Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_5/V12_550.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IbEDVGC00VcJ0:6k4u>;
          Wed, 14 Nov 1990 02:54:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 1990 02:54:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #550

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 550

Today's Topics:
 Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap (if NASA builds it)
              Re: Space Station mission
         Charles F. Radley wields a fire extinguisher
Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station)
            Bibliographic Request

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 2 Nov 90 18:27:27 GMT
From: mips!sdd.hp.com!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!fmeed1![e-mail]  (Russ Cage)
Organization: Ford Motor Co., Electronics Div., Dearborn, MI
Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap (if NASA builds it)
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

First, pardon for the previous near-flame.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
>+Second of all, the LLNL contractors on this DO have a good track
>+record in large aerospace systems.
>
>So do the Freedom contractors.......

Then the question to be asked is, does this make a difference?
Where are the actual decisions being made?

To answer that, look at all the original proposals for the space
station.  They looked almost identical, regardless of contractor.
NASA had already decided what the design would be, and thus what
the "winning" design could look like; the contractors had no say.

Given that the drive behind the design for Fred came from NASA
and not Boeing, it stands to reason that Boeing's track record in
aerospace systems will not assist in producing a working product;
their ingenuity and know-how has been subordinated.  It is not an
engineering problem, it is a management problem.

LLNL could probably produce just as good and cheap a product
using Boeing as McD-D, again because of management philosophy.
(But it would mean fewer bucks for Boeing.  Then again, there
is the possibility of repeat business if it was cheap enough;
ESA might buy one, especially if it could go up on Ariane.)

>Don't you think LLNL will go through similar cost increases as
>reality starts to dawn, and the magnitude of the task is truly
>appreciated ?

"Reality dawning" assumes that some difficult-to-rectify mistakes
have been made.  Fred is going through this with the EVA problem.
I think it is a bit presumptuous to assume that LLNL will make the
same mistakes as today's NASA; they're more like Von Braun's NASA.

>>   Proposing untried NiH batteries which have no advantage over
> >existing ones;
>+ These batteries provide more power for less weight. This
>+results in cost savings which most people think is an advantage.
> >proposing untried amorphous silicon cells with
> >dubious qualification prospects and admitting conventional
>> cells woulBd be just as good and less risky;
>
>But the NiH and solar celss are not space qualified, and they
>underestimate the qual costs, which could wipe out the saving.
>And they may never pass qual.  It could be a valid R & D program,
>I simply object to LLNL trying to sell it as being cheap and off
>the shelf.

If LLNL has allowed enough extra in the launch-weight budgets
for replacements, the premature deterioration of the batteries
or solar panels would be dealt with by replacing them.  The
older, heavier, previously-qualified hardware could be used
for such replacements.  If replacement is not required, a
newer, lighter, cheaper technology is qualified by default
and at a cost savings.

>No it is worse, if they fail and Freedom is cancelled, we waste
>decades, it will take that long to rebuild a manned space
>program.

So put Fred on hold.  It's certain that the time can be used
to fix some of the nasty design problems (excessive EVA, etc.)
which have surfaced.  The more of these which are fixed before
metal is bent, the better and cheaper the result will be if it
turns out that it is indeed the better choice.

>Oh come on, the Delta is an unmanned ELV, there are no manned
>spacecraft designed to fly on delta.   And developing a new
>manned spacecraft is not cheap.  Don't tell me that has been
>factored into the cost too.

Perhaps we should buy Soyuz's, they're certainly cheap and
it is proven that useful work can be done with them.  We don't
need to mate them with a Delta, we can buy SL-4's.

>But again, Titan is expensive, no cheaper than shuttle.   Don't
>tell me they have included costs of Titans in their plan.  This
>really is getting very far fetched.

Allen quoted a number of an additional $500 million to use Titan IV
instead of HL-Delta.  Do you have a problem with this?  (This number
must have included several launches.)

>Wrong again.   Titan is no cheaper than Shuttle.    Delta is too
>small too launch the LLNL package, so requires a complete
>redesign which cancels out the launch cost saving.

Titan-IV >with the Centaur< costs as much as Shuttle.  And if
LLNL has designed to launch in one piece or several, they would
not require a re-design to change launchers.  (Allen:  have they?)

>A single Titan-IV launch gives you a tiny space station.   More
>like a MIR than a Freedom.    MIR is a lot cheaper than LLNL.
>The whole point of Freedom is its size and capability. LLNL gives
>all that away.

Mister Radley, it must have been explained to you that the LLNL
station is INFLATABLE.  It is not launched as a number of rigid
tin cans, it ends up at a multiple of its original size.  The
final station is many times the volume of the payload fairing
in which it is launched; this allows it to be sent up in one
launch, with one launch risk.  This is the big advantage over
Fred.

Why do you persist in ignoring this crucial distinction?

(BTW, if we adopt an extremely conservative working strength of
7500 PSI for the Kevlar fibers and a density of 2 gm/cc, the
weight of an entire 15 foot diameter by 60 foot long segment
is only 7944 lbs for the walls, and the volume is only 64 cubic
feet.  I'm sure I have radically under-stated the strength of
Kevlar; I assumed UTS of 30 KPSI and a safety factor of 4.
This shows some of the potential for space and weight savings.)

>I will not dispute those probabilities, other people arrive at
>different numbers.    The point of failure rate predictions like
>that is as an inspiration to work on the causes and fix them.

This is another curious statement, Allen.  The man states that
point-of-failure predictions are an inspiration to work on the
cause.  In this case, the cause is the unreliability of the
launcher (Shuttle) and the dependence of the station's orbit
on the launch schedule (too many slips and it re-enters).
Despite this, it was Congress which told NASA to consider
launchers other than Shuttle to assist with launching Freedom,
rather than NASA or Boeing suggesting it to Congress.

Mister Radley, are you sure you are doing your job properly?
Are you prevented from doing so by the project management, or
are these oversights and omissions the fault of the workers?
Why haven't you considered using alternate launchers?

>That is why the number was generated.   You don't just close your
>eyes and pray...!   Reliability predictions are design tools, not
>forecasts of doom.

Again, an odd statement.  It has been shown that another launch
moratorium such as the one following Challenger would cause the
re-entry of Fred, er, Freedom.  Yet management has closed its
eyes and prayed that this will not happen.  Tell us, Charles,
just what are NASA/Boeing planning to do to prevent the re-entry
of Freedom in the case of the Shuttle being grounded again?

> The point is you are not able to quote probabilities for LLNL
>because there is no meaningful test data and hence no failure
>rate data, so a responsible engineer has to assume high failure
>rates until proven otherwise.   For some reason which I do not
>understand, you seem to assume the failure rates for LLNL will be
>low.

Despite a random coin failing to give me heads 50% of the time,
I can rely on 10 tosses to give me at least 1 head with a 99.9%
reliability.  If 1 head is all I need, my success rate is 99.9%.

LLNL eliminates failures by eliminating launches.  If Shuttle
has a 2% failure rate, 28 launches are required, and 1 failure
scuttles the project, there is a 57% chance of success.  If
the LLNL HLV has a 10% chance of failure and 1 launch is
required, it has 90% chance of success ON THE FIRST LAUNCH.
If a second launch is reserved in case the first fails, the
chance of success rises to 99%.  These are much better odds.

NASA seems to have no fallback position in case of a failure.
This means that the total probability of success is the
product of all the sub-project successes; one failure means
the entire project fails.
--
Russ Cage    Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department
Work:  itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage   (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE)
Home:  [e-mail]  (All non-business mail)
Member:  HASA, "S" division.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Nov 90 14:36:03 GMT
From: sumax!polari![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: Space Station mission


+How can you get science out of a cancelled station, or one that
+reenters because the Sh+uttle fleet gets grounded again?
-
Freedom can survive a couple of years when boosted into a higher
orbit.    How can you launch astronauts to LLNL when it has no viable
manned ferry craft design ?  ($ 200 M - hah !)

+A minimal station can do the following:
+- research whether the minimal station works!
+        (This includes the proposed power supply, the meteor-
+        bumper issue, the artificial gravity, the escape
+        system, ...)
+        (You're going to tell me Fred won't need any retrofits
+        after first occupancy?)
-
Freedom is modular and allows for replacement of modules either for
repair or upgrade.   Over a 30 year lifetime it is likely that
upgrades will be advantageous.

+- research human reaction to artificial gravity.
+        (The human is the equipment. I don't know how many
-
How will you monitor the human subject ?  Without equipment about all
you can do is psychological examinations.

+        successful launches the configuration takes: 6? Against
+        what, 26 for a minimal Fred?)
+- provide a place to hang the equipment that is brought up later.
+- provide a rallying point for funding battles, with each money
+  increment making the station one notch less minimal.
-
I have no problem with that approach, provided everybody recognizes
it for what it is.   ie after 6 flights or whatever (assuming they
can figure out a way of ferrying astronauts to the station) you end
up with an empty shell.   It will take another dozen flights and
another infusion of tax dollars to convert it into a useful science
station.

------------------------------

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 11 Nov 90 19:58:41 GMT
From: sumax!polari![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix [phone]
Subject: Charles F. Radley wields a fire extinguisher
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix [phone]
Keywords:


+In other words, if LLNL saves the taxpayers some money, CFR is
+out of a job.  Radley's interests lie in making certain that
+the LLNL concept is dismissed before being investigated, so
+that it does not replace the SS. Fred project.
-
It is regrettable that you attribute these motives to me.
If Fred is canceled it will of course cause me severe personal
hardship.   But I may get involved in LLNL myself, who knows.
I have sufficient confidence in my ability that I will get hired
somewhere by somebody.   My problems with the LLNL concept are
genuine.  I do not doubt that something like it can be made to
work, but I question the cost, and the usefulness of the proposal.
It is not a microgravity/life sciences research facility.   It is
part of a "plant a flag on Mars" plan, which I oppose.

+As a taxpayer, my interests are different.  My interests are:
+1.)     Determine if the LLNL concept will work, and if so,
+2.)     Put Charles Frank Radley and all the other contractors
+        working on Fred out on the street post haste.
-
The "peace dividend" means that large numbers of highly skilled
engineers are being laid off in unprecedented numbers.   They
will be a drain on the economy if they cannot be usefully employed.
You should be looking for ways to reduce hi-tech unemployment, not
to create it.    That does NOT mean Freedom or any other program should
be overmanned just to create work, they tried that in the Soviet Union
with tragic results.
In part, Freedom has an invaluable role as a Roosevelt style
hi-tech public works program, creating infrastructure, and preserving
the resource of hi-tech expertise.
The simplest way to save tax money is to cancel the entire space program,
and what do we need science for anyway.....    |-)

------------------------------

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 12 Nov 90 03:14:43 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!yarra!melba.bby.oz.au![e-mail]  (Gregory N. Bond)
Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge and Young Ltd.
Subject: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station)
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

Charles> Why not tell the aboriginies and the greens about this:-
Charles>
Charles> Most launch sites are wildlife sanctuaries.

More to the point, the site chosen is not virgin wilderness, but has
been a pastoral lease for years and years.  In fact, one of the
hurdles was (is?) a contract dispute over who has title to the land
and who can sell/lease it to CYSA (worth a considerable sum of money).

This doesn't seem to impress either greenies of aboriginal activists.

What will kill the project, assuming it ever gets past the luddites,
is that it is principally a _property development_, not a spaceport.
And there is no money for investing in property at the moment.

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond, Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
Internet: [e-mail]    non-MX: [e-mail]
Uucp: {uunet,pyramid,ubc-cs,ukc,mcvax,prlb2,nttlab...}!munnari!melba.bby.oz!gnb

------------------------------

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 11 Nov 90 23:18:00 GMT
From: sgi!cdp![e-mail]
Subject: Bibliographic Request
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


I would appreciate suggestions, recommendations, or references to
journals, periodcals, and newsletters which devote themselves to
space exploration and particularly to commercialization of space.
Any bibliographic material would be appreciated. Thanks.

* --------------------------------------------------------------
* Dan Yurman   PO Box 1569, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83403 | 43N 112W
*                                                    | There is
* Internet     [e-mail]                      | no such
* Internet     cdp![e-mail]       | thing as a
* Bitnet       cdp!dyurman%labrea@stanford           | privileged
* MCI          [e-mail]                   | frame of
* UUCP         uunet!pyramid!cdp!dyurman             | reference
* ---------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V12 #550
*******************