Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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, 20 Feb 91 01:24:35 -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, 20 Feb 91 01:24:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #176 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 176 Today's Topics: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? One Small Step for a Space Activist... (vol 2 no 2) SPACE Digest V13 #164 Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 14:23 CST From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? Original_To: SPACE Allen: What has been the fate of poor old Lunar Observer in the new FY92 budget proposal? I haven't seen any mention of it in the press yet. (I will post this question to Space Digest as well, in case anybody out there has any information.) Lunar Observer is a spacecraft, built from the spare bus for Mars Observer, destined polar orbit around the Moon. It should carry a suite of capable instruments that will attack lunar-science questions with Nineties Technology. LO got stomped on last year, when its startup funding was buried in the $200M request for Moon/Mars/"Space Exploration Initiative" funding. The LO instruments should include: --High-resolution mapping cameras --A gamma-ray spectrometer (cooled silicon detector) of far better energy resolution than the sodium-iodide crystals flown on Apollos 15 and 16 and intended for SSI's Lunar Prospector mission; this is for making a global geochemical map of surface composition. [You don't really expect me to say "selenochemical," do you?] --An imaging spectrometer (I think), a nifty gadget that takes pictures, but every pixel of a picture is a 256-channel spectrogram. Mars Observer's IS was kicked off to save money. Earth Observation System seems to be planning a couple such instruments. --Laser altimeter --A relay subsatellite to measure LO's Doppler shifts as it passes over the far side; this will enable gravimetric mapping of that side as well as a bunch of others. Lunar Observer should be able to produce much better maps than we currently have, and so would be a valuable precursor to future manned (and unmanned) exploration of the lunar surface and lunar-base planning. This is a drawback, I suppose, in the eyes of SEI opponents! But the Moon is overdue for further scientific study; plenty of questions still need to be resolved. At present all scientists can do is study the Moon through telescopes and pore over twenty-year old spacecraft data. O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 16:35:06 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article Bill Higgins writes: >Allen: >What has been the fate of poor old Lunar Observer in the new FY92 budget >proposal? I haven't seen any mention of it in the press yet. Alas there is no mention of it in the budget. It looks like this very worthy space science effort was killed by the SEI backlash of last year. I doubt it would be possible to resurect it this year. It looks like our only shot at lunar exploration in the forseable future in SSI's Lunar Prospector. Maybe when it launches we can use the publicity it generates to motivate something. Allen PS. I was just about to send this out when I had a thought. NASA is donating a gama ray spectrometer to the Lunar Prospector. If they also donated the backup mars Observer bus as well could a better probe result? After all, it would look much better in lunar orbit than rusting in the Air and Space Museaum! -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: | |aws@iti.org | "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 10:12:01 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article Mr. Kent writes: >>Tell me, if the actual >>flyaway cost of a mission is $193 then what happened to the other $1.5B? >To whom do I write my check? :) :) Ummmm.... Me. Yeah, that's it, me. :-) >Actually, I don't say we collect $1.5G in user fees for the Shuttle. Then how much do we collect? With a DoD launch there will be a transfer of funds from one account to another. >Neither NASA nor the OMB believe they are taking a loss, or so it would seem >from statements it made recently. Yet you say above they aren't collecting any money. How can they launch without collecting money and NOT take a loss? >The article in AvWeek seemed to me to be >saying this was their estimate at the flyaway COST, not just their price. What article is this? >but perhaps they are including >ASRM and P&W SSME development in there as well, I don't know. No those numbers are factored out of my estimates. They are funded from Shuttle Production and Operational Capabilities. Next year the request is for $1.29B to cover this. >Because the gov't >system is so complicated, I am content to use published figures for costs. >NASA's accountants hopefully have a much better grip on the system than I do. And because the numbers don't seem to add up to me along with the fact that NASA accountants are motivated to make the Shuttle look good I am not content. I just got off the phone with one of my sources. I asked him to give me the numbers from next years budget for Shuttle Operations. The amount is $3.0236B which is close to my estimates from last years appropriation. Now NASA claims the cost is $1.5B yet they spend $3B. Question: where is the other $1.5B going? >P.S. Allen, do you have any detailed figures on Bush's FY92 budget request for >NASA? I have some general numbers. I hope to have somthing for the March column. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: | |aws@iti.org | "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 22:09:20 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: I just found some more relevant infomration on Lunar Observer. When I first responded I was just looking at the budget numbers given to Congress. This evening I looked at NASA's request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). It turns out that NASA did request $10.6 million for Lunar Observer new start but was turned down by OMB. OMB lists the line item as 'defered' so it may show up next year. Therefore if you want to complain (which would be a good idea) you should write to OMB. These guys get fewer letters from us citizens so you might even get a little more attention. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: | |aws@iti.org | "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 10:13:29 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: One Small Step for a Space Activist... (vol 2 no 2) One Small Step for a Space Activist... by Allen Sherzer & Tim Kyger One of the major findings of the Augustine Committee was that the US should build a new Heavy Lift Vehicle (HLV). The House Science Committee is beginning to hold hearings on this issue. So far, most testimony from the government indicates that they want to make the Advanced Launch System be that vehicle. ALS is a ten year $10 billion Air Force/NASA program to develop a family of launchers. Many wonder if a program like this can ever work given the budget problems and long schedule. Odds are that ALS will turn into another Space Shuttle: complex, unreliable, and expensive. What alternatives exist? A few years ago the Star Wars people where looking for a way to lift a 100,000 pound payload into LEO for an experiment called 'Zenith Star'. They let a few contracts to look for cheap near term ways it could be done without in-orbit assembly. In an unusual step, they made this a commercial procurement. All they asked was that the payload be delivered to orbit for a specified price. The contractor would own the vehicle and there would be no government oversight in the design process. One contract went to McDonnell Douglas who examined an alternative called Heavy Lift Delta (HLD) based on their existing Delta launcher. They hit on a technique of clustering Delta's together to form a larger rocket similar to what was done for the Saturn 1B. HLD's first stage consists of six Delta first stages connected together in the shape of a triangle (two Deltas on each side). At each point of the triangle, a Shuttle SRB is connected. The second stage is a single Delta first stage with a Titan IV fairing on top. The fairing is lengthened by almost 20 feet by the addition of a special collar on the bottom. The second stage is connected to the first so that the second state Delta fits inside the hole formed by the triangle of the first stage. Avionics and control computers are all made up of existing Delta hardware. Finally, fuel is pumped to all engines from all delta stages. This way if an engine cuts out early its fuel can be burned by the other engines. All together HLD weighs 5.5 million pounds and produces 10 million pounds of thrust. It will put a 100,000 payload into a 150 mile 28.5 degree orbit. Cost and schedule? McDonnell Douglas offered to build it for $500 million (about the cost of one Shuttle flight) in 3.5 years. A far cry from the ten year multi-billion dollar efforts proposed by the government. But it gets better; the second HLD flight will cost $200 million with the price dropping even more as the learning curve is traversed. Twice the payload of a Shuttle for half the cost per launch -- this is the power of commercial procurement. Legislative Roundup NASA Says NO to Commercial Space NASA has informed General Dynamics that it is not to get a license for the four Atlas launches it currently has scheduled. For justification NASA refers to a Justice Department ruling stating that if NASA controlled the launch then it isn't commercial and no license is needed. This means that the launches can no longer be considered commercial which means NASA is in violation of Title II of the NASA 91 Authorization Act. HLV New Start in NASA Budget The 92 budget has a new start for a Heavy Lift Vehicle. $175M is in each of the NASA and DoD budgets to begin work (which is 70% of what it would take to build one of the commercial alternatives). In addition, NASA has $15 million for advanced engine studies. Two interesting questions here. First, why are we spending billions for a vehicle design when we could have one for millions? Second, why is NASA spending money on designing what amount to conventional engines? Why not spend the money on ion engines or some other high risk high payoff technology like a research organization should? Space Exploration Initiative $3.5 million has been release by Congress to be spent on mission studies for moon/Mars exploration. There is a chance that another $3.5 million may be released later. Congress wants this money spent on planning and wants to see well thought out budgets and schedules for a moon/Mars effort. IF a reasonable plan living within realistic budget and schedule numbers is produced, we may see more $$ next year. This represents a crack in the wall of opposition put up last year to SEI. The administration is going to try again this year: they put $94M in the 92 budget for the Exploration Office. Stafford Commission Report Although most of the publicity went to the Augustine Committee, of no less importance is the Synthesis Group led by Tom Stafford. This group is tasked with generating ideas for US long term space goals and architectures for moon and Mars exploration programs. They have been looking at a wide range of ideas in addition to bases (EG. Solar Power Satellites) and their report is due any day now. If Stafford has been working as closely with OMB and the Space Council as Augustine did, expect to see their recommendations put in place very soon. The Great Exploration As reported last year Congress restored all the internal research money for the Department of Energy labs (thanks in part to grassroots help and the NSS Legislative Committee). This means that LLNL has funds to begin work on the Great Exploration but not permission. Sources say that permission to start developing prototypes is expected after the Synthesis Group issues it's report. This implies that the Synthesis report will be very supportive of the LLNL Lunar Mars architecture and may indicate that the Administration is ready to push it aggressively. Catherine Rawlings Many of you who where active in pushing HR 2674 know Catherine Rawlings. I am sad to say that she has resigned her position and is returning to private life. Catherine was new to space issues when she started working HR2674 but quickly grasped the importance of the issue. It was largely through her skills and knowledge that the bill was enacted. In addition, she worked on other ideas in support of commercial space because she recognized its importance not only to space activists but to the nation as a whole. She was a major help in producing this column and her absence will be sorely felt. Tidbits Ralph Hall (D-TX) is the new head of the House Space Subcommittee...Expect to see a new version of the Omnibus Space Act at the end of Feb... Rep Walker has said he wants to see all the bills passed by the Space Subcommittee by May 15... In the 92 budget EOS is only funded at 2/3 of their request. Maybe some people are having second thoughts? Allen Sherzer: (313) 769-4108 (W) (313) 973-0941 (H) aws@iti.org (net) Tim Kyger: (202) 225-2415 (W) (703) 548-1664 (H) (800) 673-1762 (voice mail) ------------------------------ Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 22:29:29 EST Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 02:09:18 EST Resent-From: Tommy Mac <18084TM%MSU.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU> From: space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #164 Resent-To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU To: david polito <15432DJP@MSU.BITNET>, Tom McWilliams <18084TM@MSU.BITNET> Reply-To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Resent-Message-Id: Comments: To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Re: BIG DUMB BOOSTERS - also: Saturn V launch costs Jack Dietz Writes: >It was in Newsweek. The article pointed to the possibility only of >launching expendable boosters at 1/25th the shuttle's cost. The >author used possibly erroneous speculation as to the true cost of >launching on the shuttle, including the cost of Endeavor and of >keeping NASA idle for two years (his figure was about $6,800/lb.) and >quoted hydrazine/nitric acid or kerosene/lox, without regenerative >cooling, turbopumps or gimballed engines at $350/lb for 50-ton >loads. >That article was very interesting, but I would have appreciated >something more substantial. I'll say. Since that article referred to the Ariane, Proton, Delta's, and Energia as comparison vehicles, I decieded to try to find out how much the Saturn V cost per launch (at 90,000 tons to geo). I spent most of the summer wasting my free time in the Gov. documents section of the Library, learning over and over again that the WHOLE project (capsules and all) cost $25E+9. But I could not find a THING about per-launch cost. Can anyone help? Guesses or references, but tracable is better. Tommy Mac 18084tm@msu.bitnet Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #176 *******************