Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 05:15:14 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #004 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 6 Jan 93 Volume 16 : Issue 004 Today's Topics: DC-Y Funding (was: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? ) DCX tech. info? Fabrication (was fast track failures) foreign partnerships was(Re: How many flights are Orbiters) (2 msgs) launcher costs by type of economy Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Magellan Update - 01/05/93 Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specifi Soviet space disaster? Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity (2 msgs) Ulysses Update - 01/05/93 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: 6 Jan 93 01:04:41 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: DC-Y Funding (was: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? ) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >The one way to make certain there is no private financing is >to place all your eggs in the DoD basket and not look for any. >This is very dangerous unless you believe DoD funding is a >sure thing. (In which case it's still dangerous, because >you'd be wrong.) DoD it the only thing. Much as I wish it where otherwise, the fact remains that the launcher buisness is a small market, not profitable for anybody, competes with government subsidzed competition, and currently suffers from an oversuply of launchers and too few payloads. Nobody is going to invest the billions needed for the proof of concept vehicle under these conditions. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:08:01 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: DCX tech. info? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1icfsjINNlet@rave.larc.nasa.gov> S.D.Derry@LaRC.NASA.Gov writes: >: >flight 1 is a low altitude hover test. Test two is a high-Q hover test. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sorry, that should read high-Q accent and hover test. >How can you have dynamic pressure when you're hovering??? Tornado. >Also, will these flights be pre-programmed onboard, or will they be >controlled from the ground? I blieve they are pre-programmed with ground override. I will post some more details of the three test flights on Thursday (I'll be out of town tomorrow). Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 23:26:49 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Fabrication (was fast track failures) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jan5.212935.21012@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >Having design engineers apprentice on >the shop floor for a few years *before* they get to design a product >would do a world of good for our manufacturing sector. It certainly >has for the Japanese and old school Germans. You mean like that horrid know-nothing, Wernher von Braun? ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:31:10 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: foreign partnerships was(Re: How many flights are Orbiters) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jan5.211129.20772@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >Interesting street rumor reported on the business report of NBC Sunrise >program this morning. Apparently, Boeing is negotiating a partnership >with a Japanese and a German firm to underwrite the development of the >next generation widebody airliner, reportedly seats 600. The report >indicated that even Boeing isn't healthy enough to risk going it alone >on that one, and the US airlines are too strapped to place speculative >orders. This is "news" only to NBC. Boeing has been negotiating the 777 project for several years now. If you want to build a successful airliner in today's market, you set nationalism aside and find the best possible partners for the job, wherever they are. Of course, saying "Boeing isn't healthy enough to go it alone" puts nice, protectionist slant on it, which the networks like. >If Boeing can't fund a new widebody, MacDD is in deep doo >with DC without a deep pocketed partner to back them. McDonnell Douglas is in deep doo with or without DC. They desperately need a new, profitable product line or six. The problem is finding the money to get them off the ground. (No pun intended.) ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:31:02 -0500 From: Matthew DeLuca Subject: foreign partnerships was(Re: How many flights are Orbiters) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1993Jan5.211129.20772@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >>Interesting street rumor reported on the business report of NBC Sunrise >>program this morning. Apparently, Boeing is negotiating a partnership >>with a Japanese and a German firm to underwrite the development of the >>next generation widebody airliner, reportedly seats 600. >This is "news" only to NBC. Boeing has been negotiating the 777 >project for several years now. The 777 is not the plane in question. If memory serves, the 777 will be a twin-engine plane with a seating capacity between that of the 767 and 747, whereas the plane Gary mentioned will be signifigantly larger than the 747 and probably will be a four-engine plane. According to CNN, Boeing is holding preliminary talks with Deutshce Aerospace, although the expectation is that eventually the talks will include the Airbus consortium. No Japanese involvement was mentioned, but CNN is hardly omniscient. It was also mentioned that the proposed plane wouldn't fly until after the turn of the century. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:41:43 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: launcher costs by type of economy Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >I agree that, other things being equal (an important precondition!), free >societies are more efficient than command economies. Nobody has yet tried >building a space program on free enterprise. That's because nobody can show a high enough return on investment to interest private capital markets. Meanwhile, banks fall all over themselves trying to loan you $1 million to buy a MacDonalds franchise. Space programs haven't turned a decent profit for anyone but government contractors. Even the comsat industry wouldn't exist if it had to pay the development costs to get the first GEO bird in place and operational. NASA and DOD paid those development bills. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 17:49:53 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement Newsgroups: sci.space >Well, after the first Pegasus flight, they had to build another one. >Not because it failed, but because it worked. Unless something >catastrophic happens on the first test flight, you won't have to >build another DC-X before the second one. Are you saying that they had not even started production of Pegasus No.2 in April, 1990? Maybe this is true, but it seems a very strange way for OSC to be operating. By the way, please do not take my pointing out Pegasus difficulties as being an indication that I am anti-Pegasus. I like this system, alot. I am merely using it as the most recent example of a space booster which has not maintained its schedule, something it is my contention will happen to DC as well. -Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:54:41 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan4.214819.14834@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1993Jan4.191452.12294@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > >>>Which is indeed half the battle. But since you back Shuttle no matter what >>>it costs, I don't see your point. > >>I back Shuttle because it's flying *now* and nothing else flying *now* >>has it's capabilities at *any* price. > >I say again, since you back Shuttle no matter what it costs what's your >point? My point is that the heavy costs have already been paid. The $34 billion in development money can't be retrieved, the $1.5 billion per each construction cost has already been spent, the VAB is built, Pad 39A is operational, etc, etc, etc. We better get some use out of those investments until something better comes on line, otherwise the entire investment is a write off. And nothing better *is* online yet. So Shuttle remains the *cheapest* manned western launcher since all the others have infinite costs (*any* non-zero cost divided by zero availability is still infinite). Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:44:00 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Magellan Update - 01/05/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from: PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011 MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT January 5, 1993 The Magellan spacecraft continues to operate normally, orbiting Venus 50 times each week and transmitting a carrier radio signal which is precisely tracked by the Deep Space Network stations to extract gravity data. By analyzing the subtle changes in the Magellan orbit, scientists are able to map the variations in the interior of the planet, and compare those variations with surface features. Unlike Earth, there is a strong correlation between the internal concentrations of mass at Venus and its surface topography. Magellan arrived at Venus August 10, 1990 and has completed 6,478 orbits; 842 orbits have been completed so far in this fourth 243-day cycle which ends on May 25, 1993. _____ ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | a day in your life. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 17:50:28 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specifi Newsgroups: sci.space >In <1993Jan4.015312.6224@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Y e >rgeau) writes: > >>If I build a custom laser in my lab, and then operate it purely >>as a tool to support my research program, I think I am still doing >>research. Likewise, when NASA is using the shuttle to fly Spacelab, >>TSS, Hubble, etc, it's doing research. > >If you pay Air France to fly your laser to the research site, >does that mean the Airbus is a research vehicle? Sure. If you use the laser while aboard the Airbus. Their is a distinction here. There are plenty of research ships at sea, does this mean unless the ship tries out a hydrofoil design or something it is not doing research? Jacques Cousteau and the crew of the Calypso may disagree. Now, the Shuttle itself is not the subject of the research, but it is the only current transportation available for this research. You can go buy Soyuz (and hope Yeltsin remains in power) or wait a few years for DC-1, but until you do, the Shuttle is still at least partially a research vehicle. >If you call someone in New York to discuss your research, the >call goes via Intelsat or undersea cable. Does that make the >Intelsat or the cable a research venture? Agreed. TDRS is not a research project and would be better lofted by Titan III or IV (which is planned for TDRS-G). -Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:21:00 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Soviet space disaster? Newsgroups: soc.history,sci.space,soc.culture.soviet In article <4121@iris.mincom.oz.au> marks@iris.mincom.oz.au (Mark Stavar) writes: >I recall reading that at some point earlyish in the Russian space >programme that there was a retro mis-fire on one of their missions. >This lead to the unfortunate situation of the space craft in question >flying off directly into the sun. The story mentioned something about >the wife of the cosmonaut in question being in radio contact with him >up to the very end. > >I have no hard material evidence with which to back up this story - it >may be plain wrong. Well the part about flying off directly into the sun is definitely hogwash. That requires something like 30 km/s delta vee which is orders of magnitude more than any retro on a Soyuz can generate, even if it were operating properly. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:19:35 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >>We could fly Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan. >Why? If we're buying Soyuz spacecraft from the Russians, >it would make a lot more sense to buy the boosters also >and skip the integration problem. Because I want the US to form a spacefaring civilization. Making some use of foreign technology so we can get out from under a dead end system seems a great idea to me. >>We could build a small station with room and power equal to Shuttle. We >>could dock the two and get far more work done for far less money. >Who is "we?" If you mean NASA, I don't think so. Agreed. I was thinking of SSI's ISF. That way the taxpayers aren't stuck if it fails and the builders will have a real incentive to actually do the job. >However, we haven't man-rated the Atlas or Titan since the 60's. No need. Man rating doesn't add anything to the safety of the launcher. All it does is add costs and I see no point in doing it. >The current assembly lines for those vehicles are pretty much >booked already. Not so. Both have plenty of un-used capacity. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 17:51:03 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Newsgroups: sci.space >In article <1993Jan4.154842.13841@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mec h >.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes: > >> If men are part of the payload, the Shuttle is (currently) the >>only way to fly! > >I think if you consult the Russians they can show you the error in >this statement. > >BTW, the team evaluating Soyuz has finished its work. They concluded that >there is no reason Soyuz couldn't be used as ACRV. It should also be >possible to use Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan for US manned space. > > Allen Excellent news about Soyuz ACRV, but even considering Shuttle launch costs, it seems cheaper to launch by Shuttle or Russian booster instead of Titan or Atlas. Neither is man-rated, and neither has existing facilities for manned launches. Atlas-Centaur has never been man-rated, and after Challenger, it would be difficult to man-rate the Titan SRMs. Let's send the two Soyuz up on one Shuttle if we decide to not let the Russians deliver. If it is your contention to replace Shuttle with Atlas-Soyuz, that's another matter. I think it would cost too much to reconstruct Atlas manned launch facilities for just two or three launches per year, and I think manned Titan III/IV is now a pipedream. -Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 23:50:00 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Ulysses Update - 01/05/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from: PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011 ULYSSES MISSION STATUS January 5, 1993 All spacecraft and science operations are performing well. Ground controllers are carrying out routine data-gathering activities and experiment reconfigurations as required. The 34- meter ground antennas are being used for ranging when the spacecraft is sending data at a low bit rate. Seventy-meter- antenna ranging passes are also performed periodically. Earth-pointing maneuvers were carried out on Dec. 27 and 30, 1992, and on Jan. 3, 1993. The next maneuver is scheduled for Jan. 7, 1993. Today Ulysses is about 688 million kilometers (428 million miles) from Earth, traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about 32,000 kilometers per hour (21,000 miles per hour). Ulysses is about 15.5 degrees south of the ecliptic plane in which the planets orbit, slowly looping its way back toward the sun. ##### ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | a day in your life. ------------------------------ To: bb-sci-space@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Newsgroups: sci.space Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!hermes.chpc.utexas.edu!news.utdallas.edu!convex!ewright From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Re: DCX tech. info? Sender: news access account Message-Id: Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:22:03 GMT References: <1icfsjINNlet@rave.larc.nasa.gov> Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.convex.com Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and not necessarily those of CONVEX. Lines: 13 Source-Info: Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In <1icfsjINNlet@rave.larc.nasa.gov> sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry) writes: >How can you have dynamic pressure when you're hovering??? I haven't seen the flight plan, but I believe the high-Q and hover refer to two different portions of the flight. >Also, will these flights be pre-programmed onboard, or will they be >controlled from the ground? Don't know. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 004 ------------------------------