Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 19:06:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8807190206.AA19403@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #281

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 281

Today's Topics:
		"Space Exploration Cost Understanding"
				Signup
			     signup space
			   Re: solar flares
	 Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus!
 Re: Postcard from Lewis: Having a wonderful time, wish you were here
			     Re: Pegasus
			  Salyut 7 elements
			     Re: Pegasus
	 Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 11:05:43 PDT
From: Eugene N. Miya <eugene@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: "Space Exploration Cost Understanding"

It was recently noted that trash isn't personal property anymore.
Friday, during our afternoon bull session (Hamming's Alternate Musings,
we call them "officially," inspired by Dick from his Los Alamos days),
I stumbled on a set of view graphs entitled "Space Exploration Cost
Understanding."  Most are dull, but there are a few gems you might be
interested.

The presenter is from JSC (houston), associated with the Mars/Lunar
Exploration office, interesting view graph is on the section entitled
"Constraints on the Spaced Program" with 3 subsections:
Budget Considerations, High Cost of Programs, and Public Perception.

The first mentions the Deficit, Non-Discretionary Items Growing,
Military Space, NASA Pressures: Challenger Accident Recovery,
Space Station, and loss of "business" reimburseable launches.

High Cost of Programs was what caught my eye:
In small print at the bottom, (NOTE ALL COSTS in FY88$)  [This is why
economics is not a science, but a joke, not deserving a Nobel Prize.
We have all heard dollar figures associated per given year like $24
Billion for the manned lunar programs, but when normalizing, we get a
different comparison.] Anyway on with the VG:
NASA Manned Programs (Expensive)
Apollo was Over $88 Billion [Usualyy cited as $24 B 1960s $$]
Shuttle is $75 to date
Station "May Cost" over $18 Billion
Recent Unmanned Programs also Relatively Expensive
Viking $3 B [Usually cited as $1B 1975 Dollars]
Space Telescope $2.2 B (so far)
TDRSS is $1.9 B to date
Public Perception slide:
Public Confidence is at an all time low
Less than 20% of the General public thinks NASA funding should be
increased
Most people think NASA is much more expensive than it really is
Few people recognize benefits
"Crisis of Confidence" that led to the Apollo program is unlikely to be
repeated

In a different section under Cost and Scheduling Trends
NASA is Realizing Diseconomies of Scale
Constant value budget for 15 years
Total Budget is 1/3 of peak Apollo era
Spacecraft budgets at 1/4 of Apllo era
NASA Cultural Norms set during Apollo [I agree]
Man power at 50%
All Apollo era Installions still exist


I skip the Gantt charts, and the other gobblety-gook.  I thought the
numbers would be of interest to you guys, I think they are a few
oxymorons in the slides like "tailored cookbook," this presentation
would have been interesting to sit in on and throw stones, but like
I said, the numbers are a bit informative.

Is this "Insider information?" 8-0 8-)

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 15:32:38 EST
From: MD0FAERG%MIAMIU.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: Signup

Date: 27 June 88, 15:32:17 EST
From: Mike DeLaet                                    MD0FAERG at MIAMIU
To:   SPACE at MC.LCS.MIT

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 15:33:42 EST
From: MD0FAERG%MIAMIU.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: signup space

Date: 27 June 88, 15:33:05 EST
From: Mike DeLaet                                    MD0FAERG at MIAMIU
To:   SPACE at MC.LCS.MIT

signup space

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 88 23:40:36 GMT
From: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (John S. Watson)
Subject: Re: solar flares


In article <3204@entire.UUCP> elt@entire.UUCP (Edward L. Taychert) writes:
>I read in the paper this morning that a giant solor flare has errupted
>(The details of `giant' are missing.) Magnetic storm due to hit earth monday...

In article <1162@csccat.UUCP> clb@loci.uucp (CLBrunow) writes:
> Aren't these things (flare) dangerous to astronauts/cosmonauts?
> Somewhere I thought I heard/read something about it but the
> memory is vague. If so, I'm wondering how the crew of Mir will
> deal with the threat.

In the book SPACE by James Mitchner, the fictitious Apollo 17 astronauts
are zapped by a solar flare.  (Two die, one barely makes it back to earth).

I've never heard whether or not Mitchner was making this up, 
or if it could have really happened to the astronauts/cosmonauts.
Is there a doctor in the news group? 

P.S. Just had an earthquake today (a real E-ticket!), any correlations? :-)

-- 
John "Elementary" Watson, IBM heir in hiding  ARPA: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center                     UUCP:  ...!ames!watson
Any opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the
author and do not represent the opinions of NASA or the U.S. Government

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 88 22:44:08 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus!


 [ Description of Pegasus, and accompanying comments, deleted. ]

Best news I've heard in years.

Hope the responsible parties get filthy rich for doing it.  It's
no more than they deserve.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 88 23:15:56 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Postcard from Lewis: Having a wonderful time, wish you were here

In article <2064@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) writes:
> In article <8806262055.AA10047@angband.s1.gov> PH418000@BROWNVM.BITNET writes:
> }     There's also an interesting proposal to use a tether concept to deorbit
> }the space shuttle from the space-station, simultaneously reboosting the station
> }everytime you drop a shuttle off.  
> 
> This isn't all that new an idea.  See the SF novel "Descent of A????" (it's

"Descent of Anansi" by Larry Niven.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 88 23:14:11 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Pegasus

In article <8240@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, animal@ihlpa.ATT.COM (D. Starr) writes:
> 
> What's the surprise?  At $6 million to launch 850 lbs (over $7000/lb), the
> per-pound cost of Pegasus will be:
> 
> 	23.5 times that of Energia ($300/lb),
> 	 9.4 times that of Proton (750/lb),
> 	 2.2 times that of Delta (3275/lb),
> 	 1.4 times that of Titan 4 (5100/bl), and (indignity of indignities)
> 	 4% higher than the Shuttle (6800/lb).
> 
> 
> That ain't too exciting.

Another way to look at it:  I can ship a small package to Oakland (my
watch crystal is cracked and I really ought to ship it to the service
center there).  I can haul it up there in the (fairly small) tankbag
on my BMW motorcycle.  Or I can ship it UPS.  The UPS shipping would
be cheaper (even if you figure my time as worth nothing...), but if
there aren't any other packages going UPS, I might have to wait a long
time for a scheduled run.  And paying for trucking the watch up all on
it's lonesome will be pricey.

The cost/gram of using the 'bike is pretty high, but the total actual
cost of the UPS truck is greater, and might be less convenient.  (Here,
of course, is where the analogy falls apart.  *Thud*)
 
> [Note on sources:  Cost/lb to orbit estimates are from the infamous Newsweek
> article, which has been accused of *over* estimating the costs of launching
> on Shuttle and Titan.  I did not compare with the Soviet "A" booster, which
> can be yours for a mere $13 million (according to a recent article on this
> network), because I don't know the exact payload capacity--but if it's 
> even equivalent to the Delta (~5 tons), Pegasus is a good 5 times more costly.
> Anybody out there want to compare to Ariane or Long March?]

Different payloads, customers, schedules, etc. call for different launch
systems.  There is no "best" system (yet, anyway), just as there is no
"best" car, camera, bicycle, ...

If OMC/Hercules can come up with the product, I'd say that's just great.
There are probably more customers for $6M (or $10M) launches than there
are for $13M or $25M or whatever, especially when you don't really want
to wait for ten years to get your baby off the ground.

	seh

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 88 18:31:00 GMT
From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Salyut 7 elements


I haven't posted Mir elements this week because:

	(1) Once again, there's now new set from NORAD.
	(2) There isn't a set of overflights coming up for continental
US viewers for a while yet.

On the other hand, the first week of July has an incredibly large
collection of overflights of Salyut 7 over most of the US.  If you've
never seen a spacecraft overflight before, Salyut 7 is a good one to
start with.  It's big and bright, and it's not terribly active, so it
appears quite regularly as predicted.

For those that want to try their hand at it, the elements are:

Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88167.81914382 0.00004331           14566-3 0  1247
2 13138  51.6136 296.3330 0001209 119.2446 240.8590 15.32899308351875
Satellite: Salyut 7   
Catalog id 13138
Element set 124
Epoch: 88167.81914382
Inclination:  51.6136 degrees
RA of node: 296.3330 degrees
Eccentricity:  0.0001209
Argument of perigee: 119.2446 degrees
Mean anomaly: 240.8590 degrees
Mean motion: 15.32899308 revs/day
Mean motion acceleration: 0.00004331 * 2 revs/day/day
Epoch Revolution: 35187

Semimajor axis:    6845.26 km
Apogee height*:     467.93 km
Perigee height*:     466.27 km


		Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M'

* Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean equatorial
  radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the
  geoid.  They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit
  prediction.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 88 21:45:35 GMT
From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Pegasus

Am I the only one who is amazed that anyone would give any credibility
at all to the launch costs projected by the manufacturer of a radically
new launcher that hasn't even been built yet, much less tested and made
operational?

Or hasn't anyone learned from the Shuttle experience?

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 88 21:34:03 GMT
From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus!

> station keeping.  BUT, low earth orbit fit easily in this.  The latest
> AMSAT (Up and WORKING !!!! yeah) weights 140 kg.  This kind of
> satellite supports packet radio techniques.  DARPA has funded paper
> studies of a ``cloud'' of these as an alternative to geosynch.

The Oscar-13 (aka Phase 3-C) spacecraft that was just launched is
designed to work in a Molniya orbit. The payloads are VHF/UHF "bent
pipe" repeaters. Except for the frequency bands and the unusual orbit,
it's not too much different in principle from your standard
geostationary comsat.  There is a packet radio experiment on board, but
it is just an add-on to one of the bent pipes.

Oscar-13 carries a kick motor intended to get it into an approximation
of the Molniya orbit from a geostationary transfer orbit. The total
launch mass was 142.6 kg. 57.8 kg of this was fuel (Aerozine-50 + N2O4),
and a good chunk of the rest is fuel and pressurant (helium) tankage,
valves, pipes, rocket motor, etc. We would not have needed a propulsion
system at all if there had been a launch available to us that went
directly into Molniya orbit, but when you hitchhike, you have to be
prepared to do some walking...

Packet radio satellites designed to operate at low altitude can be
considerably smaller and lighter than Oscar-13 since they do not require
high gain antennas, active attitude control or a propulsion system.
Follow the "Pacsat" project now being developed within AMSAT if you want
to see how far this can go.

Phil

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V8 #281
*******************