Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_4/V13_476.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 16KB

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/Uc6aOpa00WBwE8Wk5U>;
          Sun, 28 Apr 91 02:07:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 02:07:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #476

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 476

Today's Topics:
              Laser Launchers (summary).
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
             Re: Galileo Solution
             Re: Saturn V vs. ALS
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
          Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18
              Apollo/Saturn V production
     Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...
     Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...
          Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)
          Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)

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: 26 Apr 91 09:59:16 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!mucs!logitek!hrc63!mrcu!uk.co.gec-mrc![e-mail]  (Paul Johnson)
Subject: Laser Launchers (summary).


I asked how laser launchers work.  The best replys came from Dave
Rickel <[e-mail]> and Ward Griffiths
<[e-mail]386>.

Dave wrote:

> Get an ice cube (well, a big ice cube).  Hit it on one end with a
> laser.  The top millimeter or so undergoes a process sometimes
> called Laser Induced Detonation.  It more or less explodes (goes
> from a solid to a plasma); most of the byproducts being hurled
> backwards, essentially normal to the surface of the ice cube.  You
> wait for a few milliseconds for the byproducts to get out of the
> way, and hit the ice cube again with the laser.  You get high
> exhaust velocity, high thrust, reasonably high thrust efficiency
> (most of the exhaust is going in the right direction).  The only
> problem is that we don't know how to build it yet.


Ward wrote that the launch vehicle should be "shaped like an
upside-down ice cream cone" with the cargo in the pointy end.  He also
adds:

> Since no actual fuel is carried by the vehicle, there is a major
> improvement in payload/vehicle ratio.  And there are no explosive
> mixtures on the vehicle.  The waste product of the system is water
> vapor and maybe a few oxygen and hydrogen atoms broken apart from
> each other.


Thanks also to the others who took the trouble to reply.

Paul.

----
Paul Johnson |            Isn't modern education wonderful: one size fits all!
-------------^------------------v-------------------------v-------------------
GEC-Marconi Research is not     | Telex: 995016 GECRES G  | Tel: [phone]
responsible for my opinions.    | Inet: [e-mail] | Fax: [phone]

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

Date: 27 Apr 91 03:09:20 GMT
From: mips!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!msi.umn.edu!umeecs!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>> 5) We know the Saturn V design works and has lower launch costs per pound.

>The shuttle costs less per pound to orbit in adjusted dollars that the Saturn.

I don't think you can justify that statement. According to testimony
before the Augustine Commission we have spent about $22.4 billion on
Shuttle operations. In this time frame we launched about 30 Shuttles
giving an average cost of $746 million per launch which is about
$13,575 per pound. Total development costs for the Shuttle over
a twenty year period where over $32 billion (twice the development
cost of the Saturn V in constant dollars). If you include development
costs a Shuttle flight will set you back about $1.8 BILLION.

Saturn on the other hand cost about $17 billion to develop in 1986
dollars (source: NASA testimony to the House Science Committee, March
1991). The same testimony stated that a Saturn V costs about $590 million
(average cost of the first lot of 50) in 1986 dollars. This gives us
a cost of $2360/pound which is far less than Shuttle costs. Even a
Saturn launch is over $150M cheaper than a Shuttle launch. Now Saturns
whern't bought in lots of 50 hwoever it doesn't seem likely that
Saturn could be more expensive then the Shuttle back then.

  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: 27 Apr 91 22:15:02 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Galileo Solution

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

>CNN reported this morning that JPL is recommending launching a
>communications satellite to Jupiter to act as a relay for the
>malfunctioned Galileo spacecraft.  A brillant solution, IMHO.

"Brilliant" is not the word that springs to my mind.  "Desperate"
seems more applicable.  Perhaps I am cynical, but I doubt NASA
can or will build a new RTG powered comsat from scratch in time
(do they even have enough Pu-238 on hand?).

Perhaps a more sensible approach would be to jettison the reentry
probe, change the second gravity assist and salvage some science by
abandoning Jupiter and converting to a multiple asteroid flyby
mission.  It could repeatedly swing by earth and/or mars to be
directed onto flybys of new asteroids.  With luck, we could get
pictures of half a dozen or so, with the data from each encounter
played back over the low gain antenna at the next flyby of earth.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Apr 91 23:15:52 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V vs. ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Caley) writes:
>ks> We do need a rocket that can lift more than the shuttle, but not
>ks> *six* times more.
>
>Out of interest, is that six times to shutle type mountain top
>skimming orbit or six times to somewhere reasonable?

One hears various numbers for the Saturn V's capacity to low orbit -- that
was never really tried in earnest -- but a factor of six is definitely to
low orbit.  On the other hand, payload to a lunar/escape trajectory is
still double the shuttle's low-orbit payload.  Add another upper stage
or two -- you could put an entire Delta or Atlas-Centaur on top of a
Saturn V! -- and you can get a modest payload anywhere in the solar system.
If payload is really kept down, you can fly missions like solar impact
or Pluto flyby without gravity assists.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 22:29:05 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!aipna!cstr![e-mail]  (Richard Caley)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

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

by> On the other hand, wasn't Ariane designed from scratch?  Or is it
by> simply a derivative of American launchers (Titan/Atlas/Delta/etc.)?

I don't know about the current one, but the earlier Ariane launchers
were dirivative of British French and German launchers.

Then again, just about all the working lauchers are derivatives of
German ones ...

--
[e-mail]    But none must know what I intend or they will
            say `Ridiculous, why go to the sky when we
            have problems right here?'
                - The Book of Nome `Quarries', ch: 2, v: 5

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

Date: 27 Apr 91 03:55:45 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
>There are as you say only 2 published failures of the Soyuz,
>however the same booster ( different upper stage only ) has
>been used on MANY other programs other than Soyuz, where
>there are believed to be many other failures.
Since I only have reliable numbers on failures in the manned soviet
program, I included only the data for there launches.
I ignored the number of unmanned SL-4 launches, since I lack any
accurate numbers on unmanned launch failures.
Also, I'm I made a typo on my calculator when I figured out the SL-$
failure rate. It should be 63/65 = 96.9% +- 2.14%.

                 Frank Crary
                 UC Berkeley

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

Date: 27 Apr 91 22:22:36 GMT
From: borg!jason![e-mail]
Subject: Apollo/Saturn V production


    To change the subject a bit, the current catalog from 'the
Squadron', a mailorder hobby shop in Texas, advertises Monogram Saturn
V models (1/144 scale) for $20 and says 'No longer in production.  Get
it while they last!!!'.  They also have Apollo CSM and LEM models
(1/100 scale) from Heller for $.99 (given the minimum order of $10 and
minimum postage of $3, this is not as good a deal as you might think).
I bought a couple of the Heller models at the local hobby shop and
they seem reasonably detailed.    I believe Heller is out of production
on these models also.  Revell & Monogram have been out of production
on LEM models for a long time.

    Saturn V            #3-MO6051    $20
    Apollo Lunar Orbiter    #3-HR0021    $0.99
    Apollo Lunar Module     #3-HR0019    $0.99

    Squadron Mail Order
    1115 Crowley Drive
    Carrollton, TX 75011-5010
    214-242-8663
    214-242-3775 (FAX)

    I've never even ordered anything from these guys so can't comment
on service etc., just passing this on.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    "Why do you suppose we only feel compelled to chase the ones who run away?"
    "Immaturity."
    _Dangerous Liasons_

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

Date: 27 Apr 91 14:09:17 GMT
From: hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...

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

>Is a CHEAP heavy lift vehicle necessary?
>Would a high (say $5000/lb) heavy lift launcher and a cheap (say <$1000/lb)
>medium lift launcher (in the 15tonnes to Low Earth Orbit) be adequate

This is a moot question. ALL of the heavy lift designs I have written
about (HL Delta, Titan V, and Saturn V) will lift cargo for $1,000
to $2,000 a pound. The Delta and Titan alternatives only cost $500M
to develop (2/3 the cost of a single Shuttle flight). Why buy expensive
ones when cheap ones are already available?

   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: 27 Apr 91 02:41:41 GMT
From: pasteur!agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...

While a Heavy Lift Vehicle is necessary for many uses. (A big, quickly
and painlessly (or possibly?) launchable space station, a mannen Mars
mission, SDI, ect..)
Is a CHEAP heavy lift vehicle necessary?
Would a high (say $5000/lb) heavy lift launcher and a cheap (say <$1000/lb)
medium lift launcher (in the 15tonnes to Low Earth Orbit) be adequate

Remember, the Soviets can opperate, resupply and do crew rotations for thier
space station with a 7 tonnes to LEO launcher.

                        Frank Crary
                                            UC Berkeley

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

Date: 27 Apr 91 00:31:08 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)

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

 Gentlemen, it simply ain't gonna happen.
For the same reason we do not ( US GOvt, not "we" ) buy weapons
from the USSR, we will not buy "stratigeic" products from them.
  The Topaz reactor purchase is interesting, it is the first
purchases of a potentially strategic hi-tech product from
the USSR by the US Government.   The exception which illustrates
the rule...
>AIn article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
>>whether or not NASA "likes" to buy launches from other people
>>is moot.   Federal law PROHIBITS NASA from purchasing foreign
>>launch vehicles.

>As Henry so eloquently pointed out, Congress could pass one-time exceptions to
>the "law" to allow NASA to purchase other launch vehicles. And if A) It saved
>money and B) Provided some "laundering" of financial aid to the Soviet Union,
>they'd do it in a New Yark minute.


>     Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
>  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 28 Apr 91 05:25:15 GMT
From: coplex!disk![e-mail]  (joefish)
Subject: Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Akerman) writes:
>Perhaps this has been discussed before, but, at least conceptually, is there
>any reason NASA shouldn't use Energia as its heavy-lift vehicle?
>I imagine politically that would be far too straightforward, but it seems to
>me the Soviets have a launch system and little cash and NASA has no system
>and lots of cash.  Couldn't NASA at least license some of the technology?
>It would be a shame if civil strife or economic difficulties in the USSR caused
>Energia to go the way of Saturn V, leaving the world's two great space-faring
>nations without a big lifter.
>And, on a slightly unrelated note, as has been mentioned, the Shuttle does
>lift a fair amount to orbit, just most of it isn't payload.  Aside from the
>orbiter itself, doesn't the external tank reach about 90% of escape velocity?
>
>Richard Akerman
>Incompetent Physics Graduate Student
>[e-mail]/ Akerman@QUCdnAst/ "I will go mad." -- Arthur Dent

Most of what the shuttle boosts into orbit _is_ payload.   The astronauts
are payload.   The telemetry equipment is payload.   All of the onboard
experiments are payload.    The fuel cells are payload.

What is launched from the payload bay is not the only payload, even if
Henry sometimes says so.    On most flights, more space science is done
in the cabin than on most satellites launched on unmanned launchers.

Yes, the main tanks reach nearly orbital velocity, and there is usually
enough fuel to spare to put them in orbit.

I would say the real payload on each launch is about 80,000 pounds,
not just the figure given for a satellite.

Joe Fischer      [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #476
*******************