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 ; Thu, 29 Nov 1990 23:47:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 29 Nov 1990 23:47:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #590 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 590 Today's Topics: Re: Photon engine Re: Photon engine Re: Photon Engine ELV Support to Space Station (1 of 2) Re: Save our Shuttle data? Re: Zero-G Re: space news from Sept 17 AW&ST signoff Recent DoD Space System Cost Data ... Re: The Space Plane Re: Photon engine Re: USENET Apology 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: 23 Nov 90 15:05:13 GMT From: ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Brian or James) Subject: Re: Photon engine In article <274a411c-a95.1sci.space-1@vpnet.chi.il.us> akcs.gregc@vpnet.chi.il.us (*Greg*) writes: > >Just think! You can even heat up the chicken soup for dinner! >:-) > >I like the Photon engine. > >Somehow, some shmoe will figger a way to make a photonic engine faster than >the mass engine. And leave one in his wake. If said 'wake' includes the output from the photon drive, the only thing left behind with an expanding cloud of plasma. A 100 tonne ship accelerating at 1 g requires a 3x10**11 watt powerplant. How does that compare to the human species total power output these days? (What's that, ~100,000 Pickerings?) James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 90 21:08:05 GMT From: bu.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!dlangfor@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (David W Langford) Subject: Re: Photon engine Someone mentioned something about a 'Jell-o' laser. (in reference to the fact that almost anything can lase) I was wondering if anyone had info on this, as I have not heard of this. It sounds quite amusing if it realy works (even at very low power. Thanx, David Langford dlangfor@magnus.ircc.ircc.ohio-state.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 90 19:05:01 GMT From: usc!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!src.honeywell.com!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!quest!orbit!pnet51!schaper@ucsd.edu (S Schaper) Subject: Re: Photon Engine The ground based version also has certain interesting military applications. ************************************************************************** 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: 22 Nov 90 03:15:05 GMT From: rex!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Wales Larrison) Subject: ELV Support to Space Station (1 of 2) >>... 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 as 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. Allen, I ran some rough numbers, and surprisingly enough I found the answer to be the exact opposite. Here's my calculations..... Let's see - we need to use supporting space transportation to the Space Station for two purposes - logistics resupply and crew rotation (I'm ignoring expansion of Space Station capability for now..). For a rough estimate, I'll use the 40,000-45,000 lb every 90 days resupply requirement as identified for SSF (noting the MIR resupply requirement is about 1/2 of this for a space station approx 1/4 to 1/2 in size). For resupply I'll assume use of the Titan-IV. Furthermore, the shuttle recovers and reuses the SSF logistics module. Based upon my limited data on the logistics module from Boeing, I would estimate a replacement logistics module to run in the vicinity of $20-40 M each, at constant rate production. Refurbishment of the logistics module for reuse, in my estimation runs about $1-5 million per use (basically a systems pressure test and checkout of the interfaces and thermal covers). I'll use $3 M in my calculation. I've been relooking at the Titan-IV costs. Target performance listed for the Titan-IV is about 40,000 lbs to 100 nmi 28.5 degree orbit (current performance is about 39,000 lbs) (Source: USAF Systems Command "Titan-IV Users Handbook"). Moving the destination to a more typical 250nmi space station orbit cuts the Titan-IV performance from 40Klbs to about 38,000 lbs. This excludes the cost of the transfer and rendezvous system, which adds to the cost, and reduces the payload available. I estimate we should be able to do that with about a 1000 lb add-on module, costing about $20 M per module in rate production. For Titan-IV launch costs I'm using the latest data I've found from the 30 Sept DoD SAR report (see my other message posted on this), which is about $227 M per flight. Adding in the reduced performance and transfer/rendezvous system gives (227+20+30)*1e6/37e3 = $7490/lb to resupply Space Station. But, we still have to account for 2 other factors - crew rotation and reuse of space experimental apparatus . For crew rotation I'm assuming that we uprate the Atlas II system used to launch the Soyuz, and also launch the crews on it. This will require adding a launch escape system and upgrading the ELVs to "man-rated". Looking at what was done in the early 1960's to man- rate the Atlas and Titan-II, the basic launch vehicle remained the same. However, added redundancy was added into the avionics system, each part was spec'ed to a higher tolerance, and in production each component and system was checked and rechecked several times at each step of the production process, over and beyond the normal quality control for a launch vehicle. (Each man-rated vehicle was broken out of the usual production flow, put into a special area, and worked and reworked as a unique, on-of-a-kind production item.) (cont) -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 90 05:55:13 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!censor!geac!aimed!torag!waltdnes@apple.com (Walter Dnes) Subject: Re: Save our Shuttle data? In article <0093FF37.6F7529E0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >In article <1549@ke4zv.UUCP>, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > >Pretty bizarre to think we've come 20 years, with CAD/CAE and materials >engineering and we can't build something which was put together in the '60s. >Kinda scary. I can see it, 10 years from now. Erik von Daniken's "Space Capsules of the God's". Conclusive proof of advanced alien civilizations, space vehicles that mankind cannot duplicate today. Forget this crud about the "knowledge of the ancients of the 60's". It had to be space aliens. -- Walter Dnes waltdnes@torag.uucp waltdnes%torag@cs.toronto.edu 73710.3066@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 90 16:32:36 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Zero-G In article <9011211901.AA12029@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: >>Soviet crews have stayed in orbit for over a year. They have demonstrated >>that with advanced exercise machinery and lots of exercise it is possbile >>to return to the Earth after a year in a 0g environment and completely >>recover. > >"Recover" is the key word. Apparently nobody stays up there that long and >remains what could objectively be called "healthy"... Depends on what you mean by "healthy". Bear in mind that the Soviet one-year cosmonauts were in considerably *better* shape than the earlier six-month ones; the worst of the scare stories are obsolete, thanks to changes in procedures (and possibly diet and drugs). The price for all this, unfortunately, is a *lot* of time spent exercising. Eliminating, or greatly reducing, that would definitely be an improvement. -- "I'm not sure it's possible | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology to explain how X works." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 90 11:12:54 GMT From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma!nickw@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Nick Watkins) Subject: Re: space news from Sept 17 AW&ST From article <1990Nov20.060453.7733@zoo.toronto.edu>, by henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer): > the secret Titan IV mission slated for that day. (This suggests that the > Titan mission is not considered crucial to the Gulf crisis, since the USAF > could have bumped the shuttle in that case.) The earlier leaks are now > thought to be the result of a valve seal that was damaged when it was And indeed it probably isn't crucial if it is, as reported, a DSP early warning satellite. These are useful for spotting tactical missile launches & it will undoubtedly be useful to have this one positioned in a geostationary slot where it has a good view of the gulf, however. Reports have said that an existing one will have been moved to get a better view. Nick -- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 90 11:08 +0100 From: Jeff Raynor Subject: signoff signoff space ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 90 03:13:52 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@apple.com (Wales Larrison) Subject: Recent DoD Space System Cost Data ... On the net, we've been discussing costs of various space systems. I recently ran across the following data from a recent Department of Defense document which reported to Congress on the current expected total cost of several satellite and launch vehicle programs within the DoD. This data was released on 30 Sep, and includes the "Selected Acquisition Report" costs for several systems. Dollar values are in millions, and are the estimated costs to completion of the program. I calculated the current unit average to get an average unit cost in current dollars. Current year $ is FY 1991$ (Oct 1990) SAR CURRENT ESTIMATE Current System BASE BASE CURRENT SYSTEM Unit YEAR YEAR $ YEAR $ QTY Average --------------------------------------------------------------- DMSP 75 696.0 1,771.5 10.0 69.6 DSCS III 77 1,055.2 2,016.0 15.0 134.4 DSP 78 5,663.6 8,314.1 25.0 33.2 IUS 75 835.7 1,678.2 11.0 152.6 NAVSTAR GPS 79 2,402.4 4,366.5 66.0 66.2 TITAN IV 85 12,620.3 17,009.1 75.0 226.8 Editorial Notes: These DoD satellite costs are from $33-134 M per satellite, exclusive of the upper stage costs, which is probably typical of similar DoD satellites, and are pretty much in agreement with similar commercial satellites. The IUS (Inertial Upper Stage), which has had a troubled cost history, is very expensive - costing about 5 X the cost of at least one satellite it deploys (the DSP). Note also, the current average cost per unit of the Titan IV is about $226.8 Million with 75 vehicles to be produced, and at about 40,000 lbs into LEO, this is $5670/lb! This was very suprizing to me, moreover since this cost cannot include upper stage costs since IUS costs (used on the Titan IV) are called out as a separate system. To perform a typical GEO insertion mission for a DSP+IUS+Titan IV, it costs $412.6 M on average. Since each DSP weighs 5200 lbs (Source: AvWeek 19 Nov 90), this is $79,350/lb into GEO!. For another typical mission of DSCS+IUS+Titan IV, this would cost $513.8 M. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 90 18:40:14 GMT From: igloo!ddsw1!corpane!disk!wells@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Lee Wells) Subject: Re: The Space Plane swd0170@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (DAVIS, SW) writes: > I was curious if anyone out there knew anything about a possible space >plane. Some magazines mentioned a experimental high altitude "space plane" that >could be used to ferry cargo into low earth orbit and could be used commercialy >to fly passengers from say...New York to Sydney in five hours. I believe it was >called the "X-87" or something like that. Does anyone know what I'm talking >about?? The National Aero Space Plane (NASP) is the X-30 series I believe in honor of the famous X-series of aircraft. Its first flight is due in '95, and I think they are trying to cut funding for it. I believe I read this in the MIT technical Review within the last year. [Call your congressman, and voice your support.... I think getting NASA out of the rocket business would do wonders for accidents, as in make them survivable] -- Lee Wells (pick one address) wells@disk.UUCP DISK Inc. [a Nixpub machine] att!chinet!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!disk!wells 502 968 5401 to 5406 [modems] uunet!ukma!corpane!disk!wells Louisville, Kentucky U.S.A. arpa!e.ms.uky.edu!corpane!disk!wells ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 90 18:27:48 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!bwdls61.bnr.ca!bwdls58!bwdlh490!hwt@ucsd.edu (Henry Troup) Subject: Re: Photon engine In article <1990Nov23.150513.8292@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Brian or James) writes: |>only thing left behind with an expanding cloud of plasma. A 100 tonne |>ship accelerating at 1 g requires a 3x10**11 watt powerplant. How |>does that compare to the human species total power output these days? Well, it must be less than the power output of a shuttle at launch, right? I don't know how much a shuttle stack weights, but since the payload to orbit is ~20,000 lbs (10 tonnes), a takeoff mass over 100 tonnes seems certain. And it pulls more than 1 g. Remember that 'total power output' and 'total electrical power output' are quite different. There are various ways of getting things to lase - and nearly anything will. Remember the Jell-O (tm) laser? There's probably some rocket fuel that would produce an exhaust plasma that could be excited into laser action. And MHD provides some hope of converting rocket energy to electrical. Math check: the watt is a unit of work equal to 1 Joule/s 100,000 kg x 10 m/s^2 = 10^6 N (force) Did you multiply by the speed of light? Why? Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | The .signature is the P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4H7| lowest form of humour uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA +1 613-765-2337 | ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 90 01:44:36 GMT From: manta!north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North) Subject: Re: USENET Apology In article <5029@rsiatl.UUCP> meo@rsiatl.UUCP (Miles ONeal) writes: >Dear Mr. White: > >Your apoplexy was no doubt excepted with good grace >in those other places, but such are neither allowed >or tolerated in tb[1,2]. > >Management has discussed this with legal, whom, after >a brief flurry of memos with accounting, shopping, >and the male room, has decided not to press charges ^^^^ Pray, tell us more about the male room. Pant. Rick ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #590 *******************