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 ; Sun, 14 Oct 1990 01:35:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 14 Oct 1990 01:34:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #457 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 457 Today's Topics: Re: Cost comparison: Apollo/Saturn vs. Shuttle Atmospheric nitrogen Re: Cost comparison: Apollo/Saturn vs. Shuttle Re: Launch cost per pound Re: Oct. 5 NASA Headline News Re: Man-rated SRBs (was Re: Junk the shuttle?) Weather satelites Re: Launch cost per pound Re: Magellan/Venus Info Re: ulysses and galileo questions Re: space news from Aug 20 AW&ST Re: Magellan/Venus Info Re: Deep Space Network use (Was: Ulysses Update - 10/06/90) Re: Ulysses Update #2 - 10/11/90 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: 13 Oct 90 06:36:40 GMT From: norge.Eng.Sun.COM!jmck@sun.com (John McKernan) Subject: Re: Cost comparison: Apollo/Saturn vs. Shuttle In article <1990Oct4.211648.16010@nntp-server.caltech.edu> krs@deimos.caltech.edu (Karl Stapelfeldt) writes: > I do not think we should go back to >manned missions with crew capsules and throwaway boosters. >They have no appreciable advantages vs. manned shuttle launches - >certainly they do not offer any great cost advantage, as I have >tried to show. > Karl Stapelfeldt > krs@deimos.caltech.edu Wrong. You've made your case against a booster that no longer exists, the Saturn 1B. At this years launch rates the Shuttle costs well over $1 Billion per launch (the NASA appropriation for shuttle operations is approximately $4 billion per year, not counting things like fixed facilities costs for people primarily working for the shuttle program). Even in an optimum year, if these ten year old shuttles have any more optimum years left, shuttle costs are approx $500 million per launch. A Titan IV costs $93 million from the factory, and it's the most expensive booster in the private space industry. The point is we NOW have a private space trucking industry in place. It's insane to pay a bloated bureaucracy $4-$5 billion a year to haul cargo up in an extremely fragile experimental vehical. And if we want to get a few men up into LEO all we need to do is put a simple capsule on one of our cheap private boosters. Remember, a capsule is a simple thing, at least compared to other space hardware. It's just a few retro rockets, O2 bottles, and parachutes. John L. McKernan. jmck@sun.com Disclaimer: These are my opinions but, shockingly enough, not necessarily Sun's ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 20:13:14 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Atmospheric nitrogen >From: Richard Ristow >Subject: Re: gravity and atmosphere (nitrogen >>For that matter, we don't know for sure that long-term absence of major >>quantities of nitrogen doesn't have some obscure harmful effect. >I suggest that for planetary atmospheres (as opposed to short-term breathing >and managed biospheres) the absence of nitrogen has a harmful effect that's >far from obscure: atmospheric nitrogen is the substrate from which combined >nitrogen is produced by biological and abiological 'fixing' processes >(the former mainly an enzyme chain in certain prokaryotes, the latter >including nitrogen oxydation in lightning strokes). Good point, but that in itself does not not imply that a full 78% will be required. For instance, the average American takes in far more sodium than the recommended minimum, so even a significant reduction would have little or no negative effect on health. Building a stable and self-sufficient large complex ecosystem is certainly a very complex task, and probably beyond our current capabilities. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 90 17:03:21 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!conexch!stanton!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!David.Anderman@ucsd.edu (David Anderman) Subject: Re: Cost comparison: Apollo/Saturn vs. Shuttle There are many, many arguments for using expendible capsules for manned space flight. Yes, you could use Apollo CSMs on Titan rockets. You could also put them on the old Boeing/Hughes Jarvis design, and get an entire Apollo CSM/SM stack plus some sort of space station module with one launch. On the other hand, you could simply buy Soyuz capsules and rockets at 10 -15 million $ a pop.... -- David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 90 23:58:35 GMT From: van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Launch cost per pound In article <1293.2710C090@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Anderman) writes: >Actually, it might be cheaper to launch the Soviet rockets from the Cape >(Canaveral) than Baikonur. Yes, workers here get paid more $, but the >decrease in Delta V needed to get into orbit from Florida may make up >the difference..... Cape York is still better, and there are already plans to launch Soviet boosters from there. -- "...the i860 is a wonderful source | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of thesis topics." --Preston Briggs | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 21:13:21 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: Oct. 5 NASA Headline News >From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) >This is NASA Headline News for Friday, October 5, 1990 >Based on the incident yesterday with Atlantis, the shuttle team >conducted an extensive review of the paperwork, photos, >inventory, equipment and work platforms used in Discovery's aft >compartment to ensure nothing had been overlooked. The >review confirmed that Discovery's aft compartment closeout was >properly accomplished. But there was something in there. When Ulysses was pushed out of the bay, a large object (apparently a disk several meters across) floated out too. Judging from later events, it was apparently not anything needed by Discovery or Ulysses. I suppose it could have been a cardboard or plastic spacer used in shipping. (Did they get any stereo views with the multiple cameras to triangulate it? A 3-D video camera would have been handy.) It also appeared that many hundreds of small objects floated out of the bay. Since nobody seemed interested in them, they were presumably thermal foil or gum wrappers or some such. :-) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 90 03:29:04 GMT From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Man-rated SRBs (was Re: Junk the shuttle?) In article Mike.McManus@FtCollins.NCR.com (Mike McManus) writes: >... What is the problem with SRBs? Safety? >Reliability? How do these issues compare against liquid fueled engines? One big problem with SRBs is lack of control. Once they are lit, there is nothing you can do to throttle them or turn them off until they burn out. (Well, you can preprogram some throttling, and thrust termination is practically difficult but not theoretically impossible, but the overall picture doesn't change much.) If one starts acting up, all you can do is wait and pray. Another is that you can't test-fire the ones you are going to use for flight, since they are one-shot. You just have to examine them in every way you can possibly think of and hope that there are no major flaws. Still another is that the combustion chamber is huge, and for current big solids, is assembled out of multiple pieces. This creates lots of opportunities for leaks. Just about the only things *right* about them are that they have high thrust for their size, and they are a bit cheaper to develop than liquids. Guess what the clincher was for the shuttle? -- "...the i860 is a wonderful source | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of thesis topics." --Preston Briggs | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 90 10:04:00 GMT From: wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!sfn20715@decwrl.dec.com Subject: Weather satelites (Quoted from sci.space) * WEATHER SATELLITES * ====================== Spacecraft Catalog # Frequency Status ========== ========= ========= ====== NOAA 9 15427 137.620 Active-Afternoon NOAA 10 16969 137.500 Active-Morning NOAA 11 19531 137.620 Active-Afternoon ------------------------------------ Is there any more information about these? Does the information come across as a bitmapped image every 10 min or so? Freq in Megahertz, right? What kind of sensitivity would an antenna need to get info from these, and how many people would send me plans to build an antenna to PC setup? :-) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 90 17:00:23 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!conexch!stanton!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!David.Anderman@decwrl.dec.com (David Anderman) Subject: Re: Launch cost per pound Actually, it might be cheaper to launch the Soviet rockets from the Cape (Canaveral) than Baikonur. Yes, workers here get paid more $, but the decrease in Delta V needed to get into orbit from Florida may make up the difference..... -- David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 90 18:11:34 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Re: Magellan/Venus Info In article <1990Oct13.034912.29819@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1990Oct12.041832.6403@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >>... Also, there is a universal convention >>on planets other than Earth that the longitude will be measured in the >>opposite direction that the planet rotates. Venus rotates backwards... > >Sorry, no, this is not universally agreed on, for a different reason: >there is a difference of opinion on which is the north pole. Various >groups are on opposite sides of the question. The cartographers say >that the north pole is the one that's on the same side of the orbital >plane as solar north. But many fields-and-particle physicists say >that the planet rotates counterclockwise by definition, and the north >pole is the one from which you see it that way. Usually the two >definitions agree. For Venus they don't, but the real debate over it >was in connection with Uranus, which is tipped slightly over 90 degrees >from the usual orientation and hence is tilted just enough for the two >to disagree. If this has been resolved, I haven't heard about it. >-- Since Venus axis tilt is nearly straight up and down, its North pole is assumed to be pointing in the same direction as that of the Earth's, even though this would mean Venus rotates backwards. I agree that since Uranus and Pluto are both rotating on their sides at about 90 degrees, determining which side is their North and South poles can be a problem. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 90 03:53:32 GMT From: wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@eddie.mit.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: ulysses and galileo questions In article dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes: >Does anyone know if the Galileo insertion stage was bought >off-the-shelf, and if it will have a high acceleration >(decelleration?) factor the same way the Magellan prode did? Galileo's insertion stage is a custom-built liquid-fuel engine, the big brother of its little maneuvering engines, with relatively modest thrust. Normally that sort of approach is preferred. Magellan was done on the cheap, and hence ended up using a commercial solid motor despite the fierce acceleration and resulting structural and control problems. -- "...the i860 is a wonderful source | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of thesis topics." --Preston Briggs | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 90 23:57:30 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news from Aug 20 AW&ST In article <545@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US> friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US (Steve Friedl) writes: >> The Pioneer Venus orbiter tried to photograph [Magellan's] injection >> burn using its ultraviolet polarimeter, but the rocket plume wasn't >> bright enough to be visible. > >If NASA had decided that photographing this was important, would they >have been able to arrange the insertion so that Pioneer was close enough >to *surely* get the picture? Or are they in such different orbits that >this was just not possible? Not impossible, perhaps, but not worth the trouble. I think the attempt at photography was just a nice bonus, plus a possible source of information in the event of catastrophic failure (remembering that the burn was on the back side of Venus from our viewpoint, so there was no real-time telemetry from Magellan). If I had to guess, I'd guess that both the position of the burn and the position of Pioneer Venus could have been altered to improve things, but at significant cost: a less-than-optimal final orbit for Magellan, and substantial expenditure of scarce fuel for PV. -- "...the i860 is a wonderful source | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of thesis topics." --Preston Briggs | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 90 03:49:12 GMT From: wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Magellan/Venus Info In article <1990Oct12.041832.6403@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >... Also, there is a universal convention >on planets other than Earth that the longitude will be measured in the >opposite direction that the planet rotates. Venus rotates backwards... Sorry, no, this is not universally agreed on, for a different reason: there is a difference of opinion on which is the north pole. Various groups are on opposite sides of the question. The cartographers say that the north pole is the one that's on the same side of the orbital plane as solar north. But many fields-and-particle physicists say that the planet rotates counterclockwise by definition, and the north pole is the one from which you see it that way. Usually the two definitions agree. For Venus they don't, but the real debate over it was in connection with Uranus, which is tipped slightly over 90 degrees from the usual orientation and hence is tilted just enough for the two to disagree. If this has been resolved, I haven't heard about it. -- "...the i860 is a wonderful source | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of thesis topics." --Preston Briggs | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 90 03:38:50 GMT From: wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@eddie.mit.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Deep Space Network use (Was: Ulysses Update - 10/06/90) In article <5757@mace.cc.purdue.edu> dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) writes: >The VLA (Very Large Array) radiotelescope near Socorro, New Mexico >was pressed into service for Voyager's Neptune pass. And several others. A large fraction of the Free World's total radiotelescope aperture was pointed at Voyager for the Neptune encounter. >the biggest gap is between Madrid and Canberra. Maybe they could >put one is, say, India? ... Why bother? In principle two would suffice, if you put them precisely 180 degrees apart and didn't mind working right down on the horizon just before switchover. In practice you don't want to work at that low an angle, and the choice of positions is limited, but three is quite adequate to give complete coverage for anything not enormously out of the ecliptic. If you just want to add more antennas, it is almost certainly more cost-effective to add them at existing sites and make use of existing support facilities. >... I seem to remember that there was a station in Madagascar >(45 deg E) for the Apollo flights. Apollo and earlier flights needed a large station network to give good coverage while the spacecraft were in *Earth* orbit. The lunar part of the mission was not a big problem, but low Earth orbit is a real pain to cover with ground stations. It's not an accident that relay satellites were both the first "real" shuttle payload and the first post-Challenger payload. -- "...the i860 is a wonderful source | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of thesis topics." --Preston Briggs | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 90 01:07:41 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!wrgate!mtdoom!dant@uunet.uu.net (Dan Tilque) Subject: Re: Ulysses Update #2 - 10/11/90 baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > ULYSSES MISSION STATUS > > The five-year mission to study the Sun's poles and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >interstellar space beyond the poles And to boldly go where no probe has gone before. --- Dan Tilque -- dant@mtdoom.WR.TEK.COM P.S. Sorry, I couldn't resist. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #457 *******************