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 02:11:12 -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 02:10:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #533 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 533 Today's Topics: Great White Spot Update? Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap Re: orbiting bodies Re: Re:you Can't Expect A Spa Re: Replacement and Insurance Costs Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations Re: Launch cost per pound Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station) NASA Headline News for 11/05/90 (Forwarded) 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 16:29:01 GMT From: ccncsu!longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU!jn190068@purdue.edu (Jay Nestle) Subject: Great White Spot Update? I haven't heard anything about the large white spot found on Jupiter for a while. Does anyone know what theories have been developed or what has happened to the spot to date? Please e-mail me responses. Thanks, Jay jn190068@longs.lance.colostate.edu "Save the earth, develop space." - Bumper Sticker ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 90 22:24:52 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!unicorn!n8035388@ucsd.edu (Worth Henry A) Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap In article <9011030347.AA24173@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: > >And therein lies a large part of the problem. NASA should try and make space >pay and show a profit. THAT's the way to make it take off. As long as we Alas, NASA is a government agency, and as such has little interest in, and has numerous disincentives towards, making space pay (except for its subcontractors ;-) ). On the other hand, an independent agency exchanging project participation rights and preferential techology access to contributing countries and COMPANIES, could be structured to make space pay. Such an agency could be authorized to generate revenues by pioneering space services and even entering into joint space-related ventures. Initally, such an agency would be dependent upon government contributions, but if successful, could later rely upon revenues and private contributors. If unsuccessful, it would eventually lose support and die. In the short term, such an agency would offer the space faring nations (and the wanna-be's, as well) a more effective and affordable alternative to NASA, ESA, ... Hmm, perhaps the UCB regents could sponsor such an agency as an spin-off of their LLNL! If UNIX, why not a space station... with declining weapons R&D revenues, LLNL could use a new line of business ;-). And, even if Congress is unwilling to provide funds, ESA and Japan Inc. might be interested in a joint effort: > the LLNL habitat should fit within the payload parameters of one the Ariane series boosters > HERMES could be used for crew support, and the Japanese mini-shuttle for logistic support ... > perhaps the budget-straped Soviets would like to get involved as an alternative to MIR-II, providing additional alternatives (i.e. redundancies) for launch services and a wealth of orbital experience ... (MIR-I could even be used as one of the LLNL proposal's seperate micro-gravity labs) NASA is not the only game in town, if we (i.e. the USA) wait for Captial Hill, we are going to end up choking on the others' dust -- er. rocket exhuast. > >NASA needs to be open to new ways of doing things. It needs to comit itself >to reducing launch costs and opening up markets. > AMEN, BUT... >> When FRED is finally cancelled, many in Washington (and elsewhere) will >>begin asking why we need the shuttle, yet alone a space program. > >Just because somebody questions the Shuttle doesn't mean they question >the entier program. Some of the most pro-space people I know question >the Shuttle. After all, why are we wasting the billions we spend on it >when there are so many cheaper alternatives? > Don't forget the lessons of the post-Apollo era... Unfortunately, the program as a whole tends to ride on the "shirt tails" of the big projects. Sen. Gore, et. al. are already making the "I strongly support NASA, BUT -- " speeches (btw, Gore is a leading presidential aspirant :-( ). NASA will survive (agencies are never scrapped outright -- too much pork), but that may well be without any significant space program, manned or otherwise. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Nov 90 01:04:22 GMT From: uokmax!jabishop@apple.com (Jonathan A Bishop) Subject: Re: orbiting bodies pete@ctbilbo.UUCP (Pete Ritter) writes: >My collegues and I have been arguing about something. We would like >an expert opinion about it. >Does the Moon rotate about its axis (or any other) as it orbits the Earth? >If a non geo-stationary orbiting body always presents the same face to >the Earth, does it rotate about its axis (or any other) as it orbits? >Does a geo-stationary satellite which always presents the same face to >its primary rotate about its axis (or any other) as it orbits? In all of these cases, yes. If the body did not rotate (relative to the Sun), we would see the entire surface over the course of one revolution. We don't see the other side because the period of rotation in these cases is coincident with the period of revolution. Now, my question: Are the forces that synchronized the Moon's rotation and revolution the same forces that have nearly done so with Venus relative to the Sun? Does this phenomena only happen in a narrow band? -- jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu "Ground Control to Major Tom: Your circuit's dead; there's something wrong. Can you hear me, Major Tom?" -- David Bowie ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 90 04:05:01 GMT From: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil (S Schaper) Subject: Re: Re:you Can't Expect A Spa This discussion sure shows the difference between NASA circa 196x and NASA 1990. And why we aren't developing the new technologies as well as we might. Or why we could go to the moon in eight years, and take fifteen or more to get a space station off the ground, and maybe thirty years to go back to the moon, and that with all the new knowledge and tech that we have gained since '61 Zeitgeist Busters! UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil INET: schaper@pnet51.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 90 15:36:27 GMT From: serre@boulder.colorado.edu (SERRE GLENN) Subject: Re: Replacement and Insurance Costs In article <1494.27343C70@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) writes: >issue with HLVs. Let us assume a HLV with a reliability of 95% - a >bit higher than the current Titan fleet with about 80 launches, and Nits and trivia: Actually, the Titan fleet's reliability is a bit more that 95%. The advertised rate is 96.something%. Also, depending on which Titan III versions you count, the total number of launches could be said to be over 100. (I'd guess that you're counting only the versions with SRMs attached). I'd also like to point out that the Titan IV is 2 for 2, making for a 100% success rate :-). Question: Do Shuttle payloads require insurance? Points: Note that the payload costs given for classified satellites imply that the Air Force is probably not really that interested in cheap boosters. Also, note that there's no reason to think that reusable boosters are any more reliable than expendables, notwithstanding Mr. Larrison's preference for reusables. --Glenn Serre serre@tramp.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Nov 90 03:23:26 GMT From: sumax!polari!crad@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Charles Radley) Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations +BTW, anybody know when and where they are doing integration testing +of Freedom? - As far as I can tell, Freedom will never be completly integrated on the ground. Some pretty big chunks of it will be integrated at a new purpose built McDonnell Douglas facility adjacent to Johnson Space Center, Houston. That facility will be used for itnegrating the cargo for each flight. Each flight's integrated cargo will be flown direct to Kennedy where it will be installed into its shuttle. As for when.....well, my hardware will be sent there in 1993. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 90 20:13:36 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!olivea!oliveb!felix!dhw68k!ofa123!David.Anderman@ucsd.edu (David Anderman) Subject: Re: Launch cost per pound FYI, one of the Energiya strap-on booster engines (an RD-170) went kerplooie on the launch pad last week, taking out both the Zenith launcher, and the launch pad as well.... As for cloning a Soviet rocket, be my guest. The Soviets would be happy to license any of their satellite launcher designs to you. Got any money? -- David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Nov 90 08:47:28 GMT From: rochester!sol!yamauchi@rutgers.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station) In article <2666@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes: [ quoting Allen quoting me ] >How *is* LLNL planning to get astronauts up to the station? +Put a capsule on a Delta. >Are they planning to use the shuttle or develop their own spacecraft? +They plan to develop their own. For $200M they could buy a ACRV or +a Soyuz for $50M. We have built lots of capsules in the last 30 years +so I don't think it needs to be that expensive. - Soyuz is not available, how can LLNL have it in their plan ? A capsule of $ 200 M is inadequate, as a minimum a Gemini type vehicle is required which is more like $ 2 - 3 B. Remember you need long duration EVA, it may take a couple of weeks to get a failed LLNL fully deployed. As I understand it, LLNL is not planning on developing a spacecraft which can deploy the Earth Station under a "worst-case" scenario, just a simple capsule which can get the astronauts into orbit. It's prohibitively expensive to cover all possible failure modes. The worst case scenario for any space station is a launch explosion, but in order to cover for this, you would need to make backups for all of your modules. Is this going to be done for Freedom? Evidently, LLNL does not consider the possibility of a complete deployment failure to be worth $2-3 B, which seems reasonable to me since this would probably exceed the entire projected development cost of the Earth Station. If we had access to Soyuz and Soviet technology, the cheapest approach would be to scrap LLNL and use Mir. If you just wanted to do microgravity research, then this might be true, but the Earth Station is not designed for microgravity research -- it's designed for artificial gravity research and to support the Gas Station as part of the larger mission to establish permanent manned bases on both the moon and Mars. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Nov 90 19:18:45 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 11/05/90 (Forwarded) Headline News Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA Headquarters Monday, November 5, 1990 Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788 This is NASA Headline News for Monday, November 5, 1990 Work on the three orbiters at Kennedy Space Center progressed extremely well this weekend. All three vehicles were processed according to their individual schedules, with no hitches experienced. Atlantis passed its main engine high pressure fuel duct penetrant dye test. The flash evaporator water loop valve was replaced and tested. The external tank is being purged today. Contingency space suits will be installed in the middeck airlock tomorrow. Concurrent with these activities, closeout work will continue on Atlantis' aft throughout the early part of the week. The current schedule calls for primary reactant system purges on Thursday, with hypergolic system pressurization on Friday. Ordnance installation will follow the completion of these activities. Columbia's Astro-1 Broad Band X-ray Telescope was serviced with argon on Friday. Work to deconfigure the aft compartment continues. The water valves on the auxiliary power units were changed and retested over the weekend. The forward reaction control system was tested Friday; the aft system is being tested today. Also today, a helium signature leak test will be performed on the liquid oxygen portion of Columbia's fuel system. A replacement auxiliary power unit will be installed on Wednesday and hot-fired next week. In Orbiter Processing Facility Bay 1, Discovery's orbital maneuvering system and forward reaction control system were removed over the weekend. Aft heat shields are being removed today to allow for removal of the main engines later this week. On Wednesday, Dr. William Lenoir will hold another monthly space flight press briefing. Shuttle chief Robert Crippen and space station chief Richard Kohrs will also participate. The briefing will be at 3:00 pm EST, in room 531, Building 10-B. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Adm. Truly will participate in a round-table meeting of the National Academy of Sciences tomorrow and Wednesday, and will also address the participants of the NASA 1990 Educational Affairs Meeting. The annual education meeting is taking place the entire week in Cambridge, Mass. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * New Hubble Space Telescope photographs are expected to be released early this week. The photos are of the Orion nebula and include images of features of the nebula never seen before. This is one of the richest star birthing regions in our local neighborhood and has been of interest to astronomers for centuries. Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern. **indicates a live program. Monday, 11/5/90 12:00 pm "And Then There Was Voyager," new video production from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 3:00 pm Replay of "And Then There Was Voyager." Tuesday, 11/6/90 12:00 pm NASA Productions, through 2:00 pm. 6:00 pm NASA Productions repeat, through 8:00 pm. Wednesday, 11/7/90 1:15 pm **Magellan-at-Venus report from JPL. All events and times may change without notice. This report is filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12:00 pm, EDT. It is a service of Internal Communications Branch at NASA Headquarters. Contact: CREDMOND on NASAmail or at 202/453-8425. NASA Select TV: Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, C-Band, 72 degrees West Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #533 *******************