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 01:42:18 -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 01:41:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #531 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 531 Today's Topics: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station) Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations Re: "What's New" Nov-2-90 Clarify Acronyms Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap Re: Galileo Update - 11/02/90 Re: Replacement and Insurance Costs USAF Robots on the Moon Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap Re: Replacement and Insurance Costs 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Nov 90 06:02:59 GMT From: rochester!sol!yamauchi@rutgers.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station) In article <2658@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes: [quoting Alan Sherzer] +Again, can you be more specific? When McDonnell Douglas says they +can cluster Deltas to lift a 100K pound payload for $500M in three +years on what do you base your belief that it can't be done? When +Martin Marrietta makes similar claims about the Titan, why are they +wrong? What error in costing did they make? - I have no doubt MDAC and Martin can deliver those. But I am still waiting to hear how they or anybody else can build a new re-usable manned spacecraft with long stay EVA capability (including robot arm) for less than $ 5 - 10 B. You cannot build LLNL without one, you yourself acknowledge the need for contingency EVA, and that is what it takes. Looks cheaper to use the Shuttle for the contingency EVA role. I'm not sure that contingency EVA requires a "re-usable manned spacecraft with long stay EVA capability (including robot arm)". As long as the Earth Station maintains integrity, the astronauts should be able to run EVAs out of it. Of course, if it doesn't, then they *are* in deep trouble. On the other hand, Charles Radley does raise an important point here. How *is* LLNL planning to get astronauts up to the station? Are they planning to use the shuttle or develop their own spacecraft? It probably wouldn't be too risky to rely on the shuttle for one or two launches, where it really *is* useful (i.e. launching astronauts). In contrast, the number of shuttle launches that Freedom requires makes me a bit uncomfortable. Then again, I could be wrong -- at least the hydrogen leaks have been fixed... -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 90 17:25:53 GMT From: usc!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucsd.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations Ugh! here you go, I don't know the best way to prune this: In article <1990Nov3.194451.11017@engin.umich.edu> sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ken Sheppardson) writes: > aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: > >In article <44053@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> you write: > > > >>On Freedom, everything is simply installed inside the modules before launch. > > > >At the Midwest Space Development Conference two weeks ago an engineer > >on Freedom implied that the modules had to be assembled in orbit. They > >are too big/heavy to fit on a single Shuttle flight. However, I didn't > >get a chance to ask him if my understanding was correct. > I believe a the current US Hab/Lab modules are too heavy to launch > fully outfitted using the current shuttle. From what I gather, the stripped modules run into problems with the shuttle senter-of-gravity limits. Phil ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 5 Nov 90 18:17:49 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucsd.edu (Fraering Philip) Organization: Univ. of Southwestern LA, Lafayette Subject: Re: "What's New" Nov-2-90 References: <90307.164457WTU@psuvm.psu.edu> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu I found this on sci.physics. Suddenly spending money on putting inflatable balloons in space looks a lot less stupid. Look at the Alaskan thing. p.s.: for those of you who know what I'm talking about, _this_ gets money and Paul Koloc doesn't? Phil Fraering In article <90307.164457WTU@psuvm.psu.edu> WTU@psuvm.psu.edu writes: From: WTU@psuvm.psu.edu WHAT'S NEW, Friday, 2 November 1990 Washington, DC 1. WALTER E. MASSEY HAS RESIGNED AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE APS, citing his nomination to be the director of the National Science Foundation. Ernest M. Henley, who was just elected to follow Massey, will therefore move directly to President-Elect. Henley is director of the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington, where he has been chair of the Physics Department and Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. A Berkeley PhD, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and recipient in 1989 of the APS Tom W. Bonner Prize in Nuclear Physics. A special election will be held to select a new Vice President. 2. MASSEY'S FIRST YEAR ON THE JOB WILL NOT BE AN EASY ONE; NSF's FY 91 appropriation suffered a devastating last-minute cut! As What's New reported (19 Oct 90), a House/Senate Conference agreed to an 8.9% increase for NSF research. Conference agreements are usually final--not this time. The budget summit gave OMB final say on scorekeeping. To salvage as much of the defense budget as possible, OMB refused to let logistical support for the Antarctic Program be charged to the DOD. One consequence was to eliminate any real growth in NSF research, which now goes up by only 6.2%. 3. AND THINGS ARE GOING TO GET WORSE BEFORE THEY GET BETTER. The five-year budget agreement limits domestic discretionary spending in FY 91 to $182.7B and $191.3B in FY 92, a growth rate of just 4.7%--and it drops to 3.7% the following year. The "zero sum game" is no longer a hypothesis. Yet, even as it claps a lid on discretionary spending, Congress continues on a wild earmarking binge that is funding some of the world's wackiest projects. 4. CONSIDER AN ALASKA SENATOR'S PROJECT TO HARNESS THE AURORA. Sen. Ted Stevens proposes to capture the gigawatt or so of energy in the electrojet formed by the interaction of the solar wind with Earth's magnetic field. Is this really practical? Is it ever! The Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska is getting about $10M per year in pork-barrel research funds and now Stevens has tossed in a $25M supercomputer center. Actually, the Geophysical Institute director seems to think they are developing a new communications system in which the aurora borealis would serve as a gigantic antenna for low-frequency radio transmission. But why straighten the Senator out? Let the good times roll. 5. GORDON & BREACH CASE DISMISSED BY GERMAN APPEALS COURT. APS, AIP and Henry Barschall were sued by G&B over a survey of cost effectiveness of physics journals. G&B, which came out on bottom, claimed the survey was biased. A lower court dismissed the case, but G&B appealed--and lost again. Martin Gordon, G&B Chairman, claimed moral victory, but must have had difficulty with German. Harry Lustig, APS Treasurer, who represented APS and AIP at the Frankfurt hearing, observed that "we wish them the same success in Switzerland and France," where G&B has filed similar suits. Robert L. Park CMR@AIP.BITNET The American Physical Society ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Resent-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 90 08:26:02 EST Resent-From: Harold Pritchett Resent-To: Space discussion group Date: Sat, 03 Nov 90 18:49:25 CST From: Steve Davis Subject: Clarify Acronyms To: Space list This message was originally submitted by S77175DS@ETSUACAD to the SPACE list at FINHUTC. If you simply forward it back to the list, it will be distributed with the paragraph you are now reading being automatically removed. If you edit the contributions you receive into a digest, you will need to remove this paragraph before mailing the result to the list. Finally, if you need more information from the author of this message, you should be able to do so by simply replying to this note. ------------------ Message requiring your approval (6 lines) ------------------ Would those who submit to this list please remember that there are people like myself who are not familiar with all the acronyms being used? When acronyms are used would you parenthisize the meaning of each letter at least once? Many already do this, but some mail is meaningless when it is not done. ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 5 Nov 90 04:25:02 GMT From: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil (S Schaper) Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN. Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu -40*F with a wind chill off the scale (more than -80* can't be measured because human skin freezes too rapidly to measure) sure is interesting. I just discovered that I live further north than Henry, and I'm in the lower fourty-eight. What _am_ I doing up here? :-) On the other hand, I don't usually worry about a piece of space debris coming through the roof and exposing me to the prairie winds in January. Zeitgeist Busters! UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil INET: schaper@pnet51.cts.com ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 5 Nov 90 18:46:01 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 11/02/90 References: <1990Nov2.225442.8608@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, <4680@cvl.umd.edu>, <1990Nov3.050407.1642@zoo.toronto.edu> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1990Nov3.050407.1642@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <4680@cvl.umd.edu> herve@cvl.UUCP (Jean-Yves Herve') writes: >>There is just one little thing that bugs me: how come the Galileo are given >>with funny units only, while the Ulysses report have both metric and funny >>units? > >Probably because Ulysses is a European project and hence the European >audience is being considered. Unless I miss my guess, the numbers from >JPL et al are metric, and the NASA PR people are translating them for the >Great Unwashed... but for mostly-European projects they are constrained >to also supply civilized units. Ulysses is a joint mission between NASA and the European Space Agency, so the units are given in both miles and the funny metric units :-). ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 5 Nov 90 19:12:00 GMT From: uceng!minerva!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Daniel Mocsny) Organization: University of Cincinnati, Cin'ti., OH Subject: Re: Replacement and Insurance Costs References: <1494.27343C70@ofa123.fidonet.org> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1494.27343C70@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) writes: > So what was the real replacement cost of a lost shuttle mission? >Replacement costs are orbiter (assume $1.5 billion), lost ET, lost >SRBs, lost SSMEs. ET costs are in the vicinity of $25 M. SRB cases >(not the propellent) are about $25 M per shipset (two complete sets >of segments and components). SSMEs are more expensive - a shipset of >SSMEs costs about $150 M. Total of about $1.7 B. Which is about >1/2 of the "3,000,000,000.00" being bandied around. I have a question (not an assertion): When the next shuttle accident occurs, what will be the likelihood that the disaster will result from another generic flaw that grounds the program for an extended period? The MTTR (mean time to repair) is probably an important (hypothetical) statistic to consider with shuttle accidents. The money spent to sustain an idle program during the repair interim might be considered a legitimate part of "replacement cost". Also, the time value of idle assets should be taken into account (i.e., all the expensive hardware that takes a two-year vacation). If NASA can recover from the next shuttle disaster within a few months, and keep up with its launch commitments, then the cost for the lost shuttle is roughly its purchase price. But if the program goes down for 2 years, the overall loss is probably far in excess of the purchase price of the shuttle. -- Dan Mocsny Snail: Internet: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu Dept. of Chemical Engng. M.L. 171 dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu University of Cincinnati 513/751-6824 (home) 513/556-2007 (lab) Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0171 ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 6 Nov 90 01:45:15 GMT From: bu.edu!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!guy@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Guy A. Schiavone) Subject: USAF Robots on the Moon Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In the November 1990 "IEEE Spectrum" there is an article that contains the sentence: "The U.S. Air Force, in its Project Forecast II report, offers dozens of initiatives to maintain military supremacy, including 'electronic associates' to aid pilots and the possible stationing of robots on the moon." (pg. 32) I am intrigued by the part about robots on the moon. Can anyone shed any further light on this? Robots on the moon for what purpose? Why on the moon instead of in orbit? How close is this idea to being put into action? Any answers (or speculations) would be appreciated. -Guy Schiavone guy.schiavone@eleazar.dartmouth.edu ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 5 Nov 90 15:48:50 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab 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>,<29216@boulder.Colorado.EDU> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <29216@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, serre@boulder.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) writes: >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. I think the latest mandated redesign by Congress emphasizes a smaller, incremental approach; something like putting up the microgravity research block up there first as a stand-alone design, and adding other modules as you go, as well as making Fred less dependent on shuttle. ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 5 Nov 90 23:14:34 GMT From: usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!unicorn!n8035388@ucsd.edu (Worth Henry A) Organization: Western Washington Univ, Bellingham, WA Subject: Re: Replacement and Insurance Costs References: <1494.27343C70@ofa123.fidonet.org>, <6640@uceng.UC.EDU> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu >In article <1494.27343C70@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) writes: > >I have a question (not an assertion): > >When the next shuttle accident occurs, what will be the likelihood >that the disaster will result from another generic flaw that grounds >the program for an extended period? > Even if the accident is unrelated to any generic flaw, expect the fleet to be grounded for at least six months while various review boards and Congress (opps, nearly forgot the press) determine the probable cause; depends a lot on how long it takes everyone to reach a concensous. Additionally, even if it is determined that the accident was unrelated to any generic flaw, the review process would likely result in "safety upgrades" that would result in further delays. There is also a very real possibility that the resulting political firestorm would result in the permanent grounding of the fleet. :-( Our pioneer ancestors must think us such ungrateful wimps, to simply survive, yet alone carve out a nation, they faced more risk on a regular basis than we are prepared to allow a few informed volunteers to face today -- despite the potential gain, despite the infrequency, despite mankind's instinctive need to explore and pioneer. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #531 *******************