Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.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 ; Mon, 12 Nov 1990 01:27:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 12 Nov 1990 01:26:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #530 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 530 Today's Topics: Jonathan's Space Report, Oct 23 HLV Designs (was Re: you Can't Expect A Spa) Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap Re: MAN-RATED SRBS (WAS RE: JU Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 3 Nov 90 17:47:03 GMT From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Organization: Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Subject: Jonathan's Space Report, Oct 23 Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu Jonathan's Space Report Sorry about delays... access to the net has been spotty lately Oct 23 1990 (no.57) ---------------------------------------------------- Tanking tests on Atlantis and Columbia are set for the next week. Discovery is in the orbiter processing facility. Launch of Atlantis is expected around Nov 10 with the AFP-658 recon satellite. Gennadiy Manakov and Gennadiy Strekalov continue in orbit aboard the Mir/Kvant/Kvant-2/Kristall/Soyuz TM-10/Progress M-5 complex. The spacewalk has been delayed to Oct 30 because Strekalov has a cold. Pioneer 11, in the outer solar system, is experiencing communications difficulties. The Kosmos-2102 recon satellite began a 2 month mission on Oct 16, in a 184x338 km orbit at 62.8 degrees inclination. BOOK PLUG:***: "The Soviet Cosmonaut Team" by Gordon Hooper. Available from GRH Publications, 2 Wayne Close, Gunton 2001, LOWESTOFT, Suffolk NR32 4SX, England. 2 vols, paperback, 22 pounds sterling for sea mail, about 35 pounds sterling for airmail. (01144 502 508585) This book gives complete biographies of all the Soviet cosmonauts and cosmonaut trainees, updated to July 1990. It includes discussions of how the cosmonauts were trained, missions that were planned but never flew, details of previously unknown cosmonaut trainees. Quality and accuracy are excellent throughout. Another example of the fine work done by the British Interplanetary Society's Soviet space analysts. Disclaimer: I have no connection with Gordon Hooper or GRH Pubs., I just think its a good book. Since news is light this week, here's a summary of the current Soviet cosmonaut team, with selection dates, drawn from Hooper's book and from Soviet sources: [This list may be incomplete; and I have omitted cosmonauts who are still officially attached to the team although no longer eligible for flights. The 1965 engineers who have not yet flown must be somewhat unlikely to get a chance now, in their fifties.] Soviet Air Force Cosmonaut Detachment 1960 Boris Volynov, Commander of Detachment (inactive) 1965 Yevgeniy Khludeev 1965 Edvard Stepanov 1967 Vladimir Lyakhov (Soyuz 32,T9,TM6) 1967 Yuriy Malyshev (Soyuz T2,T11) 1970 Anatoliy Berezovoy (Soyuz T5) 1970 Nikolai Fefelov 1976 Vladimir Titov (Soyuz T8,TM4) 1976 Aleksandr Volkov (Soyuz T14,TM7) 1976 Anatoliy Solov'yov (Soyuz TM5,TM9) 1978 Aleksandr Viktorenko (Soyuz TM3,TM8) 1987 Gennadiy Manakov (Soyuz TM10; in orbit) 1987 Viktor Afanas'ev 1987 Anatoli Artsebarskiy 1987 Yuriy Gidzenko 1987 Vladimir Dezhurov 1987 Valeriy Kazun 1987 Yuriy Malenchenko 1987 Vasiliy Tsibliev 1989 Yuriy Anufrienko 1989 Sergei Krichevskiy 1989 Gennadiy Padalko Civilian cosmonaut group 1973 Gennadiy Strekalov (Soyuz T3,T8,T11,TM10; in orbit) 1978 Aleksandr Serebrov (Soyuz T7,T8,TM8) 1978 Aleksandr Laveykin (Soyuz TM2) 1978 Musa Manarov (Soyuz TM4) 1978 Aleksandr Balandin (Soyuz TM9) 1980 Svetlana Savitskaya (Soyuz T6,T12) 1980 Irina Pronina 1980 Ekaterina Ivanovna 1985 Sergei Krikalyov (Soyuz TM7) 1985 Aleksandr Kaleri 1985 Andrei Zaitsev 1985 Sergei Yemelyanov 1987 Sergei Avdeev 1989 Nikolai Budarin 1989 Elena Kondakova 1989 Aleksandr Polishchuk 1989 Yuriy Usachyov Institute of Medical-Biological Problems Cosmonaut-Physician Team: 1972 Valeriy Polyakov (Soyuz TM6) 1976 German Arzamazov, Aleksandr Borodin 1982 Elena Dobrokvashina, Larisa Pozharskaya, Tamara Zakharova 1983 Yuriy Stepanov 1984 Robert Dyakonov, Anatoli Zhernovkov Ministry of Aviation Buran Test Pilots 1983 Mohammed Tolboev, Ural Sultanov 1985 Yuriy Sheffer, Sergei Tresvyatskiy, Viktor Zabolotskiy 1988 Yuriy Prikhodko Air Force Buran test pilots 1979 Ivan Bachurin,Aleksei Boroday,Nail Sattarov 1983 Leonid Kadenyuk ___________________________________ |Current STS status: | |Orbiters | | | |OV-102 Columbia LC39B | |OV-103 Discovery OPF Bay 1 | |OV-104 Atlantis LC39A | | | |ML/ET/SRB stacks | | | |ML3/STS-35/ET/OV102 LC39B | |ML1/STS-38/ET/OV104 LC39A | |ML2 VAB | ----------------------------------- (c) 1990 Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 5 Nov 90 00:55:53 GMT From: serre@boulder.colorado.edu (SERRE GLENN) Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Subject: HLV Designs (was Re: you Can't Expect A Spa) References: <1469.27304918@ofa123.fidonet.org> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1469.27304918@ofa123.fidonet.org> Charles.Radley@f2505.n206.z1.fidonet.org (Charles Radley) writes: >From: ghudson >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 21:24:34 EST >To: cradley >Any "HLV" will require new engines, built from scratch. This is Actually, this is not quite true. The following are two options for a Titan IV upgrade to "HLV" (if you mean ~100K pounds when you say "HLV"). 1) Raise core diameter to ~14 feet (from 10 feet) to provide twice the volume. Supply Stages I and II with twice the current number of engines, the same engines as are currently flying ( makes 4 for Stage I, 2 for Stage II. ). Put 4 SRMs around Stage I (Salt to taste :-) and launch. 2) Develop LRBs for Titan (They would be stretched 14 foot diameter cores with 4 engines each and cross-feed to Stage I, which would burn in parallel with the LRBs.) Substitute LRBs for the SRMs in option 1) (No added salt :-) and launch. Note that neither of these options require new engines, and that option 2) uses engines that been flying since the first Titan II was launched. A further option, one that I would like to see, is to strap two Titan IVs together ( a la the Delta HLV proposal), build an payload adapter for the top, and launch. --Glenn Serre serre@tramp.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 5 Nov 90 01:21:18 GMT From: serre@boulder.colorado.edu (SERRE GLENN) Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap References: <0093F1DA.1F2A5920@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>, <1990Nov3.225832.20332@zoo.toronto.edu>, <0093F2DB.F2D56F60@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <0093F2DB.F2D56F60@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >The space station is a research facility, not a commercial facility (yet). If Actually, the question that bothers me most about both the NASA and the LLNL station is "Why so big?" Since we (the U.S.) seem to have little, if any, usable experience in launching, assembling, operating, and maintaining space stations, it seems to me that we would want to start small and build up incrementally. Like, first we launch a 86' x 16' 8" (this is the max. size of a Titan IV Payload fairing, by the way) lab, then stick another one on the first, ... Personally, I think we should can both the NASA and the LLNL stations and start small. Only my $.02, but I would be interested in why a big station is better than a small one. --Glenn Serre serre@tramp.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 26 Oct 90 20:51:00 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!ultima!fidogate@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ralph Buttigieg) Organization: A Fidonet node - admin is fido@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au Subject: Re: MAN-RATED SRBS (WAS RE: JU Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In a message to All on Oct 23 1990, you wrote: > From: c8921212@frey.nu.oz.au ([Shuttle Assasin]) > >-- > Just a 'by the wayside', there is also a group of guys in > Australia working on a launch vehicle using hybrids. Of the launch > people in Australia - Ausroc and Australian Launch vehicles - I think it is > the ALV mob that is developing the hybrid version (or 'scoring' them from > somewhere else.) ALV will be using conventional solid rocket motors. They will buy them from the U.S. Ausroc, intends to eventually build a hybrid rocket. Ralph Buttigieg .ORIGIN: 302/003 --- PreMail GT Gate v0.91 * Origin: From GTnet via the Black Hole Star Gate! (3:711/1000) ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 14:52:00 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations Newsgroups: sci.space In-Reply-To: <3705@mindlink.UUCP> Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow Cc: In article <3705@mindlink.UUCP> Bruce Dunn writes: >> The stuff is out there. Write your Congresscritters and ask! > Allen, some of us don't have Congresscritters because some of us aren't >American. This is an international network (this is a reminder, not a flame). I apologize for being insensitive tnonhe non-American readers of this net. In my zeal to try and get this moving I did forget you where out there. >I think that it would be widely appreciated if you would post a summary of what >the LLNL inflatable station is supposed to be like, along with comments on >differences from Freedom where appropriate. The LLNL Earth Station is a LEO space station intended to support a fuel depot in LEO and provide testing for a lunar base. The Earth Station consists of six inflatable modules connected at each end with a airlock in the center. It looks something like this where (===) is a module and () is the airlock: (===)(===)(===)()(===)(===)(===) Each module consists of a meteor bumper and thermal blanket. After that is a containment envelope surrounding the compartments which is inflated to 2.5 PSI. Next comes the compartments with a central corridor (each at 7.5 PSI). Each module haf four levels for a total of 24 levels in the station (not counting the airlock). There are two options for the crew compartment. One has a fabric and the other a hard floor. The fabric floor is cheaper, provides greater volume and easier packaging. However, although it will leak less, leaks will be harder to find. The hard floor weighs less and is easier to attack things to at the cost less volume and greater assembly cost. The entire station rotates providing 1G at the ends. Rotation is at 4RPM but could be modified as needed. The station is built on the ground with everything inside. Any on orbit assembly is done in shirt sleeves. It will be practice inflated and the crew can practice assembly on the ground. After final testing, the entire Earth Station is deflated and packed into a Delta or Titan derived HLV and launched. The crew follows on a Delta, Atlas, or the Shuttle. They inflate the station and dock. After the commander has verified the interior environment is stable, the crew enters and does final assembly. In terms of differences with Freedom, the LLNL station is bigger but provides a little less power. It also would require free flying platforms to be associated with it for microgravity. I suspect the CDSF or a modified Spacelab would do just fine. >I for one would like to see some >weight figures, and get some sense of what the inflatable looks like relative >to Freedom. Weight of the entire outfitted Earth Station is 40.4 tonnes. Each compartment is a cylinder 5 meters across and 2.5 meters high. In the center of each compartment is a 1 meter central corridor running the length of the ship. There are 24 compartments not counting the airlock. This station has three times the habitable volume per crew as Freedom. >I don't immediately see why having an inflatable structure gives >advantages (aside from the other differences in design from Freedom). This station costs a lot less than Freedom, weighs less than freedom (dispite its high volume), and compresses to be launched in one HLV flight or two Titan IV flights (Freedom will take over 50 flights of the Shuttle). Most of this advantage is due to the use of inflatables. Finally, to get more information see: 1. Avation Week Jan 22, 1990 for an article on the overall Great Exploration 2. NASA Assessment of the LLNL Space Exploration Proposal and LLNL Responces by Dr. Lowell Wood LLNL Doc. No. SS 90-9. Their address is: PO Box 808 Livermore, CA 94550 (the NASA authors are unknown). 3. Briefing slides of a presentation to the NRC last December may be available. Write LLNL and ask. 4. Conceptual Design Study for Modular Inflatable Space Structures, a final report for purchase order B098747 by ILC Dover INC. I don't know how to get this except from LLNL or ILC Dover. I don't have an address for ILC. Hope this answers your questions, if you have more please post or email them and I'll try and get an answer. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | | aws@iti.org | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it | | | works or not? - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts | ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #530 *******************