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 ; Sat, 27 Apr 91 02:14:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 02:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #472 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 472 Today's Topics: Re: ALS vs. Saturn V Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: NASA & Executive Branch NASA Headline News for 04/24/91 (Forwarded) Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not... Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not... ATF Fly-off 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: 26 Apr 91 12:54:47 GMT From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!isis!gaserre@uunet.uu.net (Glenn A. Serre) Subject: Re: ALS vs. Saturn V Frank Crary: I feel that the greatest reductions in launch costs, at least in the near term, would result from a design that used the best known, proven hardware available, while concentrating on reducing costs instead of improving the technology used. A rebuilt Saturn V, would not do this, since it uses proven 1960's technology while there are many examples of proven 1980's technology around. Building a high-tech ALS also would not do, since it would concentrate on developing new, late 1990's technology. Frank Crary UC Berkeley Me: What are examples of proven 1980's rocket technology around? Parts of the Shuttle seem to be the most recently developed examples of US rocket technology. Those parts have proven to be complex and costly. As far as technology in the (US, non-shuttle)rockets that are currently flying, the engines (for example) are usually little (if any ) modified from the original military missile designs. Avionics is probably a good example of 1980's technology that is flying, do you know of any others? More ramblings from: -- --Glenn Serre |Soon-to-be former Payload Integration Engineer for gaserre@nyx.cs.du.edu |Martin Marietta Astronautics Group, Space Launch Systems |Company. |Next job: Script writer for Cayenne Systems, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 91 15:32:36 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >>The Europeans thank you profusely for not coming through on the shuttle's >>promises; Arianespace has made a bundle out of your failure. > >On the other hand, wasn't Ariane designed from scratch? Or is it >simply a derivative of American launchers (Titan/Atlas/Delta/etc.)? I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion, but Ariane is not a derivative of any US launcher. It is, somewhat, derived from earlier European launchers. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 91 13:51:13 GMT From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!abvax!iccgcc!herrickd@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: NASA & Executive Branch In article <1991Apr17.094438.12385@pbs.org>, pstinson@pbs.org writes: > Congressional intervention to authorize it? If NASA were really a business, as > Hughes seems to think it is, then NASA would have control of it own purse > strings, but it evidently does not. So how can it be held accountable for not > doing something it did not have the money to do? It must be held accountable for not doing something that it had contracted to do. Regardless of the truth of the matter, our government generally does not choose to declare that it is a liar that defaults on its contracts and should not be trusted. The technical term describing an entity that does not have the money to carry out its promises is "bankrupt". Our government is still trying to hide the applicability of that word. (Too.) How many readers of this thread are deeply offended by my use of the words "untrustworthy" and "bankrupt" with respect to my government? What is it we have been talking about in this thread? dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.a.com ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 91 08:57:20 GMT From: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 04/24/91 (Forwarded) Headline News Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA Headquarters Wednesday, April 24, 1991 Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788 This is NASA Headline News for Wednesday, April 24, 1991 . . . Kennedy Space Center staff are nearly ready to gain access to Discovery's aft compartment for troubleshooting of the suspected faulty sensor on engine #3. Yesterday, the main tank was drained and the rotating service structure moved back around the orbiter. This morning work continues to drain fuel cell reactant tanks. Technical team members should be ready to inspect the engine #3 aft compartment area by this afternoon. Marshall Space Flight Center and Kennedy officials estimate repairs could be underway tomorrow if the problem turns out to be the sensor or the wiring harness. Should troubleshooting point to the engine controller, additional time may be required for removal and testing. Presently, the KSC and Marshall team are indicating a possibility of picking up the launch countdown Saturday morning, to support a launch no earlier than Sunday, April 28. In orbiter processing facility bay 1, Columbia is nearly ready to be transported to the vehicle assembly building. Final orbiter preparations for the rollover have been completed. The orbiter will undergo weight and center-of-gravity checks today. Columbia's STS-40 solid rocket booster/external tank stack is ready for mating with the orbiter. The launch of Columbia for the Spacelab Life Sciences mission is still set for May. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * For the 84 students from Copley High School and Copley- Fairlawn Middle School, Akron, Monday was much more than just any ordinary Earth Day. The 84 students had just emerged from 10 days of seclusion in Moonbase America, a cluster of nine domes set up to simulate an actual extraterrestrial base. The $3 million project is jointly sponsored by NASA with the education community and corporate support. NASA Administrator Richard Truly helped kick off the project ten days earlier. The 84 students spent their time working around the clock, in eight-hour shifts, to attend to a host of environmental, electronics, computer and hydroponics experiments spaced throughout the nine-dome city. NASA Lewis Research Center computer specialist Bill Crell helped to debrief the students following their "journey." Additionally, 12 middle-school and high school students staffed the "control facility" which monitored the Moonbase's operations. Homework, the teachers say, was "faxed" to the base. Former NASA astronauts Al Worden and John Glenn helped with the project, which was entirely managed by Carolyn Staudt, Copley High School physics teacher. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space (Albert Gore, D-Tenn., chairman) holds hearings today in the Russell Senate Office Building, room 253, from 9:30 through noon. Today's hearing is on the NASA Office of Space Science and Applications Fiscal Year 1992 budget request. OSSA Associate Administrator, Dr. Lennard Fisk, will be the principal witness. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The newest space shuttle orbiter, the Endeavour, will be rolled out tomorrow in a ceremony at Rockwell's Space System Division plant in Palmdale, Calif. Several thousand Rockwell employees, their families, government leaders and top NASA and Rockwell officials will be on hand for the ceremony, which begins at 1:30 pm EDT. The rollout ceremony will be covered live on NASA Select TV from 1:30 to 3:30 pm EDT. Also appearing at the ceremony will be Dr. Robert Duce, University of Rhode Island vice Provost for Marine Affairs, who will present NASA with a sternpost remnant recovered from Endeavour's namesake ship -- the first sailing ship commanded by British Captain James Cook. On that trip, during the period from 1768 through 1771, Captain Cook observed and recorded the transit of the planet Venus. The sternpost will be carried aboard Endeavour on its first flight, now scheduled for STS-52 in February 1992. Endeavour is expected to arrive at the Kennedy Center next Friday, May 3. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Stennis Space Center's Teacher Resource Center is hosting an Earth Day workshop all day today to assist Mississippi and Louisiana educators with their science teaching requirements. The teachers received a series of briefings on Earth and the environment from scientists working at Stennis. In addition to the scientists from Stennis, the workshop is also being supported by Stennis contractor, Environmental Protection Agency, and other Stennis resident-agency staff scientists. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) holds its annual meeting next Tuesday through Thursday, April 30 - May 2, in Arlington. This year's theme is "Aerospace 1991: The Changing Course." The meeting will be in the Crystal City Hyatt Regency Hotel. Key speakers for the sessions will include NASA Deputy J.R. Thompson, Office of Aeronautics, Exploration and Technology Associate Administrator Arnold Aldrich, and Norman Augustine, chief executive officer of Martin Marietta Corp. Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA Select TV. Note that all events and times may change without notice, and that all times listed are Eastern. Wednesday, 4/24/91 1:15 pm Magellan-at-Venus status briefing, live from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Thursday, 4/25/91 1:30 pm Rollout ceremonies for space shuttle Endeavour, live from Rockwell International's Palmdale, Calif., orbiter assembly plant. This report is filed daily at noon, Monday through Friday. It is a service of NASA's Office of Public Affairs. The contact is Charles Redmond, 202/453- 8425 or CREDMOND on NASAmail. NASA Select TV is carried on GE Satcom F2R, transponder 13, C-Band, 72 degrees West Longitude, transponder frequency is 3954.5 megaHertz, audio is offset 6.8 MHz, polarization is vertical. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 91 13:52:13 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!hela!aws@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not... In article <29852@rouge.usl.edu> dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Phil Fraering) writes: >Is a heavy-lift launch vehicle really needed? Not now. However, they will be if we ever get a Lunar/Mars exploration program off the ground. It wouldn't hurt to have the infrastructure there for when real expansion begins. Work on the F-1 engine began years before the race for the moon for the simple reason that Von Braun realized that we would someday need a big engine. If he hadn't anticipated that need, we wouldn't have made it to the moon in the 60's. >The vast majority of >commercial payloads are rather small compared to the payloads of the >large vehicles being developed, Many payloads are as big as they can get. There is a chicken and egg problem. Nobody will build bigger satellites without a launcher and nobody will build a bigger launcher without demand. > 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. You can't do the assembly without the infrastructure in place to support it. That infrastructure will be a lot easier with larch cheap launchers. >Especially if new technology is going to be developed, it would be >easier to develop it on a small test vehicle; Agreed. But since these are to be operational vehicles we should not be developing new technology. >the insurance for the heavy >launcher is going to be a lot more than for the light launcher, >because more is risked each launch. But if overall cost per pound is lower, so what? The Saturn (as well as the Heavy Lift Delta and Titan V) should be able to reduce costs by a factor of three. Your points are very valid. It all comes down to the size of the market and now it just isn't big enough. However, many times in the past large markets have emerged from wise investment by the government on infrastructure. 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: 26 Apr 91 20:05:13 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!widener!hela!aws@ucsd.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not... In article dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes: >1. If there's no market for the smaller launchers, will there be a >market for the larger ones? Depends on the price. There is no market for large payloads today which are big enough to justify construciton of a larger launcher. However, some applications would eventually use the extra capacity if provided. If we had, say, a HL Delta I think we would see larger communication satellites. Eventually, we would see more larger payloads. This is especially true if these vehicles result in significant cost reductions. >2. I believe that on-orbit assembly will be much easier than you seem >to believe. I think eventually you will be correct. At the moment it is hard and I can't say when it will become easy. >3. It makes more sense to do the R and D on a small scale than on a >large one BUT this does not mean I am proposing that the small >vehicles should be much more experimental than the large ones. I think >there should be small experimental vehicles, but only as an adjunct. >Whatever gets built, the first couple are going to be at least >slightly experimental in nature. Depends on what we build. At the large end, there is no need for it to be the least bit experimental. Smaller 10K pound vehicles on the other hand, will be very R&D. 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: 26 Apr 91 14:33:14 GMT From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!kcarroll@uunet.uu.net (Kieran A. Carroll) Subject: ATF Fly-off sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes, regarding the money that Lockheed and Northrop put into their ATF (>not< ALS :-) prototype development projects, over and above the amount the USAF had agreed to pay them (i.e. their self-funded over-run): > ...They put in MUCH more than half the development money. Maybe > close to 75-80%. The losing contractor (as I previously mentioned and which > you chose to ignore) lost lots of money, and the AF will not conduct business > that way in the future, due to the disincentives of a "Winner Take All" > approach. The long-term effects of this contract on our industrial base are > unclear. Referring again to the PBS show that recently examined the ATF fly-off, I recall that one of the requirements that the USAF put on the designers was the per-unit price of delivered airplanes. That is, I believe that the lot-buy of ATFs is a fixed-price one, with the manufacturer knowing the price beforehand. Thus, as long as Lockheed hasn't under-estimated production costs, the US will get a fair deal on this airplane. -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 91 06:45:04 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Saturn V vs. ALS In article <1128@opus.NMSU.Edu> bwebber@charon.UUCP (K.MacArthur working for bwebber) writes: >available capacity? You can't set up a market until somebody takes the >risk and provides the infrastructure. Usually that somebody is the govt, Not at all. If someone thinks a market is possible, they will invest in the infrastructure. You seem to think the government should develop infrastructure, and then see what corporate interest there is in using it. Would it not make more sense to show how profits can be made with current infrastructure, they let all the greedy CEO's realize that, by investing in infrastructure, they could increase their profits? Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #472 *******************