:31 EDT From: Dan Sullivan Subject: RE: hubble trouble To: X-Office-To: USENET SMTP According to Ray Frank: >I would have interrogated NASAs head even more that Gore. [lines deleted] >If the average guy on the job had cost his company even hundreds of >dollars because of incompetance, he would be fired very quickly. The trouble with this analogy is NASAs current head had nothing to do with the trouble with the HST (assuming it is a design or even manufacturing defect). He was not around at the time. You might blame him for not paying as close attention as he should have, but not for the actions of his predecessors. dan sullivan ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 90 13:51:44 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!warwick!nott-cs!masalla.fulcrum.bt.co.uk!axion!tsa!domo@uunet.uu.net (Dominic Dunlop) Subject: Re: Software data on Apollo space program [Note Followup-To: above. Just a hint.] In article Mike <9778@hubcap.clemson.edu> (System Janitor) writes: >Who has last winter's USENIX procedings? A NASA bigwig was the keynote >speaker there, and he had lots to say on the subject [of the software used >on the Apollo space program]. Too true. Entertaining, as well, although the material gave the impression of having been trotted out in front of many audiences before it reached the assembled hackers of USENIX. The speaker was Jim Tomayko, Software Engineering Institute, CMU. Sadly, one of the things that makes keynotes different from the rest of a conference is that they don't get written up in the proceedings, so there's no point in asking. And I'm pretty sure that USENIX (unlike, say, UniForum) doesn't publish conference tapes, so you can't order up a cassette and listen to it as you drive to the spaceport (or whatever). -- Dominic Dunlop ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 90 19:23:14 GMT From: seas.gwu.edu!willson@uunet.uu.net (Stephen Willson) Subject: Re: HST I believe that the reason that the HST is not in geostationary orbit is that a that height the Van de Graf radiation belts would damage HST and shorten it's life span. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 90 15:56:49 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Is an asteroid capture possible/feasible? In article <7277@fmeed1.UUCP> cage@fmeed1.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes: >>The estimate I saw said one thousand 100MT bombs to shift a 1km asteroid... > >I posted an analysis to sci.astro not long ago. I came up with a >figure of 900-odd 100 >KT< (kiloton, not megaton) bombs required >to produce a delta-V of 10 meters/second. Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, we're talking about captures -- shifting the thing into Earth orbit -- which need a whole lot more than 10 m/s. One would, in general, prefer to use large bombs. It is said that the biggest single item in the cost of a fusion bomb is the fission trigger, and that does not scale up as the fusion component gets bigger. The MIT Icarus study found that a 100MT bomb was within then-current technology (mid-1960s) for this purpose. -- NFS: all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology and its performance and security too. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #123 *******************