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 ; Fri, 26 Apr 91 01:26:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8c5vcIy00WBw42N04=@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 01:26:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #461 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 461 Today's Topics: Re: Saturn V blueprints Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18 Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D Re: Saturn V blueprints CD ROM images at ames Re: Mars media alert Re: Mars media alert Re: SPACE Digest V13 #458 sci.space Re: Uploading to alpha Centauri Charting a decade of the Shuttle Re: Saturn V vs. ALS 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: 24 Apr 91 12:40:23 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela!aws@ucsd.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints In article mvk@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes: >Read the rest of my post. We can be pretty sure the Saturn V will be expen- >sive because it is so old. Several estimates have been done on the cost. Those estimates range from far better than ALS to better than what we have now. These estimates have been done by people who built the things and are willing to sign on the dotted line. Now exactly why is it that they are wrong in their assessment? Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back | | aws@iti.org | to you, hunt it down and kill it. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 91 13:17:40 GMT From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!hela!aws@lll-winken.llnl.gov (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18 In article <1991Apr23.124023.21759@cs.ruu.nl> jprlarib@cs.ruu.nl (Jan Peter Laribij) writes: >> Okay! What is everybody doing WRONG? How can we (meaning all of Earth) develop >> a reliable, economic orbital delivery system? >Politely ask how the Russians did it ;-) We already know. Their approach is to use what works and to improve it step wise as time goes on. They never use anything unless it is well understood and poroven. We on the other hand, do the opposite. We throw out all our technology about every ten years and start over. As a result, we never get any experience with anything. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back | | aws@iti.org | to you, hunt it down and kill it. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 91 14:35:29 GMT From: usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@ucsd.edu (James Davis Nicoll) Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D Nothing really to do with space but rather the ongoing 'Bash the Japanese' thread which seems to have started, so... In article <27156@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >In article <245@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) writes: > >> I don't entirly agree with the Anti-trust thing, I mean if America >> can allow murders to run rabid, crazies to mass murder 10+ people >> and put them back on the street, allow police officers to beat up >> people for enjoyment. I think congress can overlook a simple little >> thing like Anti-trust. Besides with half of America on drugs I really >> don't think anyone is going to notice. At least this is what is printed >> in the Japanese news, that an average Japanese will read. > >Sounds like the Japanese aren't nearly as smart as people seem to give them >credit for. This is the same media that claims the Japanese people are from >Mars, right? > >Sounds like the seeds of Japanese decline are starting to sprout... God forbid I should mess up a 'Bash The Jap' festival, but what does the Japanese media's failings (common or uncommon, true or false) have to do with their ability to keep their economy rolling? Journalism is not an area they have done well in historically (Check their coverage of the Lockhead scandal in the 70s, for example), but they seem to have prospered in spite of this. Maybe the point is that since the Japanese hold irrational views, (or at least some do) these views will cripple their ability to maintain their current economic strength. In that case, anyone have any figures on what percentage of Japanese hold irrational views and how that figure compares to other nations' dingbat population? To be truthful, what the original poster said sounds a bit like *some* Japanese hold 'The Wogs begin at Calais' views on the outside world, which is sad, if it is true, but prejudice towards foreigners never stopped other nations from gaining temporary positions of great power (Anyone want to argue the the British Empire, Roman Empire or the United States of America did not have periods in which their nations held outsiders in contempt, while those nation were growing in power? Note choosing those three examples is not in anyway implying that they are the *only* three examples). Perhaps, and I know this is a silly idea, the key to dealing with the Japanese isn't pointing out their perceived weaknesses, but rather their strengths, and if it is appropriate, emulating them in those areas. I don't think saying 'Look how silly the Japanese are; they believe X' is a useful means of dealing with them. James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 91 22:38:34 GMT From: stanford.edu!msi.umn.edu!umeecs!hela!aws@uunet.uu.net (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints In article <1991Apr24.200558.10567@en.ecn.purdue.edu> irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (/dev/null) writes: >Summary: Fixed price for Procurement = good. > Fixed price for Development = foolish. The vast majority of all products which exist or have ever existed are done on fixed price efforts. Consider Boeing; if the 777 costs much more than budgeted to develop then is budgeted then Boeing will go belly up. >(I think General Dynamics, McDonnell Dougls and the Pentagon would >all concur after the A-12 problems and cancellations!) The Pentagon wouldn't agree. Nither would Lockheed which just developed the winning ATF design on cost and on schedule. Their Skunk Works has developed the worlds most complex aircraft in short order on schedule and budget. It takes good management but it is routinely done. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back | | aws@iti.org | to you, hunt it down and kill it. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 03:26:53 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!nstn.ns.ca!IRIS1.UCIS.Dal.Ca!roberts@apple.com (Greg Roberts) Subject: CD ROM images at ames On a related note, I was trying to produce some source code to convert IMG to GIF on the PC, but did the writing on the IRIS. The files open fine on the IRIS, but not on the PC. I will rty to get that fixed within the next few days, and if I can't, I will have them removed until I can do them again. Sorry about that, but I was trying to get some out before exams. cheers.. Greg Roberts, TUNS ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 04:25:53 GMT From: crash!benno@nosc.mil (Benno Eichmann) Subject: Re: Mars media alert In <1991Apr19.124944.12413@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: >In the May issue of Life magazine, the cover story outlines a six stage >approach to changing Mars into an Earth-like planet by the middle of the 22nd >Century. Perhaps recent remarks by the Vice-President were about this future >Mars. If you want to know what he knows, read the May issue of Life. :-) Related to `Alternative-3' work using some facilities on the moon? Status? ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 04:36:20 GMT From: crash!benno@nosc.mil (Benno Eichmann) Subject: Re: Mars media alert In <1991Apr19.124944.12413@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: >In the May issue of Life magazine, the cover story outlines a six stage >approach to changing Mars into an Earth-like planet by the middle of the 22nd >Century. Perhaps recent remarks by the Vice-President were about this future >Mars. If you want to know what he knows, read the May issue of Life. :-) Anything like "Alternative 3" by Leslie Watkins and David Ambrose suggested? (from: Sphere Books Limited, Macdonald & Co Ltd, 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5TZ; ISBN: 0 7221 1126 6 World Affairs;) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 07:37:43 CDT From: The Wizard <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:MSKELLEY@SAMFORD.BITNET> Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #458 On Thu, 25 Apr 91 02:18:34 EDT said: >If Congress were interested in developing a lot of private >experience for a private buisnesses in space exploration >and development of space resources, I heard somewhere >something like what I propose. > >Congress should allocate (through lotteries, appropriations, >etc) a large cash prize on the order of >US$100,000,000 for the first person/organization to >go to the moon and spend an amount of time on the surface. > >Any comments as to how to make this work? First off, shouldn't there be a requirement to get back? :) Another item is to consider long-term objectives -- an individual is not likely to be able to do this on their own, and a corporation would not really be concerned with a prize, they would rather have the fame to go with it. (If they were a private company.) Thirdly, where is this money hiding exactly? It would be very tempting to some of our representatives in D.C. to pass this off as an asset... What requirements would you put on 'activity' on the lunar surface? Getting a tan line? Weather analysis? Seismic studies? In essence, whatever the traveler wants to do, or accomplish specific goals? I feel that it would be a great idea in principal, but putting it into practice could be a problem. Wiz :-> (MSKELLEY@SAMFORD.BITNET) ----- MOD 1.01 - On a clear disk, one can seek forever. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 13:39:15 GMT From: usc!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!irvine@apple.com (/dev/null) Subject: sci.space There are two camps that have been too busy refuting one another rather than actually coming up with a solution (myself included). I have heard from a number of people that a Saturn V based launcher is being considered by a private (?) company to build. I wish that group good luck. I think the ALS offers the OPPORTUNITY to do much better than anything we have done to date. That is its justification. I felt the Saturn V would be a nightmare of parts scrounging and attempting to cobble modern parts into a Saturn V type rocket which might affect reliablility and the things that made Saturn great, and why caution should therefore be used in 'deciding to build it.' (and why availability of engines doesn't mean much since there are so many other parts to get , but I digress) Anyway, that is a sum of my opinion, I have gotten into the mood of construction of a proposal or something, so unless someone responds to my invitation to the 'proposal building,' I have nothing else to say. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Brent L. Irvine | These are MY opinions | | Malt Beverage Analyst | As if they counted...:) | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 13:38:49 GMT From: media-lab.media.mit.edu!minsky@eddie.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) Subject: Re: Uploading to alpha Centauri In article <76oX15w164w@swrdpnt.bison.mb.ca> ford@swrdpnt.bison.mb.ca (Scott Young ) writes: > > Boy, this sounds a lot like Dr. McCoy's problem with the transporter >on Star Trek. Scientifically, it's a more efficient way of transport, >but the ethics of it are up in the air. It's even worse than Star Trek, >since instead of disassembling and reassembling an exact copy, you would >have multiple copies of the same person. Generally a bad idea; I prefer >conventional methods of reproduction. > Scott Well, sure, the ethics are of this are up in the air. Even so are the ethics of "conventional methods of reproduction". And what should be the punishment for having twins? And isn't confronting the world with inexact copies even more controversial than copies of what you already know. Seriously, it is interesting to consider why there seems to be such a general horror of the human clone idea. Enough to be a common plot. Is it some sort of incest-taboo reaction? Or a Freudian rejection of ... ? ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 20:55:51 GMT From: aio!vf.jsc.nasa.gov!kent@eos.arc.nasa.gov Subject: Charting a decade of the Shuttle Here is my entire Posting... I inadvertly left the body of the message out... From the Johnson Space Center's Space News Roundup Vol. 30 No. 15, April 12, 1991 with a correction in the April 19, edition: "that shows for all intents and purposes, we've launched 1,200 tons of payload every decade. It took us 215 launches in the '60s, 152 launches in the '70s and 102 launches in the '80s. The Shuttle with 4 percent of all U.S. Launches, has launched 41 percent of all the mass. Not including the orbiter." It article means that the Shuttle accounted for 41% of the '80s mass The article also lists the total payload weight to orbit: in 38 shuttle flights (up to STS-35): People flown: 199 Days in orbit: 225.07 Man Hours in orbit: 28,688 Orbits: 3572 Max alt average: 189 Statute miles flown: 94,300,612 Total No. Payloads: 292 Orbiter Weight at liftoff (lbs): 9,061,659 Pounds to Orbit ( not including orbiter): 1,055,421 Payload deployed (lbs): 533,898 Payload Returned to Earth (lbs): 546,427 EVA man-hours: 136.66 Also the shuttle has a success to failure ratio of .974 with 1 being perfect. Higher than any other US booster. Ariane, the only other vehicle designed in the '70s and operated in the '80s, had five failures in the first 40 flights. -- Mike Kent - Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC 2400 NASA Rd One, Houston, TX 77058 (713) 483-3791 KENT@vf.jsc.nasa.gov -- Mike Kent - Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC 2400 NASA Rd One, Houston, TX 77058 (713) 483-3791 KENT@vf.jsc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 20:40:39 GMT From: mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!dullea.ipac.caltech.edu!krs@apple.com (Karl Stapelfeldt) Subject: Re: Saturn V vs. ALS In article <1128@opus.NMSU.Edu> bwebber@charon.UUCP (K.MacArthur working for bwebber) writes: >> >> The problem with resurrecting the Saturn V today is the same >>same problem that caused the launcher to go out of production in the >>1970s : It is just too damn big for our current needs. The only >>viable Saturn V payload in the next 10 years would be Space Station >>hardware; the Saturn V is so big that after 1-2 such missions we wouldn't >>need it again. It clearly is not worth rebuilding the Saturn V with >>this kind of expected utilization. > > I disagree. What about the possibility that once a large and >reliable launcher is proven that more things will be created to fill the >available capacity? You can't set up a market until somebody takes the >risk and provides the infrastructure. Usually that somebody is the govt ... I think you make a valid point. However it is more likely to be applicable (in the nearer term) to a smaller ALS rocket than to a resurrected Saturn V. Our next launcher should stay one step ahead of current users so that new, larger spacecraft can be developed to take advantage of a capability they know exists. The problem with the Saturn V is that the payload size is just too big for the market now or in the next 10 years. It is better to make our next step a 40 % increase over the Titan IV payload (rather than a 400 % increase). The market can't be expected to jump so far in one step. Karl Stapelfeldt krs@ipac.caltech.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #461 *******************