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, 14 Nov 1990 02:54:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 14 Nov 1990 02:54:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #550 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 550 Today's Topics: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap (if NASA builds it) Re: Space Station mission Charles F. Radley wields a fire extinguisher Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station) Bibliographic Request 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 2 Nov 90 18:27:27 GMT From: mips!sdd.hp.com!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!fmeed1!cage@apple.com (Russ Cage) Organization: Ford Motor Co., Electronics Div., Dearborn, MI Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap (if NASA builds it) References: <6781@hub.ucsb.edu>, <9010282110.AA00719@iti.org>, <6930@hub.ucsb.edu> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu First, pardon for the previous near-flame. In article <6930@hub.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: >+Second of all, the LLNL contractors on this DO have a good track >+record in large aerospace systems. > >So do the Freedom contractors....... Then the question to be asked is, does this make a difference? Where are the actual decisions being made? To answer that, look at all the original proposals for the space station. They looked almost identical, regardless of contractor. NASA had already decided what the design would be, and thus what the "winning" design could look like; the contractors had no say. Given that the drive behind the design for Fred came from NASA and not Boeing, it stands to reason that Boeing's track record in aerospace systems will not assist in producing a working product; their ingenuity and know-how has been subordinated. It is not an engineering problem, it is a management problem. LLNL could probably produce just as good and cheap a product using Boeing as McD-D, again because of management philosophy. (But it would mean fewer bucks for Boeing. Then again, there is the possibility of repeat business if it was cheap enough; ESA might buy one, especially if it could go up on Ariane.) >Don't you think LLNL will go through similar cost increases as >reality starts to dawn, and the magnitude of the task is truly >appreciated ? "Reality dawning" assumes that some difficult-to-rectify mistakes have been made. Fred is going through this with the EVA problem. I think it is a bit presumptuous to assume that LLNL will make the same mistakes as today's NASA; they're more like Von Braun's NASA. >> Proposing untried NiH batteries which have no advantage over > >existing ones; >+ These batteries provide more power for less weight. This >+results in cost savings which most people think is an advantage. > >proposing untried amorphous silicon cells with > >dubious qualification prospects and admitting conventional >> cells woulBd be just as good and less risky; > >But the NiH and solar celss are not space qualified, and they >underestimate the qual costs, which could wipe out the saving. >And they may never pass qual. It could be a valid R & D program, >I simply object to LLNL trying to sell it as being cheap and off >the shelf. If LLNL has allowed enough extra in the launch-weight budgets for replacements, the premature deterioration of the batteries or solar panels would be dealt with by replacing them. The older, heavier, previously-qualified hardware could be used for such replacements. If replacement is not required, a newer, lighter, cheaper technology is qualified by default and at a cost savings. >No it is worse, if they fail and Freedom is cancelled, we waste >decades, it will take that long to rebuild a manned space >program. So put Fred on hold. It's certain that the time can be used to fix some of the nasty design problems (excessive EVA, etc.) which have surfaced. The more of these which are fixed before metal is bent, the better and cheaper the result will be if it turns out that it is indeed the better choice. >Oh come on, the Delta is an unmanned ELV, there are no manned >spacecraft designed to fly on delta. And developing a new >manned spacecraft is not cheap. Don't tell me that has been >factored into the cost too. Perhaps we should buy Soyuz's, they're certainly cheap and it is proven that useful work can be done with them. We don't need to mate them with a Delta, we can buy SL-4's. >But again, Titan is expensive, no cheaper than shuttle. Don't >tell me they have included costs of Titans in their plan. This >really is getting very far fetched. Allen quoted a number of an additional $500 million to use Titan IV instead of HL-Delta. Do you have a problem with this? (This number must have included several launches.) >Wrong again. Titan is no cheaper than Shuttle. Delta is too >small too launch the LLNL package, so requires a complete >redesign which cancels out the launch cost saving. Titan-IV >with the Centaur< costs as much as Shuttle. And if LLNL has designed to launch in one piece or several, they would not require a re-design to change launchers. (Allen: have they?) >A single Titan-IV launch gives you a tiny space station. More >like a MIR than a Freedom. MIR is a lot cheaper than LLNL. >The whole point of Freedom is its size and capability. LLNL gives >all that away. Mister Radley, it must have been explained to you that the LLNL station is INFLATABLE. It is not launched as a number of rigid tin cans, it ends up at a multiple of its original size. The final station is many times the volume of the payload fairing in which it is launched; this allows it to be sent up in one launch, with one launch risk. This is the big advantage over Fred. Why do you persist in ignoring this crucial distinction? (BTW, if we adopt an extremely conservative working strength of 7500 PSI for the Kevlar fibers and a density of 2 gm/cc, the weight of an entire 15 foot diameter by 60 foot long segment is only 7944 lbs for the walls, and the volume is only 64 cubic feet. I'm sure I have radically under-stated the strength of Kevlar; I assumed UTS of 30 KPSI and a safety factor of 4. This shows some of the potential for space and weight savings.) >I will not dispute those probabilities, other people arrive at >different numbers. The point of failure rate predictions like >that is as an inspiration to work on the causes and fix them. This is another curious statement, Allen. The man states that point-of-failure predictions are an inspiration to work on the cause. In this case, the cause is the unreliability of the launcher (Shuttle) and the dependence of the station's orbit on the launch schedule (too many slips and it re-enters). Despite this, it was Congress which told NASA to consider launchers other than Shuttle to assist with launching Freedom, rather than NASA or Boeing suggesting it to Congress. Mister Radley, are you sure you are doing your job properly? Are you prevented from doing so by the project management, or are these oversights and omissions the fault of the workers? Why haven't you considered using alternate launchers? >That is why the number was generated. You don't just close your >eyes and pray...! Reliability predictions are design tools, not >forecasts of doom. Again, an odd statement. It has been shown that another launch moratorium such as the one following Challenger would cause the re-entry of Fred, er, Freedom. Yet management has closed its eyes and prayed that this will not happen. Tell us, Charles, just what are NASA/Boeing planning to do to prevent the re-entry of Freedom in the case of the Shuttle being grounded again? > The point is you are not able to quote probabilities for LLNL >because there is no meaningful test data and hence no failure >rate data, so a responsible engineer has to assume high failure >rates until proven otherwise. For some reason which I do not >understand, you seem to assume the failure rates for LLNL will be >low. Despite a random coin failing to give me heads 50% of the time, I can rely on 10 tosses to give me at least 1 head with a 99.9% reliability. If 1 head is all I need, my success rate is 99.9%. LLNL eliminates failures by eliminating launches. If Shuttle has a 2% failure rate, 28 launches are required, and 1 failure scuttles the project, there is a 57% chance of success. If the LLNL HLV has a 10% chance of failure and 1 launch is required, it has 90% chance of success ON THE FIRST LAUNCH. If a second launch is reserved in case the first fails, the chance of success rises to 99%. These are much better odds. NASA seems to have no fallback position in case of a failure. This means that the total probability of success is the product of all the sub-project successes; one failure means the entire project fails. -- Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE) Home: russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (All non-business mail) Member: HASA, "S" division. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 90 14:36:03 GMT From: sumax!polari!crad@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Charles Radley) Subject: Re: Space Station mission +How can you get science out of a cancelled station, or one that +reenters because the Sh+uttle fleet gets grounded again? - Freedom can survive a couple of years when boosted into a higher orbit. How can you launch astronauts to LLNL when it has no viable manned ferry craft design ? ($ 200 M - hah !) +A minimal station can do the following: +- research whether the minimal station works! + (This includes the proposed power supply, the meteor- + bumper issue, the artificial gravity, the escape + system, ...) + (You're going to tell me Fred won't need any retrofits + after first occupancy?) - Freedom is modular and allows for replacement of modules either for repair or upgrade. Over a 30 year lifetime it is likely that upgrades will be advantageous. +- research human reaction to artificial gravity. + (The human is the equipment. I don't know how many - How will you monitor the human subject ? Without equipment about all you can do is psychological examinations. + successful launches the configuration takes: 6? Against + what, 26 for a minimal Fred?) +- provide a place to hang the equipment that is brought up later. +- provide a rallying point for funding battles, with each money + increment making the station one notch less minimal. - I have no problem with that approach, provided everybody recognizes it for what it is. ie after 6 flights or whatever (assuming they can figure out a way of ferrying astronauts to the station) you end up with an empty shell. It will take another dozen flights and another infusion of tax dollars to convert it into a useful science station. ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 11 Nov 90 19:58:41 GMT From: sumax!polari!crad@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Charles Radley) Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix (206) 328-4944 Subject: Charles F. Radley wields a fire extinguisher Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu Summary: Expires: References: <9010282110.AA00719@iti.org> <6883@hub.ucsb.edu> <8619@fmeed1.UUCP> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix (206) 328-4944 Keywords: +In other words, if LLNL saves the taxpayers some money, CFR is +out of a job. Radley's interests lie in making certain that +the LLNL concept is dismissed before being investigated, so +that it does not replace the SS. Fred project. - It is regrettable that you attribute these motives to me. If Fred is canceled it will of course cause me severe personal hardship. But I may get involved in LLNL myself, who knows. I have sufficient confidence in my ability that I will get hired somewhere by somebody. My problems with the LLNL concept are genuine. I do not doubt that something like it can be made to work, but I question the cost, and the usefulness of the proposal. It is not a microgravity/life sciences research facility. It is part of a "plant a flag on Mars" plan, which I oppose. +As a taxpayer, my interests are different. My interests are: +1.) Determine if the LLNL concept will work, and if so, +2.) Put Charles Frank Radley and all the other contractors + working on Fred out on the street post haste. - The "peace dividend" means that large numbers of highly skilled engineers are being laid off in unprecedented numbers. They will be a drain on the economy if they cannot be usefully employed. You should be looking for ways to reduce hi-tech unemployment, not to create it. That does NOT mean Freedom or any other program should be overmanned just to create work, they tried that in the Soviet Union with tragic results. In part, Freedom has an invaluable role as a Roosevelt style hi-tech public works program, creating infrastructure, and preserving the resource of hi-tech expertise. The simplest way to save tax money is to cancel the entire space program, and what do we need science for anyway..... |-) ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 12 Nov 90 03:14:43 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!yarra!melba.bby.oz.au!gnb@decwrl.dec.com (Gregory N. Bond) Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge and Young Ltd. Subject: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station) References: <2669@polari.UUCP>, <1990Nov7.175448.17819@zoo.toronto.edu> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu Charles> Why not tell the aboriginies and the greens about this:- Charles> Charles> Most launch sites are wildlife sanctuaries. More to the point, the site chosen is not virgin wilderness, but has been a pastoral lease for years and years. In fact, one of the hurdles was (is?) a contract dispute over who has title to the land and who can sell/lease it to CYSA (worth a considerable sum of money). This doesn't seem to impress either greenies of aboriginal activists. What will kill the project, assuming it ever gets past the luddites, is that it is principally a _property development_, not a spaceport. And there is no money for investing in property at the moment. Greg. -- Gregory Bond, Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Internet: gnb@melba.bby.oz.au non-MX: gnb%melba.bby.oz@uunet.uu.net Uucp: {uunet,pyramid,ubc-cs,ukc,mcvax,prlb2,nttlab...}!munnari!melba.bby.oz!gnb ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 11 Nov 90 23:18:00 GMT From: sgi!cdp!dyurman@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Bibliographic Request Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu I would appreciate suggestions, recommendations, or references to journals, periodcals, and newsletters which devote themselves to space exploration and particularly to commercialization of space. Any bibliographic material would be appreciated. Thanks. * -------------------------------------------------------------- * Dan Yurman PO Box 1569, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83403 | 43N 112W * | There is * Internet dyurman@cdp.uucp | no such * Internet cdp!dyurman@labrea.stanford.edu | thing as a * Bitnet cdp!dyurman%labrea@stanford | privileged * MCI 3641277@mcimail.com | frame of * UUCP uunet!pyramid!cdp!dyurman | reference * --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #550 *******************