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 ; Fri, 9 Nov 1990 02:53:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 9 Nov 1990 02:53:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #516 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 516 Today's Topics: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap ** Need Orbit Params for SPECIAL satellites ** Re: Theory for Life Re: Pioneer 11 Update - 10/30/90 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: 30 Oct 90 21:54:12 GMT From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa!3001crad@ucsd.edu (Charles Frank Radley) Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap Charles Radley WARNING this message is 400 lines long >company who presents a beatiful prposal, then two years later >you find they cannot deliver what they promised ? >Every day occurrence in the aerospace industry. + No in all of the aerospace industry. The commercial airline + industry does this sort of thing as a matter of routine. Boeing + just sold United a bunch of planes which don't exist yet. Sold + them for a fixed price before beginning the design in detail. Boeing has a long track record of building highly successful aircraft. LLNL does not have any track record at all in large space systems. + Besides, what do we have to loose? If it doesn't work, I'll + join you to be the first to call for killing it. If it does + work, we will have a space station in three years At what point do you decide it does not work. When it is a year late, or 2 years or 3 ? Do you really think it will be built on time ? So if it is 3 years late and does not work, six years have been lost with nothing to show for it. On the other hand, if congress stops messing with the budget, I have little doubt that Freedom could achieve MTC and then PMC more or less on time. + and almost an order of magnitude reduction in launch + costs for large payloads. All that is needed to demonstrate the + concept is about 5% of one years spending on Freedom. Sounds cheap enough. Let them get on with. But not with my budget. +ANY serious flaws in their approach. Proposing untried NiH batteries which have no advantage over existing ones; proposing untried amorphous silicon cells with dubious qualification prospects and admitting conventional cells would be just as good and less risky; presupposing a brand new ELV will be ready on time in three years and cost next to nothing; - all this I find hard to swallow. Another concern I have is with the inflatable structure. What is its factor of safety on burst ? Since it is not possible to do fracture mechanics on non-metallic structures, there are only two ways to qualify it to MIL-STD-1522, or the NASA NHB-8071.1 which are basically the same. That is to design them with a minimum safety factor of two on ultimate burst and do a burst test on one to verify. That is expensive, and it sounds like they have not factored that in. The other way if no burst test is done is to design them for a factor of four on ultimate burst - that makes them heavy. If it does not comply with these kinds of Federal Standards, then Federal employess (eg astronauts) would not normally be allowed to expose themselves to the excessive risks. LLNL being a federal agency would also have regulatory problems. The use non-metallic pressure vessels in space applications is still new, and something the US government has not yet fully accepted. Even a private employer using private money is still required to comply with Federal OSHA Law, and that requires pressure vessels have a factor of 4 on ultimate burst. >+Why? If Freedom used expendables instead of insisting on using >+ the Shuttle their costs would also drop. At $500 to $900 a > pop those assembly costs add up fast. Why is that apples and >+oranges? The assembly flights require manned presence. Will the LLNL HLV be manned ? If so, their cost estimates are *@*#&* > I thought the HLV would be reusable.... + No, that would make them too expensive. Depends on the traffic projections. >There is some psychology involved, Shuttle exists, HLV does not. + What psychology is involved? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. >There is a risk in betting that a non-existent HLV will work. > Once again, the problem of credibility. + NASA is claiming ten Shuttle flights a year for assembly. This + flies in the face of the past ten years operational experience + with the Shuttle, ignores problems with an ageing fleet, and + discounts problems with the fleet being grounded. The last is + an important factor since the Shuttle has been grounded for +about a third of it's operational life. Because of this, Freedom + could well end up being deployed in Australia next to Skylab. True, but does not eliminate the HLV risk. Compare the devil you know with the devil you do not. + The LLNL Earth Station on the other hand, uses cheaper + technology. Yes, too cheap. + They assume launchers will be grounded in their schedules. They + assume things won't work and plan for backup approaches when +they fail. Really ? Then their development schedules are even more success oriented than I thought if they think they already have that covered. + If the HLV is gounded, they could use Titan, Delta, or even the +Shuttle. Sure, but then their cost projections go out the window, and you end up with a system costing the same as Freedom. Adapting launch packages to fit three or four different vehicles sends your cost sky high. + From where I sit it is NASA by failing to plan for Shuttle + alternatives which is taking the high risk, low credibility + approach. Funny, I come to the exact opposite conclusion with the same data. With one exception, I would like to see an ACRV added to the program to get some independence from the Shuttle. +No, the cost still needs to be amoritized. I just flew back from +Dallas in a new 767. I'm sure part of the cost of that aircraft + was to pay for the design. Just because it exists doens't mean + you don't need to pay development costs. No. The cost does not need to be amortized. It is written off. The money has been paid. The Shuttle was not built on credit (unless defecit spending counts as credit), it really has been paid for. It is not a commercial product. + Somebody from Lewis posted the numbers Freedom was being +charged for Shuttle flights. The amount only reflected about a +third of the operational costs of the Shuttle. NASA is +subsidizing Freedom's budget by moving money from Shuttle to +Freedom. This is an artifact of the congressional appropriations process. +One bad effect of this is that it hurts the domestic launch + industry. No, it does not. NASA is prohibited by Executive Order from competing with the commercial ELV industry. The shuttle is not used for launching commercial payloads, unless they require manned presence. +Can you be more detailed? What part do you think soundt too +good? The cost, and the schedule. + Now tell me, what specific objection do you have? Your past +experience is not relevant to the technical proposals of the two +contractors. What is wrong with their proposals? Who are the HLV contractors ? What are they proposing ? Even "qualified" contractors sometimes run into problems. I do not understand how anyone can be "qualified" to build a radically new HLV the like of which has never been seen before. + It is cheaper to design for no eva and do eva if needed than to + require eva. Not really. Once you provide the airlocks, EVA suits, training and all, then take it all into orbit, whether you use it or not makes little difference to the final cost. +LLNL will pay for the 20 flights. The entire Great Exploration +program uses 20 HLV flights for the Earth Station, Gas Station, + and Lunar Base. Three flights are for the bases and the rest + are for fuel and resuply. I am very glad to hear they have a magic source of money. What is it that makes them exempt from the congressional budgetary process ? All Moon/Mars funding has been deleted, so how come LLNL think they are going to get congress to change their minds ? +SSX will require major modifications to the RL-10 engine. It +must be made throttable and operational at sea level. The nozle +must be replaced with the Aerospike. None of this has been done. I will check on that and get back to you. + The HLV's mentioned do not require new moving parts or +modifications to their engines. Do not misunderstand me, I kinda like the idea of an HLV, I simply believe the cost and schedule predictions are way too optimistic. +In addition, using SSX will +require much EVA for assembly which +will greatly add to program risk. See previous comment about EVA. >No, it ignores the classical new technology risk. If the new >product fails its qualification program, then it costs a lot >more. + It may or may not. Depends on how much the tests cost. Space qualification is expensive, believe me ! +If it fails, they will still get up for 5% the cost of Freedom. + Looks like a good idea to me. Again, I reach the opposite conclusion with the same data. Primarily because I do not believe the 5 % and the approach they think they can use to achieve it. > Let LNNL pay to get thenm qualified first. + They will, and they will do it for 5% of NASA's costs. Not if they qualify it to NASA standards, which is what I mean. If they don't want to use NASA standards, then heck, go make the thing from parts out of the Sears catalog, and good luck. >>Any of those guys coming to southern California any time soon ? >+ Invite them down >Hah ! I value my job too much. + That's an interesting remark. Why would inviting some speakers + in get you fired? I work for a Freedom contractor. LLNL represents the competition. >Ok, I gotta ask, what is LLNL's magic formula which makes their >ACRV cheaper than NASA's ACRV ? + The right attitude in getting it built. A better question is +why does it cost NASA so much to get an ACRV? No, I already asked the right question and you didn't answer it. +This is an important question when you realize you can buy them +off the shelf for under $10 million. Not in the West. Please provide supplier name, address, and catalog part number. >No. We need to consider the probability of the event occuring >in the first place, which for LLNL I believe is higher. + As a safety engineer can you qualify that remark? Why is the +risk higher for LLNL? What is the risk? Their cheapo approach means they will not have enough test data to make realistic failure rate preditions, so their failure rate must be assumed to be high. (See previous pressure vessel concern) >+ LLNL is about as risky as Apollo, I am not convinced of that. + Can you provide more detail? Apollo took a great deal of effort to obtain meaningful failure rate data which was used to reduce risk. The LLNL approach precludes obtaining adequate failure rate data. +Well I'm not afraid of those questions. Why not launch from +Energia? A very good question. Bush and the State Department still do not want the Soviets gaining access to Western space technology. When they cease to have that concern, the Soviets will have access to the entire world's launching market, and the world space industry will change overnight. ( & I will start brushing up my Russian). +In building the Shuttle NASA said it was safe and reliable. This +was why it costs so much to build and operate. Yet it turns out +it is nither safe nor reliable. If NASA was insisting all along +that this was dangerous, why did they fly two senators and a +school teacher? I have read the Rogers report and Feynman's book about Challenger. They explain it all better than I can. Nobody condones the actions of the pre-Challenger NASA, least of all me. Also, I am opposed to the continued use of SRBs on the Shuttle, they should use liquid boosters, preferably reusable, or better still use Amroc type super-safe hybrid motors. SRBs are intrinsically unsafe. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 90 21:47:07 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news@ucsd.edu (Cliff Yamamoto) Subject: ** Need Orbit Params for SPECIAL satellites ** Greetings! I'm trying to locate some orbit parameters for a couple of unusual satellites. They are actually spheres that just circle the earth. Can anyone tell me where or who can supply me with these orbit parameters? (like NORAD for instance? NOT Norad the program but NORAD in Wyoming). I couldn't find these on the Celestial BBS in the NASA Predicts. Catalog # 14075 and 15080. Any info would be appreciated! Regards, Cliff ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 90 01:06:32 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!kuento@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: Theory for Life In article <10165@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: > In article <1990Oct27.034234.16606@nntp-server.caltech.edu> palmer@nntp-server.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes: > : Obviously, the next step in evolution is to shed symmetry altogether. > > I'd give my right arm for that. Um, you can save the arm - sponges (as in "the group of animals that is so primitive that many authorities put them in their own little subkingdom") have had no symmetry for millions of years now. I guess "couch potato" and sponge aren't so far removed, though - gee, we've almost come full circle! ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Yanega (Snow Museum, Univ. of KS, Lawrence, KS 66045) My card: 0 The Fool Bitnet: Beeman@ukanvm "This is my theory, such as it is....which is mine. AAH-HEM!" ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 90 18:46:26 GMT From: phri!roy@nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Pioneer 11 Update - 10/30/90 baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >The Pioneer 11 spacecraft emergency was terminated at 3:29PM (PST) yesterday So what does that mean? Is the problem fixed, or have they given up all hope and written it off? -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #516 *******************