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, 10 May 91 01:37:28 -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, 10 May 91 01:37:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #516 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 516 Today's Topics: Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494) Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: Alexander Abian wants to blow up the moon? Re: IT'S OVER Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: SPACE Digest V13 #492 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: 7 May 91 16:59:55 GMT From: hela!aws@uunet.uu.net (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494) In article <9105062230.AA00326@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu writes: >If anyone does know of more solid figures, please, post them. (Mary?) According to a NASA presentation to the House Science Committee we spent $13.81 billion on the stages, engines, and vehicle integration. An additional 2.37 was spent for facilities for a total of $16.19B. This estimate is in 1991 dollars. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with | | aws@iti.org | -- Harel Barzilai | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 91 20:49:18 GMT From: csus.edu!wuarchive!usc!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!math.lsa.umich.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Paul Blase) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS to: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) AW> There is nothing in what I have said which precludes halting AW> progress in launch technology. You must understand that using AW> the latest technology in almost any operational system is a AW> kiss of death. If we learn nothing from the Shuttle, let's at AW> least learn that. You want research? I agree, let's do AW> research. But at the same time, let's build our operational AW> systems with mature well understood technology. Saturn fits AW> that bill much better than ALS (although not as well as HL AW> Delta or Titan V). AW> You want more recent technology in the Saturns? So do I. That AW> is why we need a program of continuous improvement to get it AW> in. Want the very latest materials used? Fine. Start an effort AW> to build a composit nozzle if you like. When it works, we add AW> it to the existing design. Several things that I think that most people are missing about the ALS. The ALS is NOT an attempt to build a latest, state-of-the art, Lamborghini-class launch vehicle. Rather, it is a "Ford Pickup" class hauler. The end goal is minimization of launch costs, NOT maximization of performance. To this end: 1) The system is being built for >reliability<. This means that any rocket will make it to orbit. Design features to this end include: - Redundant and very reliable engines. In a move admittedly borrowed from the Soviets, the engine design trades weight for simplicity, thus increasing reliability. The system is being designed so that an engine can fail and the rocket is still capable of making it to orbit. - More reliable avionics. The flight control system is using modern, fly-by-wire, multiply redundant avionics. One key element being proven now is an electrical actuator that will replace unreliable hydraulics. 2) The system is being built for >availability<. This means that the rockets will be available when the payloads are ready to go; you won't have to schedule the payloads around available rockets. Elements of the ALS to support this include: -Combining the booster manufacturing plant, the payload/booster assembly plant, and the launch pad in a single site. Parts of the system don't have to be transported around the country. -A vastly simplified launch pad; There isn't even a launch tower. -A rocket can be available on 30 days notice. 3) The system is being designed for >low cost<. The simpler, more inexpensive engines and the fly-by-wire avionics (electric actuators are cheaper than hydraulic systems) were mentioned before. At the design goal of 25 launches per year, the system will cost 300$ per pound to orbit. In addition: -the ALS is not merely >A< vehicle, it is a family of modular vehicles. You can use two stages to launch a small payload to orbit, strap on additional boosters (identical to the first stage) for heavier payloads. -The system is designed around common, standardized interfaces and services; You don't have to redesign the rocket for every payload type. -One interesting element being tested now is the ability to recover the engine core from the booster, allowing reuse of the engines (the most expensive part of the booster). The section of the booster that contains the engines (the lower 8 feet or so) is jettisoned (the fuel tank is not recovered) and returns to a splash-down via parachute. I should also point out that the ALS is a joint NASA/DoD project, and that every effort is being made to keep anything having to do with it from being classified. Everything is in the open and is public domain. Look for an article about the ALS in an upcoming edition of Ad Astra, the NSS magazine. --- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR] -- Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 91 18:06:48 GMT From: unisoft!hoptoad!pacbell!pacbell.com!mips!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!suned1!slced1!lev@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Lloyd E Vancil) Subject: Re: Alexander Abian wants to blow up the moon? In article <1991Apr29.150850.24258@cse.uta.edu> rduff@cse.uta.edu (Robert Duff) writes: > >If the Earth were tilted to 0 degrees and the Moon obliterated, > what would be the impact on >life on Earth? Sure, it would be Springtime all > year round, but I would think that would be >devestating for plant life whose life cycles are base > on the seasons. Also, no more tides! > >Could life continue without the moon? > Yes say good by to Apples.. and many other fruits. Not to mention, What does this guy propose to mitigate the effects of this one impact? Does he suppose that this thing will splash down like a tennis ball in a bath- tub? The theories I've read reguarding the extinction of the dinos conjur an object some 40 km in length smacking good ol' momma Earth and precipitating a world wide, decades long winter. From my observation of the impact of a few hundred burning oil wells in the Gulf, on the temperature over the region, I think the estimates of "nuclear Winter" and "Nuclear fall" are off on the low side by at least an order of magnitude. Could it be that an object largeenough to change the rotation of the earth or the tilt of the axis would simply obliterate us all? And who/what would come next? Cockroaches with tools? -- | suned1!lev@elroy.JPL.Nasa.Gov | * S.T.A.R.S.! . + o | | lev@suned1.nswses.navy.mil | The Revolution has begun! . + | | sun!suntzu!suned1!lev | My Opinions are Mine mine mine hahahah!| ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 91 22:43:10 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave!john@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John A. Weeks III) Subject: Re: IT'S OVER In article <910504.19541068.041554@USM.CP6> WARREN@USMCP6.BITNET (dweeb) writes: > STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION WILL BE CANCELLED AFTER THE 1991-92 SEASON. Too bad...it is a fun show. At least it ran longer than the original. > IT IS OFFICIAL FROM THE PRODUCERS OF THE SHOW. I AM SO GLAD, THAT HAS TO > GO DOWN IN THE ANNALS OF HISTORY AS ONE OF THE WORST RATED SHOWS OF ALL TIME > NEXT TO THE 1988 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION. GOODBYE STTNG, YOU WILL NOT BE MISSED I tend to choose my TV based on quality and my personal interests. If ratings mattered, we would all be watching nothing but "Cosby". In fact, I tend to discount the worth of any person who will admit to watching a "rated" show (except Cheers, of course). If you didn't enjoy the '88 democratic convention, we have nothing futher to discuss. The crowd chanting "where was George", the "silver foot in his mouth", and Jesse's speach were all highlights of the otherwise dull '88 election. Now what does any of this have to do with sci.space. Will humans ever develop warp drive? Are there any holes in the quantum theory and relativity that might allow warp drive? -john- -- ============================================================================= John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications, Ltd. ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 16:31:43 GMT From: hela!aws@uunet.uu.net (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <350.2822830C@nss.FIDONET.ORG> Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Blase) writes: >Several things that I think that most people are missing about the ALS. With all due respect I think it is you who are missing the point. Everything you say below about the design goals where said about the Shuttle as well. Why is it any different this time? >The ALS is NOT an attempt to build a latest, state-of-the art, >Lamborghini-class launch vehicle. Rather, it is a "Ford Pickup" class >hauler. The end goal is minimization of launch costs, NOT maximization >of performance. To this end: Depends on who you ask. Several ALS people do indeed say that one ALS goal is technology development to keep the US ahead in launch technology. In fact, what this thing is depends on who you ask (kind of reminds the old timers present of the Shuttle). The Air Force thinks it is a Titan follow-on which lifts 50K pounds. To NASA it lifts 150K pounds. They are so far apart that the Vice President recently put off any decision until 93. >1) The system is being built for >reliability<. This means that any rocket >will make it to orbit. Design features to this end include: So was the Shuttle. Why will this be any different? >2) The system is being built for >availability<. This means that the rockets >will be available when the payloads are ready to go; you won't have to >schedule the payloads around available rockets. Elements of the ALS to >support this include: So was the Shuttle. Why will this be any different? >3) The system is being designed for >low cost<. The simpler, more >inexpensive engines and the fly-by-wire avionics (electric actuators are >cheaper than hydraulic systems) were mentioned before. At the design goal >of 25 launches per year, the system will cost 300$ per pound to orbit. In >addition: So was the Shuttle. Why will this be any different? BTW, the current price is $500 to $1,000. They now admit that $300 was never practical. Kind of makes you feel good about the future doesn't it? But this number is interesting. Two contractors have offered to build for a fixed price launchers which will launch 100K pound payloads. They will do it in half the time and 5% of the cost of ALS. Operational costs of these launchers would be about the same as ALS. In this time of high taxes and deficits why do you insist on spending dollars on what we could have for pennies? Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with | | aws@iti.org | -- Harel Barzilai | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 91 23:51:13 GMT From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #492 In article <9105062246.AA01176@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu writes: >Re: Galileo flyby of ateroids. >Sure dropping Jupiter for a 'few measly asteroids' would seem to be a waste. >But dropping Jupiter for the most abundant, accessible resources and plantetary >science specimens in the Solar System is a FANTASTIC idea. Only if you are going to get some valuable data in the process. Below, you mention that the only data we have on asteroids is spectroscopic. What do you think you are going to get from Galileo? It doesn't have any way of actually analyzing the composition of an asteroid firsthand, which is what is needed. Let Galileo go on to Jupiter, damaged or no, and send a mission to some asteroids with penetrators, the best way to analyze them. Remember, we are still going to get asteroid data from Galileo, plus information on the moons. >Remember that, unlike the Planets, we can (eventually) study every gram of the >Asteroids, given the time and determinantion. We will never study the interior >of any of Jupiter's moons, let alone Jupiter. How do you know that? There is absolutely no reason we cannot study the interior of Jupiters moons, in a manner similar to how we have studied the interior of Earth. Jupiter is a bit of a trick, but since we don't have *any* solid (non-theoretical) information on the composition of Jupiter below the cloudtops, any information we can get will be a bonanza compared to what we have now. >This not only means the Asteroids would make better scientific specimens, but >also means we can recover all the heavy metals (i.e. gold, iron, lead, copper) >that are forever hidden at the center of the other planets. We are a *long* ways from this kind of space exploitation; waiting an extra ten or twelve years to get the data won't make any real difference in our schedule of space exploitation. >And finding those heavy metals could be the incentive that private industry >needs to get their butts busy building a space infrastructure. Again, we are a *long* ways from this stage. Scrapping a valuable Jupiter mission to gain a few years in getting some poor data (remember, you're not going to find out what is at the core of these asteriods with Galileo) on a few asteroids isn't going to get private industry out there any sooner. They'll still have to wait on a penetrator mission at the very least, which may well be delayed by sending Galileo to asteroids. >You would like to see a space infrasturcture wouldn't you? Sure. But junking Galileo won't accelerate the process, so why bother? >>Am I the only one here who understands that you won't get optimal >>data using a planetary orbiter to look at asteroids? >Sure, I understand it fine. I'm not suggesting that Galileo would even make >a GOOD ateroid probe, let alone the best possible. If it's not going to make a good probe, then it's not worth diverting it from a mission it was designed to do. >But, IMHO, even a really lousy view of a large number of asteroids would be >more valuable than any view of Jupiter's moons, for exactly the reasons I've >given above, especially if a mal-function meant that we'd get a lousy view >of Jupiter's moons, too. We already have lousy views of asteroids...why do we need *more* lousy views? And, as has been said before, we're going to get some more lousy views *anyway*, plus Jupiter data. >If I had the cash, (So you're the new Lotto winner?) I'd donate the whole >wad to JPL, if they'd spend it on a decent Apollo Asteroid probe. I really >want to see if this civilization is going anywhere or not, and and the rate >things are going, if it doesn't start soon, I'll be dead before it happens >(if it happens). This is exactly what needs to be done; a dedicated asteroid penetrator mission. One thing that I didn't mention above, and that you seem to have forgotten, is that CRAF (Comet Rendezvous and Asteroid Flyby) is in the planning stages now; it'll get more data from asteroids than Galileo will, by a long shot. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #516 *******************