Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO065.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Tue,  4 Aug 92 05:03:25
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #065
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue,  4 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 065

Today's Topics:
                         Calendar and Zodiak
                        Clinton Space Position
     Electronic Journal of the ASA (EJASA) - August 1992 [Part 2]
           Energiya's role in Space Station assem (2 msgs)
               Energiya role in Space Station assembly
                       Hubble used for spying?
        See the *Illiad* (was Re: Phobos & Deimos Uncertainty)
                       Soyuz as ACRV (10 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 17:32:08 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>I don't know all of them and maybe this is not appropriate for sci.space
>but here is some trivia on our English naming of the Months and Days of the
>week
>
>January------Janus the Roman God of Judgment
>February-----Don't Know
>March--------Roman in origing but cant remember why
>April-------- Same
>May----------Ancient Celtic name for month of the mayday festival that used
>             the "Maypole" central object of worship. Also see Phalic symbol
>June---------Roman in origin
  ^^^------------------- I believe from Jove, a Roman god.

>July---------Julius Ceasar's month
>August-------Augustus Ceasar's month
>September----Septimus Severius's month
 ^^^^^ - Can't say I heard this one.  The explination I received in Latin
     class is the one given before Sept = 8
>October------Octavian's month (Augustus's real name)
    - Again, Oct= 8, Nov = 9 Dec = 10, etc.

>November-----?
>December-----?
>
>Days of the Week
>
>Sunday-------Sun's day (Babylonian in origin)
>Monday-------Moon's day (also babylonian)
>Tuesday------?
    I believe this is From Zeus, Zeus's Day.
>Wednesday----Wotan's day (norse God Odin's day)
>Thursday-----Thor's day (Son of Odin's day)
>Friday-------Freya's day (wife of Odin? day)
>Saturday-----Saturn's day (named after a car plant in Tennessee) or Saturn's
>             day (Norse or babylonian?)
>    As much as I like the first idea, I believe it is a Roman god.


>Just a little trivia pursuit for space folks
>
>Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
>
>


--
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Greg d. Moore                  |  [e-mail]
Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."
Carpe Diem                     |

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

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 17:13:40 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton Space Position
Newsgroups: sci.space

    I realize that all involved have apologized, made up, etc... and so
this is not a flame, but merely an observation...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Henry, your technical postings are probably the best things in sci.space.*.
>However, I would respectfully ask that those who neither pay the taxes
>nor vote in the elections kindly refrain from posting politcal analyses
>of political statements from the USAian election campaign.  If you have a
>technical reason why something a candidate proposes is a good or bad idea,
>fine.  However, a cross border political analysis is rude at best.  Thanks.
>Stop Canadian Imperialism!  Yankee Go Home! :-)
>
    I went to the U2 concert in Albany NY a few months ago, and while
their, the lead singer, Bono made the following comment: (from memory)
"I may not know much about American politics, but I know that if you
folks make a boad decision, we are all f*cked."

    I found this comment ironic for several reasons.  Anyone who has
listened to U2 realizes they tend to have a good handle on what is
going on in the US, better I think than some Americans I know.  (Well,
I guess that is ONE reason I found it ironic ... :-)
    But in either case, Bono's or Henry's  I think being the
"outsider" helps and gives a perspective many of us within the country
don't always have.  And the truth is the same in either case.  What
we as the US decide to do in November, for better or for worse DOES
affect the rest of the world.
    (Now, the question is, does Henry have Bono's voice? :-)

>--
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>  Doug Davey        [e-mail]         bcr!iscp!ddavey
>


--
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Greg d. Moore                  |  [e-mail]
Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."
Carpe Diem                     |

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 15:25:09 GMT
From: Larry Klaes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Electronic Journal of the ASA (EJASA) - August 1992 [Part 2]
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.misc

    AND SPACE TRAVEL, 1966

    Watts, Raymond N., Jr., "Fourth Soviet Moon Probe", SKY & TELESCOPE,
    May 1963

    Wilson, Andrew, (JANE'S) SOLAR SYSTEM LOG, 1987

     "Future NASA Space Programs", STL SPACE LOG, September 1962

    "Future Space Boosters", STL SPACE LOG, March 1962

    "Future Space Programs", STL SPACE LOG, September 1961

    "Spacecraft Details", STL SPACE LOG, December 1961, June 1962,
    December 1962, June 1963

    "The U.S. Space Program: A Chronology", STL SPACE LOG, March 1963

    MAJOR NASA LAUNCHES, KSC Historical Report No. 1A, circa 1987

    SIXTH SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS (NASA), July 1 to December 31,
    1961

    SEVENTH SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS (NASA), January 1 to June 30,
    1962

        EIGHTH SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS (NASA), July 1 to December 31,
    1962

        About the Author -

        Andrew J. LePage is a member of the Boston Group for the Study
    of the Soviet Space Program, Krasnaya Orbita.  In addition to his
    interests in astronomical and space related topics, Andrew has been
    a serious observer of the Soviet (now C.I.S.) space program for over
    one decade.

        Andrew is the author of the following EJASA articles:

        "Mars 1994" - March 1990
        "The Great Moon Race: The Soviet Story, Part One" - December 1990
        "The Great Moon Race: The Soviet Story, Part Two" - January 1991
        "The Mystery of ZOND 2" - April 1991
        "The Great Moon Race: New Findings" - May 1991
        "The Great Moon Race: In the Beginning..." - May 1992


      THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC

                          August 1992 - Vol. 4, No. 1

                           Copyright (c) 1992 - ASA

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 14:53:53 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

As a reminder, the payload penalty of LAUNCHING into an orbit inclined at an
angle to the latitude of the launch site is only ~12% for the worse case
(retrograde), and in practice < 5% for more typical orientations (Orbit
velocity = vector sum of the launch Delta_V + component of the earth's
rotational velocity along the orbit inclination.)  But the energy loss is
hopelessly large for PLANE CHANGES IN ORBIT.

So, my question: why is the Space Station being assembled in a 28.5 deg.
orbit?  This locks out ANY participation by the CIS launch complexes for only
a few % gain in payload.  (This also excludes the obvious benefit to earth
observations of an orbit at 40+ degs, perhaps an important selling point to
soon-to-be VP Gore.)  Concerns re abort sites are irrelevant, in that NASA
has happily launched Shuttles to higher inclination orbits in the past.
---
Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169  Dept. Physics & Astronomy
U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line on the Net costs $10 **

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 15:12:39 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>As a reminder, the payload penalty of LAUNCHING into an orbit inclined at an
>angle to the latitude of the launch site is only ~12% for the worse case
>(retrograde), and in practice < 5% for more typical orientations [...]

>So, my question: why is the Space Station being assembled in a 28.5 deg.
>orbit?  This locks out ANY participation by the CIS launch complexes for only
>a few % gain in payload.  (This also excludes the obvious benefit to earth
>observations of an orbit at 40+ degs, perhaps an important selling point to
>soon-to-be VP Gore.)  Concerns re abort sites are irrelevant, in that NASA
>has happily launched Shuttles to higher inclination orbits in the past.

So if launching into an orbit inclined to the latitude of the launch site
only has a 5% penalty, how does this lock out CIS launches?

We're launching into a 28.5 degree orbit because it is the most efficient
inclination for U.S. launchers.  Since U.S. launches will make up the bulk
of transit to and from the station, anything else would be silly.

Earth observation at higher latitudes is nice, but a lot of the observation
work coming up will be done by Mission to Planet Earth, or whatever that is
being called these days.
--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 17:47:27 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya role in Space Station assembly
Newsgroups: sci.space

It's a lot easier (in terms of the ascent profile) to alter
the orbital inclination for low-latitude launches than for high.
For a low-latitude launch you just set the launch azimuth.  But from
a high-latitude site you have to first boost toward the equator,
then `dogleg' when you reach the latitude of the desired inclination.
This profile can require long ballistic coasts if your site is at
55 deg (inefficient energetically and requires engine restart), but still
uses much less energy than the direct cross-plane maneuver I described
a few days ago.

From just this perspective it still makes sense to increase the orbit
inclination of the Space Station to ease access from the CIS sites, with
minimal impact on launch energetics from KSC. From the point of view of
logistical supprot I would guess that an increased inclination would reduce
the size of a Shuttle launch window.  One argument I heard against a polar
orbit for Skylab (energetically possible w/ Saturn V) was that emergency
return options were much more restricted.  This was a problem for a
water-landing Apollo (no recovery fleet), but doesn't seem to be so much of
an issue with the Shuttle and its large (unloaded) cross-range capability
(c/o the Air Force), although one wonders about using Easter Island ...

In any case, Skylab's high inclination allowed it to pass over most of the
interesting land masses, although nowadays one might want to keep an eye
on polar ozone holes.
--
Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169  Dept. Physics & Astronomy
U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **

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

Date: 3 Aug 1992 17:04:09 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hubble used for spying?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (E.J. du Toit) writes:
>Can the Hubble telescope be rotated to view the earth's surface and what
>could be seen (resolution)?

No.  The Earth is too bright, even at night.  Pointing Hubble at Earth
(or even the moon) would burn out (or seriously endanger) the Faint
Object Camera.

I looked into using the Hubble to look for Asimov Crater on the moon.
No joy.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction
      into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 19:28:51 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: See the *Illiad* (was Re: Phobos & Deimos Uncertainty)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tyler Brown) writes:
> I posted the message below in sci.astro last week. The results are amusing...
>
>
>>>I know that the moon Phobos means "fear" and was a consort of the God
>>>of war (Mars/Ares), but I forget what "Deimos" means. Could someone
>>>remind me?
>>
>>The current vote total is:
>>
>>    Terror    10
>>    Panic    6
>>    Hate    1
>>    Fear    1 (Said that Phobos and Deimos meant fear!)
>>                                    ^^^
>>One said that Phobos means panic...

The historical fact is that Asaph Hall named the moons for the
attendants of Mars in the *Illiad*.  (I've been reading *Planets and
Perception*, forgot the author, and this is discussed in the book.)

Your task now is to figure out what Homer thought "Phobos" and
"Deimos" mean.  I would suggest posting to sci.classics!

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 15:31:37 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>If Soyuz-TM is used as an "lifeboat" for Freedom... doesn't this open up OTHER
>possibilities beyond the normal budget/friendly/we-are-now-friends bit...

The most important possibility is that we can end dependance on the Shuttle
which eats about a third of the NASA budget.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------263 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 15:47:45 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>If Soyuz-TM is used as an "lifeboat" for Freedom... doesn't this open up OTHER
>>possibilities beyond the normal budget/friendly/we-are-now-friends bit...

>The most important possibility is that we can end dependance on the Shuttle
>which eats about a third of the NASA budget.

With the result, of course, that space will be yet another field where the
U.S. once held dominance but allowed it to slip away by worrying too much
about short-term money and not enough about building up technical know-how
and a strong manufacturing base.
--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 15:47:30 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Converting shouldn't be hard. Launch companies routinely change the launcher
>>to whatever interface the payload desires.

>There's more than just the launcher-capsule interface to consider.  Power
>systems, communications protocols, computer interfaces, et cetera may all
>need some work.

Most of these are covered by international standards which the Russians
may use (or not). I'll bet all the computers are Russian copies of US
machines. As for power, go to Radio Shack and buy an adapter.

It would be hard to imagine it costing more then a few hundred million
(especially if the Russians do the modifications). Far less than the cost
of ACRV. We will know the answer in a few months.

However, Soyuz had better work since there isn't going to be an ACRV for
a LONG time (if ever).

>>As to certification, WHY? dozens of them have flown over twenty plus years.
>>It's OPERATIONAL reliability is great. I would feel safer flying a soyuz
>>then on a Shuttle.

>I'm not referring to launch and landing certification, although if we do
>have to modify the internals we'd probably want to give it a few tests.  I
>am referring to the work needed to make sure the Soyuz can stay up for months
>and years as a lifeboat; it's not designed for that.

No need. We just use Soyuz to fly the crews up and down. At eight per year
that's less then two Shuttle flights.

>If we take the easy
>way out and swap capsules every few months, we're going to eat up our
>potential savings in repetitive launch costs and capsule procurment.

Not compared to the Shuttle. With Soyuz, Atlas, and one of the Zenith
Star HLV's we can end the Shuttle program and save big bucks at the
same time.

Down the road, we will replace Soyuz with a DC-1 SSTO which transports the
crew, serves as an OTV, and lifeboat all in one.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------263 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 16:58:28 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>No need. We just use Soyuz to fly the crews up and down. At eight per year
>that's less then two Shuttle flights.

>>If we take the easy
>>way out and swap capsules every few months, we're going to eat up our
>>potential savings in repetitive launch costs and capsule procurment.

>Not compared to the Shuttle. With Soyuz, Atlas, and one of the Zenith
>Star HLV's we can end the Shuttle program and save big bucks at the
>same time.

Uh-huh.  You get what you pay for.  Using your scheme, we have zero
independent science capacity, zero cargo return capacity, and zero technological
advancement.  We're trying to move forward, and you're wanting us to return
to the 60's in the name of the almighty dollar.

Instead of incurring the massive startup costs and incompatibilities of
using Soyuz, why not wait the years or two extra and go for Delta Clipper,
and keep moving forward?

It's amazing to me, personally, that lately the answer to every single
question has been 'let the Russians do it!'  Am I the only person here who
realizes that the Russians (a) face technological limitations, just as we
do, (b) face financial limitations, just as we do, and (c) face political
limitations, just as we do?  The two big advantages that the Russians have
had in the past were the lack of an open democratic process that questions
the dictates of the state, and an economy where the ruble cost of an item
had no relation to the actual effort put into manufacturing it.  Well, times
have changed, and as wages (eventually) rise to meet world standards and
the democratic process takes full hold, these things aren't going to remain
true.  Inefficiencies in the Russian manufacturing sector, rising costs,
worker dissatisfaction, and political games are going to make the Russians
no better a choice than anywhere else.
--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 17:39:12 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>The most important possibility is that we can end dependance on the Shuttle
>>which eats about a third of the NASA budget.

>With the result, of course, that space will be yet another field where the
>U.S. once held dominance but allowed it to slip away by worrying too much
>about short-term money and not enough about building up technical know-how
>and a strong manufacturing base.

How do you figure that? The money needed to build know-how and all that
is being spent flying Shuttle. That's the problem.

Look, suppose we build a Zenith Star HLV for transport of supplies and
Atlas/Soyuz for crew transport. We get the following costs:

1. HLV flights   $400M  (2 flights/year each carries a Soyuz and supplies)
2. Atlas flights $600M  (75M for Atlas and $25M for Soyuz)
3. Cargo Return  $100M  (WAG, stick some Shuttle tiles on a canister and
                         teather it down)
Total anual cost: $1,100M

Let's assume I am off by a factor of 2 or so and call it (rounding a bit)
$2 billion per year.

First of all, doing this makes a market which can be served by private
companies. This will work to furthur reduce costs and save additional
money.

More importantly, we now no longer need the Shuttle. THIS is where the money
will come from to advance the technology which Mr. DeLuca is so (rightly)
concerned about. In the first two years we will save enough to fund two
separate SSTO efforts (one has got to work). After that, we can spend $1
billion per year on lunar hardware and with the leftover money place over
half a million pounds of payload on the Lunar Surface with our SSTO.

We do need to work on these things. However, all the money we are going
to get is being sucked up by Shuttle. We MUST use cheaper existing
technology and the private sector to promote the markets and free up
the money needed to build the things you want.

It is our current course which is a disaster because it wastes all the
available funds and eats our seed corn.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------263 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 17:17:37 GMT
From: Mark Littlefield <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
|>
|> >The 'already existing hardware' is the Soyuz; I was trying to say that the
|> >cost savings from using a currently-existing vehicle (Soyuz) will likely
|> >be eaten up by the cost of converting and certifying it for duty, so we
|>
|> Converting shouldn't be hard. Launch companies routinely change the launcher
|> to whatever interface the payload desires. In fact, using Soyuz may help
|> promote interface standards which will reduce costs.
|>
|> As to certification, WHY? dozens of them have flown over twenty plus years.
|> It's OPERATIONAL reliability is great. I would feel safer flying a soyuz
|> then on a Shuttle.
|>
|>   Allen
|> '
|> --

It's not the flight certification that is the problem.  There are
several issues that NASA must address before Soyuz can be used as am
ACRV.  First it must be adjusted for long term deployment on orbit.
As it currenly stands, Soyuz has an on-orbit life span of about 90
days (if memory serves) due to battery constraints.  This is clearly
not enough for an ACRV.  Also, Soyuz will need to be certified for a
possible water landing.  We do not have areas like the steppes of Asia
to land in like the Russians.

Finally, four people simply cannot fit in the Soyuz (three is a VERY
tight squeeze, I understand).  Either we will have to have two Soyuz
(Soyuzes????) on board Freedom or the craft needs to be adjusted to
fit four.  If we deploy two, there is a problem of where to put the
second.  There are only so many docking ports on Freedom and most are
already accounted for (cupola, hyperbaric airlock, logistics
modules, etc).

--
=====================================================================
Mark L. Littlefield              Intelligent Systems Department
internet: [e-mail]
USsnail:  Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
          2400 Nasa Rd 1 / MC C-19
          Houston, TX 77058-3711
====================================================================

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 18:03:50 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>With the result, of course, that space will be yet another field where the
>>U.S. once held dominance but allowed it to slip away by worrying too much
>>about short-term money and not enough about building up technical know-how
>>and a strong manufacturing base.

>How do you figure that? The money needed to build know-how and all that
>is being spent flying Shuttle. That's the problem.

No, we're getting the knowhow *from* the Shuttle...we've learned more about
high-speed aerodynamics alone, just as an example, from the Shuttle than
we've learned in 20 years before that.  The Shuttle has been one of the
greatest flight laboratories of all time.  Replacing that with a can on a
rocket is a massive step backwards.

>Look, suppose we build a Zenith Star HLV for transport of supplies and
>Atlas/Soyuz for crew transport. We get the following costs:

>1. HLV flights   $400M  (2 flights/year each carries a Soyuz and supplies)

Since the HLV doesn't exist, this number is pretty meaningless.

>2. Atlas flights $600M  (75M for Atlas and $25M for Soyuz)
>3. Cargo Return  $100M  (WAG, stick some Shuttle tiles on a canister and
>                         teather it down)

Uh-huh...tether it down?  What are you attaching your tether to?  How do
you get it to soft-land?  Who puts the thing in the canister?  You need
to put a bit more thought into this one.

Not to mention, of course, I don't see any development costs in the stuff
above...engineers don't work for free.

>Total anual cost: $1,100M

>Let's assume I am off by a factor of 2 or so and call it (rounding a bit)
>$2 billion per year.

After how many years?  You can't turn off the Shuttle now and then develop
this stuff, so you have to support development *and* the Shuttle.  Where are
you going to get the extra money for this?

>First of all, doing this makes a market which can be served by private
>companies. This will work to furthur reduce costs and save additional
>money.

Which private companies?  Large-scale manned orbital flight is going to be a
hell of a big jump for a private company.  Again...how many years down the
line is this?

>More importantly, we now no longer need the Shuttle. THIS is where the money
>will come from to advance the technology which Mr. DeLuca is so (rightly)
>concerned about. In the first two years we will save enough to fund two
>separate SSTO efforts (one has got to work). After that, we can spend $1
>billion per year on lunar hardware and with the leftover money place over
>half a million pounds of payload on the Lunar Surface with our SSTO.

It must be nice to know how much stuff you can put on the moon for what
price with a technology that doesn't even exist yet.  Can I borrow your
crystal ball?

You are making the fatal mistake of tossing out a current technology for
one that doesn't exist yet.  Man-in-a-can is no replacement for the
Shuttle, no matter how much money you might save, and there is zero guarantee
that SSTO will work for useful applications.  When we have a functional
replacement for the shuttle, then we can talk.
--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 92 18:39:33 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>I'm not referring to launch and landing certification, although if we do
>have to modify the internals we'd probably want to give it a few tests.  I
>am referring to the work needed to make sure the Soyuz can stay up for months
>and years as a lifeboat; it's not designed for that.  If we take the easy
>way out and swap capsules every few months, we're going to eat up our
>potential savings in repetitive launch costs and capsule procurment.  Using
>Soyuz is hardly a guaranteed cheap-and-easy solution to the question of
>guaranteed crew return.

We know a Soyuz can stay up for "months" because they manage to do it on Mir
quite a bit. So how often to they swap Soyuzes on Mir now, hmm?

Exchanging capsules would be an ASSET; you can return materials on it, and
send supplies up on the replacement, and you'd get MORE use out of it than
building something here which turns into a one-use porkbarrel project.


       Humility delivered via flamethrower. No, not Croatia, but Usenet.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 18:57:51 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>We know a Soyuz can stay up for "months" because they manage to do it on Mir
>quite a bit. So how often to they swap Soyuzes on Mir now, hmm?

About every three months, if memory serves; if the crew stays up longer than
that, visiting cosmonaut crews swap capsules.

>Exchanging capsules would be an ASSET; you can return materials on it, and
>send supplies up on the replacement, and you'd get MORE use out of it than
>building something here which turns into a one-use porkbarrel project.

I don't think you can fit any usable cargo in a three-man capsule.
--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 18:48:07 GMT
From: GILES JR G E <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In a conversation between Allen W. Sherzer and Matthew DeLuca:

DeLuca comments that dumping the Shuttle and betting on non-existant
technology is unwise.  I agree.  This is precisely what we did when we
canned Apollo/Saturn in order to develop the shuttle.  Lets not do it
again.

Gary

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 065
------------------------------