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, 19 Nov 1990 01:35:52 -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, 19 Nov 1990 01:35:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #575 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 575 Today's Topics: Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3) Source for satellite tracking programs NASA Prediction Bulletin Distribution Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3) Re: Misc: Space Station and ACRV POTENTIAL MAJOR FLARE WARNING 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 23:20:18 GMT From: agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!umich!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!fmeed1!cage@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3) In article <1566.27401C3A@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) writes: >... the OPF bottleneck is reduced by merely eliminating the redundant >system checks to ensure the first checkout was correct.) Considering how complex Shuttle is, this sounds like a really *bad* idea from where I stand. The reliability achieved by the Shuttle software group is due to their checkout procedures. -- Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE) Home: russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (All non-business mail) Member: HASA, "S" division. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Nov 90 01:21:06 MST From: Dan Charrois <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:USERDANC@UALTAMTS.BITNET> Subject: Source for satellite tracking programs Is anyone aware of a location where I can get ahold of the source code to a satellite tracking program (C preferable). I don't have an IBM or compatible, so I can't just use an executable file. If the source is at a site from which it can be ftp'd, so much the better. Thanks for your assistance....Dan ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 90 20:11:19 GMT From: ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@lll-winken.llnl.gov (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Distribution After some feedback from sci.space readers worldwide, it would appear that somewhere in the distribution process the NASA Prediction Bulletins are being eliminated due to their size. I have taken the step of breaking the file into two parts for distribution this weekend. If you get this message but do not get the elements (which were posted just prior to this message), please let me know and we'll see if we need to further reduce the size of the file to get the data through. - TS -- Dr TS Kelso Assistant Professor of Space Operations tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 90 21:46:59 GMT From: van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3) In article <8746@fmeed1.UUCP> russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Russ Cage) writes: >>... the OPF bottleneck is reduced by merely eliminating the redundant >>system checks to ensure the first checkout was correct.) > >Considering how complex Shuttle is, this sounds like a really >*bad* idea from where I stand. The reliability achieved by >the Shuttle software group is due to their checkout procedures. The question is, how much *extra* reliability is bought by all those extra checks? Wales is suggesting that it approaches zero; I am inclined to agree. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Nov 90 17:32:26 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Misc: Space Station and ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <1575.27416B6D@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales Larrison writes: >>4. Conceptual Design Study for Modular Inflatable Space Structures,... >> I don't have an address for ILC. > Try ILC Dover, P.O. Box 266 Warrington Rd, Frederica, DE 19946. >Phone 302/335-3911. That's the group at ILC which manufactures >spacesuit parts and life support systems. That should be them. Thanks for posting the address. > Also, I'm surprised why no one has discussed a prime factor >regarding the possible use of a Soyuz for the Space Station ACRV >role -- the Soyuz is rated only for a duration of 120-160 days in >space. I thought it was 180 days? >After launch of a Salyut or Mir crew,, the Soviets rotate >the on-orbit Soyuz spacecraft with each "visiting" Cosmonaut crew, >having the visitors come up with a "fresh" capsule, and return with >the "old". I would assume LLNL would do the same. > We would either have to redesign Soyuz, reuse them, or rotate >them. Redesigning them, we might as well design in compatibility >with other U.S. systems (like ELVs), and compatible subsystems. >But, I don't think we'd save money - to get 10+ years in space we'd >need to rework and change every subsystem. Agreed. Besides, Soyuz would never be more than a stop-gap effort. This effort should go into a better design with longer life and bigger capacity. > If we rotate Soyuzes to keep a fresh set on orbit (we would need >at least 3 for a 8 man space station crew -more if we assume 1 may >be unavailable when needed), the cost is $150 M every 120 days in >procurement (using your $50M per Soyuz value and assuming no >learning curve since the Soviets are already far down the curve). There may or may not be a learning curve. The Soviets do crank them out like hotcakes but who knows if they build them efficiently. If we produced them under licence, there may or may not be reductions as we figure out how to do it better. >If we can stretch the space-qualified period to 180 days (added >costs...), we can get by with $300 Million per year. Since it'll >probably take an Atlas II to launch each at about $60 M per launch >(not including orbital rendezvous capability, which also needs to be >added in...), so there's another 6*60= $360M per year. Sums to >about $660 Million per year for a Soyuz-based ACRV. These costs seem reasonable to me. Now for the interesting part: If we use Soyuz at the main method of transportation, is this cheaper than using the Shuttle? It seems to me that the answer is yes since we are getting a year's worth of rotation for less than the cost of one Shuttle flight. Alternatively, if we used the Shuttle for transport, would Soyuz be better as an ACRV than the ACRV NASA proposes? From what I have seen, I think the answer is also yes but I don't have enough information for an educated assessment. > Or, we could spend some DDT&E money and develop a system to last >10-30 years on orbit, and be maintainable on orbit. Compared to >$6.6 B per decade derived above, a $2-3 B development cost (if we >believe that number...) is preferred. I agree that this is the best solution assuming the system is procured properly. 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: Sun, 18 Nov 90 01:28:53 MST From: std_oler%HG.ULeth.CA@vma.cc.cmu.edu (Cary Oler) Subject: POTENTIAL MAJOR FLARE WARNING X-St-Vmsmail-To: ST%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ POTENTIAL MAJOR FLARE WARNING ATTENTION ATTENTION /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 12:00 UT, November 18 ATTENTION: A massive sunspot group has developed and is currently located at approximately N19E19 as of 12:00 UT, 18 November. This sunspot group has the potential to produce a major class M or X flare. It consists of 78 spots clustered within a Beta-Gamma-Delta magnetic configuration, covering an area of 9,000 million square kilometers (5,600 million square miles)! This Region (6368) is currently a type FKI optical region and has produced three class M flares over the past 24 hours. THIS REGION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO PRODUCE MAJOR ACTIVITY. The Space Environment Services Center estimates a 25% to 35% probability of a major class X flare occurring from this region over the next 72 hours. There is an estimated 80% probability of moderate-level M-class flare activity occurring from this region over the next three days (minimum). There is a 15% to 25% probability of a major proton flare erupting from this region over the next 72 hours. The Space Environment Services Center has issued a condition YELLOW alert status for potential PCA and satellite-level proton events for the next 24 to 72 hours at least. The risk for strong PCA and proton event activity will increase as this region moves towards the western solar hemisphere. Region 6368 has grown in size and complexity over the past 24 hours. Two delta-configurations have developed in the trailer spot complex of this system over the past 24 hours. This region has the potential to produce some potent activity. There is a strong potential that a moderate to high intensity SID (Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance) accompanied with a moderate to high intensity SWF (Short Wave Fade) may occur as a result of major flare activity over the next 2 to 5 days on the sunlit hemisphere of the earth. SID and SWF durations could exceed 80 to 120 minutes. Polar regions are at risk for strong PCA activity over the next 2 to 5 days, depending on further developement of Region 6368. Users of polar ionospheric properties (ie. radio operators, researchers, etc.) should be on the alert for potential PCA activity. Satellite users should be on the alert for potential proton events and associated potential satellite disruptions. Region 6368 might not produce any major flare activity. However, the evidence would seem to indicate otherwise, considering the size, magnetic complexity, and spot density of this major system. Should a major flare occur, a major flare alert will be issued with details concerning the event. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #575 *******************