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, 30 Nov 1990 01:25:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8bJTgW200VcJ45sU5x@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 30 Nov 1990 01:24:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #591 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 591 Today's Topics: Re: ELV Support to Space Station (2 of 2) More on use of Soyuz as ACRV Request for space images Apollo and Moon pictures Re: USENET Apology Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations My shuttle... Re: Recent DoD Space System Cost Data ... Span access to the Internet? 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: 22 Nov 90 03:17:49 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@apple.com (Wales Larrison) Subject: Re: ELV Support to Space Station (2 of 2) A typical cost breakout for an unmanned launch vehicle is 76% labor, 9% fabrication material (including subcontracted components), and 15% other (computer services, etc.). (Source: RCA PRICE-H cost model for launch vehicles, with 1990 technologies). For a rough estimate of the cost of man-rating a system, I'm going to add 50% to the labor cost (for the added inspections, rework, and QA) and double the material cost for higher spec'd parts and the redundant avionics. This gives a factor of (0.76*1.5)+(0.09*2.0)+.15 = 1.47. The launch escape system I'd estimate at about $5 M/flt, based upon the cost of a production solid motor of about the right size. This boosts the cost of each Atlas II launch from $60M to $93.2 M. Reuse of experimental apparatus (MPS furnaces, experiment racks, experimental hardware, etc) is currently planned for the Space Station by returning whole racks of experimental apparatus to the Earth to be refurbished, upgraded, and relaunched for reuse on the Space Station. Using ELV logistics, we can launch the refurbishment and upgrade components to space station, but then we have to commit crew time to perform the refurbishment and upgrade, rather than have them do productive experimental work. "Old components" in an ELV logistics system would be presumably destroyed in orbital trash disposal/reentry, rather than being returned for reuse. This is kind of nebulous to get a cost handle on, but the most valuable resource on orbit is crew time. To account for the additional lost productive crew time for ELV launched logistics, I'm just going to assume an additional $10M per year as a placeholder. To rotate a 8 man crew every 90 days (again, same basis for comparison as Space Station Fred), means we have to launch and return 32 persons per year. This is 11 Soyuz flights - and should also take care of the ACRV/Soyuz rotations as well. Summing the ELV costs gives for the 11 Atlas II/Soyuz/crew flights per year = 11*($93.2+50) = $1575 M. Adding the logistics resupply for 160,000 lbs per year, at $7490/lb gives us an added $1198 M. Dropping in the $10 M for no reuse of experimental apparatus/added crew time, gives us a grand total of $2783 M per year. Comparing to the Shuttle-based logistics system for the same mission we need 4 missions per year with 40-45,000 pounds to Space Station each flight. According to the JSC "Space Shuttle Performance Handbook" (Sep 1990), OV-103, OV-104, and OV-105 are capable of 45,000 lbs performance to a 250 nmi orbit at 28.5 deg. However, we need to add the refurbishment for reuse of the logistics module to each flight. This gives us a cost equation of 4*(C+3) for annual costs, where C= the shuttle cost per flight in $millions. If shuttle costs are $250-$300 M per flight, the comparable annual cost for Space Station logistics resupply is $1012-1212 M. Comparing to the ELV logistics case, we get a lower cost if Shuttle costs are less than $693 M per flight. For a sensitivity comparison, if we reduce the Titan-IV $/lb by 50% (!!), the ELV case reduces to $2174 M. If we eliminate man- rating the Atlas II, and remove the launch escape system (!!), costs come to $1809 M. Even doing this, the shuttle case cost is less if shuttle cost per flight is below $449 M. Or, if we cut the Titan-IV costs in half (!!), and cut Atlas/ Soyuz flights to 6 (but man-rated), the ELV costs come to $1468 M. The Shuttle case is still cheaper if STS flights are less than $364 M. This should be achievable since 9 shuttle flights have been flown in one year (1985) at an annual expenditure of $2151 M (Source: NASA 1985 Budget in "Aerospace Facts and Figures, 1985-1986"). In 1990$ this is about $298 M per flight.) Interesting ...... ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 90 03:22:16 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@apple.com (Wales Larrison) Subject: More on use of Soyuz as ACRV >Alternatively, if we used the Shuttle for transport, would Soyuz be >better as an ACRV than the ACRV NASA proposes? From what I have >seen, I think the answer is also yes but I don't have enough >information for an educated assessment. I don't think so. As I think I showed in a previous posting, the problem with the Soyuz is two-fold: it can only accommodate 3 persons, and is only qualified for < 180 days in space. Since Space Station has an 8-person crew, you want to take all of them home if needed. The worst case would be if one ACRV had been already used to send an ill/injured crew person home (plus an attendant), then an emergency occurred forcing the evacuation of the Station. In worse case, this emergency would block the access to 1 ACRV, forcing the remaining 6 crew to return on ACRV(s) remaining. This means at least 3 ACRVs with at least 6 crew capability each (or 4 3-person ACRVs, or 5 2-person ACRVs). More ACRVs could be used, but 1 6- person ACRV is cheaper to build and launch than 2 3-person vehicle. Furthermore, as you add more ACRVs, you find problems placing them on Space Station. Doing the worst case with 3-man Soyuzes would require having 4 Soyuzes at SSF at all times. More importantly, recurring costs to cycle Soyuzes comprises the majority of the costs over 30 years. The annual cost of $660 M to cycle 3 Soyuzes per year (derived previous posting), rises to a total cost of $19,800 M over 30 years. Redesigning the Soyuz system either for reusability or for very long orbital lifetime would not be cheap. From the few study cases I've seen engineering data from, re-designing an existing expendable system for reusability for expendability really doesn't save money (Gemini, SRBs, Apollo), compared to a new design. To get long orbital duration (years...) also would not be cheap. I think almost everything has to be replaced with new-design subsystems or elements. All of the "soft goods" (seals, caulking, adhesives, etc.) would have to be eliminated or redesigned. All of the semi-active systems have to be designed for every long life and/or cycle lives, and/or on-orbit maintenance. Limited life items like heaters, batteries, hydrazine tankage, parachutes, pryos, and solid rocket motors have to be eliminated or designed for maintenance on-orbit. All questionable and critical subsystems have to be designed for on-orbit maintainability - which is a non-trivial task, if we still want to package 3 crew into the Soyuz interior. I'd beef up the propulsion package and GN&C system to allow get away from a dynamically unstable station, and to allow its own orbital stabilization, deorbit targeting, and deorbit burn, if necessary. I'd also like to add a better on-board health-checking system and tap it into the Space Station avionics so we can monitor which ACRV is expected to power up and function if needed. We need to add some type of orbital debris protection system - probably a Whipple shield - around it. And we still need to interface it into the standard U.S. communications, power and other systems (ranging from omni TDRS communications, Space Station interfaces, docking systems, power, air, thermal control, Station data processing and internal communications, international SAR forces, etc.) All in all, I think we'd basically end up only keeping the structure - which is pretty small for 3 persons anyway. I think you'd be cheaper in the long run, doing a new design and designing for the long-duration, ACRV 6-person requirement. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 90 14:38:11 GMT From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!axion!phoebe!sjeyasin@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (swaraj jeyasingh) Subject: Request for space images I would like to get some HST images in GIF or raster form. This has been posted in the above newsgroups but I have lost the address of the "anonymous ftp" sites listed. Can someone kindly email me with this info. again. Also, is it possible to get any of the Magellan images in this way or is it too early. Thanks in advance. Swaraj Jeyasingh sjeyasin@axion.bt.co.uk BTRL Ipswich UK ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 90 18:44:28 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!know!tegra!vail@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Johnathan Vail) Subject: Apollo and Moon pictures I have some (about 8) NASA posters from the Apollo moon landings. These are nice quality color photos. Some have slightly tattered edges. I would like to send them to the first person who responds in the hopes that someone may appreciate them more than I have. I would like $10 to cover expenses unless they can be picked up. thanks. "Police come with a laser gun They burn my dog and off they run" -- Robyn Hitchcock _____ | | Johnathan Vail | n1dxg@tegra.com |Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@448.625-(WorldNet) ----- jv@n1dxg.ampr.org {...sun!sunne ..uunet}!tegra!vail ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 90 04:21:35 GMT From: mintaka!olivea!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!rsiatl!meo@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Miles ONeal) Subject: Re: USENET Apology Dear Mr. White: Your apoplexy was no doubt excepted with good grace in those other places, but such are neither allowed or tolerated in tb[1,2]. Management has discussed this with legal, whom, after a brief flurry of memos with accounting, shopping, and the male room, has decided not to press charges in this instance. Next time, however, rest assured a blue suit will be invoked. Finally, please remit 27 quatloos for the enclosed, notarized copy of Mr. Stevens' clitorectomy. -The Management PS Please say hello to Ms. Strunk for us enc bcc: legal, acc, cabal of daves ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 90 20:12:26 GMT From: gandalf.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations In article Mike.McManus@FtCollins.NCR.com (Mike McManus) writes: >Wouldn't the rotating station create an outward force which >would tend to push an astronaut away from the outside of the station, as >opposed to an outward force toward the shell (artificial gravity) if the >astronaut were inside the station? Why would that happen? >I guess if the astronaut could somehow get there in the first place, and then >strap on some kind of support harness to stay in place, it might be workable. >Otherwise, trying to hold on to a platform spinning at 4 rps and get useful >work done would be impossible! It would be the same problem as trying to do >that down here. Yes, it would be exactly like being a window washer on a skyscraper. Something which is done every day in every big city in the world. They, too are careful not to let go, and careful not to drop tools. They succeed, or you would have heard on the news. >I haven't heard any details about how to design the required bearings and >slip-rings for the 0g center portion of the LLNL station. To the best of my knowledge, the center section will be a solid object, rigidly attached. You emerge from the airlock to see the distant stars spinning about you at 4 RPM: big deal. -- Don D.C.Lindsay ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 90 21:15:14 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!quiche!homer!quiche.cs.mcgill.ca@ucsd.edu (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) Subject: My shuttle... In article <4cN2s1w161w@nstar.UUCP> milind@nstar.UUCP (milind limaye) writes: >SBS101@psuvm.psu.edu (Michele!) writes: > > Hi! I'm Michele! > > I'm looking for a fast male to... well, you know what I mean. > > Please send me E-mail!!!!!! > > I'm VERY hot!!! > >> - Michele I'm currently buildind a minature space shuttle that will soon carry me in orbit. Any donation above $ 1,000,000.00 for this future achievement will be greatly appreciated... Thanks in advance. Address: P.O. box 372 Outremont, CANADA H2V 4N3 Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 90 10:09:02 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Recent DoD Space System Cost Data ... Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <1653.274BF76A@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales Larrison writes: SAR CURRENT ESTIMATE Current System BASE BASE CURRENT SYSTEM Unit YEAR YEAR $ YEAR $ QTY Average TITAN IV 85 12,620.3 17,009.1 75.0 226.8 Note also, the current average cost per unit of the Titan IV is about $226.8 Million with 75 vehicles to be produced, and at about 40,000 lbs into LEO, this is $5670/lb! Remember that these Titan's are being bought under the FAR's. That effectively doubles the cost of each one. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | | aws@iti.org | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it | | | works or not? - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts | ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 90 17:33:53 GMT From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!cc.ic.ac.uk!zmapj36@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (M.S.Bennett Supvs= Prof Pendry) Subject: Span access to the Internet? Has anyone got any idea on how to logon to the internet from the SPAN network? MUST BE Iteractive!!! Thank You . /------ ------- -----\ /------ | ====================== | | | | \ | | M. Sean Bennett | \-----\ |---- | | \-----\ | UKSEDS TECH.OFF. | | | | / | | Janet:SEDS@CC.IC.AC.UK | ------/ ------- -----/ ------/ | Internet | | seds%cc.ic.ac.uk@nsf.ac| | ====================== | ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #591 *******************