Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_5/V12_589.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

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/EbHVrP:00VcJQ5JE5=>;
          Sat, 24 Nov 1990 02:14:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 1990 02:13:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #589

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 589

Today's Topics:
        Re: STS 38 Observation Reports -- red?
           Re: Psych effects + Space M+A+X
                USENET Apology
           Re: Big bang discovered 1400 years ago ?
             Re: Congrats to Ted Molczan
            Re: Magellan Update - 11/12/90
           Hubble Investigation Report (Forwarded)
              Galileo Update - 11/21/90
             Commercial Shuttle Proposals
         Future systems - Commercial Shuttle and LRBs
             Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations

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]

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

Date: 21 Nov 90 01:56:43 GMT
From: unmvax!ariel.unm.edu!ghostwheel.unm.edu![e-mail]  (John Prentice)
Subject: Re: STS 38 Observation Reports -- red?

If the red color of the shuttle was due to the passage of light through
the atmosphere, as has been suggested by people on the net, then why
haven't people been seeing this phenomena regularly over the last 30
years?  Certainly other spacecraft have been as large (or larger) such
as Skylab, Mir, etc...  One would think that if the explanation is as
simple as just illumination by light passing throught the atmosphere,
it would be a common phenomena.

John Prentice
[e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Nov 90 07:45:06 GMT
From: att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!src.honeywell.com!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]  (S Schaper)
Subject: Re: Psych effects + Space M+A+X

A scientist or scholar would not set about trying to prove or disprove such
a proposition, but to look at the data to see what they suggested.

**************************************************************************
Zeitgeist Busters!
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Nov 90 14:44:56 GMT
From: rayssd![e-mail]  (Paul L. White)
Subject: USENET Apology

for my post responding to the Koran & the Big Bang et al.  I saw the article
in talk.bizarre and in a lapse of judgement, responded to it, going for the
cheap laugh...

I don't find it very amusing this morning.

I want to state that I am very tolerant of other's beliefs, even when I
don't understand them and that my posting does not reflect my everyday
attitude toward Moslems.  Furthermore, I apologize to Cat Stevens, it was
a joke in very poor taste.

Oh well, another lesson learned the hard way....

===============================================================================
Paul White
plw@rayssdb
==============================================================================

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

Date: 21 Nov 90 18:08:28 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Big bang discovered 1400 years ago ?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul L. White) writes:
>
> Your article on the koran and the Big Bang was extremely enlightening.

    [Note: the article quoted seems to be missing here.]

There is no problem translating the Hebrew of Genesis in this manner.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 21 Nov 90 18:42:32 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!gauss.rutgers.edu!math.rutgers.edu![e-mail]  (Scott Cromar)
Subject: Re: Congrats to Ted Molczan

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig Milo Rogers) writes:

; In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charlie Thompson) writes:
; >I picked up a copy of the Washington Post today and noticed
; >that fellow satellite chaser Ted Molczan made the 'Around the Nation'
; ...
;
;     I noticed a similar article in the Los Angeles Times.  It was
; attributed to United Press International.  Do you suppose UPI treats
; the Usenet as an incoming newsfeed?
;
;                     Craig Milo Rogers

CNN also mentioned this during their coverage of the shuttle landing.

-Scott Cromar
[e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Nov 90 19:40:55 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 11/12/90

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Darin Arrick) writes:
>
> You mentioned that Congress must approve Magellan's extended mission.
>Why is this?
>
Congress has to allocate the funds to support the extended mission.

      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 21 Nov 90 19:51:04 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Hubble Investigation Report (Forwarded)


        HUBBLE INVESTIGATION REPORT TO BE RELEASED

     Dr. Lew Allen, Chairman, Hubble Space Telescope Optical
Systems Board of Investigation, will brief the press on the
board's findings at 2:30 p.m. EST, Tuesday, Nov. 27, 1990, at the
NASA Headquarters sixth floor auditorium, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW, Washington, D.C.  Copies of the board's final report to NASA
will be available at the briefing.

     Also participating with Dr. Allen will be Dr. Lennard Fisk,
NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications,
and those members of the
     The briefing will be carried on NASA Select television,
Satcom F2R, transponder 13, 72 degrees West longitude, frequency
3960 MHz, audio 6.8 MHz.

      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 21 Nov 90 21:36:58 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 11/21/90


                      GALILEO STATUS REPORT
                        November 21, 1990

     The health of the Galileo spacecraft continues to be excellent.
Yesterday, Venus data on tape recorder tracks 3 and 1 was successfully
returned.  Today, the final Venus data playback will occur; track 2 data
playback is in process.  Also today, the NIMS (Near Infrared Mapping
Spectrometer) instrument was powered on.  Preliminary data
indicates NIMS operation is normal.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 22 Nov 90 03:12:35 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Commercial Shuttle Proposals

>I know Rockwell was considering a Commercial Shuttle a while back.
>Do you know why they abandoned the idea? With these changes it
>sounds like a very viable option. You should write up some white
>papers and send them to Congress.

    I'm not that familiar with the Rockwell shuttle proposal - I've
heard of it, but I've never seen any details.  Boeing also looked at
a similar concept, as did a couple of European financial houses.
The most serious proposal I've seen was from Space Transportation
Corp a few years back.  They had lined up serious funding through
Sword Financial (who put together the Alaska pipeline financing).
SpaceTran actually submitted a proposal to NASA to buy and operate a
Shuttle orbiter - the only group which to my knowledge which did
submit a concrete proposal.
    That proposal floundered on two fundamental grounds - liability
and priority.  SpaceTran proposed to buy and pay for operation of a
shuttle orbiter, reimbursing NASA for use of facilities and
components, in exchange for the revenues from commercial users.
However, NASA would not give this "commercial" shuttle priority at
KSC or even guarantee they would launch this vehicle with any
payloads (without uses, no revenues to SpaceTrans...). Similarly,
there was no agreement reached where NASA could not terminate use of
such a vehicle, or would pay for damages if damaged by NASA-contract
launch personnel (termination liability and operational liability).
Without some type of liability or priority agreement with NASA, the
financing was not made available from the financial markets (no
control of cashflow meant no money..).
   Both of these topics keep coming up as problem areas in
commercial space proposals (OSC, ETCo, Leasecraft, ISF/CDSF,
SpaceHab, EDO, Boeing's Commercial SSF Logistics, etc.) They end up
getting resolved on a case by case basis which is time-consuming,
costly, and greatly increases the commercial venture risk.
    To my mind, the problem was that SpaceTran was only proposing to
add 1 orbiter to a NASA-controlled and operated system.  To make a
commercial shuttle work, you have to turn everything from mission
planning and component procurement to flight operations over to a
private sector contractor.

   As Henry Spencer stated in a couple of related messages:
HS>The big problem that has hit all attempts at commercializing the
HS>shuttle is NASA, which does not want to lose control of the
HS>program....[Deleted words]
  Sure, they see it as their meal-ticket.  But similar programs have
been transferred to the private sector (including DoD, DoE, HHS, and
NASA programs), and in most cases have worked out fine.

HS>Well, the obvious reason [why this can't be done] is "because
HS>NASA will never give it up"...
    Which is the same thing that was said about the Delta and Atlas
programs.  (And was said about Intelsat).  It just takes a top-level
(Presidential level) policy decision, and support in Congress...

    As for the white papers - <grin> I've already written a couple
and circulated them through some folks within the beltway.  They've
informed me I'm not the only one proposing this... And I understand
there may be some interesting discussions regarding this going on
with the Augustine Commission.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                            Space Technology Investor



--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 22 Nov 90 03:10:02 GMT
From: rex!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Future systems - Commercial Shuttle and LRBs

>>recurring costs for LRBs are about $5 M per flight, with about a
>>$2B development cost. ... They increase performance by anywhere up
>>to an added 30-50,000 pounds.   At current SRB costs of about $30
>>M per flight (at 8 flt/yr rate), this pays back at 39 flights, or
>>between 3 and 5 years of operations.
>
> This translates to a savings of $25M per flight. After 39 flights
>you will save 25M * 39M = 975M. Still less than the 2B development
>cost. On the other hand, the Shuttle would lift twice as much so it
>may balance out on cost/pound. However, it looks like this does not
>factor in the cost of money . Is this correct?

   Pretty close.  I got the 39 flights by assuming a basic system
demand, e.g., there is a specific set of things we want to do in
space, and to do this we have to take some X pounds into orbit over
some number of flights.  Then I wrote a set of equations relating
the cost to do this project based upon performance (basic shuttle
performance assumed at 45,000 lbs) and number of flights - and
solved for number of flights for breakeven.  For every flight you
fly using LRBs, you trade against almost 1.7 flights using SRBs.
This means you are trading $5M for 75,000 lbs against $60M for
45,000 lbs.  This is what gave the 39 flight number.
  I didn't crank in cost of money since cost of money analysis is
difficult to apply here unless we estimate benefits from system
improvements.  Cost of money analyses doesn't work unless we assume
some benefit from the increased payload performance.  [Note; this is
a textbook classic case from corporate financial analysis. For
example, improvements to a factory must always quantify the benefit
of the improvement.  If you define benefit/profit only as reduction
of cost it puts you into a death spiral - infinite profit when costs
are zero... so you maximize return if you don't produce anything!!]
   To do cost of money analysis we have to put a price tag on the
benefit from an improvement to an existing system. For a rough
answer, let us assume each payload pound is worth at least some
reasonable transportation cost (since someone was willing to pay at
least this much to put it into orbit in the first place...).
Assuming a 3 year development activity, 30,000 lbs of increased
performance, a 10% rate and $3000/lb benefit of performance,this
gives us (in $Millions):
      Year      1      2       3       4        5       6
Development  -500  -1000    -500
Usage (@8/yr)                       +200     +200    +200
Benefit                             +720     +720    +720
BOY Cum Cost    0   -500   -1550   -2220    -1522    -548
Interest             -50    -155    -222      -96     -55
EOY Cum Cost -500  -1550   -2200   -1522     -548    +247

   Which is payback at about 24 flights, or about 3 years of
operations, 6 years from start).  If we reduce the benefit of
increased performance, this moves the payback out.  If we increase
the flight rate or the benefit value, it pays off faster.  If we
assume no $ benefit from the increased performance, the payback
period moves way out (like 20 years) - but that doesn't make sense,
does it?  Why spend the money if you aren't getting some benefit
from the increased performance?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                          Space Technology Investor




--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 20 Nov 90 14:36:29 GMT
From: sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd![e-mail]  (Mike McManus)
Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (M Parigi) writes:
>   > In article <[e-mail]>:
>   In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>   >
>   > >>In practice the station will need a spun section attached to a despun
>   > >>section.
>   > >+As I said, already in there. The airlock is at 0G.
>   >
>   > >I would still want to despin the station for EVA which could be
>   > >fairly often.
>   >
>   > And they don't.
>   >     Allen
>
>   climb down the rotating station hanging on to it for dear life, with the
>   whole universe and earth rotating at 4 times per second above your head,
>   with an uncomfortable suit on, I certainly wouldn't be in any mood to do
>   any work! I think if the kevlar shell did get damaged, the only way to get
>   a human on the outside of the spinning section would be to have it despun!

I'd have to agree.  Wouldn't the rotating station create an outward force which
would tend to push an astronaut away from the outside of the station, as
opposed to an outward force toward the shell (artificial gravity) if the
astronaut were inside the station?

I guess if the astronaut could somehow get there in the first place, and then
strap on some kind of support harness to stay in place, it might be workable.
Otherwise, trying to hold on to a platform spinning at 4 rps and get useful
work done would be impossible!  It would be the same problem as trying to do
that down here.

Also, I haven't heard any details about how to design the required bearings and
slip-rings for the 0g center portion of the LLNL station.  Is this a solved
problem, or does it need a special attention?
--
Disclaimer: All spelling and/or grammar in this document are guaranteed to be
            correct; any exseptions is the is wurk uv intter-net deemuns,.

Mike McManus                        [e-mail], or
NCR Microelectronics                ncr-mpd![e-mail], or
2001 Danfield Ct.                   uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!garage!mikemc
Ft. Collins,  Colorado
[phone]   Ext. 378

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #589
*******************