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 ; Wed, 8 May 91 02:24:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 8 May 91 02:24:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #505 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 505 Today's Topics: Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? Re: SPACE Digest V13 #470 Re: japans[Dese space research Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster) Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster) a Re: Shuttle Reliability Re: Saturn V computers Re: Recovering Galileo Galileo's main antenna 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: 1 May 91 14:32:08 GMT From: mips!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!irvine@apple.com (/dev/null) Subject: Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? In article <17277@celit.fps.com>, dave@fps.com (Dave Smith) writes: > In article <1991Apr25.210855.20189@csl.dl.nec.com> baker@csl.dl.nec.com (Larry Baker) writes: > >My question -- and, I guess, my point -- is this: Why rebuild the Saturn V? > >Why not take the Saturn V design and incrementally improve it, with the advantages > >of 30 years' improvement in practice, experience and technology? > > > >Don't rebuild it. Don't start over. Improve the existing design? > > In my mind there is no _technical_ reason why we could not build a better > booster today. We have the technology and plenty of smart people. However, > the politics (not just government, but company internal) that seem to > inevitably follow these projects ensure that we can't. The revival of > the Saturn V, in my mind, is being pushed to avoid the endless paper studies > and creeping featurism that have plagued all the other space initiatives > in the last 20 years. I agree! >Once we have a working Saturn V, then we can go back > and improve it to be the Saturn VI. Let's get something that flies first, > eh? Sounds cool, but I think 'creeping featurism' will creep into anything NASA does, or the government for that matter, even if it a Satun V, VI, ALS, *HUBBLE*, etc etc (By the way, I like the term 'creeping featurism,' it describes exactly what it looks like it is going on!) -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Society of Philosophers, Luminaries, | Brent L. Irvine | | and Other Professional Thinking People..... | Only my own ramblings | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 91 12:55:43 EDT From: Tommy Mac <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #470 Re: Saturn V All this talk about Saturn V has brought to the surface an interesting factoid that may be somewhat relavant. The computer that was used on the original Apollo Landings had only 64K of core memory. It's teeny sure, but they did it with tubes back then. To give you an idea how that translates into lbs, a 40 BIT register that we have in a showcase here weighs about 20lbs. That means that 64K of tube-memory would translate to, say 40000 lbs? That can't be right! It must be really heavy tho. That;s not even talking about the coooling system they needed. Anyway, point is, just with the changes in avionics and computers, there should be enough space and weight savings to not only provide more payload, but also to find space for any new stuff they want to add. (That 40 bit job was about 2 cubic feet) So, for what it's worth, I think we should bring back the Saturn V (or build a Saturn VI) Tommy Mac Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 91 03:33:55 GMT From: uokmax!rwmurphr@apple.com (Robert W Murphree) Subject: Re: japans[Dese space research graines@ucqais.uc.edu (Gary Raines) writes: >Watching the Astronomers last night, the segment highlighted the launching of >a rocket by Japan. It was noted that the Japanese have been active in >rocketry for research since the 1960's. Not being a follower of such things, >I was a little surprised to learn that Japan is such an active participant in >space research. Although it makes a lot of sense considering the Japanese >general scientific and technical orientation. >Anyway, can someone fill me in on Japanese rocketry and space research? Can >you recommend a reference? What is the biggest payload they have launched? >The rocket in The Astronomers was small. Do they have any plans on space >travel? Has a Japanese ever been in space (with the USA or USSR)? >Send email if you feel there is no general interest in this topic. Thanks. The Japanese have two space agencies. One is small and oriented towards launching science packages. They have their own launch system but if I remember correctly are limited to smaller rockets. They have launched a number of important satellites including some with X-ray packages. The other is commercial and is currently in the final stages of developing an Ariane scale launcher called the H-2. The H-2 is large enough to send a large communications satellite into geosynchronous orbit. I'm guessing it will be ready by 92 or 94 (what's the date space-netters?). The word on sci.space is that the Japanese are going to the moon in the 90's with orbiters and seismic landers. All those who know of the scientific value and political failure of the NASA lunar orbiter will be pleased. Bruce Murray once pointed out that there are two kinds of space missions: Purple Pigeons ( very sexy missions that raise alot of public interest among voters) and Grey Mice ( very dry missions that tend to exite only scientists). The Lunar orbiter is a grey mouse. They have already sent some particle and fields probes to halley's comet in 1986. And they have sent an engineering orbiter to the moon in the past year. Look in Physics today in 1985 +-2 years. Also Aerospace Weekly or whatever it is. ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 91 13:55:03 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!irvine@ucsd.edu (/dev/null) Subject: Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster) In article <1991May2.032958.12914@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >The only serious creeping feature I think should be included is using > >hydrogen instead of kerosene for fuel. I know this is a big > >difference but we have to stop thinking of rocket launches as special > >cases with regard to pollution... > > Alas, hydrogen is a big difference in a lot of ways, most of them bad. Technically difficult, not environmentally bad. > As for pollution, I fully agree, we should stop treating rocket launches > as special cases. Compute the tonnage of hydrocarbons burned in, say, > Florida every day, and then explain why the insignificant content of > a Saturn V is somehow considered to be such a *special case* that drastic > changes are needed before it can be allowed to fly. Legally, people are trying to reduce emissions on cars. On rockets there are no restrictions. Maybe start putting restrictions on emissions of launchers? After all, they do launch in the wetlands AND spew half burnt hydrocarbons and other exhaust all over. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Society of Philosophers, Luminaries, | Brent L. Irvine | | and Other Professional Thinking People..... | Only my own ramblings | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 91 17:04:24 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!gecrdvm1!gipp@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster) In article <1991May2.135503.24999@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (/dev/null) says: > > >Legally, people are trying to reduce emissions on cars. On rockets >there are no restrictions. Maybe start putting restrictions on >emissions of launchers? > >After all, they do launch in the wetlands AND spew half burnt >hydrocarbons and other exhaust all over. Gee, if you thought SSME's were a hassle, just think of the giant pump you would need to inject enough air into the exhaust fumes to dilute em to spec...that's all they do to cars isn't it (you know.. the solution to pollution....)? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 91 13:33:24 GMT From: "George Barbanis" <72604897@athvm1.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: a a ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 91 04:40:41 GMT From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5!szabo@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Shuttle Reliability OK, here are the numbers: Success rates #launches ------------- --------- STS .974 38 Titan .965 141 Delta .941 187 Ariane .886 35 Scout .875 112 Long March .875 14 Proton .866 134 Atlas/Centaur .835 67 Last failure downtime (months) ------------------------------ Delta 4 Ariane 16 Atlas/Centaur 19 Titan 19 STS 32 Success, downtime, and launch figures as of December 1989 except STS as of December, 1990. From _Space Mission Analysis And Design_ ed. by Wertz & Larson, Kluwar Academic Publishers 1991. The Shuttle carries astronauts, and safety is politically paramount, so not surprisingly it doesn't blow up quite as often. For the same reason, when it does blow up, your payload is the last thing anybody cares about so you can kiss the Shuttle goodby as far as schedule reliability is concerned. Leaving aside the question of the $36,000 million we spent to get that extra 1% in safety. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "Living below your means allows you to live better than living above your means." -- Dave Boyd The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with. ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 91 17:45:25 GMT From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!dil@purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) Subject: Re: Saturn V computers In article <1991May1.174419.21415@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article 18084TM@MSU.EDU (Tommy Mac) writes: > >The computer that was used on the original Apollo Landings had only 64K of core > >memory. > >It's teeny sure, but they did it with tubes back then... > > Uh, no, sorry, you have your paleoastronautical eras confused. :-) The > Saturn V electronics were pretty well entirely solid-state. The following is Figure 7-17 from the AS-507 flight manual: -------------- Item Description Type General purpose, digital, stored program Memory Random access, ferrite (torroidial) core with a capacity of 32,768 words of 28 bits each Speed Serial processing at 512,000 bits per second Word make-up Memory =28 bits Data = 26 bits + 2 parity pits Instruction = 13 bits + 1 parity bit Programming 18 instruction codes 10 arithmetic 6 program control 1 I/O 1 store Timing Computer cycle = 82.03 microsecond Bit time = 1.95 microsecond Clock time = 0.49 microsecond ---------- That clock time works out to 2 MHz. Does anybody know what that 'serial processing at 512 k' means? Does that mean that this was effectively a '1 bit bus'? And how about those 18 instructions? The original RISC! -- Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN USA perryr@purccvm He's Here! Ariel Gilbert Ramsey, b. 24 APR 91, 8 lb 7 oz., 21". Stoic. ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 91 21:27:05 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!samsung!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!bell@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Subject: Re: Recovering Galileo In article <1991May2.182702.641@herbert.uucp>, doug@herbert.uucp (Doug Phillipson ) writes: > > Forgive this possibly silly idea, but could we just use > Jupiter or one of its moons to send Galileo back to Earth/Venus > for a gravity-brake back to earth orbit where the shuttle could > do a repair mission and carry up another booster for it. Or some > other trajectory to slow it down and return it to Earth? Would > this be cheaper than sending a comm satellite to jupiter? > > Douglas Phillipson (EG&G) Forgive me, but I can just imagine how the fringies who reacted so extremely to the launch of Galileo in the first place would react to NASA sling-shotting the thing back at the Earth. Besides, I suspect that the additional expense due to the extra shuttle flight, maintaining operations for Galileo for an additional (what?) 5-10 years while we bounced it around the solar system like a billiard ball, not to mention the frustration of the scientists and engineers involved in having the real meat of the mission put off again, doesn't justify this as an approach. After all, this isn't HST or some other spacecraft in a low earth orbit we're talking about. +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II | E-mail: | | Mail Code 933.9 | (SPAN) NCF::Bell | | National Space Science | or NSSDC::Bell | | Data Center | or NSSDCA::Bell | | NASA | or NSSDCB::Bell | | Goddard Space Flight Center | (Internet) Bell@NSSDCA.GSFC.NASA.GOV | | Greenbelt, MD 20771 | | | (301) 513-1663 | | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 91 13:09:42 GMT From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!nereid!white@uunet.uu.net (H. Peter White) Subject: Galileo's main antenna In article <21863@ists.ists.ca> white@nereid (H. Peter White) writes: > >Once on its way to Jupiter at least, Galileo will be having its main antenna >(assuming that they do get it all the way open) pointing roughly into the sun. >Now I would have thought that having such a large, thin metal surface always in >sunlight, with the other side always away from the sun, would cause it to >become charged, due to things like the photo-electric effect, and the fact that >its treavelling thru a variable solar magnetic field. > >Has anyone looked at this, or is it not a big problem for the operation of the >probe? > Hmmmm., No comments, eh? Is this just considered a non-issue for reasons I don't know about? If so, why? ****************************************************************************** * H. Peter White ** Society in general, which while dutifully * * ISTS/Space Astrophysics Lab ** praising knowledge and learning, lavishes * * (416) 665-5448 ** riches and fame not on its thinkers, * * Internet: ** creators, and producers, but on those * * white@nereid.sal.ists.ca ** who help it to defend its prejudices and * * Bitnet: ** sustain its fantasies. * * fs300326@yusol.bitnet ** -James P. Hogan, 'Code of the Life Maker' * ****************************************************************************** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #505 *******************