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 ; Sat, 17 Nov 1990 01:56:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 17 Nov 1990 01:56:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #564 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 564 Today's Topics: Computers On Orbit Magellan Update - 11/15/90 Re: New Shuttle Engines Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations Re: SPACE Digest V12 #546 Low inclinations [was Re: STS 38 Observation Guide (Long)] Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3) Mysterious Lights over Europe on 5 November Re: New Shuttle Engines Re: STS 38 Observation Guide (Long) 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: 15 Nov 90 05:30:09 GMT From: uokmax!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!am.dsir.govt.nz!dsiramd!marcamd!mercury!kcbbs!kc@apple.com (George Muzyka) Subject: Computers On Orbit I am wondering just what is being planned in the way of computer workstation activities for when Freedom gets operational. It was delightful to hear on VOA about 2 and one half years ago that several leading U.S. computer (and related) companies were selected for developing significant parts of the Space Station. With the noticeable trimmings off Freedom's near-term budget I'm really hoping the computer hardware and software plans for Freedom are not being hit too hard. A lot of join effort is suppose to be going into those computer specific applications, right? So here's a couple of questions that came to mind: 1. How do you consider the choice of what storage medium/media that they will need to use? And if the hard disk drive is still going to be a main source of secondary storage, then wouldn't there be the possibility that those hard drives will have some advantages in microgravity? More precision, more data storage? Correct me if I'm wrong - there's only been a laptop along when there's an active Ham on a Shuttle flight. Shouldn't there be at least a Student Experiment testing and demonstrating how common all garden computer parts can perform up there on orbit? How about a compact HDD in one of those SE cannisters accompanied by some interfacing board demonstrating its part. Or if Freedom astronauts expect to be using networked workstations (IBM and MD's newer line of Unix stations maybe) - then we better start understanding how it can possibly work up there in those non-standard conditions. Why not test out a small system's Unix aboard the Shuttle, and link up with Usenet. Eh?! Give us a whole new ballgame of figures to crunch on and dream up newer generation logistical machines that will last out those conditions and exploit them. 2. The network of ground-based radar and optical satellite tracking as you may know needs a new boost, we have the need for higher resolution and just simply more quicker response object tracking and detection. Shouldn't the Space Station take a leading role in setting up that hoped for new general of space tracking. So I wonder what plans are at the moment in that area. All those iddy-biddy bits of debris items that really need to be detected before there are collisions with great Americans and great Soviets building up their new generation stations for their business work, now that the setting up costs are virtually a thing of the past. Some might disagree. :-) $$$$$$$$ I look forward to the new generation of NORAD/NASA/... tracking, but rumour has it that they are having trouble getting the funding for it. :-( Maybe Freedom can bring about a spinoff in that domain. Well over to you, the experts... PS - The tail of this message is not necessarily the opinion of yours truly. We have no idea what to replace it with. :-( | / /~~ Public Unix BBS 24hrs | Ban French |_/ /\ |~\ |~\ /\ | |~ | | /~ | (~ Auckland NEW ZEALAND | nuclear | \ \,\ |,/ |,/ \,\ | | |_| \_ | _) KC BBS: 09-817-3714 | testing in | \ | | \__ Voice: 09-817-5569 | Pacific ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 90 23:55:31 GMT From: julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@apple.com (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan Update - 11/15/90 MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT November 15, 1990 The Magellan project experienced the third loss-of-signal incident shortly after 9:00 am PST today, when the Magellan spacecraft failed to return to earth communications after the mapping pass of orbit #825. The S-band signal was reacquired about 40 minutes later, and engineering telemetry indicated that the control system had detected a "heartbeat loss" similar to the incidents in August. The spacecraft had switched some components, such as the gyros designated as primary, but was continuing to execute its command sequence. Telemetry signal levels indicate that the high gain antenna is off earth point by 1-1/2 to 2 degrees. This is beyond the limits of the high rate X-band communications, so we are not able to receive the radar data being played back by the spacecraft. At 9:58 am PST the spacecraft performed a star calibration, but the update would have been rejected because the 1-1/2 degree correction is greater that the bounds set within the attitude control system. The innovation bound will be set higher in conjunction with a ground command to update the spacecraft's onboard quaternion, so that the next STARCAL (star calibration) will correct the spacecraft attitude and the exact pointing of the high gain antenna. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 90 02:48:56 GMT From: m2c!wpi.WPI.EDU!megazone@husc6.harvard.edu (MEGAZONE 23) Subject: Re: New Shuttle Engines In article <1990Nov14.071003.24567@cimage.com> gregc@dgsi.UUCP (Greg Cronau/10000) writes: >In article <1990Nov13.190528.5893@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>The definitive Shuttle C proposal wanted to use life-expired shuttle engines What is the status of the Shuttle-C program now? >I can understand why reviving the Saturn program would be damn near impossible, >but what problems were encountered with reviving just the F-1 engine program? I heard that NASA 'lost' the plans to the F1 and that the private companies that are interested in the engine are going through the long a tiring process of reverse engineering one. Seems the plans were lost during the early stage of shuttle development, around the time officials were looking at dumb boosters again. hmmmm. ############################################################################### # "Calling Garland operator 7G," EVE Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu # # MEGAZONE, aka DAYTONA, aka BRIAN BIKOWICZ Bitnet Use a gateway. Sorry. # ############################################################################### ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 12:38:11 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" To: crad@polari.UUCP, space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <2742@polari.UUCP> Mr. Radley writes: >+Since it will cost several hundred million $$ to do a rotation, this >+is a major consideration. >US Law allows radiation dose up to 3 rem per calendar quarter for any worker >(29 CFR 1910.96 (b)) provided the lifetime dose is not exceeded. From memory, the dose on the LLNL Earth Station is on the order of 3 to 5 rems per year. Far less than the Freedom dose. They orbit lower in the atmosphere and also have a water lined "storm shelter" to go to in case it gets too intense during periods of high solar activity. >LLNL is presumably governed by AEC and/or DOE and State of California >radiation regulations which may be different, probably more stringent. They are well within the limits. One thing DoE labs know a LOT about is radiation. >This may determine rotation times, rather than 0-g, and would negate the >benefit of artifical G. Nope. >If 90 days is the limit, no point in spinning the station. Other than the valuable experience of seeing if artificial G works and finding out how much is needed. If we are going to have people living on the moon, it would be nice to know how they react to long periods of lunar G. Another benifit is that we shave billions off life cycle costs by rotating (pun unintended) crews less often. Why don't you think reducing life cycle cost by a couple of billion is a good idea? > Going off-line, this will be my last post until ca 27 Nov, >flamethrowers please note. I shall return O<~ Have a good Thanksgiving. 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 | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 12:08:31 EST From: AERE6978 <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:AERE6978@RYERSON.BITNET> Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V12 #546 SIGNOFF Space Jason Bloomfield AERE6978@RYERSON ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 90 13:50:38 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma!nickw@uunet.uu.net (Nick Watkins) Subject: Low inclinations [was Re: STS 38 Observation Guide (Long)] From article <1990Nov13.131228.15826@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, by molczan@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Ted Molczan): > At first thought it appears absurd that a U.S. imaging reconsat would be > placed in a low inclination orbit. However, a case can be made for doing so. > In the past, the U.S.S.R. and China were the primary reconnaissance targets, > which necessitated the use of high inclination orbits. Early U.S. reconsats > used 70 deg to 80 deg inclination orbits. It has been done before, but at 60 degrees not 30 or so. See the discussion of LTTAT Agena launch of 22 July 1972 in Curtis Peebles' book "Guardians", where he links this launch to Mid East ceasefire observations. Other launches of this type of satellite were into the higher inclination orbits that Ted mentions. Plus ca change ... Nick -- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 08:46:53 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3) Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <1566.27401C3A@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales Larrison writes: >>>I would suggest a shuttle-like vehicle with a on-pad abort >>>system, and Liquid Rocket Boosters.... >>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? Sounds very good to me. Don't misunderstand me, I am in favor of what works. You won't find me rejecting anything just because it uses the 'wrong technology'. If it gets us up there cheaper I'll like it. > 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. I suspect that is true. >(There are 20 "Shuttle" people at KSC for each person >who touches the shuttle!) Why am I not suprised? >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. That will get you to six to eight flights a year at a cost of $333 to $250M a flight (ignoring amortization of development and replacement). > 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. This translates to a savings of $25M per flight. After 39 flights you will save 25M * 39M = 975M. Still less than the 2B development cost. On the other hand, the Shuttle would lift twice as much so it may balance out on cost/pound. However, it looks like this does not factor in the cost of money. Is this correct? > If we can clean house in the operations, we should be able to >get to above 12 flights per year... I'll accept this as 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. Again, this sounds reasonable to me. > 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. I'll accept that cost and risk of each is within a factor of two (which is pretty close for this sort of thing) but I still consider the HLV's to be of less risk. However, wiht crew the system you describe would lift more than some of the HLV options so it sounds good to me if it will work. I know Rockwell was considering a Commercial Shuttle a while back. Do you know why they abandoned the idea? With these changes it sounds like a very viable option. You should write up some white papers and send them to Congress. > 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. Agreed. BTW, thanks for this post. It was very enlightening. 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 | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 11:30:05 AST From: LANG <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:LANG@unb.ca> Subject: Mysterious Lights over Europe on 5 November According to the Associated Press, mysterious lights observed by thousands of people in the night sky over France on the evening of 5 November came from pieces of a Soviet rocket re-entering the atmosphere. Quoting French and U.S. space agencies, AP stated that the rocket had been used to launch a telecommunications satellite on 3 October. ================================================================================ Richard B. Langley BITnet: LANG@UNB.CA or SE@UNB.CA Geodetic Research Laboratory Phone: (506) 453-5142 Dept. of Surveying Engineering Telex: 014-46202 University of New Brunswick FAX: (506) 453-4943 Fredericton, N.B., Canada E3B 5A3 ================================================================================ ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 90 17:33:18 GMT From: csus.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: New Shuttle Engines In article <1990Nov15.024856.24199@wpi.WPI.EDU> megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) writes: >>>The definitive Shuttle C proposal wanted to use life-expired shuttle engines > >What is the status of the Shuttle-C program now? Stalled, pending funding. It doesn't help that a whole lot of irrelevancies got loaded in on top of the basic Shuttle C design in the funding plan. It would almost make you think that somebody didn't want it to succeed... -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 90 20:04:34 GMT From: isis!scicom!wats@uunet.uu.net (Bruce Watson) Subject: Re: STS 38 Observation Guide (Long) In article <1990Nov13.131228.15826@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, molczan@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Ted Molczan) writes: > > STS 38 Visual Observation Guide > It is assumed that the inclination will be 28.45 deg as reported by AV WEEK. I'll be watching for a longer than usual roll immediately after shuttle liftoff indicating a larger inclination. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #564 *******************