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 ; Fri, 15 Mar 91 01:41:13 -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, 15 Mar 91 01:41:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #268 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 268 Today's Topics: Magellan Update - 03/12/91 space news from Feb 4 AW&ST cause of shuttle disaster GRO Activity Report (Forwarded) Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound Magellan Update - 03/13/91 Re: space news from Feb 4 AW&ST Re: New World Profits (was Re: Space Profits Re: Nick's latest statement re: launch costs, and a suggestion about units. 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: 12 Mar 91 19:08:50 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@decwrl.dec.com (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan Update - 03/12/91 MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT March 12, 1991 The Magellan spacecraft is performing nominally. All but one of the STARCALS (star calibrations) yesterday were successful. The STARCAL on orbit #1680 failed due to a foreground rejection of one star. The Project has been experiencing some difficulty with X-band downlink communications. The signal level has been suppressed about 4 db below the predicted levels by a spur which has appeared, possibly due to increasing temperatures. This has resulted in some noisy radar mapping data, especially near the southern end of the mapping swaths, and the loss of some engineering data. Analysis of telecommunications performance, including a "no uplink" test, has verified that the X-band communications problem is on-board the spacecraft rather than at the DSN (Deep Space Network) stations. Several options for isolating and correcting the condition are being reviewed, including on-board component switching and possibly shifting the uplink frequency. The Spacecraft Team successfully completed the load of the AACS (Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem) Memory B yesterday, and is presently performing memory readout test. When the testing is completed, the new sequence load will make Memory-B fully functional and restore the memory redundancy. This new memory load also included a fault detection scheme which would take the memory off-line if it experienced another stuck bit. The upload of command sequence M1072, with its associated radar control parameter and mapping quaternion files is scheduled for this evening. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ M/S 301-355 | Change is constant. /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 91 04:34:42 GMT From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Feb 4 AW&ST [Another light week for the obvious reason.] Discovery mission to fly in March [well, whenever...] to try out improved shuttle computers: more compact, lighter, less power, larger memory, and higher speed. Lockheed reveals project to develop three standard satellite buses, "F-Sat". "F" officially is for "frugal", but it also stands for "fat", signifying use of greater weight and power margins to minimize redesign for new payloads. The F-Sats are meant for Atlas/Delta-class payloads, with a target cost [not clear whether this is bus or whole bird] of $30M each. [The list of suggested applications is basically NASA and military, suggesting little interest in commercial customers initially.] USAF Space Systems Div. officially delays the next Navstar launch until the solar-array pointing failure in the last Navstar is understood. Cape York project hits a financial snag: Essington Developments, the project's current developer, is withdrawing and wants to sell out. Discovery launch slips slightly due to defects in maneuvering thrusters. [They haven't found the cracked door hinges yet.] SDIO expects a strong shift in its funding, away from space-based hardware towards ground-based hardware, in keeping with the new White House emphasis on countering limited attacks. Brilliant Pebbles is still hanging in there, though, with SDIO bravely trying to prove that it could stop Scuds. NASA tightens security, especially at KSC and JSC, as a precaution against terrorism. Most JSC tours have been suspended, and KSC tours are being watched more carefully. Employee entrances to crucial areas are also getting more attention. US Army's experimental Eris interceptor successfully sorts out an imitation warhead from decoys and destroys it in test Jan 28. Two more flight tests are planned this year, aimed mostly at presenting more difficult problems with decoys and countermeasures. White House initiative to refocus SDI sparks Congressional debate, with some claiming it revives the program while others claim it shows a program still in search of a mission. Spy satellite coverage of Gulf reported excellent, with frequent satellite passes aided by the more modern birds' ability to work well to either side of their ground track. The Lacrosse radarsat is particularly useful in spotting armored-vehicle concentrations in bad weather. The missile- warning satellites in Clarke orbit are proving to be somewhat useful for reconnaissance as well; notably, the new-model warning sensors turn out to be capable of spotting fighter afterburners, and use of this is being studied. [A sidelight on this is that the KH-12 that reportedly broke up after shuttle launch last March appears to be operational; apparently the "breakup" was jettisoning of covers and shields before maneuvering, not an accident.] Martin Marietta and Bechtel are scrambling to get pad 40 at the Cape rebuilt in time for the Mars Observer launch in Sept 1992. MO will go up on Commercial Titan, but the main objective of rebuilding pads 40 and 41 is better Titan 4 facilities, to support the USAF's plans for up to six launches a year. Pad 40 rebuilding is particularly drastic, with the old structure essentially being torn down and replaced in its entirety. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 91 15:12:18 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!samsung!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!Iris1.UCIS.Dal.Ca!roberts@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg Roberts) Subject: cause of shuttle disaster I have watched this thread of discussion about two 'high level' engineers and their claim about the cause of the accident. I suggest that for anyone interested in the facts, they obtain Volume 1 of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger accident, and look at the photographs on pages 22 - 36 and 74 - 81. The strut failure is a nice theory, but has no photographic evidence to support it. What the photographic (still and video) does support is exhaust gas erosion of the ORing, which caused a hole in the SRB casing. This resulted in hot exhaust gas burning the insulation on the ET, and causing a rupture. It was the combustion of the contents of the ET causing the severe loading on the shuttle. The strut broke because the lower attach point gave way from the weakened ET causing it to rotate about the support. I would like to see the 'evidence' cooked up by these two. Did they appear at the Rogers Commission to testify? Do they have any materials testing reports, independent photographic analysis, fatigue analysis or the like to support their claim? Enquiring, although seriously skeptical minds, want to know. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 91 15:47:33 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@decwrl.dec.com (Ron Baalke) Subject: GRO Activity Report (Forwarded) PAYLOAD TEST AND ACTIVITY SHEET Kennedy Space Center, Florida March 12, 1991 George Diller 407/867-2468 FTS 823-2468 GAMMA RAY OBSERVATORY STS-37/Atlantis HISTORICAL ACTIVITY Arrival of Spacecraft at PHSF: 2/6/90 First functional test begins: 2/26 Install High Gain Antenna: 11/8 Final functional test complete: 12/4/90 Spacecraft Fueling complete: 1/11/91 Install Flight Batteries: 1/15 Airborne Electrical Support Equipment (AESE) arrives: 1/24 Install orbiter Airborne Electrical Support Equipment (AESE): 2/1 Transfer GRO to Vertical Processing Facility: 2/7 Installation into west test cell: 2/9 VPF Standalone Functional Test: 2/12-13 Interface Verification Test (IVT) of AESE: 2/17 IVT of GRO (orbiter interfaces simulated): 2/23 End-to-End (ETE) communications test (MILA/GSFC/TDRS): 2/25 Payload Readiness Review: 2/25 MILA RF communications test: 3/4 Transfer payload to canister: 3/11 ACTIVITY FORECAST * denotes change Roll to Pad 39-B/Transfer to PCR: 3/13* Initial GRO Battery Charging: 3/14* Payload installation into Atlantis: 3/17* TCDT: 3/19-20* Astronaut payload bay walk down: 3/19 Interface Verification Test: 3/21* Launch Readiness Review: 3/21 GRO/orbiter end-to-end test: 3/25* Battery reconditioning: 3/25-30* GRO Flight Closeout operations: 4/1* Close payload bay doors: 4/2* end ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ M/S 301-355 | Change is constant. /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 91 16:34:47 GMT From: isis!isis!gaserre@uunet.uu.net (Glenn A. Serre) Subject: Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound I'd like to respond to Nick's responses, but I'm pressed for time and I'm not absolutely sure I should be posting (rather tha emailing). I'd appreciate some feedback on this. I might manage responses in a week or so. What I'd really like to see discussed is Nick's contention that launch costs for ELV's can't be reduced much below $5,000/lb because of limitations intrinsinc (sp?) to Expendables (feel free to correct me if that's not what you're saying, Nick :-). What do people out there think the cost limiters are? It's certainly not fuel. -- --Glenn Serre gaserre@nyx.cs.du.edu -- --Glenn Serre gaserre@nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 91 21:45:10 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@decwrl.dec.com (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan Update - 03/13/91 MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT March 13, 1991 The Magellan spacecraft is performing nominally. Again, all but one of the STARCALS (star calibrations) yesterday were successful. The Project continues to experience difficulty with X-band downlink communications. The communications problems were compounded by DSN (Deep Space Network) hardware problems at the 34 meter tracking station in Madrid this morning. Fortunately the other 34 meter station was able to provide coverage of the X and S-band downlink, so no data was lost. The AACS (Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem) Memory B readout tests were successfully completed yesterday and spacecraft controllers are continuing the process of loading Memory B today. The upload of command sequence M1072, with its associated radar control parameter and mapping quaternion files was completed late yesterday and is executing properly. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ M/S 301-355 | Change is constant. /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 91 23:00:21 GMT From: timbuk!sequoia!gbt@uunet.uu.net (Greg Titus) Subject: Re: space news from Feb 4 AW&ST In article dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes: >In article <1991Mar13.043442.3045@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>Martin Marietta and Bechtel are scrambling to get pad 40 at the Cape >>rebuilt in time for the Mars Observer launch in Sept 1992. > >What sort of other work does Bechtel do in the aerospace field? ... >... Do they mainly do launch complex ^^^^^^^ >construction, or what? ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Missed it by one word. ;-) They do complex construction. greg -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Titus (gbt@zia.cray.com) Compiler Group (Ada) Cray Research, Inc. Santa Fe, NM Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 91 11:14:41 GMT From: sdcc6!sdcc13!bdietz@ucsd.edu (Jack Dietz) Subject: Re: New World Profits (was Re: Space Profits In article <5370@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM> Dan Tilque writes: >If Columbus had not brought back a few gold nuggets and some relatively >worthless plants which he thought were valuable spices, Spanish >exploration in the New World would probably have progressed at a much >slower rate or even halted altogether. However, Columbus knew >this and kept exploring until he had at least something valuable to >show for his trip. This implies that Columbus was exploring what he thought was unprofitable land. In other words, he was using the money of the Spanish crown in order to satisfy his desire to explore, not in the interests of the royal pair. Interesting. If only our explorers could pull something like that off, leading Congress on while they encourage exploitation... Could be the start of something useful. -- Sattinger's Law: | Jack Dietz (bdietz@ucsd.edu) It works better if you plug it in. | Computer Engineer in Training ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 91 20:22:37 GMT From: csus.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!pc.usl.edu!dlbres10@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Nick's latest statement re: launch costs, and a suggestion about units. [First, I would like to apologize to those of you who are seeing this article twice; in the first draft, I had offered to try to put Nick in touch with a prominent spacecraft engineer so he could put across his side of the story. However, I should have realized that the engineer in question probrably has better things to do than that, and besides, the arguments already exist on paper. Nick has only to go to his nearest college library and look them up. Henry Spencer's suggestions were good. I would like to suggest two more: _Mechanics_ by Symon and _Mechanics_ by Fowles. After all, a little physics background could help a lot. I thought about omitting Symon, but maybe you deserve to struggle through an ambiguous text, or maybe not :-) ] In article <21317@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >Essentially, space transportation customers want what every other >transportation customer wants (surprise!). Chemical rockets seem >to be only capable of meeting these needs at a rate over >$5,000/lb. >-- >Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com >"What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?" -- RAH Two comments: 1. Okay, I want to see the facts on that assertion about the limiting factor in chemical rocket price, and to several different decimal places. To paraphrase RAH, it's math, or it's opinion. [ Here also was previously an argument I was making about Pegasus. Since I seem to be wrong about it, I won't repeat it.] I would also like to suggest a more rational choice for units for calculating the cost of putting some mass in orbit: instead of dollars per pound, put Canadian dollars per kilogram. Much more rational that way. But wait! It can be reduced further: If we substitute the British Pound for the Canadian dollar, we can renormalize the units totally into the metric system! Because take out a one pound note. Look at it. It has ONE NEWTON! So if you can, give the cost in Newtons/Kilogram, which I think is a unit of acceleration. Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu "Why not furlongs per fortnight?" - many of the Apollo program astronauts. I _think_ they were joking. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #268 *******************