Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 15:00:52 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #118 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 16 Aug 92 Volume 15 : Issue 118 Today's Topics: Energiya's role in Space Station assem Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV Saturn's moons Tether and Space Junk What about Saturn? Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 92 13:57:54 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug14.123208.13141@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1992Aug13.225903.5705@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > >>Name *one* major military procurement that >>proceeded on a fixed price basis with *no* adjustments. > >The ATF prototype >LACE >RME >DC-X None of these are *procurement* contracts. They are R&D proposals. >>Congress is >>notorious for "stretching out" procurement in a way that saves money >>this year, but adds horrible extra costs in the "out years" if the >>full procurement ever is actually filled. > >Not a problem here since I'm not asking the government to spend anything >for development. You still seem to have problems understanding that. No, you seem to have problems understanding the difference between development, a one time cost, and procurement, a recurring cost. When the government decided to buy only 16 B2s over the next 10 years instead of 120, the cost per each skyrocketed. NASA currently can't sign a guarrantee that it will buy a fixed number of anything over a multi-year period because Congress only funds NASA year by year. Therefore procurement costs are highly variable depending on the whims of Congress. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 92 14:56:00 GMT From: Mark Goodman Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space To: sci.space From: Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org) Re: Space Station support Date: 15 Aug 1992 >>>[Freedom has support in Congress] >>I am not aware of any huge and lasting support. The House votes have >>been about 230-180, far from 2-1, >The past two votes where far closer to 2-1. Either way, this is still a >sizable majority made even larger when you realize what went into it. The >Congress rarely changes an appropriation like this after it is reported out >of committee. In addition, a very powerful member did huge amounts of >lobbying to make it happen and still failed. This year's vote was 237-181, and Space Station funding was included in the committee report, unlike last year. >To those who say social spending will beat NASA every time, look at these >votes. Freedom was carved up and $$ given to every constituency in the >house. It still failed. >At the level we are talking about allocations tend to be based on clout >first and need second. NASA has enough clout to get about $15 billion >every year and it will get it regardless of how it is spent. >If Mr. Coffman's model was correct, Freedom would have been dead a long >time ago. >>and then only because the aerospace >>industry has already received such a big hit from DoD cuts. >So? If the aerospace companies hadn't been hurting, Congress would have been more willing to cut the Space Station. The biggest reason Congress hasn't killed the space station is that it doesn't want to go back on its commitment, both in money and to foreign partners. Congress was sold a bill of goods -- an $8 billion cost estimate for a much more ambitious station -- and is now stuck with it. >>There is >>tremendous opposition to the space station, which is based on the >>essential question: what good is it? >That is a technical question, not a political one. It's not nearly as >relevant as you think. I still haven't seen a good answer. Of course it's relevant. That's the main reason people oppose it (that and having better ideas about how to spend the money). >>>Since these will open the space frontier and produce far more tax income, >>>it seems a good idea. >>Allen, if you are refering to the Space Station, a Moon Base, or planetary >>exploration, my reaction is: Come on, give me a break. If you are >>refering to investments in near-term space technology (improved ELVs, >>perhaps SSTO, improved automation and remote control, lightsats, etc.) >>and R&D on more distant prospects (NASP, etc.), I agree. Which is it? >I am refering to the growth which would occure with the development of >a spacefaring civilization. In whose lifetime? Seriously, this is such a remote (in time if not in probability) that it has at best minimal relevance to current policy debates. I'm not convinced that it will ever happen. If you want to argue about economic returns from investment in technology, you need to look at the near-term practical uses of space, and those do not include people. For years to come, space exploration must be considered as an activity for its own sake, not justified by supposed practical benefits. I have nothing against that, as long as we're honest. But then NASA belongs in the same category as basic research "for its own sake". It then becomes very difficult to justify spending more money on the Space Station than on the entire National Science Foundation. +-----------------------------+-----------------------------+ | Mark W. Goodman | What a terrible thing it is | | mwgoodman@igc.org -- econet | to lose your mind. | | goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu | | +-----------------------------+-----------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 92 15:23:22 GMT From: "J. D. McDonald" Subject: Saturn's moons Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article Earl W Phillips writes: >There are many programs that predict and displB{y the{ positions >of{ the moons of Jupiter..... {my question:{ Are there {any{ >programs out there, written for the IBM-PC, that will do the >same for Saturn's moons? >***************************************************************** >* | ====@==== ///////// * >* ephillip@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu| ``________// * >* | `------' * >* -JR- | Space;........the final * >* | frontier............... * >***************************************************************** You are in luck! And its free. My special version of Elwood Downey's "Ephem" for the PC will do this. It will give either just a list or a screen display of the positions (needs VGA for this). It's not hyper accurate for the outermost moons, but its good enough to locate all I can see with my 8" scope. It also, of course, does the rings. It does not predict eclipses of the moons by the rings or Saturn. It is available by anonymous FTP from c.scs.uiuc.edu in file "ephemvga.zip". Doug McDonald ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 92 15:25:18 GMT From: clifford bettis Subject: Tether and Space Junk Newsgroups: sci.space I have been waiting to see this issue discussed: in the event of serious difficult with the tethered satellite experiment, I understand that one option was to cut the tether. Wouldn't a 20 km cable in orbit be the environmental equivalent of a drift net for space craft and pose an unacceptable hazard? Cliff Bettis ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 92 16:29:38 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: What about Saturn? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <15AUG199222342936@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >I am proposing using the F1A engines and a new set of tanks to launch both >medium and heavy payloads. I encourage you to look into this. The more options the better. However, I note two things: 1. This would make one of the same mistakes of Shuttle again. Making all our launch capacity d3ependent on F-1s isn't good when the F-1s are grounded. 2. I note with interest that you have a lot of confidence in this yet you have almost none in HL Delta or Titan V. This seems odd since the latter two have had far more design effort put into them and require far less development. >There is congressional testimony >that states that the cost of reviving the Saturn is no more than for NLS and >that is by someone that opposes the Saturn. I don't have the reference anymore >but Wales I think does. So enough talk without any backup. {That was me. The numbers for Saturn development are (in billions): Item Original Restart First Unit S-IC STAGE 2.88 1.73 0.20 S-II STAGE 3.66 2.19 0.16 S-IV STAGE 2.09 1.25 0.07 F-1 ENGINES 1.80 0.54 0.10 J-2 ENGINES 1.73 0.52 0.06 Instrument 0.05 0.52 0.06 Unit SUBTOTAL 12.21 6.77 0.66 Vehicle 0.30 0.33 0.03 Integration Software 0.10 0.14 Program 0.20 1.45 0.03 Support Fee 1.00 0.87 0.07 Subtotal 1.60 2.79 0.13 Facilities 2.17 2.51 KSC 2.00 1.97 SSC 0.17 0.54 Shrouds 0.20 0.52 0.02 Operations 0.05 Grand Total 16.18 12.59 0.86 (first flt) 0.59 (50 flt ave) Table 1 - Saturn V Original and Restart Estimates ($ in billions)1 This shows that Saturn restart is likely to be a bit more expensive than NLS. I also did analysis of launch costs of Saturn and other HLV's. This includes both launch costs and amortization costs (including interest). The results where (assumes 50 flights and 9% interest): Vehicle DDT&E Amortization Launch Total Payload Cost/lb Costs Cost HL Delta 500 14.6 152 166.6 100,000 1666 Titan V 500 14.6 187 201.6 115,000 1753 Titan V+ 500 14.6 187 201.6 150,000 1344 Saturn V 12,590 367.71 590 957.71 275,000 3843 NLS 3 12,000 350.48 100 450.48 100,000 4505 Table 2 - HLV Launch costs As you can see, the real problem with launcher development is the huge developmant costs which dominate the final cost of the vehicle for Saturn and NLS. The Delta and Titan derived HLVs however emphasize maximum leverage from existing parts and wide saftey margins. This \allows them to deliver payload at lower costs than even today's launchers. NLS and Saturn with their high devleopment costs actually make getting payload into space MORE expensive than with MLV's. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------250 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 118 ------------------------------