Message-ID: <AZuAvEO00VcJMCs05v@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 01:38:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #83

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 11 : Issue 83

Today's Topics:
		Re: New private home satellite network
	   Re: Titan I != Titan II AND more thoughts on N1.
	     Titan I != Titan II AND more thoughts on N1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 90 04:27:46 GMT
From: calvin.spp.cornell.edu!richard@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Richard Brittain)
Subject: Re: New private home satellite network

I don't see what the big deal is.  Existing radio/tv transmissions already
spill over national boundaries by intent or accident, and apart from occasional
jamming it doesn't seem to cause major incidents.  Short-wave radio is 
essentially worldwide anyway, and the US government doesn't try to invade
those several governments which constantly broadcast propoganda.  Of course,
no one listens to these channels because they are boring.  I don't think things
would change much if they were more entertaining though.

Richard Brittain,                   School of Elect. Eng.,  Upson Hall   
                                    Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
ARPA: richard@calvin.spp.cornell.edu	
UUCP: {uunet,uw-beaver,rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!richard

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

Date: 25 Feb 90 03:11:16 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Titan I != Titan II AND more thoughts on N1.

In article <2267@syma.sussex.ac.uk> nickw@syma.susx.ac.uk (Nick Watkins) writes:
>Absolutely true, but for Titan read Titan II. Titan I was a cryogenic
>ICBM not unlike a 2 stage Atlas.

Picky, picky, picky... :-)  Almost nobody remembers Titan I, so it didn't
seem worth complicating the discussion for it.

>... You  may not weep for R. Boisjoly, Henry, but
>I'm sure you'll share my sympathy for the N-1 design team.

Yeah, they really got a raw deal.  The same might have happened in the US
if the Saturn V had hit major problems.  It's still a bit amazing that
they agreed to fly Apollo 8 on only the third Saturn V, especially when
the second had some serious J-2 engine problems.
-- 
"The N in NFS stands for Not, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
or Need, or perhaps Nightmare"| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: 23 Feb 90 18:22:33 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma!nickw@uunet.uu.net  (Nick Watkins)
Subject: Titan I != Titan II AND more thoughts on N1.

In article <1990Feb10.225215.26335@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1089@mindlink.UUCP> a752@mindlink.UUCP (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>An added complication in the case of Titan is that avoiding cryogenic
>fuels was a specific design objective for it.  It was the first US ICBM
>that could be kept ready for instant launch, instead of having to be
>fueled first.

Absolutely true, but for Titan read Titan II. Titan I was a cryogenic
ICBM not unlike a 2 stage Atlas.

>In fact, I'm not aware of any hydrogen-fueled launcher built from scratch
>without constraints like this.  ESA had enough trouble getting Ariane's
>third-stage hydrogen engines to work, they could never have handled an
>all-hydrogen launcher then.  (Now they probably can, and Ariane 5's first
>stage will use hydrogen.)  The Japanese have followed a similar path,
>starting with small upper-stage engines and working up to the hydrogen
>first stage planned for the H-2.

Fascinating to read in the latest Spaceflight about Glushko's opposition
to an experimental hydrogen engine being developed by Kuznetsov.
Article, interview with V. Mishin, confirms 30 engine kerosene/LOX layout
of N1 (first stage presumably?) but also talks about an LH2/LOX engine.
Was this to be used on upper stage or what? Article claims it
contributed to later Energia (core?) engines. Also claims it ran for
14 000 seconds. 

Article is clearer on launch chronology of N1:

21/2/69 fire in tail compartment shuts down engine 70 seconds after
launch.

3/7/70 oxygen pump explodes before liftoff and destroys launch complex.

[ Were these 2 concatenated to the "July '69" failure story, or what? I
don't believe the "last minute moon mission" myths (except of course for
Luna 15.) ]

27/7/71 "gas dynamics caused axial rotation, ... all engines worked, but
only for seven seconds"

23/11/72 Engines ran for 107 seconds, explosion in tail occured after
"transfer to final stage of thrust at the end of the first stage".

Then says "After 1972 we assembled 2 more rockets but they did not allow
us to test-launch them. The programme was cancelled. Six (sic) rockets,
2 of them fully assembled, were dismantled. The people who devoted the
best years of their lives to them were dismissed." Sound familiar ...?
Further explains the incredulity of the ASTP observers from USSR at winding down
of US effort. Article claims that US outspent USSR by factor of 10 to 1
on lunar programme, hard to know how seriously to take this.

Article describes Moon programme also. Confirms that lunar Soyuz/Zond
mission was to take 2 men around moon after Proton launch, and that
manned launch lost "its propaganda value after ... Armstrong walked on
Moon" (not after Apollo 8?).

[ Btw, I'm still unconvinced that Soyuz 1 was Proton launched, surely
there would have been unmanned test launches on Proton? It does however seem
that A-2 launched EOR design of original Soyuz was extensively modified
for later Soyuz/Zond missions. To use analogy though, why use D-1 if A-2
will do, Apollo 7 didn't use a Saturn V, and Apollo 9 would not have
done if full CSM/LM combination wasn't too heavy for a 1B?]   

In sum, an interesting "window" but many questions remain. Looks like we
may get answers this year though. You  may not weep for R. Boisjoly, Henry, but
I'm sure you'll share my sympathy for the N-1 design team.

Nick
-- 
Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical
& Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND
JANET: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk   BITNET: nickw%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #83
*******************