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 ; Tue, 4 Jun 91 01:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0cGmHLm00WBwEYfU45@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 01:27:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #589 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 589 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V13 #563 Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: Saturn V and the ALS SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!! UNITED SPACE FEDERATION, INC. UPDATE 6 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Fri, 17 May 91 13:44:23 EDT Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <18084TM@msu.edu> Resent-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Fri, 17 May 91 01:58:49 EDT Reply-To: space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu From: space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU%CARNEGIE.BITNET@msu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #563 Comments: To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU To: david polito <15432DJP@MSU.BITNET>, Tom McWilliams <18084TM@MSU.BITNET> Subject: Should Galileo be rerouted? >>Yes, more flybys would give us more information. Galileo is currently slated >>to take a look at TWO big rocks. What if they happen to be just rock? No >>volatiles, no metals, mo water, etc. >What if the dozen or so rocks that Galileo could attempt to peer at were >also just rocks? If the first two are useless rocks, what makes you think >the next dozen are going to be any better? What if, indeed. I'm suggesting we find out. You're saying the knowledge is less valuable than what we'd learn at Jupiter. This is the crux of our disagreement, and I think neither of us will concede what is essentially a feeling, or at best, an opinion. If you would like to argue it, I will point out 1) The relative knowledge we have of each of these areas, and which is far behind the other, and 2) Which of these will be more important as space-based resources. >What do you think CRAF (Comet Rendezvous and Asteroid Flyby) is for? CRAF >will be optimized for the task of looking at asteroids, as opposed to >Galileo, which is going to turn instruments designed for other purposes >to the task of looking at rocks as a sideshow? CRAF is still being planned. Galileo is flying toward the asteroids as we speak (type?). Again, my whole argument assumes Galileo is busted. If it's not... >I wouldn't bet on more than a dozen asteroid flybys, tops. Remember, >the asteroid belt isn't a flying ring of packed rocks...the individual >asteroids are separated by thousands and hundreds of thousands of miles, >over millions and millions of cubic miles of space. Add to that the >fact that you are pretty much going to be flying simple elliptical orbits >with only minor nudges from the rockets on board, and you are looking >at months between asteroid encounters...and Galileo won't live forever. Neither will Voyager. "I wouldn't count on a flyby of Uranus..." >>If galieo is broke, then it already has been diverted from the mission it was >>designed to do. Why not change the mission? >Because the mission can likely be salvaged. The antenna may yet deploy, >or they can send the relay satellite out to Jupiter on a fast orbit. The >knowledge waiting for us at Jupiter is worth it. Again, 'assuming it's busted'. "salvaged" means "not busted". (though I still think that the knowledge at the 'stroids is more valuable) >Assuming CRAF still has its penetrator on board, (I heard it was having >budgetary problems a while back) CRAF will do exactly what is needed to >help us start understanding what resources are out there. Galileo will >not. Maybe Galileo could SOLVE those 'budgetary problems'. And Galileo COULD tell us if the resources are there, though the details may wait a while longer. >>Seriously, here's my perspective; >>Given: We don't know what's at either place. [paragraphs on the discoveries of Voyager deleted] I mispoke. Replace with "We don't know what most of the 'stroids are made of" >We have some idea of what asteroids are composed of, from spectral data >and pieces that have come to earth. Galileo can add some more spectral >data, perhaps slightly better than what we have now. CRAF will (likely) >render that data obsolete in a few more years. Definition of "few", please. And I think Galileo will give us better than 'slight' knowledge. >>Given: If there were equal resource abundances at both places, the 'stroids >> would be better. (delta-vee, travel time, gravity well, etc) >Probably so. Too bad we're nowhere near the ability to exploit asteroids. Expoiting the Asteroids is the beginning of the bootstrap process that would make us 'near the ability'. Finding stuff on them would bring us closer than we'd ever been, in terms of clear goals, motivation, chances of success, etc. >>MY conclusion; Blow Jupiter 'till we know what's at the 'stroids; I think >>at this point in time, science for it's own sake should take a back seat to >>science for maximization of resources. >Again, we aren't in a position to exploit asteroids in the interval between >Galileo and CRAF, so why are you wanting to abandon all the knowledge we >can gain at Jupiter for obsolescent data on asteroids? I assume that you know the schedule for CRAF? And know that we couldn't start on the Asteroids, given the correct motivation? Would you concede that Galileo could increase the budget and decrease the scheduling of CRAF to the point of saving, say, twenty years? Ten? Five? Pretty substantial, if you consider the possible payoff at $ 3e+12 / year. Sure, it's speculatory. So is invoking NASA flight schedules. >>I'm not suggesting setting up multi-$$ operations. I'm suggesting that IF >>Galileo is broken, It's value could be increased by altering it's goals. >But the goal you are thinking of won't do that... > If you feel that the answer to the questions ; "Is CRAF far more important than we thought?" and "Are the Asteroids potential resources" are less important than information about the Jove's, fine. I don't. Tommy Mac Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 91 20:26:22 GMT From: agate!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!hela!aws@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <1991May17.023200.13944@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >>also no shortage of Soviet engineers who speak english to help when needed. >"who speak english" might not be a good idea. For a man rated vehicle, >"fluent in technical, aerospace-terminology English" would be required. >Also, having trained (e.g. in space craft operations) people do the >translation is vital. Like I said, I know people who fit the bill. Does anybody out there actually think this would be a major problem? >"man-rated" has a special and technical meaning to NASA. I know. My point is that man rated launchers have operational records just as good as the non-man rated ones. From this we conclude that man rating adds cost but doesn't affect safety at all. So why do it? This should come as no suprise. The driving factor behind the vehicle safety is the cost of payload, not the crew. The payloads are generally worth far more than the crew in economic terms. >only a safe design, but also crew escape modes, This would indeed be an important aspect of the design. >This may not be a "short term sacrifice" The ESA and Japan treat the inter- >national agreement to develop and operate Freedom as an legal treaty with >another nation, and that it is a binding international law. And I feel sorry for them. But we must live in the real world. Freedom was for years getting smaller and smaller yet costs whern't dropping at all. We got to face reality; it just wasn't working. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with | | aws@iti.org | -- Harel Barzilai | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 91 22:47:09 GMT From: mintaka!think.com!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <1991May17.111354.964@disk.uucp> joefish@disk.uucp (joefish) writes: >>[discussion of shuttle mistakes and whether NASA will repeat them] >>tenaciously clinging to new-booster designs using shuttle SRBs and SSMEs? > >NASA clings to the SRBs and SSMEs because they are in production, >and it would cost twice as much to put anything in production >to replace them. If you don't consider the SRBs and SSMEs to be mistakes that NASA needs to learn from and avoid repeating, then just what *do* you think the mistakes of the shuttle project were? If the objective is a reliable launcher, it will not contain SSMEs, and probably will not use SRBs. Yes, this will increase development costs. Maybe not very much if you use the perfectly-good Saturn engines instead. >Even if an antique kerosene-oxygen engine were used in the >first stage, there is no better engine than the SSME to use >for the second stage. Nonsense. Either the J-2 or the RL-10 would be a better choice than the SSME. Their performance is not quite as good, but it's close, and their reliability and cost is orders of magnitude better. Their thrust is rather lower, but this is not that crucial for upper stages. The RL-10 is rather small but is *in production* and is an extremely reliable and well-behaved engine. The J-2 is bigger, but its reliability is harder to assess because of its rather short career and reviving production would take some work. The SSME, while larger than either and with a slightly higher exhaust velocity, is inordinately costly and its reliability record is dreadful. (The shuttle astronauts, while not being fond of the SRBs, rate the SSMEs as the single most worrisome component of the shuttle.) >The SRBs are much less complicated than the F1 assembly, >and are probably more reliable in both failure to be ready >to launch and failure during flight. The record to date indicates otherwise, although the data is somewhat sparse. Slightly more SRBs have now flown than F-1s. To date there has been one catastrophic in-flight failure. USAF experience with large solids suggests that a failure rate of 1-2% is reasonably typical. 65 F-1s flew, with no failures. The SRBs are *not* simple; 5000+ parts are removed, inspected, and reassembled on each SRB after each shuttle mission. And the safe functioning of the motors themselves depends on the minute details of the physical properties of huge masses of fuel. The seeming simplicity of solid motors is illusory. They also have a massive inherent disadvantage in that they cannot be tested before flight. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 91 21:09:00 GMT From: aio!vf.jsc.nasa.gov!kent@eos.arc.nasa.gov Subject: SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!! I feel that if the space station gets cut then NASA will never see that money again. Space Science will NEVER see that money again. For people who did not want the station because it did not suit their particlar project: Now you have NOTHING! The money will go to "reduce" the national debt. While everyone was busy yelling about how the space station would not meet their particular needs, it lost the support it needed to come into being. You can't always get what you want..... so lets have nothing instead..... what a mature solution! I know that one vote by a committee does not kill the station, but it is in DEEP trouble. Would you rather have the station or NOTHING. Flame away at me if you want to. I don't care. Its just my opinion. -- 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: 17 May 91 02:08:05 GMT From: vax5.cit.cornell.edu!usf@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu Subject: UNITED SPACE FEDERATION, INC. UPDATE 6 ************************************************************* *UNITED SPACE FEDERATION, INC. / UPDATE FOR 16th of MAY 1991* ************************************************************* * An International Civil Space Agency By 1993 * * An Idea Whose Time Has Come ! * ************************************************************* Main Goals of the Organization 1) To intergrate international ( Multinational ) space efforts in a orderly and symbeoticaly beneficial way, through the membership of an international civil space agency. 2) Provide a alternative to combative and destructive uses of science and technology. 3) To insure nationstate structure does not migrate to the Moon and Mars ( or any where beyond Earths orbit ) by making these domains international ( Multinational ), ( Earth ), areas of control only. This will be the only way to avert future military conflicts in space, or on other planets, and will insure all the peoples of the world community will benefit from its development. What is the USF The United Space Federation is a not-for-profit Corporation which was conceived and founded in 1986 in Virginia Beach, VA.,USA, the purpose of which is to establish an international civil space agency with a mandate to promote and and implement multinational commercial and scientific exploration of space. The charter of this proposed space agency would forbid it to work with national military organizations and would discourage projects which entertain narrow political and/or economic biases. The hope of the Founder and Directors is that the USF's efforts will produce more rapid advancement in already existing fields such as Space Physics and Engineering, Life Sciences, Earth Observation, Astronomy, Meteorology, and Telecommunications than is possible when scientific work and civil commercial activities are "overly" restrained by national barriers. This proposed international civil space agency would also stimulate research, and exploratory efforts, into the development of extra- global ( e.g. Lunar, Martian, Ect. ) resource exploitation and transportation and into means of removing environment contaminating industrial "processes"(THIS DOES NOT MEAN WASTE) to points beyond Earths eco-system. The preservation of industrial / technological civilization as we know it will require breakthroughs in these and other, as yet-undefined areas. International commitment to the above projects through this proposed international civil space agency will be an important step in the direction of the restructuring of national economies of major industrial nations presently dependent of war-related research and production. Jobs in the war (defense) production sectors which are being threatened as a consequence of the winding down of the Cold War, between the USSR and the USA, could be rescued by redirecting them into the newly developing space-related science and technology sectors resulting from the formation of this proposed space agency. The ideals of a viable global environment, world peace through international cooperation, and world wide prosperity comprise the basic elements of the good life desired by men and women everywhere regardless of nationality, religion, or political ideology. The USF will vigorously endeavor to realize these ideals through the world community by promoting and implementing space research, technology, and exploration. For more information, please contact: ( Send self addressed stamped envelope ) Board of Directors UNITED SPACE FEDERATION, INC. International Headquarters P.O. Box 4722 Ithaca, New York 14852-4722 In the United States of America E-MAIL : BITNET - USF@CRNL.VAX5 BITNET - USF@CORNELLA INTERNET - USF@CORNELLA.CIT.CORNELL.EDU VAX - USF@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Thank you for your time and support, Godspeed! Sincerely, Rick R. Dobson Executive Director United Space Federation, Inc. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #589 *******************