Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_4/V13_457.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/cc5b2RK00WBwQp6053>;
          Thu, 25 Apr 91 02:01:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 02:00:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #457

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 457

Today's Topics:
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
               Re: Saturn V blueprints
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
             Sun position formula wanted
               Saturn V vs. ALS
          Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS

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: 24 Apr 91 18:22:41 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:
>... The ALS is being designed around
>reliablility and cost.  While actual research can be expensive, the product
>you get (cheap effective launchers in this case), will be what
>you aim for.

We've heard *that* story before.  It doesn't always work that way,
especially when the launcher is aimed at a great many different things.

>What I was trying to convey, is that while we are using our 'good
>enough' Saturn V launcher, many nations will be looking into new
>more cost effective, more reliable systems that the Saturn V cannot
>compete in in any form short of it not being a Saturn V anymore.

Your particular nation has been "looking into" launch systems better than
the Saturn V for 20+ years now, and has yet to produce one.  Is there some
reason to suppose that one will magically appear in the near future?  If
not, where is the problem in rebuilding the Saturn V *and* doing research
on more advanced systems?  Passengers do not fly in X-planes, and airline
747s do not do advanced engine development.  Trying to combine the two
functions is a mistake, but the launcher business has gotten itself into
a strange state where *every* system has to be an operational payload
carrier, and nobody builds X-launchers.  This may explain the near-total
stagnation of launcher technology in recent years... but trying to
revive it by building yet another experimental/operational combination
is a costly mistake.

>> something that works well and that has some chance of being cheap, we
>> *want* technology that is old enough to have been debugged.
>>
>Nice idea, too bad with the redesigns you propose below, you have to debug
>it all over again...

Nonsense.  We have to debug the manufacturing processes, yes, but we do
*not* have to debug the design significantly.  For example, we know the
engines run reliably without serious combustion instability... and that
is several years' development bypassed right there.

>> We'd need to redesign the *tooling*, and that would cause small changes
>> in the design of the launcher, and much of it would have to be re-tested,
>> but the basic design is not broken and does not need fixing.
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>You just said that you'd need to revise the drawings and retest, etc.

No I didn't.  Please read what I wrote.  We have to figure out how to make
it again; we don't have to figure out what to make.

>Before you extoll on the virtues of the USSR's 'low cost low tech' launchers,
>keep in mind, their 'low price' is based on a need for hard currency at
>any price, and the Energiya Buran cost almost US$1,000,000,000 for its
>maiden voyage in street exchange rates (15 rubles = US$1)

Justification for that number, please (the cost, not the exchange rate).
The entire Soviet space program doesn't cost that much annually.  If you
are including the entire development cost, how much will the initial flight
of ALS cost under the same rules?
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 20:05:58 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:
> >Good luck trying to get any aerospace contractor to take a fixed price
> >contract.  I know McDonnell Douglas, General Dynamics, and Lockheed are
> >staying far away from them.

Well, fixed price for PROCUREMENT and DEVELOPMENT are very different
animals, Mike.

Whenever you have to make a new process, whether it a new way of manufacturing
or a whole new system there is a big question mark as to how much its
going to cost because of unforseen design problems.

PROCUREMENT, you know how much it cost to develop and how much its
going to cost to make.  There fixed price is a big plus.

Summary:  Fixed price for Procurement = good.
      Fixed price for Development = foolish.

(I think General Dynamics, McDonnell Dougls and the Pentagon would
all concur after the A-12 problems and cancellations!)

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine     |            These are MY opinions   |
| Malt Beverage Analyst     |            As if they counted...:) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 20:31:41 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:

>> Boy I got a feeling of deja vu reading that. It took me a while but I finally
>> tracked down why. The following is from the Congress Record of Feb. 29, 1973.

>I  recall no Sen. Snerds, or anyone by the name of Nasa-guY.
>  Where did you get this dialogue?

I made it up. I'ts called an analogy. You will note that there is no such
thing as the Congress Record nor is Feb. 29, 1973 a real date.

>Your assumption:  One mess up = Always mess up.

No, my assumption is that is that if a system messes up for reasons
X, Y, and Z and that if later X, Y, and Z still hold than the system
is still messed up.

>Your ficticious dialogue does not prove that ALS won't work.

Agreed. However, I have yet to see any evidence that it will work
other than vague statements like "this time it will, really. We mean it.".

>I will state this again:  Re tooling and parts finding for the old
>Saturn V is a nightmare

The people responsible for the main components say it is rather
straightforward. Why are you right and they wrong?

Also, you seem to think it is impossible to conduct research except
on operational vehicles. Why is this? Henry put it very well: you
don't build 747's to do engine research.

  Allen
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back |
|   [e-mail]   | to you, hunt it down and kill it.                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 22:50:58 GMT
From: apple.com![e-mail]  (Craig J. Keithley)
Subject: Sun position formula wanted


I need to be able to calculate the current "high noon" position of the
sun, given the date and time (GMT).

What I'd like is a formula that accepts the date and time and returns
the location on the earth (in lat/lon) that the sun is overhead. Of
course, I could also work with C source...

Please respond via email


Thanks,

Craig Keithley
[e-mail]
[standard disclaimers apply!]

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 23:42:49 GMT
From: usc!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!dullea.ipac.caltech.edu![e-mail]  (Karl Stapelfeldt)
Subject: Saturn V vs. ALS


     The problem with resurrecting the Saturn V today is the same
same problem that caused the launcher to go out of production in the
1970s :  It is just too damn big for our current needs.  The only
viable Saturn V payload in the next 10 years would be Space Station
hardware; the Saturn V is so big that after 1-2 such missions we wouldn't
need it again.  It clearly is not worth rebuilding the Saturn V with
this kind of expected utilization.

     We do need a rocket that can lift more than the shuttle, but not
*six* times more.  A payload capability of 100,000 pounds (especially
if it allows diameters exceeding 15 ft) would still be very useful for
Space Station construction; once the new launcher is proven, it is
not unreasonable to think that other users (DOD, Mars Rover, commercial)
would utilize it.  If the new launcher had growth potential built into
its design, then we wouldn't have build another new one when we
decided to go to 150,000 pound payloads.  These guidelines, if followed
by the ALS program, will yield the new launcher we need for the coming
decade.

     I don't have a single bad thing to say about the Saturn V and
its accomplishments.  It was the greatest rocket of its time.  Unless
we are immediately going to the moon or Mars, it isn't the right rocket
for our time.  It's too bad, but that's the way it is.

                           Karl Stapelfeldt
                           [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 15:32:38 GMT
From: usc!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D

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

>I don't entirly agree with the Anti-trust thing, I mean if America
>can allow murders to run rabid, crazies to mass murder 10+ people
>and put them back on the street, allow police officers to beat up
>people for enjoyment.  I think congress can overlook a simple little
>thing like Anti-trust.  Besides with half of America on drugs I really
>don't think anyone is going to notice.  At least this is what is printed
>in the Japanese news, that an average Japanese will read.

Well, let me be the first to say the really appropriate response to
this statement: I believe that not all is well with the U.S. I believe
we have serious problems. _BUT_

"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain.

I've noticed several odd misconceptions in your posts, Will. You seem
to believe the Japanese are taking over, although according to
everything I've read they're still at third place as far as foreign
investment in the U.S. goes, behind England and the Netherlands. I
also just read in _The Economist_ (which also seems to be more gloomy
about the future of the U.S.) that the Japanese aircraft industry,
which was going to "drive Boeing out of business" according to all the
pundits last year, is in serious trouble. They may be able to dominate
certian commodity markets in the computer industry, for a while, but I
still don't see that much innovation. Also I get the impression from
business magazines and the like that Japan's system of cartels works
great in shoving small businesses out of a market once they create it,
like in the 1 Mbit drams, but are lousy at keeping it up.
(incidentally I was under the impression that such constructs are
mainly the individual Japanese companies' way of dealing with the
rather unique patent system in Japan, and that _that_ does a lot more
for their competitiveness than the cartels do...)

In short, I don't think America is going to duplicate Japan's success
by replicating the organization that told Soochiro (sp?) Honda to get
the hell out of the automobile business, because that's for the big
boys. Without Honda, the Japanese market share of the American auto
market shrinks a great deal.

Finally, I've heard that most Japanese purchases of American
businesses are attempts by Japanese companies which are relatively new
to set up some sort of Keiretsu of their own, and to get some sort of
strategic partnershis set up. This says a lot about the lack of
openness of Japanese markets not only to American companies but to
Japanese companies as well. Which makes me wonder, how will they keep
their economy healthy after they finish their alleged economic
conquest of the U.S.? Noone else pushes them to keep their economy
open, they've just given up like Taiwan and simply closed their
markets to a hell of a lot of Japanese goods, which is incredible if
you remember that Taiwan is an island totally dependent on overseas
trade for its economy. The Japanese should be thankful we're less
dependent on overseas trade, otherwise we'd have locked them out too.
And don't fool yourself that we couldn't do it. What could they do?
Sell chip technology to our enemies, and embargo the U.S. defense
industry? I hate to tell ya this, but the main reason the Japanese
hold such large market share in the consumer chip market is that all
the domestic producers can make more money on defense contracts. The
U.S. isn't dependent there :-) and in the event that consumer supplies
are shut off, the firms may simply deceide to move back into civilian
markets. They may be planning to do so already, since we're expected
to cut back on defense, maybe leaving countries able to defend
themselves to fend for themselves, even if they don't trust their own
military as far as they can throw it.

Please keep in mind before the obituary is written that the U.S. not
only weathered the Civil War, with every politician of note in Europe
and Asia during the conflict breathing sighs of relief that the Enfant
Terrible was finally destroying itself and would no longer be a
problem, but also not only weathered the Great Depression but defeated
it and won a World War at the same time, and from that time on has not
only gotten stronger economically but shouldered a disproportionate
share of the defense burden of the free world (Japan and its rather
unreliable press with its "Keiretsu" system which seems to give it
such accuracy in its reporting) at the same time. And, to top it off,
developed most if not all of the currently profitable uses of space
exploration, such as comsats and Earth observation sattelites,
although the latter hasn't paid off yet (for anyone; I don't think the
French have recouped their investment on Spot yet. A couple years ago
they were talking about how by now there'd be Spot 2 and 3...)

[and to deal with a post from a while back]:
And for your statement that MITI would buy Motorola: they didn't buy
it back when it was (and it still is) one of this country's and the
world's best developers of microprocessors. And with Iridium moving to
the launch pad, the price is only going to go up...


--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
Joke going around: "How many country music singers does it take to
change a light bulb? Four. One to change the bulb, and three to sing
about the old one."

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 20:21:21 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:
> >... The ALS is being designed around
> >reliablility and cost.  While actual research can be expensive, the product
> >you get (cheap effective launchers in this case), will be what
> >you aim for.
>
> We've heard *that* story before.  It doesn't always work that way,
> especially when the launcher is aimed at a great many different things.
>
> >What I was trying to convey, is that while we are using our 'good
> >enough' Saturn V launcher, many nations will be looking into new
> >more cost effective, more reliable systems that the Saturn V cannot
> >compete in in any form short of it not being a Saturn V anymore.
>
> Your particular nation has been "looking into" launch systems better than
> the Saturn V for 20+ years now, and has yet to produce one.  Is there some
> reason to suppose that one will magically appear in the near future?  If

Not magically appear, I think NASA has been committing(sp?) resources
to the shuttle at the expense of other systems.  Now that they can, we
have ALS!

> not, where is the problem in rebuilding the Saturn V *and* doing research
> on more advanced systems?

Conceptually, no problem.  Realistically, resources (read cash).
Maybe a private company could do it and really clean up?

> Passengers do not fly in X-planes, and airline
> 747s do not do advanced engine development.  Trying to combine the two
> functions is a mistake, but the launcher business has gotten itself into
> a strange state where *every* system has to be an operational payload
> carrier, and nobody builds X-launchers.  This may explain the near-total
> stagnation of launcher technology in recent years... but trying to
> revive it by building yet another experimental/operational combination
> is a costly mistake.
>

I think the stagnation of launcher technology is more of a refusal
of NASA to use anything other than the shuttle for launches. (Until
recently)

>
> *not* have to debug the design significantly.  For example, we know the
> engines run reliably without serious combustion instability... and that
> is several years' development bypassed right there.

BUT, engines could be made that burn less fuel and therefore lift
even more to orbit.  Maybe rocketdyne could modify the F-1 to
bring it up to date.

>
> >You just said that you'd need to revise the drawings and retest, etc.
>
> No I didn't.  Please read what I wrote.  We have to figure out how to make
> it again; we don't have to figure out what to make.
>
Unfortunately, this can be just as expensive.
I am not trashing the idea of using good ideas from Saturn V, just that
resurrection of the Saturn V may be a big boondoggle.  For instance,
the avionics would have to be completely redone, the matereals would
or should be made lighter, and the engine technology should be brought
up to date (less fuel = more lifting power).

other than that, let the parts search begin... :)
But, only if NASA can afford to ...


--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine     |            These are MY opinions   |
| Malt Beverage Analyst     |            As if they counted...:) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #457
*******************