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 ; Wed, 5 Jun 91 01:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 01:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #597 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 597 Today's Topics: Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: Building Infrastructure Ulysses Status for 05/15/91 (Forwarded) Saturn V performance (was Re: Saturn V and the ALS) Re: Saturn V and the ALS Omnibus Space Commercialization Act of 1991 Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded Re: Building Infrastructure Re: Saturn V and the 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: 19 May 91 17:25:46 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!quest!schaper@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Steve Schaper - SSB) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS do you really think that in the current budget environment, NASA would get the billions committed to the Shuttle if the shuttle were cancelled? I rather suspect some senator up for reelection will see it a good coup for his frank-mailings. ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 91 05:43:25 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!uwm.edu!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: Building Infrastructure In article <1991May19.205914.19902@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >Like the Kelly Act, this approach is intended to create markets. Not at all. The Kelly Act was aimed at a _current market_, mail delivery. Furthermore, a primary motivation was to strengthen the secondary industry, aircraft production, since it was important for the defense. >If I where doing it I would set aside funds for lowest absolute >cost to orbit, lowest incrimental cost to orbit (lowest cost/lb) >and lowest cost for a launcher which could carry humans (this would >mean big enough to carry people not 'man rated'. I wouldn't constrain >it any more than that. Yes, but how low? Cost to what orbit? Why is delivering humans into orbit important? What current, or even near-future, market does that serve? What about delivery and processing of extraterrestrial materials in competition with launching from earth? Unless the program takes into account all of the permutations in a fair and market-oriented manner, it could end up jeopardizing rather than encouraging the development of self-sustaining space industry. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably knew it already. The more bewildered you are, the more successful the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 91 06:48:45 GMT From: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Ulysses Status for 05/15/91 (Forwarded) Article: 1269 of nasa.nasamail.p Newsgroups: nasa.nasamail.p Path: ames!daemon From: dainsworth@nasamail.nasa.gov (DIANE AINSWORTH) Subject: Ulysses Mission Status May 15, 1991 Message-ID: Sender: daemon@news.arc.nasa.gov (The devil himself) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Date: Wed, 15 May 91 15:38 PDT Approved: telemail ULYSSES MISSION STATUS May 15, 1991 The Ulysses spacecraft remains in good condition as it cruises through the ecliptic plane on its way to Jupiter. Today Ulysses is approximately 498 million kilometers (309 million miles) from Earth, traveling at a heliocentric velocity of approximately 79,200 kilometers per hour (49,300 miles per hour). Following discussions at the spring science working team meeting in Heidelberg, Germany, steps were taken to schedule longer, 10-hour passes to permit the spacecraft's real-time link to operate at a continuous bit rate of 1024 bps even when the onboard tape recorder is being played back. A new maneuver strategy has been implemented to maintain the expected data rate at baseline levels during the remainder of Ulysses' journey to Jupiter and after it exits the ecliptic plane. To maintain continuous bit rate links during each extended pass, operations team members will perform Earth-pointing maneuvers more frequently to keep Ulysses pointed more precisely at the Earth. During this reporting period, routine slew maneuvers were performed yesterday, May 14, and were planned for tomorrow, May 16, and Monday, May 20. ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 91 00:24:59 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!transfer!lectroid!sw.stratus.com!tarl@ucsd.edu (Tarl Neustaedter) Subject: Saturn V performance (was Re: Saturn V and the ALS) The May 20 aviation week has some details on Saturn V performance vs ALS and Shuttle-C proposals. An article by Thomas Frieling advocates reviving the Saturn-V first (S-1C) stage with newer 2nd & 3rd stages. The interesting point is actual data comparing Saturn V vs Shuttle-C. mass to LEO ------------- Saturn V S1C: 130,000Kg ALS: 50,000Kg - 90,000Kg Shuttle-C: 50,000Kg Energiya: 100,000Kg - 250,000Kg [The Energiya data is supplied for comparison, it's what I have from Glavkosmos via SCC, believe as much of it as you wish.] Other comparisons of interest: Thrust -------- Shuttle SSME: 470,000 lb S1C F-1: 1,500,000 lb [Saturn V first stage motors] S-2 J-2: 230,000 lb [Saturn V second & third stage motors] Predicted cost of system development: Shuttle-C: $1.2 Billion + 6 years ALS: $9.5 Billion + 10-12 years Saturn V: ?.? + 4-6 years The article unfortunatley reads like it was written by a Believer, and any figures (in particular relating to cost) should be cross-checked before being used. Of interest is that the author contends that the additional carrying capacity of the Saturn V is a major plus; Surprising, given discussions that we wouldn't have a lot of use for payloads in that range, and that the soviets can't find payloads for two energiyas sitting on the ground today at Baikonur. -- Tarl Neustaedter tarl@vos.stratus.com Marlboro, Mass. Stratus Computer Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 91 23:34:49 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <1991May17.023728.17989@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1991May17.020839.13157@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >>An Apollo CSM would be a poor choice for a crew transport... > >He said "CM", not "CSM". The service module would be largely superfluous >in this role. I don't think the command module alone could serve as a crew transport. Such a transport would require at least 48 hours of autonomus power and life support capability (For safty in the event of some failure,or as the soviets do, for a slower docking approch to save fuel.) If I remember correctly, the Apollo CM has almost NO independent capability (e.g. it needs a service module, execpt for a very short time before and during reentry.) While a smaller service module could certainly be designed, the whole point of using Apollo hardware was to avoid new designs. Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 91 20:50:51 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!hela!aws@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Omnibus Space Commercialization Act of 1991 Last Thursday I received a copy of the Space Commercialization bill for the 102ND Congress. It is similar to last years bill with some additions. Some highlights are: 1. Requires all federally funded launches to go up on commercially provided launchers unless certain conditions apply. 2. It still requires the government to inventory and sell unused space facilities. 3. It still provides tax deducitons for people buying stock in a commercial launch facility. 4. Requires NASA to lease unused facilities 5. Makes it harder for the government to require cost and pricing data for commercial launches. 6. Requires the govenrment to use only reasonable performance specs and not design or construction specs in bids. 7. Loosens some anti-trust laws as they affect space. 8. Gains on sale of space corporation stock are tax free. 9. Bonds sold to finance space launch facilities become tax free 10. Profits on sale of items manufactured in space are tax free. 11. Specifies the duties of the Office of Space Commerce. 12. Requires each federal agency with more than $100M in R&D funding to give Congress a report containing a plan of space related work they will do and periodic followup reports on progress. 13. Requires the government to purchase space infrastructure from the private sector whenever possible. This is likely to be the big space policy bill in this Congress. It is very agressive and will take a lot of work to get enacted but it is doable. More details as they become available. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with | | aws@iti.org | -- Harel Barzilai | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 91 19:39:42 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!transfer!lectroid!sw.stratus.com!tarl@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Tarl Neustaedter) Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated I'd like to support the call for a moderated sci.space.?? group, and have been asked to post my reasons on this group. To avoid this starting a posting war, please don't follow up to this posting (other than in e-mail) unless you check to see that only a few postings on this subject are already present. Reasons for asking for a moderated group: 1) I've several times come within a keystroke of de-subscribing to this group due to the redundant traffic. I'm a space fanatic, but I have a job which needs my attention, and I also read other groups. 2) There are frequently *many* answers to a single question. A moderator can reduce that down to the few most concise answers, and reduce the number of repeated postings. 3) There are frequently arguments carried out here. After the first two or three messages, these get old. 4) There are occasionally postings to this group which don't belong. A moderator could screen these out. 5) Certain subjects come up again and again. Adding an FAQ posting (which is difficult without a moderator) could reduce these. 6) Certain subjects continue interminably. After a while, the discussion loses value and should be shut off. For examples where a moderated group has drastically reduced traffic, see comp.risks and rec.humor.funny. For examples where the moderator has reduced traffic to about a minimum without being draconian (and has also made postings a lot more readable), see sci.military. For an example of where the moderator enhances the discussions, see comp.dcom.telecom. For an example of where a moderator is clearly needed, see rec.sf-lovers. I read over a hundred science fictions books a year, want to know what is going on in the SF world, but I can't afford the time to read that group. This group, sci.space, has been migrating in that unfortunate direction. -- Tarl Neustaedter tarl@vos.stratus.com Marlboro, Mass. Stratus Computer Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 91 01:24:52 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded In article <1991May18.070054.19404@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >The cut did _not_ go to HUD. This is utter myth. Half of the $2 >billion went to NSF and EPA -- at least one of those a much better >investment in space technology than Fred -- and the other half went to >AXAF, SIRTF, and EOS. If Fred had not been cut, AXAF and eventually >CRAF would have been, thus greatly diminishing our chances of affordable >human habitats within our lifetimes. With SIRTF and other exploration >missions like CRAF alive, we stand a fighting chance of gaining the >knowledge we need to bring habitat costs down. What exactly do you mean by money "went to" NSF, EPA and the AXAF, SIRTF and EOS programs? Are you trying to say that the House gave these programs MORE money than they asked for? This is not my understanding at all. Rather these programs would have recieved LESS than was requested, if Freedom had been funded. In no way does this mean that these programs benifited from Freedom being zeroed. It means that they were not hurt because of it. There is a BIG difference between gaining money and not loosing money. (If your boss does not give you a raise, could you say that he gave you money, since he chose not to fire you?) Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 91 00:52:40 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!irvine@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (/dev/null) Subject: Re: Building Infrastructure In article <1991May19.205914.19902@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > In article <1991May19.055507.25313@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: > > >>No large infrastructure project has ever been done without major > >>government involvement. > > >Where did the thousands of billions of dollars worth -- over 1,000 > >times more $$$ than available to NASA -- of oil rigs, oil pipelines, ... > >on this planet come from? [A bunch of stuff about riding on government built roads, etc] > I won't go on as I think the point is made. I'm not defending all of > these actions and I think many of them are outdated. But I don't think > we wold be as well off today without them. > Unfortunately, you didn't make a point except: Much of our infrastructure is government owned or government generated. This does not support you contention that no major infrastructure project wasn't government funded. Look at our industry's infrustructure. Mostly privately financed. *SURE* the government builds things like roads and (did) intra continental phone service. It is making it *easier* for citizens to do buisness and do all of those big infrastructure projects you say our industry never did. It also depends on your definition of _large_ and _involvement_. Make _large_ big enough and you can say that no one has ever done anything large..... :) Dilute _involved_ enough and you can say that there is nothing that is done indapendant of the Government. The whole arguement hinges on whose definitions you are to use. As for myself, I feel that the private sector has done plenty of _large_ infrastructure projects. Many pipelines, oil rigs, chemical plants, auto plants and supporting industries. Chip factoreis, etc. These fit my definition of large, and satisfy my involved credential. (And, yes, I know the transistor was invented in Bell Labs - a monopoly, yet still privately owned) -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | \\\\||||//// | Brent Irvine (irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu) | | ////||||\\\\ | These opinions are mine...as if they counted! :) | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 91 04:02:55 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <1991May19.004034.6334@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >I hope not. A mission so mammoth that it requires international >participation is sure to be a boondoggle. > While a big, "mammoth" international mission could easily turn into a equally mammoth administrative mess. For this reason I strongly disagree with the Planetary Society and others who feel a manned Mars mission MUST be international. However, there are many, smaller projects where international cooperation could be a big plus. The Hubble Space Telescope's Faint Object Camera and the Titan Atmospheric Probe (Huygens) on the Cassini probe are examples of cooperation with the European Space Agency. These joint efforts of this type could also be a risk if we dump the space station, and prove to the rest of the world that we cannot be trusted. Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #597 *******************