Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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, 31 Jan 91 04:25:38 -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, 31 Jan 91 04:25:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #094 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 94 Today's Topics: What the Shuttle is good for (was: Re: Why man rate?) Magellan Update - 01/25/91 Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST) Re: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST Re: Commercial Space News (4 of 4) Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST) Re: More on space cameras Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST) Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jan 91 20:21:29 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!freedom!cornutt@ucsd.edu (David Cornutt) Subject: What the Shuttle is good for (was: Re: Why man rate?) v071pzp4@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L Cole) writes: >If we don't learn to operate shuttles, we'll be lauching atop ELVs >forever. The NASP program wouldn't exist either. The shuttle isn't >what it was expected to be, but it still is a major step in the >right direction. That's one of my points. Saying that we'll rely on ELV's into the indefinite future is shortsighted at best, and shortsightedness has been one of our biggest problems in space program planning. (By "we", I mean the whole country.) >What is true, is that the shuttle, being the expensive vehicle it is, >is being used for what it is best at -- life sciences, micrograv >research, delicate deploys, etc. No more run-of-the-mill satellite >deploys. They SHOULDN'T be launched via the shuttle. Its not only >cheaper to do it with ELVs, but it takes away from true sciences >and experiments only the shuttle can perform. I'll buy that. Someday, spaceplanes will probably perform *all* satellite deploys, but the current vehicle costs too much too operate for that. Keep the Shuttle for science missions, free fliers, fetch-and-retrieve missions, and precision shots such as plantaries. (One vastly unappreciated capability of the Shuttle is its precision to perform precision launches which are so important for planetary probes, to help them conserve precious thruster fuel, and their ability to perform on-orbit checkout of these one-of-a-kind probes and bring them back if a problem is found.) Looking at the current manifest, it appears to be moving in the right direction. The main thing that I would do, still, is get the TDRS launches onto an ELV. Then, maybe there would be a chance for an Astro-2. -- David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL (205) 461-6457 (cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies) "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary." ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 91 21:15:28 GMT From: swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan Update - 01/25/91 MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT January 25, 1991 The Magellan spacecraft and its radar system continue to perform nominally. All STARCALS (star calibrations) and DESATS (desaturations) of the past 24 hours were successful with four foreground star rejects. The attitude updates ranged from 0.017 to 0.030 degrees. The spacecraft controllers are predicting an increase in the number of background rejects over the next few days due to solar flare activity. Late today the mapping command sequence M1026 will be sent to the spacecraft, along with the associated parameter files. This 4-day sequence returns Magellan to its non-occulted mapping mode. It is for 4 days rather than 8 days because of the return to the normal Tuesday upload next week. On Monday, 28 January, commands will be sent to perform the first of several in-flight tests on the DMS-A (Data Management Subsystem-A). These tests are designed to determine the cause of the tape recorder deterioration, with the hope that corrective actions could restore it to partial use. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ M/S 301-355 | It's 10PM, do you know /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | where your spacecraft is? |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | We do! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 20:46:39 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST) Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <1991Jan25.200639.16712@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov>: >>We use Soyuz. We mount it on a Delta for 20% the cost of a Shuttle >>flight. We could also put it (and 50K to 100K pounds extra payload) >>on a Delta or Titan derived HLV for half the cost of a Shuttle flight. >Are you saying that you could design a Titan with 130-150K lb payload >capacity? Me? No. But Martin Marrietta can. They and McDonnald Douglas offered to build heavy lift versions of the Titan and Delta several years ago as part of the SDIO Zenith Star program. For details see: 1. Zenith Star Launch Vehicles in Aerospace America, (I think) June 1990. 2. Launch Options for the Future: A Buyers Guide by the Office of Technology Assessment 3. A few articles in Avation week in 87. Look under Zenith Star in the readers guide. >There's no way that it could ever be man-rated. Nonsense. The vibration load is acceptable and it is just as safe as the Shuttle. If you are going to send people on the Shuttle there is no reason they couldn't go on a Titan IV or V (unless you get off on wasting money). >You can't go on adding thrust to a vehicle forever. I didn't say you could. I just said you could put up 100K to 150K pounds with it. >>That's the problem. We double the cost of everything to get 0.01% >>more safety out of it. It's just not worth it. >Actually, I agree with you. But Congress and the American public >don't agree. In their minds, 0.01% risk is not acceptable for >a manned vehicle. I'm glad you agree. As to Congress, many of them are very willing to accept what we agree on: ELV's are just as safe as the Shuttle so the lack of 'man rating' shouldn't stop us from saving tens of millions by using them. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: | |aws@iti.org | "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 91 21:00:48 GMT From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu (Robert McGwier) Subject: Re: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST From article <1991Jan24.172212.6071@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov>, by cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt): > aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: > > >>The public will accept risk if given an accurate assessment of the risks. > > I realize that this is getting way off the thread here, but IHMO this > statement is fundementally untrue. Today's American public will accept > NO RISK WHATSOEVER, no matter how small, if it is not something that > David Cornutt I basically agree with David. This is partially a result of a really basic mistrust of authority, and a unbelievable set of liability laws and common law and how it is practiced in the U.S. Many blame the Vietnam era and too many lawyers for most of the trouble, IMHO, there is SOME truth in this. The very thought of someone in (say) Germany suing Daimler-Benz for hundreds of millions of DM and winning because of a nut and bolt which failed, NOT becuase of negligence, but because nothing made by man is perfect, is too ludricrous for me to believe could happen. Can anyone think of a country other than the US that is totally and completely unwilling to take risks in `daily life' as part of the price of `modern civilization'? Bob -- ____________________________________________________________________________ My opinions are my own no matter | Robert W. McGwier, N4HY who I work for! ;-) | CCR, AMSAT, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 91 04:35:31 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Wales Larrison) Subject: Re: Commercial Space News (4 of 4) the first significant win for that entrepreneurial startup, and should allow them to see some positive contractual cash flow for the first time in several years. However, they have never successfully performed an orbital flight, or tested their 4-stage version of the Conestoga, so they will have a tough time to get the system proven and ready for flight in 18 months. This may stretch their funding to the limits - particularly as they seem to be taking this as a loss-leader in the expectation of future business in this area.] COMMERCIAL LAUNCH FIRMS SET LAYOFF DUE TO MARKET DECLINES All three of the major U.S. commercial launch firms have set employee layoffs due to slowing production rates of their rockets. McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company (Delta), General Dynamics Space Systems (Atlas), and Martin Marietta's Astronautics Group (Titan) have all recently announced layoffs. MDSSC said this week it laying off about 300 employees. GDSS said it will reduce its work force through attrition and layoffs by 500, and Martin Marietta Astronautics also cutting some jobs related to the Titan booster program (specific number was not announced). Both MDSSC and GD specifically cited the cuts as being mainly due to a reduction in the number of launch contracts expected over the next few years. In GD's case, they were very vulnerable to reductions in DoD funding which had provided a major portion of their commercial launch services business. MDSSC last year launched 11 commercial payloads last year (primarily DoD GPS satellites), but after launching 1 Delta this year, has only another 4 commercial payloads remaining on their manifests. . [Commentary: From my last count there were about 80 planned commercial orbital launches over the next 5 years. This split approximately 50/50 between the Ariane and the U.S., with a few going to China's Long March. Furthermore, the expected number in the near-term is expected to decline as much of the current market is replacements for the previous generation of GEO satellites, and once the constellations are replenished, they will probably not be replaced for another decade. Similarly, the commercial contracts for DoD launches were driven by the Reagan era funding, and many of these satellite constellations are also nearing completion. Competition for this market is intense, and given that there are 3 U.S. manufacturers vying for the same market there have been some doubts raised as to whether the existing launch market can support all three major U.S. ELV competitors. These problems have been compounded with recent problems at a couple of the parent firms. GD and McDonnell have had to take large losses when the A-12 was cancelled, plus their expected business base has declined substantially as the DoD budget plans have declined. McDonnell is under particular financial strain, and there has even been speculation in Forbes and Av Week about their ability to continue to operate - although this is dependent upon all of their major programs having serious and unforseen problems.] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor [I apologise for breaking this up into several message. The gateway I use only allows messages of 60 lines or less.] -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 91 21:09:35 GMT From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu (Robert McGwier) Subject: Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST) From article , by yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi): > In article <9101250025.AA14284@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: > > There is no need to ask them. We HAVE sent people up on Delta's. Funny > how they managed to make it do something it was never intended to do :-). > It is difficult for me to tell who said what above so I have included both references. NAME ONE manned launch that was done with a Delta. Bob -- ____________________________________________________________________________ My opinions are my own no matter | Robert W. McGwier, N4HY who I work for! ;-) | CCR, AMSAT, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 91 00:20:39 GMT From: usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news@apple.com (Doug McDonald) Subject: Re: More on space cameras In article <1991Jan25.202543.19020@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov> cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt) writes: >Thanks for a fine article, Charles. A couple of questions? > >(1) Does exposure to vacuum effect film? (Apart from the thermal problem) Yes, but very slowly. Generally speaking it decreases reciprocity failure. For ordinary exposures less than 1/5 second, it has little effect on most films. At room temperature it takes days to do much. Doug McDonald ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 20:12:57 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST) Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <1910@ksr.com> Chris Jones writes: >The effort to man-rate the Atlas was non-trivial. In fact, the original Atlas >failed in its first flight with a Mercury on top of it, and quite a bit of >effort went into beefing up its structure and adding redundancy. I don't doubt that is true. I also don't doubt that is was needed to make it safe enough for people. But the Atlas of today is far far more reliable than the Atlas of 30 years ago. The Atlas of today is just as safe as the Shuttle. Given that, what reason is there not to use is for humans? If two launchers have identical operational safety records, how can one be considered safe and the other not? >In fact, the Titan uses the >exact opposite of the Shuttle's ignition strategy... It takes off under solid >propulsion only, and doesn't ignite its liquid fuelled engines until some time >has passed. Given that both put their payloads in orbit 97%+ of the time I don't see that that is a big deal. However, I can think of two solutions: 1. Change the sequence by firing the liquid engines at 10% thrust and keeping them on. 2. Put an escape tower on the capsule (there will be one anyway). If the liquid engine fails to ignite, punch out. But as I said, anybody who is afraid to fly in one should also be afraid to fly in the other since both are equally safe. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: | |aws@iti.org | "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #094 *******************