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 ; Mon, 17 Dec 1990 01:27:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 17 Dec 1990 01:27:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #670 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 670 Today's Topics: Re: $$/pound of Freedom vs LLNL (was: ELV Support...) Re: Air pressure questions (A human being in vacume) ISDC 1991 Conference Payload Status for 12/11/90 (Forwarded) Astro-1 Status for 12/10/90 [1200 CST] (Forwarded) Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 13:51:26 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: $$/pound of Freedom vs LLNL (was: ELV Support...) Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <2853@polari.UUCP>: >+Tension from pressurization: 190 klbs >+Tension from rotation: 40 klbs >+This is a very small increment, ~20%. >For the unpressurized portion, the centrifugal loads are much more >significant. I don't think LLNL has any upressurized parts. Even the airlock will be pressurized. Either way, the material is well suited. >I have never seen a picture of LLNL showing solar >arrays and unpressurized external palletts which are the main reason >for Freedom's Truss. Where does LLNL attach its arrays and palletts? First of all, LLNL (as I have said several times does not have those pallets. LLNL's intent is to support a lunar base and not compete with Freedom. However, if one where to use LLNL as a Freedom replacement, a truss could go along the zero G axis. A better alternative would be to use the billions saved and buy free flying platforms. For micro- gravity you would want the free flyers anyway since crewed platforms (like Freedom) have way too much vibration. Life science work can be done throughout the station. My preference would be to have no truss and emphasise free flying platforms. >LLNL puts multi+-level floors inside their >vessel for mounting equipment and for personnel to walk on. >Freedom has no need of these floors, so avoids that mass penalty. Since this approach reduces life cycle cost, it is not a problem. In fact, it is an advantage. LLNL has ~28 compartments so that if there is dammage to one others can be used. The current Freedom however, is much more vunerable. A big hole in the habitation module would mean nobody eats or uses the bathroom before it is fixed. >You get more science data per kilo on a zero-g station than a spinner. You have yet to establish this with any solid fact. You have yet to show that Freedom costs less per pound than LLNL (your original statement). I wonder if you could give us a summary of the capability of each system and weight for that capability? We can then compare those costs of using the Shuttle vs HLV's to answer the question. > A 20% weight saving would be a compelling reason to make a station >nonspinning. So far nobody has presented an equally compelling >reason to make it spinning. You have yet to address my life cycle cost arguement. By having a spinning station, crew can be rotated to Earth less often (say one time a year). This will reduce station logistics costs by one to two billion dollars a year. Then makes a reduction in total cost of over *THIRTY BILLION DOLLARS*. Now I have asked this quesiton several times in the past and you have just ignored it. Could I trouble you to address this issue? Reducing the LLNL weight will save maybe a few million $$. Why is it that you think it is worth adding $30 billion to life cycle cost in order to save a few million today? After all, we could use the savings to send up another station every year. Wouldn't we be berrer off building more stations over supplying the ONE station? >Haven't LLNL decided what their air pressure is? The station is at 7.5 PSIA with a mixture of 50% N2 and 50% O2. The outer bladder is pressurized to 2.5 PSIA. >Why do I expend my time worrying about LLNL, it sounds >like they do not have a basic design defined. Mr. Radley, how can you say they do not have a basic design when you havn't read a single thing they produced? That is just plain close-mined. Worse yet, you have yet to bring up a single issue which they havn't addressed and addressed well. >But it increases risks of decay due to failure of a resupply flight. I wonder if you would be so good as to assess the odds of that relative to Freedom? After all, LLNL can be resuplied by ANY launcher in the world today, Freedom can only use the Shuttle. >I am really >concerned that LLNL has not properly addressed ACRV, Resupply and >Crew Rotation spacecraft. These are big ticket items, whose >costs do not seem properly recognized by the LLNL plan. And they >are also mission critical. The only proposal I have seen from >Allen was to use Soyuz, but Wales Larrison has shown that Soyuz is >not capable of the roles required for LLNL logistics. I already presented one. Mr. Larrison's rebuttal only showed that it would cost about as much as the Shuttle. If you change a few of his selections, costs are cut by over a billion a year. But this assessment assumes rotations occure every 90 days. If you make them happen every six months to a year, several hundred million more can be saved. In the absolute worse case, expendables and Soyuz cost about the same as the Shuttle. If you use the advantages of the LLNL system those costs are cut by over a billion per year. 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: 11 Dec 90 19:01:35 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!ghostwheel.unm.edu!john@ucsd.edu (John Prentice) Subject: Re: Air pressure questions (A human being in vacume) In article <1990Dec11.174058.11948@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>2.2) What is the highest alt/lowest p. that people live at? >>Is it the pressure that limits them, or just cold and inaccesablility, >>no food, etc, that keeps them from going higher? > >Altitude sickness (oxygen shortage) is a serious problem for people going >from low to high altitude, and I believe it limits even people who are >somewhat adapted to it by generations at high altitude. I don't know the >numbers offhand; I would say that the natives in the Andes probably hold >the record. > Curiously, altitude sickness affects even people who grew up at altitude but have been away for as short as a week or so. I doubt it is much problem for people who grew up at altitudes of a couple thousand meters or less (I did and I don't notice much difference after returning to this altitude from an extended time at sea level -- some effects maybe, but no sickness). But if you live in the Andes at 4 or 5 thousand meters and go to sea level for awhile, it is my understanding that on return you are at risk for the various high altitude problems. The key is acclimation. By the way, the India and Pakistan have been at war on one of the passes between the two countries now for several years. I believe the altitude is something like 6,000 or 7,000 meters (anyone know for sure?). It is reported to be the highest "permanent" encampment in existence. Pretty crazy. I have heard they are losing up to 30% of their troops to pulminary or cerebral edema. The most insane part of it all is hardly anyone else in the world knows (or cares) about the war (where is Bush when non-oil producing nations are are at war?). Sea level dwellers are also at risk as low as 3 or 4 thousand meters, the height of most western ski areas. We lose a couple people a year in Colorado to this. Again, it is mostly a question of acclimation. Be care out there! John Prentice john@unmfys.unm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 17:56 CDT From: Subject: ISDC 1991 Conference The National Space Society's 10th Annual International Space Development Conference (ISDC) will be in San Antonio, Texas, at the Hyatt Regency Riverwalk Hotel, May 22-27, 1991. The overall theme of this ISDC is SPACE: A CALL FOR ACTION. The intention of the the conference is for the attendees to take action and acquire tools to take actions that will create a spacefaring civilization and establish communities beyond the Earth. ISDC 91 will feature an open exhibit area where aerospace contractors, agencies and space activist organizations will display their aerospace activities to the public free of charge. Dr. Hans Mark, Chancellor of the University of Texas System, will be honorary Chair of the Conference. For more information, contact Dr. Carol Luckhardt-Redfield, Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, TX, 78228 or call (512) 522-3823. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DISCLAIMER: any opinions stated or implied above do not necessarily reflect MY opinions. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Cheryl Hoefelmeyer Southwest Texas State University ch02079@swtexas.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 90 01:56:22 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 12/11/90 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 12-11-90 - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at Pad B) Support of DFRF operations continue. - STS-39 AFP-675/IBSS/STP-01 At the OPF, CRO cable connections will continue today. At the VPF, the AFP-675 interface test will be performed today. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) RAAB modifications and paper closure continues. - Sts-37 GRO (at PHSF) Functional testing continues. - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C) PR troubleshooting and paper closure continues. - STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C) Experiment and pallet staging continue. - STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C) Partial pallet destaging continues. - STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C) EPDB modifications will be performed today. - STS-67 LITE (at O&C) No work is scheduled for today. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 90 01:49:01 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Astro-1 Status for 12/10/90 [1200 CST] (Forwarded) Astro-1 Shift Summary Report #26 12:00 noon CST, Dec. 10, 1990 8/11:10 MET Spacelab Mission Operations Control Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL During this period (4 a.m. to 12 noon CST), the Astro-1 instruments successfully observed a number of celestial targets, ending with a dramatic acquisition of a comet before being "buttoned up" for an early return flight home. At the beginning of this timeframe, the crew completed its study of Alpha Orionis, or Betelguese, with all ultraviolet instruments obtaining good data. Primary instrument for observation was the Wisconsin Ultraviolet Photo-Polarimeter Experiment (WUPPE). The crew next turned its attention to a pre-main-sequence star, a young celestial object still forming out of interstellar dust that has not achieved a core temperature sufficient to begin nuclear reactions. In this observation, the WUPPE studied on the nebula surrounding the star -- matter left over in the formation of the object -- while the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (HUT) focused on the star itself. This object, for which the WUPPE was primary observer, is too young to have begun its nuclear reaction, and its light comes from the heat generated as it contracts. Because of the possibility of an early landing by the orbiter, the Astro-1 targets were reprioritized early this morning. For the remaining targets, HUT was the primary instrument of observation, and WUPPE and the Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (UIT) joined in the study. At about 7:20 a.m. CST the first of these reprioritized targets -- supernova remnants N49A & B -- were acquired and studied by all three ultraviolet instruments. The supernova remnants are producing high-velocity emissions of neutral hydrogen. N49A is quite young and is the highest surface-brightness supernova remnant in the Large Magellanic Cloud. The next observation was of SS Cygni, a bright cataclysmic variable binary. The study of this object may yield information about its evolutionary state -- whether these double stars may be proceeding toward becoming true novae (erupting stars), or whether they may be dying out after having been true novae. The final target, Comet Levy, named for astronomer David Levy, was observed by all ultraviolet instruments. Discovered only last May, the object has been crossing the inner solar system during this mission and provided the Astro science team an excellent opportunity for study. The International Ultraviolet Explorer, a satellite observatory still in orbit, has revealed that Comet Levy is producing as much gas and dust as Comet Halley did. The Broad Band X-Ray Telescope (BBXRT) twice acquired the supernova remnant Puppis A during this timeframe, and just before noon was still studying it. The telescope investigation team plans to observe galaxy M87 before concluding its studies later this afternoon. Deactivation of the instruments was scheduled to be carried out as follows: the HUT will begin deactivation at 12:13 p.m. CST ending at 12:23 p.m. CST; UIT will begin deactivation at 12:23 p.m. CST ending at 12:33 p.m. CST; and WUPPE will begin deactivation at 12:41 p.m. CST, ending at 1:01 p.m. CST. The BBXRT will continue observing until 1:51 p.m., CST and will begin deactivation at that point, ending at 8:11 p.m., CST. The final powerdown for the ultraviolet instruments will be at 2:11 p.m. CST. Instrument Pointing System deactivation will then follow. At this morning's mission science briefing, which followed the announcement that the crew was coming home a day early, Mission Manager Jack Jones and Deputy Mission Scientist Dr. Eugene Urban congratulated all who had been involved in Astro-1. Dr. Urban stated that, according to his own unofficial figures, the Astro-1 crew and science teams has observed about 140 targets in ultraviolet and X-ray and declared the mission to be highly successful. When the observation of Comet Levy concluded, members of the science teams applauded and shook hands all around. Some hugged one another, and some shed some tears at the dramatic ending of this mission. Obtaining the comet had been a very high priority, and an Operations Change Request had been submitted to move the comet forward to a point in the timeline when it could be obtained early -- all this without knowing whether the mission would be returning sooner than scheduled. "Acquiring this comet ended us on a high note," said Mission Scientist Dr. Ted Gull. "What a way to end the mission!" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #670 *******************