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 02:24:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 02:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #466 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 466 Today's Topics: Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints) Re: Saturn V blueprints Space Camp info slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not... Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D Re: Saturn V blueprints Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18 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: 26 Apr 91 02:41:30 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints) In article <920@idacrd.UUCP> mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes: >> Federal law prohibits The Us Government ( including NASA ) >> from purchasing launches on foreign launch vehicles. >You are incorrect. There will be US built satellites launched on Long March's >sometime in the near future and there are now DOZENS of launches on >Arianes. I have PERSONALLY built satellites in the US that were launched >on Ariane. While US companies may launch on foreign launchers, and have, NASA (as part of the US government) may not. Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 17:42:10 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!hela!aws@apple.com (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints In article <1991Apr25.151106.20938@zoo.toronto.edu> kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll) writes: >I saw a show on PBS a few nights ago (may have been the McNeil/Lehrer >Newshour) talking about the ALS development and fly-off competition. ^^^ I assume you mean ATF. >It was indeed done under fixed price contracts, of about $600M >as I recall. However, apparently >both< prime contractors spent >more like $1B each on the project. I don't know about the schedule, >but they blew the budget significantly No this is on budget as well as schedule. Unlike other fighter competitions this time the Air Force required significant buy in by the contractors. Both where expected to put up about half the development money. In fact, they may have come in a tad under budget. Good engineers CAN estimate the cost of building things; even advanced products. 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 20:19:19 GMT From: haven.umd.edu!cs.wvu.wvnet.edu!jdm@purdue.edu (James D Mooney) Subject: Space Camp info The following is a summary description of current U.S. Space Camp Programs, taken from the current brochure. For further information or applications, please contact: U.S. Space Camp One Tranquility Base Huntsville, AL 35807-7015 1-205-837-3400 RESERVATIONS: 1-800-63-SPACE My daughter makes the following comments: 1. The schedules are *highly* subject to change. 2. At Space Academy, expect a lot of lectures. ___________________________________________________ SPACE CAMP For children in (or just completed) grades 4,5, 6, or 7. Two locations: Huntsville AL and Cape Canaveral, FL. 5 days (4 PM Sunday to 9AM Friday). Programs most weeks year-round. TUITION: $425 to $550, depending on season SCHEDULE: ROCKETRY DAY: Tour rocket facilities, build model rockets and learn about rocketry. ASTRONAUT TRAINING DAY: Experience aspects of astronaut training, including simulators, etc. MICROGRAVITY DAY: Experience simulated weightlessness; learn about robotics. MISSION DAY: Plan and carry out a simulated space shuttle flight. SPACE ACADEMY (LEVEL I) For students in or just completed grades 7, 8, and 9. Five-day program (2PM Sunday to 9AM Friday) most weeks year-round at Huntsville only. TUITION: $475 to $600, depending on season. SHUTTLE OPERATIONS DAY: Learn space shuttle operation using simulators. MISSION ASSIGNMENTS DAY: Train for specific missions. Learn crew, science, and ground responsibilities. Study life support systems. MISSION EXPERIMENTS DAY: Study for mission experiments. Learn satellite deployment, etc. MISSION DAY: Conduct two simulated missions in teams. Conduct spacelab experiments and simulated spacewalks. Work with Hubble Space Telescope simulator. SPACE ACADEMY (LEVEL II) A program emphasizing academic foundations of aerospace careers. For students in or just completed grades 10, 11, and 12. "8-day" program (5PM Saturday to 1PM Saturday), most weekends year-round, Huntsville only. TUITION: $675. PROGRAM: Based on student's choice of one of three "tracks:" TECHNOLOGY TRACK: Design and conduct space shuttle experiments; instruction in solar and space plasma physics, space biology, astrophysics, fluids, materials, optics and computers. Train in SCUBA techniques in Underwater Astronaut Trainer. ENGINEERING TRACK: Study robotics, engineering fields, materials and structures. Train in SCUBA and microgravity techniques. AEROSPACE TRACK: Focus on educational requirements for aerospace engineers. Study celestial navigation, meteorology, orbital mechanics, space piloting. OTHER PROGRAMS: All of these are at Huntsville only. Some are offered only in summer months. AVIATION CHALLENGE (BASIC): For grades 7,8, and 9. Intended for previous space camp attendees. Focus on aviation training. AVIATION CHALLENGE (INTERMEDIATE): For grades 10, 11, 12. ADULT PROGRAMS: Space Academy Level I or Aviation Challenge (3 days) or Space Academy Level II (8 days). TEACHER PROGRAMS: Two levels, 5 days each. Academic credit available. -- Jim Mooney Dept. of Stat. & Computer Science (304) 293-3607 West Virginia University Morgantown, WV 26506 INTERNET: jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 22:31:50 GMT From: usc!sdd.hp.com!samsung!rex!rouge!pc.usl.edu!dlbres10@apple.com (Phil Fraering) Subject: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not... Anyway, while the whole net (at least it seems) is arguing about the merits of adopting the Saturn V (or a Saturn VI) as this nation's heavy lift launch vehicle, I would like to bring up a different question, a meta-question as it were. Or rather, I would like to bring it up again, I've brought it up often enough in the past. Is a heavy-lift launch vehicle really needed? The vast majority of commercial payloads are rather small compared to the payloads of the large vehicles being developed, and I suspect that it would be easy to break up the larger payloads into smaller payloads assembled on-site if the smaller vehicle proved cheaper. Especially if new technology is going to be developed, it would be easier to develop it on a small test vehicle; also, a launch failure on a vehicle carrying 10,000 pounds (a figure I picked because I'm pretty sure none of the proposed small vehicles use it as their figure) would be much less disastrous than losing several payloads packed into a 100,000 lbs. payload bus. If the payload on the smaller vehicle is a part of a larger payload, then only the part need be replaced, not the whole vehicle. As (I think, but don't quote me on this) Dee Ann Divis pointed out once, the insurance for the heavy launcher is going to be a lot more than for the light launcher, because more is risked each launch. Or consider the case where the small and large launcher are equally reusable or expendable (whatever configuration the vehicle is). The assembly line for the large vehicle is going to be physically larger _and_ amortizes its cost over a much smaller number of vehicles for launching the same payload. Also, the "learning curve" (which I don't understand in the strict engineering sense, I only have a layman's grasp of the meaning of the term) may prove a factor: by the time five launches (arbitrarily picked number, again) is finished and design and operating changes are made in order that the vehicle only costs twice as much as it was sold to Congress on :-) 50,000 pounds is launched with the small booster, while for the 100,000 pound model 500,000 pounds has been launched, (probrably all of several projects) and for the 600,000 pound class booster, things only get worse. Finally, most of the grandiose projects these boosters are being proposed for _can_ probrably be broken up into smaller packages and assembled on orbit, or have a very large mass fraction in the forms of provisions and fuel, which doesn't really care about being launched in a large number of small lots rather than one large one... besides, the reason many of the payloads weigh as much as they do is that they're designed for a specific launch vehicle like the shuttle. With a smaller vehicle the module sizes would be smaller, and so on. Besides, trying to build an experimental vehicle to lower launch costs the size of the proposed ALS is tempting fate, IMHO. To bring up the old airliner analogy, it would be better to develop and test the idea of cheap jet engines on a smaller vehicle before strapping them under the wing of an experimental 747; and what's more, imagine that said 747 has no predecessor like the 707, but the piston-powered Spruce Goose, and the analogy becomes more accurate. -- Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu Joke going around: "How many country music singers does it take to change a light bulb? Four. One to change the bulb, and three to sing ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 91 00:11:15 GMT From: sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!rins!will@apple.com (will) Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D In article <27156@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >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... > Actually it is kind of funny that you say that. Cliff are you there? If you turn on the T.V. (I think either 6 or 7 am here), then they have a special show on America. Now, this show has been dubed by the Japanese press as "Look at the stupid Americans show". They only portray the worst of America, and make it look like a dieseased country. One reason, at least in my opion that this anti-American propaganda is being showed is because many of the women here are getting out of japan, mostly to Americans that live or travel here. In fact, "Cliff you may want to add something here", you can go to just about any japanese girl that speaks english here and ask, why do you like foregners? And vertually all of them will say that they are better than the Japanese counter-part. In fact I once took a shinkansen to Tokyo and I happen to set by a very lovly young lady. She could have anyone of her she choice, she asked me to marry her and take her to America. I asked her why. And she said, she hates Japan and hates japanese people and just wants to get out. And the more I talk to these girls, the more they want to leave. She is now married to my friend and lives in the States and enjoys her life much more now. But it is not an isolated case. In fact many girls have even told me that if their company ever found out that they had foreign boy-friends, then they would be fired the same day, because their company believes that the place of a women is with the male counter-parts that work for that company. In fact many companys try to force the match-up of japanese women to the males in that company, even to the point of rape. Which after that the girl is forced to leave that company, because of the imbarasment. There is no legal recourse for the girl, because if she try's to say something, then her next employer will find out and not hire her. By the way, Japan has had a 3 year record high in high-school drop-outs and teenage suicides, and teachers murdering students. Since this has nothing to do with space, but I think is of general interest. I will not follow up to this. Will. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 91 03:33:20 GMT From: olivea!samsung!usc!rpi!mvk@apple.com (Michael V. Kent) Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints In article <1991Apr25.151106.20938@zoo.toronto.edu> kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll) writes: >This doesn't necessaarily reflect on the management of the programs, >by the way. It >may< have been a calculated business risk. >Both companies would likely have been willing to take this risk, >given the size of the production contract that they stood to win >if their design was chosen by the USAF. So, the loser has to swallow >a $400M marketing cost... I don't have anything to do with the ATF, but from what I have read, I think you are right. The ATF competition was designed that way. Winner wins big. Loser loses big. Of course I have no official knowledge of any of this. We (the govt.) could issue a contract for more Saturn V's, but we would have to make sure there are approriate safety measures in place. After all, what good are a few Saturn V's if half of our aerospace industry goes backrupt to produce them? Mike mvk@itsgw.rpi.edu ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 14:57:17 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela!aws@apple.com (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18 In article <1991Apr25.082413.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >> We already know. Their approach is to use what works and to improve it step >> wise as time goes on... >I disagree with you. The Russian protron booster has a launch success >percentage LOWER than any US booster. I was thinking of the Soyuz launcher which has reliability much higher than anything we fly. >I do not have the specific figures, but >our boosters: Atlas, Delta, Titan, Saturn, Shuttle have launch successes in >the high 90's. The Russian boosters are in the low 90's It depends. Over the entier lifetime of the launchers ours are also in the low 90's. Recently ours have become ~98% reliable. I don't know what their recent history is but I would be suprised to see it was that bad. >The Atlas has been in continous use for over 25 years. The titan was developed >in the 1960's and has been continously improved over the years. And I would consider them something we have done (by and large) right. >All of our unmanned boosters have gone thru weight reduction programs, >component replacement programs (new parts to replace ones that are not >available any more), and major upgrades. Indeed they have. Over time the current Delta bears little resembelance to it's 30 year old ancestors. This is why they have high reliability and low cost compared to the Shuttle. Our problems arise because we insist on throwing this away for untried technology. If Chalanger hadn't failed, we might not have Delta's or Atlas's today. >In my opinion, NASA was faced with the undesireable choice of continuing the >Saturn 5 or developing the Shuttle. I think NASA made the right decision. Why? 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. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #466 *******************