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 ; Fri, 16 Nov 1990 02:06:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 16 Nov 1990 02:06:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #559 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 559 Today's Topics: Free flying lab (was: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery) Re: Reusable Boosters & Insurance Re: The Ariane V36 failure (was Re: Ariane launches ON TIME! (again)) T Kelso's Orbital elements in rec.ham-radio Re: CRAF/Cassini Update - 11/09/90 Re: CRAF/Cassini Update - 11/09/90 Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3) SSF Integrated Verification Planning Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery 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: 14 Nov 90 10:38:02 GMT From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!dutrun!dutlru1!dutlru2!wi@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Edwin Wisse) Subject: Free flying lab (was: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery) In article <3448@orbit.cts.com> schaper@pnet51.orb.mn.org (S Schaper) writes: >Why not let the free-flyer be the one to orbit without the thruster >corrections, except for the ones necessary to maintain orbit, let the manned >platform do the formation flying? That may turn out necessary for Freedom as >ell >to have the materials sciences on a separate platform - an expanded Columbus, That is exactly what ESA is doing right now. Freedom does not only consist of the permanently manned lab, it also includes a polar platform for Earth observation and a man-tended free flyer. This man-tended free flyer is the real microgravity lab, it docks to Freedom regularly in order to have its experiments replaced and maintained by the Freedom crew, it can also be visited by Hermes, as a matter of fact, its one of the reasons why ESA is going to build a Hermes. As far as I know the free flyer (they renamed it some time ago but I cannot remember what its called now) will only fire its thrusters for return to Freedom, the rest of the time it will just coast. Edwin Wisse wi@dutlru2.tudelft.nl BITNET: vlrustc@hdetud1 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 90 03:36:27 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@ucsd.edu (Wales Larrison) Subject: Re: Reusable Boosters & Insurance Serre, a few additional comments: >Question: Do Shuttle payloads require insurance? Answer, yes. Commercial rates for the shuttle (based upon the few semi-cmmerical payloads left in the shuttle manifest) run about the same as for the Delta, and maybe a few percent less. [The reason for this, according to the space insurance broker I talked to, is the successful record for Shuttle launch of payloads - and the successful retrieval or repair of several satellites.] >Points: Note that the payload costs given for classified satellites >imply that the Air Force is probably not really that interested in >cheap boosters. I also agree with this. The primary interest for those missions is "launch on demand". Something the DoD has not yet been able to achieve. >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. Glen, Please! Where'd you get that impression? I agree with you. I do not have a preference for reusable BOOSTERS! As a matter of fact, I think a bulk cargo carrying launch systems should have an expendable booster to reduce cost and increase system robustness. (For a variety of reasons, which I'll skip for brevity..) My concern with the HLLV costs, and the discussions going on regarding HLLVs is that they ignore some real-world "manifesting" issues. If we are launching lots of bulk cargos, such as hundreds of thousands of pounds per year of propellent or bulk manufacturing materials, then a really cheap HLLV makes a lot of economic sense. If we are trying to launch very expensive, very complex spacecraft, I'm not so sure that a "cheap" HLLV is the way to do. We need a revolution in the way payloads are built more than we need a new HLLV. Current transportation costs run about 20% of the cost of a satellite program - with about 70% of the costs going into the payload. There is a hidden assumption in my opinion, that high reliability costs money, which will be reflected in the launch cost. I will submit that we can design systems to be more reliable, and that future systems will have higher inherent reliability at lower cost. However, I have a hard time believing in my guts that we can get 99.9% reliable without some cost considerations. Less costly than today's systems, to be sure, but some of the current claims using rocket technology are a bit extreme. (SSX is claiming 99.9% at $185/lb for a manned system.... Ref: Cost Impacts of True Spacecrafts, S. Hoeser, J.Pract. Applic. Space, Vol1. No.4) My feeling is the optimum mix for future space operations circa year 2000 is a pretty reliable, expendable large booster (150Klbs to orbit, <$300/lb, rel=.98), a space station(s) of some type for orbital assembly and to support orbital operations, and a highly reliable, reusable small manned system for workcrew rotation and on- of-a-kind, very expensive payloads. (20Klbs to orbit, <$1000/lb, rel=.999). ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 90 18:08:16 GMT From: microsoft!mikemr@uunet.uu.net (Michael MRAZ) Subject: Re: The Ariane V36 failure (was Re: Ariane launches ON TIME! (again)) I'd sure like to know what water is doing in a propulsion system. I don't know anything about the Ariane, but I've never heard of water used for anything other than cooling the pad or quenching astronaut/cosmonaut thirsts. ;-> Can anyone enlighten me, please? ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 90 19:09:46 GMT From: agate!shelby!msi.umn.edu!noc.MR.NET!ns!logajan@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John Logajan) Subject: T Kelso's Orbital elements in rec.ham-radio I have been informed that T Kelso continues to post his orbital elements files in the rec.ham-radio newsgroup. Ted Molczan also informs me that it costs him money to upload his orbital elements files to USENET so he won't be doing it in the foreseeable future -- although he said he would like to and doesn't mind if anyone gets that info off a BBS and does it themselves. -- - John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853 ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 90 22:54:06 GMT From: unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!topgun!mustang!nntp-server.caltech.edu!manning@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Evan Marshall Manning) Subject: Re: CRAF/Cassini Update - 11/09/90 >In article <976@public.BTR.COM> joshi@public.BTR.COM (Nikhil R. Joshi joshi@btr.com) writes: >> Was the Viking lander at least partially solar powered? ... henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >No, the Viking landers (there were two) used RTGs. The surface of Mars >is not a good place for solar power. You have the usual annoying problem >of it being night half the time, but the real killer is the dust storms, >which can cut surface illumination to nearly zero for months at a time. Also, wouldn't solar panels act like sails in atmosphere? *************************************************************************** Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT for so | Evan M. Manning long. You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is | is to watch the cursor blink. Close your eyes. The |manning@gap.cco.caltech.edu opinions stated above are yours. You cannot | manning@mars.jpl.nasa.gov imagine why you ever felt otherwise. | gleeper@tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 90 11:43:42 GMT From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!corton!irisa!irisa.fr!hthomas@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Henry Thomas) Subject: Re: CRAF/Cassini Update - 11/09/90 In article <1990Nov13.104319.11134@irisa.fr>, hthomas@irisa.fr (Henry Thomas) writes: |> In article <7034.273fd310@abo.fi>, mlindroos@abo.fi writes: |> |> In article <1990Nov11.001924.10302@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: [deleted] |> |> 30 minutes! Why can't we send an advanced long-life, Viking-style probe |> |> to Titan instead?! The Viking lander was "only" about twice as heavy as the |> |> Huygens probe will be so the lack of a powerful-enough launcher surely cannot |> |> be the reason? Is this just because of financial considerations again, or...? |> |> The reason is maybe that we have NO data of the condition down there: |> - Is there any *solid* ground ? |> - pressure ? |> - temperature ? |> So with no information, it seems difficult to design a long-life probe. |> A similar(?) problem occured on Venus, where the probes Venera 11-14 lasted only a few hours. The first ones didn't reached the ground because theirs parachutes where destroyed by the acid atmosphere. |> On mars, the informations where much more complete, because the ground had been observed by many orbital probes: it was visible. |> |> There was an excellent article in the ESA journal (?), some month ago about "Cassini Probe Huygens Entry techniques" . |> Here are some excerpts from this article ESA Journal 1989, vol 13 pp 175--190 "Cassini/Huygens Entry and Descent Technologies" G Scoon, G, Whitcomb, M Eiden, A. Smith "The main objectives of the probe's mission will be the determination of the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the measurement of winds and temperature and pressure profiles from an altitude of 170 km down to the surface" ... " Althoug ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 90 03:41:54 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@ucsd.edu (Wales Larrison) Subject: Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3) >>>[Previous message about future space transportation system mix...] >>I would suggest a shuttle-like vehicle with a on-pad abort >>system, and Liquid Rocket Boosters. I also think it might be >>possible to retro-fit such a capability onto the shuttle a lot >>cheaper than designing a new system. > >Perhaps. But the resulting system would still be far too expensive >to operate in a free market. True, if run by the government for the bureaucracy. But if you are in favor of turning ELV launch operations over to private firms, why not turn the Shuttle over to a private operation? If you could strip the system out of the government and turn it over to an incentive-based private organization, I think it might be worth another look. Based upon my experience and analyses, I think you could easily eliminate the top three levels of shuttle management, and at least 30-50% of remaining personnel, which are most of the "fixed" annual costs. (There are 20 "Shuttle" people at KSC for each person who touches the shuttle!) In my estimation, this would reduce the annual cost of operations from the current $3.5 billion to $2.0B within 5 years. Then, run the system like a trucking company - not a limo. That would allow smooth and standardized flows, and fixes several of the recurrent bottlenecks with specialized missions including special software loads and special training. Among other things, it would also remove the desire to get every last pound of performance, which would increase operational margin, and in turn, eliminate 25-50% of the launch delays. Adding LRBs would attack costs as well as operations. According to the MMC and GD preliminary design studies for LRBs, the estimated recurring costs for LRBs are about $5 M per flight, with about a $2 B development cost. LRBs increase reliability through engine-out on liftoff capability and more benign failure modes. They increase performance by anywhere up to an added 30-50,000 pounds. At current SRB costs of about $30 M per flight (at 8 flt/yr rate), this pays back at 39 flights, or between 3 and 5 years of operations. If we can clean house in the operations, we should be able to get to above 12 flights per year. Talking this over with some of the operations research gurus at work, their numbers show you can get up to 24 flights per year out of KSC with EXISTING facilities and orbiters (Note: this is merely through reducing the OPF flow time to 40 days from the current 95 days, and eliminating the SRB stacking bottleneck in the VAB. The LRBs eliminate the SRB stacking bottleneck by allowing the stacking of non-fueled LRB boosters, and the OPF bottleneck is reduced by merely eliminating the redundant system checks to ensure the first checkout was correct.) Cranking all these numbers in gives $2000 M for 16 flights per year at 65 Klbs (note: I'm allowing LOTS of margin...). This is about $1900/lb (annual cost), without a lot of technical, schedule, or financial risk. Taking more optimistic numbers, $2000 M for 24 flights/yr at 75Klbs gives $1100 /lb. Which is getting pretty competitive to a $1000/lb untested HLV - and is available at about the same technical risk and cost. Whether or not this is the best way to go, I'm not sure. But I think it deserves a good look along with looks at commercializing other launch operations. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space technology Investor -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 90 03:43:51 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@ucsd.edu (Wales Larrison) Subject: SSF Integrated Verification Planning Allan, you had asked how SSF was going to perform their design verification work. Coincidently, I ran across a description of the process in the 6 Nov "Aerospace Daily". Fundamentally, the NASA SSF program relies on end-to-end testing of high-fidelity replicas on the ground (which is standard industry practise). While the general outlines of the verification process are established, the exact test procedures and verification activities are still being planned, according to Marc Bensimon, deputy manager for Space Station Freedom programs and operations. Present plans call for two separate SSF verification facilities. An avionics facility similar to the Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory (SAIL) in Houston will verify electronic hardware and software systems, while a "stage integration facility" will test physical interfaces and interactions among SSF hardware elements. After the flight elements are verified as functional in before- launch tests using these facilities, a replica of each Station element would be installed in one facility to obtain a complete end- to-end simulator. (Which one would be cheaper to upgrade to the continuing end-to-end simulator is still being studied.) Under this "backfill" approach, "That replica can be a high fidelity prototype, or it can be an engineering model, or it can be a suitable representation of that first piece," Bensimon said. "That's something you've got to determine on a piece by piece basis...and you run the same kind of test on the replica as you do on the flight piece itself. That gives you a validation of the replica." In addition to testing how well Station elements work together, the two ground facilities will also help plan upgrades and work around problems that develop once the Station is orbited. Bensimon said. "If we're successful, to me the best sign of success on the Space Station is that 15 years from now you're doing things on it that today you hadn't imagined yet...So if that's the case, you're going to be changing an awful lot of things on the Space Station and a lot of the software is going to change." Bensimon said the ground-based verification activities will be supplemented with microgravity experiments on Station elements that will behave differently on the ground and in space. "Anything that's got a phase change in it, where you go from a liquid to a gas, those kind of things you can develop a process on the ground and try it on the ground, but the gravity effects, because of the buoyancy of the gases and so on, (are) difficult to simulate on the ground," he said. "...We'll do as much ground development as we can, but eventually you're going to have to prove it out in flight." "There is an effort in the program to identify where we feel flight tests are necessary," Bensimon said. "Some of them they're going to be doing KC-135 zero-G flights, and they're going to be doing some Spacelab experiments and so on." Bensimon said verification planning is going on throughout the Space Station program, with integration contractor Grumman responsible for the overall job and "significant efforts" underway at the various work package contractors. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 90 04:07:06 GMT From: pilchuck!amc-gw!thebes!polari!crad@uunet.uu.net (Charles Radley) Subject: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery +Why not let the free-flyer be the one to orbit without the thruster +corrections, except for the ones necessary to maintain orbit, let the manned +platform do the formation flying? - VERY heavy on propellant, current Freedom weight budget does not allow for that amount of propellant consumption. Manouvering a 250 tons ship takes a lot more propellant than for a 5 ton free-flyer. Freedom has a sever weight problem, and that concept cannot be accomodated. +That may turn out necessary for Freedom as well +to have the materials sciences on a separate platform - an expanded Columbus, +and let the manned platform do the biological experiments and have the SEI +and OMV's to service the Columbus and EOS platforms. - Ahem, OMV was cancelled...... SEI means Space Exploration Initiative, and makes no sense in the context you used it.....you must mean something else...what ? +Perhaps an LLNL spun +section could be added to the station. Even sent up first to house astronauts +for construction phase? Thoughts, as this is also problematic. - why does anybody need a spinning station ? They are a pain in the neck. +Could Hermes be launched from an upgraded Titan IV (LRB's)? We could purchase +some for crew transfer, freeing the aging shuttle fleet for what it does best. - Titan-IV has a heavy backlog, and is not available for anything. Latest NASA thinking on ELVs, according to Space News, would be to consider use of Atlas or Delta. Titan-IV is not in the running. Hermes is designed to be launched on Ariane, and those will certainly be available. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #559 *******************