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, 22 Jun 91 04:50:00 -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, 22 Jun 91 04:49:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #682 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 682 Today's Topics: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures Re: More on Freedom Vote Re: The Reasons for a Station? Was Re: Rational next station design... Re: satellite refuelling USA Environment Protection Agency Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday? Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures 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: 2 Jun 91 00:53:30 GMT From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a684@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Janow) Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > So far all the robotic attempts to repair have failed. The Solar Max repair > would have failed had there not been humans on hand. Yes, that's true. Since our robotics technology isn't advanced enough for such tasks yet, maybe it would be a good idea to fund further R&D so that it will be possible. > I never said there would be no robotics on this station. When you and Mr. > Szabo are willing to let nurses stick needles in your arms by tele- operation > we can talk. If the government chooses to fund manned space projects instead of robotics and related technologies, it's going to be a long, expensive wait. Of course, the Sanyo pocket med unit might be on the market while space station Fred is going through its 500th redesign. :-/ >+ A human may be more versatile than a robot, but a robotics service can be >+ more economically versatile than humans. > > Depends. I myself don't think that the drawings can be kept accurate enough > for robots. That's why work has to be done on adaptive systems, which can adapt to unexpected conditions or recognize them and ask for further instructions. If a company hires the repair service to replace module a-458 and gives them old, incorrect information, that's the company's fault. Even a human repair technician would have to call back for correct information. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 91 20:20:52 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: More on Freedom Vote In article <1991Jun3.182220.16037@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >They are coming out of the woodwork to get funding for Freedom. McDonnell >Douglas has been putting large ads in Roll Call (the House newspaper) and >the Washington Times. Rockwell and Boeing are also lobbying big time and >it seems to be working. >conservative. If the full house voted today, Freedom would receive >full funding. > >Another interesting note is that the President is playing hardball on >this issue. He recently spoke with Jamie Whitten who is the head of >the Appropriation Committee. He told him that if Freedom isn't built >then there was no reason to build the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) >for the Shuttle. ASRM is built in Whitten's district and he consideres >it an important project. Bush's veiled threat should have a big effect. > And you are so naieve as to think that you can get Congress to kill the Shuttle, which is already operational, to go to tin cans.... Watch, look, and learn. Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 91 01:57:23 GMT From: spool.mu.edu!agate!earthquake.Berkeley.EDU!gwh@decwrl.dec.com (George William Herbert) Subject: Re: The Reasons for a Station? Was Re: Rational next station design... In article <2069@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> p515dfi@mpirbn.UUCP (Daniel Fischer) writes: >> * Long-term Human studies >This kind of study is being performed by the Soviets since two decades; they >have had people up for 1 year and flown a doctor on a 200+ days mission. What >could be learned by repeating these boring adventures that they don't already >know and are likely ready to join? While you're confident that the Soviets have learned all we have to about people in space, I'm not. First: they have very little nonintrusive biomonitoring equipment. Having looked over some of the data they have on their cosmonauts, it's pretty obvious that their data is rough and incomplete. Not only that, but it's not continuous... it's seperate point samples weeks apart, often. The US has continuous data on subjects... for a period of a week. We need detailed long-term studies...and the soviet work so far doesn't go very far. >> * some Microgravity (not all) >Microgravity reasearchers prefer quick return of their samples and do *not* ask >for superduper manned stations that can be served only once in a while. Depends on what researcher. I've heard several ask for manned assistance... (though also many who wanted none, and some that wanted ten-year experiments...) >> * most Biological science >What Biological science? Again the Soviets have done all that before,especially >with the Biosputnik spacecraft where many foreign experiments were flown. >Adding up points 1 & 3 one could also ask: why should we be interested at all >in the response of biological systems to microgravity as all life as we know it >has developed under 1g conditions? Seems like a lousy circular argument: "We >need man/animals in space so that we can learn how badly space affects them..." Again, the depth and accuracy of the Soviet research are not sufficient. -george william herbert gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 91 15:46:14 GMT From: mintaka!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela!aws@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: satellite refuelling In article rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) writes: >Or, if I phrase that differently, without the Kelly act (and other >aviation related legislation and regulation) we might have a more >advanced aerospace industry than what we currently have. Always possible but it doesn't seem likely. Before the laws and policies which make up the Kelly Act there where lots of attempts at airlines which failed. There wasn't enough of a market for people to build airports so most where restricted to taking off on water (like the Maimi to Havana route). The hardware just wasn't reliable enough (80% of the original air mail pilots where dead within the first six years). I can't imagine a scenario where this evolves into a modern airline without the Kelly Act. At best we might find ourselves today with service like we had in the early 30's. >But how could you verify something like this? You can't. All we can do is to see that this policy used market forces to reduce costs using subsidies and that it worked. It may or may not have worked as well as no Kelly Act but it did work. Today we are faced with a similar situation regarding space. IMHO we should have a Kelly Space Act to do the same thing for the simple reason that we have seen it work before. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 91 09:49:05 GMT From: mintaka!think.com!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!marlin.jcu.edu.au!ccla@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Lee Askew) Subject: USA Environment Protection Agency Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct group to ask for the information below, but here goes. I would like to know if anyone in the USA has any information on the US Environment Protection Agency specifically information on Priority Pollutents, and their level in syrum if possible. I believe from my research here that there are between 20 to 30 of them. If anyone has ANY information on the priority pollutents, I would be very much grateful for the information.. Thanks Alot.. Lee. Regards, Lee Askew Internet:ccla@marlin.jcu.edu.au X25:27372000051::L_ASKEw Phone: +61 77 814944 Snail: Computer Centre Fax: +61 77 796371 James Cook University Townsville, 4811 QLD, Australia ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 91 14:30:19 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Coffman) Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures In article <1991May31.235412.61@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >In article <1991May31.034955.28620@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@earthquake.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: > >>For a 2-man station, of a soviet Mir-type, able to maintain/refuel/repair >>50 satellites / year, the OMV to move the satellites around, and the logistical >>support of this system... >> >>approximately $ 5,000 Million to develop/launch >> 1,500 Million per year to support > > >>This comes to $30 million per satellite repaired. > > >This is stupendously wrong. While I don't think in space servicing is quite cost effective yet, your arguments are seriously off base. >* The best cost estimate for a four-man station is $120,000 million > (GAO). It is unknown what Mir costs. A two man station requires the same > life support, refuelling, etc. equipment R&D and would not, I think, > cost significantly less than a 4-man job. The GAO estimate is the 30 year life-cycle cost of Fred, not the construction and launch cost. You are comparing apples and oranges here. A couple of tin cans, a Mir like station, would have considerably less construction and launch cost, probably less than Skylab. Using Progress style automated freighters to service the station reduces it's operating costs remarkably. Using Frank's numbers as a base, and converting them into GAO style life cycle costing, the satellite service station has a life cycle cost of $50 billion dollars. Because more than $40 billion of Fred's costs are up front, and most of space station Frank's costs are distributed over it's lifetime, it looks even better. >* The number of satellites launched into any particular low earth orbit > reachable by an OMV is less than 5/year, not 50/year. The number of > those actually benefiting from refueling is probably no more than one per > year; other satellites can be redesigned for optimum component/fuel > lifetime balance for less than $30 million. Servicing only the satellites launched in a given year is not necessarily the design goal of this service station. Satellites break on irregular schedules. Satellites use different amounts of station keeping fuel depending on their design and mission. And satellites may require servicing more than once during their life cycle. If we assume that communications satellite technology is reaching maturity, a reasonable assumption. Then satellites designed for twenty year life cycles with yearly service calls become reasonable. With the assurance of on orbit servicing, many of the design decisions on satellite construction would be altered. Instead of the present throwaway design, satellites designed for long life cycles and periodic maintenance, similar to earthbound telco central office design, would become attractive. >* You didn't even bother to amortize the $5 billion. > > >Over 30 years at 10%/year, this comes to $7,800 million per repair, >about 6 times the cost of launching a brand new Hubble telescope, >and 160 times the cost of making the largest launcher upgrade >that could conceivably be needed (Titan 3 to Titan IV, c. $50 million) >to add fuel to a large commercial satellite. $5 billion amortized over thirty years at 10%/year comes to $87.2 billion dollars. Spread over 50 satellite service calls a year for thirty years, that comes to $58.1 million per service call. That doesn't include station operational and resupply costs. Assume eight Progress style resupply and crew rotation flights a year at $100 million each. That comes to an additional $16 million for each of 50 satellites serviced per year. So we now have $74.1 million per service call. This is approaching the throwaway cost of current design satellites. If we take Frank's higher $1.5 billion a year support number, we get $30 million per satellite, so the total cost is now $88.1 million to service a satellite. With new higher capacity satellites designed for long service life with routine servicing, this may be a reasonable number. If the station can be justified on other grounds, the amortized cost can be discarded and servicing costs reduce to less than $16 to $30 million per satellite. *That* figure is justified even with current style satellites. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 91 19:25:06 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!gecrdvm1!gipp@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures In article <2922@ke4zv.UUCP>, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) says: > > >>* The number of satellites launched into any particular low earth orbit >> reachable by an OMV is less than 5/year, not 50/year. The number of >> those actually benefiting from refueling is probably no more than one per >> year; other satellites can be redesigned for optimum component/fuel >> lifetime balance for less than $30 million. > >Servicing only the satellites launched in a given year is not necessarily >the design goal of this service station. Satellites break on irregular >schedules. Satellites use different amounts of station keeping fuel >depending on their design and mission. And satellites may require servicing >more than once during their life cycle. If we assume that communications >satellite technology is reaching maturity, a reasonable assumption. Then >satellites designed for twenty year life cycles with yearly service calls >become reasonable. With the assurance of on orbit servicing, many of the >design decisions on satellite construction would be altered. Instead of >the present throwaway design, satellites designed for long life cycles >and periodic maintenance, similar to earthbound telco central office >design, would become attractive. > >Gary Ok, here's a thought that if it pans out guarantees funding (but since it's probably off base, no bets please). Simply say that refueling sats is for reasons of "national security". Realising that most (?) military spy sats are in geo orbit and unreachable by OMV, what if some were put in low orbit and designed to be highly mobile? this mobility eats up fuel right, and is the reason we don't move them around at whim (maybe to check out what's over yonder border just for the heck of it)? If we could refuel them easily, might not such a sat find some kind of useful niche? Adding the "national security" moniker makes it easier to get funding, since we already waste billions (trillions?) on such scams, er, schemes. Of course, adding the "NS" moniker also raises the likelihood that any such refueling capability get labeled "top secret" and thus unavailable for the commercial world. Any comments? Pete ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 91 20:36:31 GMT From: agate!earthquake.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday? In article <2921@ke4zv.UUCP> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >The one thing that fasinated me was the way they attempted to get around >the "moonwalk" problem. In a TV show, especially one with a large cast, >the problem of simulating a walking gait other than Earth normal is >horrendous. Actually, the odd way the Apollo astronauts was NOT exactly a result of the low Lunar gravity. At least in part, it resulted from the spacesuit design: The Apollo suits had both poor lower body/leg mobility AND a heavy (equivilent to 17 kg on Earth) portable life support system/ backpack. The PLSS backpack rode high on the astronaut's back, and there was no balancing weight in front. The result was that the astronaut's center of mass was shifted far up and rearward. Without full freedom to move their legs to compensate, the astronauts found the best was to move was to "hop." A better suit design would probabibly eliminate most of the "Lunar gait." Frank Crary ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 91 21:08:37 GMT From: newton.cs.jhu.edu!callahan@umd5.umd.edu (Paul Callahan) Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures In article <30388@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >Looking at it in another way, you are counting on what would be the greatest >revolution (artificial intelligence) since ENIAC was first plugged in to >give us a routine operational capability in space. Considering that AI >belongs right next to nuclear fusion (we've almost got it, just another few >years) in the 'future revolution' bin, you'll pardon me if I remain >skeptical about the whole thing. Actually, I would say that a versatile autonomous robot (self-repairing, etc.) is a good deal *less* ambitious than most AI goals, at least from the standpoint of the intelligence it would have to have. For example, even a single-celled animal like an amoeba is an extremely versatile machine. Robots with only as much behavioral complexity as amoebae would probably be sufficient for the maintenance of a space station, yet few would say that their behavior was very intelligent. In contrast, AI researchers are continually trying to simulate degrees of cognition that are found only in humans. I don't wish to imply that designing maintenance robots will be easy; I just don't consider AI to be the bottleneck. My bet is that we will have autonomous robots before we attempt large-scale industrial exploitation of space resources. I would, of course, like to see both within my lifetime. -- Paul Callahan callahan@cs.jhu.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #682 *******************