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, 3 Jul 91 04:09:58 -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, 3 Jul 91 04:09:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #768 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 768 Today's Topics: Re: Fred's Operatic Death Re: Access to Space Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise What should we spend on astronauts Re: Launch failure today Re: Excavating (mining) in space Re: Freedom Cost 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 18 Jun 91 18:57:51 GMT From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!news.arc.nasa.gov!skipper!shafer@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Mary Shafer) Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards AFB, CA Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death References: <1991Jun14.083756.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov>, <1991Jun17.055344.8332@sequent.com> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1991Jun18.170059.15059@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes: >In article <1991Jun17.222205.15504@sequent.com>, szabo@sequent.com writes: >> 'Do NASA employees post self-serving propaganda (also 'should NASA...')' >> argument deleted. >I have the damned feeling I've seen this thread before. How did the >tiff that ended with Ms Shafer briefly leaving sci.space start? Wit Nick Szabo claiming that NASA employees should only post stuff that Nick thought was OK. That is, it was OK for the informational stuff to appear, but if one disagreed with Nick ..... I'm a lot calmer now that I don't read Nick's shit. (Not nicer, just calmer.) -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "Turn to kill, not to engage." CDR Willie Driscoll ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 18 Jun 91 00:37:59 GMT From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains Subject: Re: Access to Space References: <1991Jun17.152849.11430@sequent.com>, <1991Jun17.165036.6816@iti.org>, <1991Jun17.220510.15128@sequent.com> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1991Jun17.220510.15128@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: [In reply to Allen Sherzer] >We need self-sufficient infrastructure, which is what I have been >advocating. You have been promoting 1960's tin cans, which have >nothing to do with infrastructure or the economical habitation of space. Well, let me think. Past technology is right out, (as it should be, IMHO) and current technology is out, so what does that leave for development of manned presence in space? We'll never get to space if we don't try to learn about it, and that's what we're doing right now. Each step in the manned space program (X-15/manned capsules/Shuttle/NASP) is or will be another step towards a viable manned presence, each of which built on the program before it. There will always be unmanned projects worthy of funding, but if we follow your logic then there will never be a manned one worthy of it. I much prefer the way we do things now. >Meanwhile, most of the technology and exploration needed to expand our >self-sufficient infrastructure remains unfunded, due to the neglect of the >NASA leadership and promoters of astronaut programs such as yourself, >greedily soaking up the bulk of the funds for short-term, astronauts-now >projects. Yeah, yeah, and if we did things your way, the technology and development needed to improve our manned capabilities in space would remain unfunded, due to the absorption of funds by greedy unmanned-science types. Where's the gain? Fund them *both*, as we are now. >Furthermore, over 90% of the self-sufficient industry is in GEO and SSO, >not LEO. Putting $multi-billion centralized satellites in LEO is >pork barrel, not infrastructure. Communications satellites are a pretty loose defintion of 'industry'; I am not terribly impressed by an example that uses passive objects in high orbit that do little more than bounce and amplify signals sent from the ground. GEO is easier to reach, safer for both manned and unmanned endeavours, and easier to get back from; I see nothing wrong with working in it. >>And yet they still feel the need to build Hermes so they can have a manned >>program. >Only as a sad mimicry of the U.S. Europe (largely France) also has And the Soviet Union. China and Japan are also working on manned space programs. Great Britain is considering launching manned vehicles from the back of a Soviet transport craft. But hey, they're all just copying the U.S., so we can dismiss their efforts as pork-barreling and groupiness, too. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_ ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 18 Jun 91 15:59:01 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!sol1.gps.caltech.edu!CARL@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera Subject: Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise References: <43279@fmsrl7.UUCP>, ,<43882@fmsrl7.UUCP> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <43882@fmsrl7.UUCP>, wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) writes: >The terminal velocity of a cable of density 1.7 must be >considered. If the cable is only an inch or two in diameter >and the lengths are not long enough to whip the ends up to >high speed ("range-safety" equipment is indicated!), terminal >velocity will not be high, and damage will be small. I've never seen a proposed beanstalk with that small a cross-section. >> The thread title says "Beanstalk reprise". > >Beanstalks are a class of tether. Weren't you here for the lecture? >> Beanstalks aren't possible given today's technology. I >>agree with you... again !! > >Agreed. However, they are possible given MATERIALS known >today. This is a crucial distinction; we know what to shoot >for, and even many of the physical processes required. A couple of years ago there was a science fact article in Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact that concluded that if we properly understand the mechanisms of chemical bonds, there is no material theoretically capable of the strength needed for a beanstalk on Earth (on the Moon or Mars, yes; on the Earth, no). However, the article concluded that pinwheels would be feasible. Anybody out there got that issue of Analog (or about as good, the issues with the indices in them) and willing to let us know which article I'm talking about? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 18 Jun 91 21:38:04 GMT From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@uunet.uu.net Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. Subject: What should we spend on astronauts References: <1991Jun18.181145.17664@csl.dl.nec.com>, <1991Jun18.190641.14715@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1991Jun18.190641.14715@agate.berkeley.edu> wayne@bandit.berkeley.edu (Wayne Lee) writes: >I think I and a lot of others out there would be especially >interested in EXACTLY what aspects (if any) of manned space >flight including the shuttle does he support as "useful". I support continuation of the Shuttle flights, with a goal of reducing the costs from $4 billion a year to $2 billion per year over 5 years. Cost savings would come from: * No longer launching cargo. Instead, every flight would be a Spacelab flight. Payload integration for every flight would be similar and become routine. * Reducing EVAs (only do those most essential, eg Hubble repair) * Reducing the number planned flights from 10 to 5 per year. * Returning to pre-Challenger levels of operational funding. Operational costs per flight were nearly half today's costs, and the safety risk was not demonstrably different. The Shuttle should be primarily used to fly Spacelab. Flight durations should be lengthened to three weeks. The planned flight frequency would be 5 per year (the actual historical frequency is 4.5/year, but plans usually call for 8-10 per year). The overall man*hours in space would double. For life sciences we should launch physicians (NASA did this on the latest Spacelab, which is a good sign). For microgravity research microgravity scientists. All other astronaut categories would be reduced (eg pilots) or eliminated. We can quibble over the actual numbers; that is the general direction we need to go. At this point in space development it is not worthwhile spending more than 20% of the NASA budget to fly astronauts. Space exploration and aerospace research should obtain the bulk of the funding. When self-sustaining industrial infrastructure has been set up to take advantage of extraterrestrial resources, the cost of supporting astronauts in space will drop by several orders of magnitude, and the era of self-sufficient human inhabitation of space will begin. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 91 03:46:59 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!phung@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Rick Phung) Subject: Re: Launch failure today In <1991Jun19.024459.15721@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes: > Well, I just saw a throwaway bite on the evening news relating to the >destruction by range safety of an unmanned rocket. The footage had a >round decal with Orbital Sciences Corporation on it, and the same >written across the bottom of the screen, and the voice in the original >broadcast, though obscured by the local newsguy, did include the word >"prospector". > What was this launch? I wasn't aware of any prospectors due up in the >next little while. While we're at it, what was the launch vehicle? It >sure didn't look like a Pegasus. ^^^^^^^ I don't think it was a Pegasus either, since it was ground-launched (as opposed to from wing of B-52). The only other details I heard was that it happened ~25 sec. into the flight, and that a "million-dollar scientific package" was ejected which parachuted into the ocean. The "package" still hasn't been recovered. >-- > Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student | If ignorance is bliss > neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca Ad astra | why aren't there more > cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com | happy people? > "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | -- Rick Phung phung@rex.cs.tulane.edu Tulane University New Orleans, LA ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 91 17:32:19 GMT From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Excavating (mining) in space Let us look at the relative markets for gold and steel (figures are approximate) Gold 30 million oz/yr @ $400/oz = $12 billion/year Steel 600 million tons @ $300/ton = $180 billion/year In addition, the production of steel on Earth is a major consumer of energy, and directly uses coal in the reduction of iron ore. So, if you can find a way to deliver megatons of iron-nickel asteroid for anything reasonable in cost, there is plenty of market around to soak up the product and pay you for your efforts. Dani Eder ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 17 Jun 91 18:19:05 GMT From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL Subject: Re: Freedom Cost References: <30959@hydra.gatech.EDU>, <314@hsvaic.boeing.com>, Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > >>Operations Cost: Everything that happens after Development and >>Production, i.e. launch, assembly in orbit, and use. Most of >>the life cycle is incurred here. > >But if the the shuttle launches are a separate ($54.4B) item here, and >so are personnel costs ($25B), what does the $50B under Operations >Cost pay for? > >Does this figure include additional modules? (It seems that expanding >the station would probably fall under either Development or >Production.) Or do they just expect it to cost 1.25B/year for >maintenance, supplies, and repairs? Operations cost is by definition money that goes to contractors, since internal NASA costs (personnel, building maintenance,etc.) are funded out of the "Research and Program Management" item. Part of the $1.5 billion per year is the internal NASA tax to pay for continued operation of Neutral Buoyancy tanks, vacuum chambers, etc. that are used by more than one program. Each program is assessed a share of the cost of these facilities, and the actual money ends up with contractors who do the maintenance and operation of the equipment. Another big chunk goes for payload integration. Teledyne-Brown Engineering and Lockheed are major subcontractors to Boeing for US lab equipment and experiment racks. They have to take a piece of equipment that an experimenter has built, mount it into a rack, hook up all the utilities, test it, write software for the space station computers to run the experiment, or alternatively write procedures for the crew to run the equipment, train the crew, put the rack in with all the other racks for that mission set into the ground simulator (essentially a hangar queen US lab module made from the prototype #1 unit off the production line, the #2 unit goes into space), see if the experiments make trouble for each other (EMI, etc.). And all of this takes place in class 100,000 high bays with certain areas at class 10,000 (they are building a clean room about the size of a football field to build the SSF modules in). Oh yeah, then there is packing the logistics modules for each flight, i.e. loading the food and clean clothes, unpacking the waste (concentrated urine brine, dried fecal matter, dirty laudry and trash), spare parts maufacturing and warehousing, contractor personnel at the ground control center, etc. Enough? > >Where does the oft-quoted $30B figure come from? Is this development >costs + shuttle launches for the initial configuration? That is probably the cumulative cost through assembly complete, which can be found by simply taking $5B spent so far plus $2.5B per year through the 90's (this is what NASA wanted to spend, not what they'll get) > >Finally, does this mean that NASA is only 25% over their original >proposed cost ($10B vs. $8B)? And was Congress aware in 1984 of the >difference in expense between the proposed cost and the life-cycle >cost? >-- Yes, accounting for inflation, the cost is not that much over the original estimate. After all, from 1984 to today there has been 35% inflation, and projecting to the mid 90's ( the midpoint of development), then the total inflation will be about 58%, so the $16B development cost translates back to $10B in 1984, or about 25% over the original number. As an institution, I doubt Congress is aware of anything in the sense of a sentient being. But seriously, the life cycle number did not exist in 1984. It was first calculated by me for Boeing in 1988, and as far as I was able to determine, a number was not developed at any higher level (Program office in reston, VA, or NASA HQ) for official use. Anyone familiar with the program requirements document and the annual expenses for the shuttle program could worked out the LCC, but it was not done on an official basis. The reason I developed the number for Boeing was I was the lead engineer for trade studies, and I needed cost tradeoff numbers for other people to use. Our objective was to make choices that lowered the overall life cycle cost of the program. This is what led us to closed water and air loops in life support. Subsequently, closure of the air loop was deferred a few years to lower the annual expenses in the early years (i.e. now), even though the total LCC went up because now you have to develop an oxygen supply system working off of tanks for a few years in addition to developing the closed system that recycles CO2. This is one way messing with the annual budget drives up the total cost of the program. Dani Eder ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #768 *******************