Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_3/V13_361.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
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/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/Ybz27dS00WBw03bE4e>;
          Fri,  5 Apr 91 02:06:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  5 Apr 91 02:06:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #361

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 361

Today's Topics:
        Re: Seeing the Shuttle land at Edwards
 Re: New Improved Rail-Gun, now with Hotol for Added Pep and Verve...
              Re: More cost/lb. follies
         Re: NY Times Article: Nuclear rocket
              Re: More cost/lb. follies
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #344
            SPACE Digest V13 #355
         NASA Headline News for 04/04/91 (Forwarded)

Administrivia:

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

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

Date: 4 Apr 91 14:54:58 GMT
From: aio!vf.jsc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Seeing the Shuttle land at Edwards

In article <31592@usc>, [e-mail] (Malcolm Sharp) writes:
> If the shuttle launches on 4/5, when is it scheduled to land?
> (realizing that the schedule can/does change).
> Thanks.

This is a five day mission to deploy the Gamma Ray Observatory.  It will also
have the first American EVA in over five years.

Launch is scheduled for 8:19am CST Friday April, 5, 1991.  Landing will be on
4/10/91. I am not sure of the time, but it is probably an afternoon landing.

--

Mike Kent -      Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC
        2400 NASA RD One, Houston, TX 77058 [phone]

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

Date: 4 Apr 91 15:58:45 GMT
From: usc!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: New Improved Rail-Gun, now with Hotol for Added Pep and Verve...

Why concentrate on saving fuel? Keep in mind that the fuel cost of
putting a pound into orbit is somewhere around $ 50.00.

Phil F.
[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Apr 91 17:31:04 GMT
From: orca!bambam![e-mail]  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: More cost/lb. follies

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
> >
> >In article <[e-mail]> Nick Szabo writes:
> >>First, this configuration has not flown yet.
> >Come now Mr. Szabo, this is a conservative use of a well understood
> >technology. Using those numbers is perfectly valid.
>
> Well this well understood technology just went blooey on the test stand.
> Nice pictures on CNN.
>
> Gary

The Titan IV booster that blew up is a brand new booster. That was the
first test firing of a brand new motor that is quite far out on the
hairy edge of what is known about building large boosters. It is one
of the largest filament would motors that Hercules has ever tested.
I'd say largest but I don't remember if their filament wound case for
the space shuttle SRM was ever test fired.

Large solid rocket motors are NOT a well understood technology.  Only
a hand full of companies have even tried to build them. Thiokol had
lots of problems developing the space shuttle SRM. Thiokol solved most
of those problems before the motor was put to use. ;-> Do you think
Thiokol is going to tell Hercules how to build big motors? Not likely
folks. This is business, not science.

Small solid rocket motors ARE well understood. But even there the
designers are under so much pressure to get the last bit of delta V
per pound and volume that there are failures. Until a rocket motor has
been through a full set of tests you can't claim that it is "well
understood." Actually, until the manufacturing process has been
through a quite a few cycles you can't claim that the motor is well
understood. Small variations in the manufacturing process can cause
motors to fail.

The Titan IV failure was public and spectacular, but how many of you
have ever heard of the MX first stage failure at AEDC? Or of the
engineer who was killed trying to clean the solid rocket fuel out of
the test cell after the aft dome failed? Failures in early tests are
common.

My guess, really just pure speculation, is that an effect called "dome
pop" was worse than expected and it damaged the forward dome enough to
let it fail a second after ignition.

--
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
   [e-mail] or decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

                         Tools, not rules.

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

Date: 4 Apr 91 20:52:25 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: NY Times Article: Nuclear rocket

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>According to the UPI article, Timberwind will use a conventional first
>stage -- the nuclear stage will not fire until AFTER the rocket leaves
>the atmosphere.

Could someone post a short summary of the UPI article? I missed it.

Phil Fraering
[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Apr 91 21:06:03 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: More cost/lb. follies

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Small solid rocket motors ARE well understood. But even there the
>designers are under so much pressure to get the last bit of delta V
>per pound and volume that there are failures...

In fact, I've seen at least one small-solid-motor data sheet that says,
in effect, "the specs here are for an unusually heavy case to meet a high
reliability requirement for the original customer; if your reliability
requirement is merely ordinary, we can shave a couple of kilos off the
dead weight for you".
--
"The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 are all true."  -D. Harrison|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 4 Apr 91 23:22:03 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!titan![e-mail]  (Donald Heskett)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #344


>> Use a short rail, with moderate acceleration to put a fully-loaded, already-
>> been-tested-and-budget-approved chemical rocket moving up at around, say,
>> 300mph, then fire the rockets.

>Good Idea.

IMHO it's a very poor idea to complicate your launch system that much
for a mere 300mph.

The idea, though (as Mr. Pendleton pointed out), is an old one. See,
for example the science fiction movie "When Worlds Collide," which
also contains a rare view of one of the early mechanical computers.

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <Added.gbyz=ba00UddM4=[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 04 Apr 91 22:01:30 EST
Resent-From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Thu, 4 Apr 91 03:34:37 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #355
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

From Space Digest, V355

>Of course, chemical rockets _are_, when all is said and done, military
>missile technology -- this has been the dominant use in their 1,000+ year
>history.   They are quite suitable as missiles, and have proven only
>marginally suitable for orbital launches, at high costs and very low
>reliability.  While we're changing the organization, let's also try
>changing the technology to something that has been fundamentally designed
>for the task, instead of crudely retrofitted.

Remember that any ballistic, even a baseball, is a satllite that has an orbit
that intersects the earth.  Understanding that fact, 'military' rockets HAVE
BEEN designed to orbit the earth.  They just won't kill people or break
things if they don't hit the planet again.  Hence, the modifications to make
them into a space transportation system.
   PS- they are the ONLY THING that has a proven record for orbital launches.
       don't get too far into the could-be-is-better-than-tested trap.  That's
       how we got the shuttle.

>>...to whom cost is no object...the current customer base sees nothing
>>wrong with that. They are complex and costly because nobody has seriously
>>tried to build one simple and cheap.  Nobody has tried because the customers
>>haven't asked for it.

>Listen to yourself, Henry.  I suppose you always shop for
>gas at the highest-price station, and throw in a tip to boot?
>You accept whatever price the car salesman offers, and let's throw
>in _all_ the options, thank you so much.  Sheesh.

Listen to yourself, Nick.  Not only are you getting sarcastic for no reason,
but you seem to think the US government promotes free markets.  These are the
same people that didn't shop around when they found a hammer for $495.00
Why would they shop around for launches?  Why do you think our guys are losing
world market share?  Remember that the people designing much of the hardware
NASA uses do not have the market incentive to lower prices (since NASA will buy
most of the time, anyway), but rather have a reason to RAISE prices.  They
don't want their budget cut next year!  You have to keep up cost, to keep the
money.  Don't think it isn't true; I just installed 35 new computers that my
department didn't need, which they bought because they had extra cash in the
till.

>......................................  Of course, rocket fans get really
>pissed when the question of reliability comes up, because chem rockets
>simply cannot deliver the reliability of a normal transportation system, at
>any price.

'Normal'?  You'd take the express elevator to orbit?
Perhaps the view from the escalator is more to your liking? :-)

>Customers will start looking for choices --
>EML, gas gun, and laser launch will start looking worth the R&D, even over
>the short term.  Even high up-front costs (although lower than the costs
>of the larger chem rocket projects) are preferable to people who don't
>understand your needs and have such a narrow view of what constitutes
>a transportation system.................................................

One, 'High up-front costs' is much different than 'who knows how much they'll
cost'. The latter is closer to reality.
Two, you've assumed that the Gov. actually shops around.  What percent of the
market do you think is non-gov.? (Or non-gov subsidized? icluding deductibles?)

>>If the goal is making a space-mining-infrastructure (a very GOOD goal, IMHO)

       >(Nick agrees it's a good goal)

>>then it should be obvious that SOME kind of rocket will be needed in large
>>volume.  At least for crew carrying, if nothing else.

>Not necesarilly.   The alternative to costly, environmentally damaging
>high volumes is increasing value/lb.  In fact, we have been making much
>more progress increasing value/lb. than decreasing cost/lb, even though
>the space community has placed less emphasis on this important variable.

[long monologue on the possibilities of value/lb increases, including making
[improvements with;

>* astronomy
>* robotics
>* teleoperation
>* computation
>* communications
>* microdevices/nanotechnology
>* thin-film vapor deposition
>* microgravity manufacturing

I don't care how valuable the payloads are, it's all a waste of time unless
some people go up there.  I'll add the arguable, though probably inescapable
assertion that it won't happen at all without a LOT of people up there. That
necessitates a high-volume launch system.  And after the boot-strap period,
there will be even higher volume (tourism, vacation, emigration, etc.)

Nick, I like to dream too.  I wouldn't be going to school right now if I didn't
beleive that I could help make it reality.
But equating  "we haven't checked out the options as well as we could"   with
"we should scrap all existing technology because it isn't the best" is the same
philosophy that led NASA to building ONLY the shuttle.  I think the regulars
on this list know how you feel about that.  That decision not only lead to the
stupid quagmire we're in now, with cost/lb problems, but it also led to the
demise of the Saturn V, and Skylab, respectivly the biggest lauch system and
the biggest space station the world has ever seen.  Please don't argue that we
should make the same mistake again.

Tommy Mac
18084tm@msu
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 4 Apr 91 19:13:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 04/04/91 (Forwarded)


             Headline News
Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA Headquarters

  Thursday, April 4, 1991    Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788

This is NASA Headline News for Thursday, April 4, 1991 . . .

The launch countdown process for the STS-37 Atlantis mission is well
underway at the Kennedy Space Center.  Test Director Mike Leinbach this
morning said that the countdown was proceeding extremely smoothly
and that the team was not tracking any problems.  The worldwide NASA
communications system verification checks have taken place and the
network is ready to support the launch, as is the Johnson Space Center
Mission Control Complex and Firing Room #3 at Kennedy.  The orbiter fuel
cell reactants were loaded aboard yesterday.  The launch pad Rotating
Service Structure will be moved to its retracted position today at noon.
The multiple launch site cameras will be loaded with film this afternoon.
This evening at 8:00 pm KSC will close both launch pads in
preparation for cryogenic fuel loading of Atlantis on Pad B.

At 12:58 am tomorrow, Atlantis will come out of a built-in hold as the
countdown is picked up at the T-6 hour mark.  Loading of liquid hydrogen
and liquid oxygen into Atlantis' main tanks will then begin.  At 3:58 am
the vehicle will enter another built-in hold to allow the KSC ice inspection
team to survey Atlantis' external tank.

The flight crew will be awakened at 4:23 am tomorrow and enter
Atlantis at 6:30.  The orbiter should be closed out at 8:15 am.  Launch is
set for 9:18 am tomorrow morning.  Weather at the primary Trans-Atlantic
Landing site in Banjul, The Gambia, is predicted to be fine.  Launch site
weather at Kennedy is expected to improve from a 60 percent
probability of favorable weather at the opening of the window to over 80
percent later in the morning.

There presently are no concerns for either the orbiter systems or the
payload.  Test Director Leinbach also said this morning that the Gamma
Ray Observatory-to-Orbiter integration and testing was exceptionally
smooth and trouble-free.

The Gamma Ray Observatory, at 34,643 pounds, will be the heaviest
civilian spacecraft ever launched by the Shuttle system.  It has 4,200
pounds of hydrazine propellant, which is also the largest quantity ever to
be loaded aboard any satellite.  NASA and GRO prime contractor TRW
took advantage of the additional time before launch, afforded by the
remanifesting, to research engineering and historical test data to verify
that the GRO would not be launched with any of the problems which
accompanied the launch of Hubble.  At this time NASA is confident that
every system on the Gamma Ray Observatory is functioning as
designed.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NASA will provide a special television service during the STS-37
mission to improve the coverage of NASA Select in the Western U.S. and
in Alaska and Hawaii.  Each day NASA will transmit a two-hour edited
version of that day's NASA Select events on the Spacenet 1 satellite.
NASA Select is on the F2R satellite located at 72 degrees West Longitude.
Spacenet 1 is much further west at 120 degrees West Longitude.  The
transmissions will be made between midnight and 2:00 am Eastern
time on Spacenet 1, transponder 17L.  Normal, continuous coverage of the
mission will be on NASA Select on F2R, transponder 13.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NASA has extended its contract with the Rockwell Space
Operations Company, Houston, through Dec. 31, 2000.  The extension is
valued at $2.3 billion and is for Rockwell Space Operations support and
operations of mission planning, training and flight control facilities located
at the Johnson Space Center.

Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA Select TV.
All times are Eastern.  NASA Select TV is carried on GE Satcom F2R,
transponder 13, C-Band, 72 degrees W Long., Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960
MHz.

Thursday, 4/4/91
    1:00 pm
    Commercial Payloads briefing live from KSC, participants
          will include representatives from University of Alabama-Huntsville,
           Univ. of Colorado and Instrumentation Technologies Associates.

    3:00 pm
    Shuttle Amateur Radio Experiment briefing live from KSC,
          participant will be Louis McFadin, American Radio Relay League.

    3:15 pm
    EVA Development Flight Experiment briefing live from KSC,
          participant will be project manager Ed Whitsett, JSC.

Friday, 4/5/91
    4:30 am
    Begin continuous coverage of events for Atlantis STS-37 Gamma Ray
          Observatory deployment mission.  Launch presently set for 9:18
          am.

    6:30 am
    CDR Steven Nagel, PLT Kenneth Cameron, MS1 Linda Godwin, MS2
           Jerry Ross, and MS3 Jerome Apt enter Atlantis.

    8:15 am    Atlantis hatch closed out.

    8:30 am    Enter T-20 minute built-in countdown hold.

    8:59 am    Enger T-10 minute built-in countdown hold.

    9:18 am    Open of STS-37 launch window.

    1:56 pm    Close of STS-37 launch window.

All events and times may change without notice.  This report is filed daily,
Monday through Friday, by 12:00 pm, Eastern.  It is a service of NASA
Headquarters Office of Public Affairs.  Contact:  CREDMOND on
NASAmail or at 202/453-8425.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #361
*******************