Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from unix2.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 ; Sun, 24 Mar 91 16:08:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 16:08:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #287 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 287 Today's Topics: SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN - WARNING UPDATES - 18 MARCH space news from Jan 28 AW&ST Re: Saturn V (was: space news from Jan 28 AW&ST) Re: Magellan Update - 03/13/91 Re: Magellan Update - 03/11/91 Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound 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: Mon, 18 Mar 91 01:06:13 MST From: oler%HG.ULeth.CA@vma.cc.cmu.edu (CARY OLER) Subject: SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN - WARNING UPDATES - 18 MARCH X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN 18 March, 1991 Terrestrial Geophysical Warning Updates /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ UPDATED WARNING INFORMATION A sudden magnetic impulse was observed at many middle latitude magnetic observatories on 17 March. The SI was not observed locally, although Boulder and several other lower latitude stations reported a SI measuring 12 gammas at 20:36 UT. The cause of this impulse is believed to be the major flare which occurred at 00:52 UT on 16 March. Geomagnetic activity has been generally quiet to unsettled since the impulse, although it has increased very slightly since about 02:30 UT on 18 March. Predictions call for possible minor storming over high latitudes, while middle latitudes should remain generally unsettled to active. No storming is expected for the middle latitudes. The POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING has been cancelled for the middle latitudes. No magnetic storming is expected in conjunction with the major flare of 16 March. The warnings currently in progress follow: - POTENTIAL MAJOR SOLAR FLARE WARNING - POTENTIAL SATELLITE PROTON EVENT WARNING - POTENTIAL PCA ACTIVITY WARNING HF and VHF propagation should be normal to above normal over middle and low latitudes. A slight degradation in middle and high latitude signal paths may be noticed on 18 March associated with the enhanced geomagnetic activity. However, no significant degradation is expected. HF MUF's should remain near 44 to 55 MHz (depending on location). Openings on 6 meters remain possible. A potential also exists for SID (Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance) enhanced VHF communications. The frequent number of M-class flares and the potential for a major flare may provide conditions favorable for SID-induced enhancements on VHF. On the other hand, HF operators will notice potentially frequent minor SWF's (Short Wave Fades) during the daylight hours. ** End of Bulletin ** ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 91 14:38:00 GMT From: agate!linus!philabs!ttidca!quad1!bohica!mcws!p0.f851.n102.z1.fidonet.org!Henry.Spencer@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Jan 28 AW&ST From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Path: wciu!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!sun-barr!rutgers!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: space news from Jan 28 AW&ST Message-ID: <1991Mar11.063845.8672@zoo.toronto.edu> Date: 11 Mar 91 06:38:45 GMT Amroc proposes Aquila, a four-stage hybrid launcher for Motorola's Iridium mini-comsat network, claiming 1500lbs to 300nmi at about half the cost of current alternatives. ESA declares Ulysses fully operational. Space insurance rates expected to rise after circa $200M losses on recent in-orbit satellite failures. USAF Space Command has set up special data links to get data from missile- warning satellites directly to Patriot batteries nearly in real time. This plus other measures to improve communications have boosted warning time for Scud attacks to nearly 5min from 90-120s. Warning-satellite officials say Iraq's Scud tests late last fall were serious blunders, because they gave the US a priceless opportunity to debug the warning setup before it was needed in combat. Final design details have been settled for the field joint of the ASRM. The new joints are bolted together, the O-rings remain visible as the joint is mated, and the joint is designed to close up under pressure rather than opening. Looking at the diagram, inboard of the bolts the joint is two flat flanges touching each other, and two O-rings are set into the surface of the lower flange near the inner edge. The upper flange goes to the edge of the lower flange and then turns downward around it, with a third O-ring set into the outer surface of this lip, seating against the inner edge of the lower flange. Another major ASRM design change is careful design of the internal shape of the fuel so that thrust drops off somewhat for a brief period early in the flight, eliminating the need for the SSMEs to throttle back during the period of maximum dynamic pressure. This eliminates assorted possible failure modes related to throttle-back and the following throttle-up. Other changes include a revised casing design that has fewer assembled parts, one less field joint, welded factory joints, and better steel; a simpler nozzle design eliminating assorted joints and seals; and a redesigned igniter. Finally, a lighter casing, a larger diameter holding more fuel, and a slightly more energetic fuel give higher thrust, longer burn, and about 18% more shuttle payload. An important change unrelated to the booster design is the shift to highly automated manufacturing, since each handling step increases the odds of trouble. [Another aspect of this, not mentioned, is that the ASRM plant at Yellow Creek will be NASA-owned, so NASA will be less tied to a single contractor and can exert more control.] ASRM still has its critics, however. Some say the $971M would be better spent elsewhere, especially on the SSMEs and on incremental improvements to the existing boosters (since ASRM is still five years away). There is the possibility of political pressure to shift money to heavylift boosters, and concerns about the environmental effects of the rather "dirty" solid fuels. Finally, there is still strong skepticism in some areas about the safety of manned flight on solid boosters, given the sensitivity to manufacturing flaws and the impossibility of test-firing. Cost considerations are likely to preclude abandoning SRBs, however. [That's it for space news in this AW&ST. They are rather preoccupied with other current events... However, here's a *very* interesting bit from the 15 Feb issue of Science:] Congress is very interested in the Augustine commission's recommendation for a heavylift launcher, and there is starting to be specific interest in one particularly heavylift launcher... the Saturn V!! Truly, questioned about the matter, says the plans still exist. It's pretty obvious, though, that NASA would really prefer a shuttle-derived launcher. Congress may pursue the matter, although there is the obvious problem that tooling is gone and many subcontractors are gone, so resurrecting the Saturn V would be costly. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry -- : Henry Spencer - via FidoNet node 1:102/851 (818)352-2993 : ARPA/INTERNET: Henry.Spencer@p0.f851.n102.z1.fidonet.org : UUCP: ...!{elroy!bohica,elroy!wciu,cit-vax!wciu}!mcws!851.0!Henry.Spencer : Compu$erve: >internet:Henry.Spencer@p0.f851.n102.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 91 15:41:51 GMT From: pilchuck!seahcx!phred!petej@uunet.uu.net (Peter Jarvis) Subject: Re: Saturn V (was: space news from Jan 28 AW&ST) In article <695@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: > >I came to a personal conclusion that I could make or purchase any one of >the parts, therefore I could build an entire Saturn V if I wanted to. >.....the rest of the Saturn V is just a few large >aluminum tanks with a few other parts (like engines) added on. >Then it dawned on me that each of those parts were designed for a particular >weight, strength, functionality, temperature range, vibration response, etc. > Yes there were a few other parts. The "brains" of the Saturn V were in the guidance and control "ring" seated atop the 3rd stage. Around the inside of this ring was alot of equipment, (power supplies, controllers, etc.). You could duplicate the stuff, but it would be nice to have the schematics. Peter Jarvis...... ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 91 17:13:10 GMT From: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpcvca!rayd@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ray Davis) Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 03/13/91 > 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. . . . in other words JPL is getting their 'AACS' together ? Please, no flames. Ray Davis _________________________________________ | rayd@cv.hp.com | | rayd%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com | | hplabs!hpcvca!rayd | |_______________________________________| ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 91 22:59:18 GMT From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 03/11/91 In article <1991Mar16.012153.15047@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.UUCP (Ron Baalke) writes: >>Well, be honest: "as usual", not "as always". JPL has had failures. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >This is true, but the last one was in 1964 with Ranger 6. How quickly we forget Surveyors 2 and 4. Or were those not "really" JPL failures because the birds were built by a contractor? I was under the impression that Seasat was a JPL mission, although I can't immediately find confirmation of this. I also wouldn't count what happened to the Viking 1 lander as exactly a shining example of JPL success. -- "[Some people] positively *wish* to | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology believe ill of the modern world."-R.Peto| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 91 16:56:26 GMT From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!kcarroll@rutgers.edu (Kieran A. Carroll) Subject: Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans Nick Szabo szabo@crg5.UUCP write: Subject: Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans Date: 8 Mar 91 01:53:56 GMT > In article <1991Mar7.172412.17631@zoo.toronto.edu> > henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > >Experience so far says very strongly that if you plan to do in-space repairs, > >you had better plan to have humans (or the imaginary just-as-flexible > >teleoperated robots which will be available almost right away now for sure, > >really, trust us) on hand. > > Or, if you prefer not to pay the $1,000,000++/hour cost of an EVA, you > could make sure it works before you launch it. Nick, to ``make sure'' that a satellite ``works'' before you launch it, you might have to spend anywhere from millions to tens of millions of dollars, depending on the complexity of the spacecraft. What level of reliability do you want to design into the satellite, and verify via ground testing? 99%? Or three nines? Or four? Do you want dual-string redundancy? Or are you going to make your designers hate you forever, and insist on triple-string? All those satellites that we've seen fail on orbit, including the ones that the Shuttle was sent up to repair, were designed by people who tried to ``make sure that it works'' befoire launch. Many of the people involved in design of these are very smart, and very conscientious, probably more so than you and I. Satellites don't typically fail because of sloppy design or construction. They fail because >nobody< can imagine beforehand >all< the things that might go wrong with a complicated, custom-built device. My view is the cost of using spacecraft could be made cheaper if moderately-priced on-orbit check-out and servicing facilities were available to be rented out. That way, a great deal of the expense in designing spacecraft could be eliminated (``the NASA way'' of design wouldn't have toof the expenses of ground-testing the beasts. However, this assumes that you have >people< in orbit to do the testing and repair --- because the things that will go wrong with your satellite will be exactly those that you didn't anticipate, and so you won't have built your teleoperated robot to handle that unexpected contingency, and so the robot won't be able to effect the repair. -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 91 09:54:00 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!linus!philabs!ttidca!quad1!bohica!mcws!p0.f851.n102.z1.fidonet.org!Nick.Szabo@ucsd.edu (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D From: szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) Path: wciu!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D Message-ID: <21316@crg5.UUCP> Date: 11 Mar 91 01:54:32 GMT In article <244.27D76BAC@nss.FIDONET.ORG> Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Blase) writes: >Maybe it is more >subtle than I thought. I was saying that for the most part, it is only >the government that has the need and the money to fund the development > ---- ----- >of the first useful product from advanced research, especially if that >product is the first of its kind. If understand your point, it is that government money is needed, not necessarily government lab work. The patent statistics and analysis of major inventions show that industry does indeed develop first products, sometimes with some government money, sometimes not, but nearly always without government intervention in the design process. More basic scientific advances are usually the products of university and commercial research labs, often with government funding but again with little intervention in the technical specifications. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?" -- RAH -- : Nick Szabo - via FidoNet node 1:102/851 (818)352-2993 : ARPA/INTERNET: Nick.Szabo@p0.f851.n102.z1.fidonet.org : UUCP: ...!{elroy!bohica,elroy!wciu,cit-vax!wciu}!mcws!851.0!Nick.Szabo : Compu$erve: >internet:Nick.Szabo@p0.f851.n102.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 91 00:34:00 GMT From: agate!linus!philabs!ttidca!quad1!bohica!mcws!p0.f851.n102.z1.fidonet.org!Glenn.A..Serre@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Glenn A. Serre) Subject: Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound From: gaserre@isis.isis.cs.du.edu (Glenn A. Serre) Path: wciu!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!isis!isis!gaserre Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound Message-ID: Date: 13 Mar 91 16:34:47 GMT 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 $5,000/lb because of limitations intrinsinc (sp?) to Expendables (feel free to correct me if that's not what you're saying, Nick :-). What do people out there think the cost limiters are? It's certainly not fuel. -- --Glenn Serre gaserre@nyx.cs.du.edu -- --Glenn Serre gaserre@nyx.cs.du.edu -- : Glenn A. Serre - via FidoNet node 1:102/851 (818)352-2993 : ARPA/INTERNET: Glenn.A..Serre@p0.f851.n102.z1.fidonet.org : UUCP: ...!{elroy!bohica,elroy!wciu,cit-vax!wciu}!mcws!851.0!Glenn.A..Serre : Compu$erve: >internet:Glenn.A..Serre@p0.f851.n102.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #287 *******************