yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (11/05/90)
In article <2658@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes:
[quoting Alan Sherzer]
+Again, can you be more specific? When McDonnell Douglas says they
+can cluster Deltas to lift a 100K pound payload for $500M in three
+years on what do you base your belief that it can't be done? When
+Martin Marrietta makes similar claims about the Titan, why are they
+wrong? What error in costing did they make?
-
I have no doubt MDAC and Martin can deliver those. But I am still
waiting to hear how they or anybody else can build a new re-usable
manned spacecraft with long stay EVA capability (including robot arm)
for less than $ 5 - 10 B. You cannot build LLNL without one, you
yourself acknowledge the need for contingency EVA, and that is what
it takes. Looks cheaper to use the Shuttle for the contingency EVA
role.
I'm not sure that contingency EVA requires a "re-usable manned
spacecraft with long stay EVA capability (including robot arm)". As
long as the Earth Station maintains integrity, the astronauts should
be able to run EVAs out of it. Of course, if it doesn't, then they
*are* in deep trouble.
On the other hand, Charles Radley does raise an important point here.
How *is* LLNL planning to get astronauts up to the station? Are they
planning to use the shuttle or develop their own spacecraft? It
probably wouldn't be too risky to rely on the shuttle for one or two
launches, where it really *is* useful (i.e. launching astronauts).
In contrast, the number of shuttle launches that Freedom requires
makes me a bit uncomfortable. Then again, I could be wrong -- at
least the hydrogen leaks have been fixed...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") (11/06/90)
In article <YAMAUCHI.90Nov5010259@heron.cs.rochester.edu>: >On the other hand, Charles Radley does raise an important point here. >How *is* LLNL planning to get astronauts up to the station? Put a capsule on a Delta. >Are they planning to use the shuttle or develop their own spacecraft? They plan to develop their own. For $200M they could buy a ACRV or a Soyuz for $50M. We have built lots of capsules in the last 30 years so I don't think it needs to be that expensive. >It >probably wouldn't be too risky to rely on the shuttle for one or two >launches, where it really *is* useful (i.e. launching astronauts). Not too risky, but far too expensive. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | | aws@iti.org | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it | | | works or not? - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts |
crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) (11/06/90)
+I'm not sure that contingency EVA requires a "re-usable manned +spacecraft with long stay EVA capability (including robot arm)". As +long as the Earth Station maintains integrity, the astronauts should +be able to run EVAs out of it. Of course, if it doesn't, then they +*are* in deep trouble. - Again, am talking about BEFORE the Earth station is online, I am trying to cover the contingecy of the Earth Station failing to automatically inflate, and EVA or robotics are required to complete the assembly......
crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) (11/06/90)
>How *is* LLNL planning to get astronauts up to the station? +Put a capsule on a Delta. >Are they planning to use the shuttle or develop their own spacecraft? +They plan to develop their own. For $200M they could buy a ACRV or +a Soyuz for $50M. We have built lots of capsules in the last 30 years +so I don't think it needs to be that expensive. - Soyuz is not available, how can LLNL have it in their plan ? A capsule of $ 200 M is inadequate, as a minimum a Gemini type vehicle is required which is more like $ 2 - 3 B. Remember you need long duration EVA, it may take a couple of weeks to get a failed LLNL fully deployed. If we had access to Soyuz and Soviet technology, the cheapest approach would be to scrap LLNL and use Mir.
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (11/06/90)
In article <2666@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes: [ quoting Allen quoting me ] >How *is* LLNL planning to get astronauts up to the station? +Put a capsule on a Delta. >Are they planning to use the shuttle or develop their own spacecraft? +They plan to develop their own. For $200M they could buy a ACRV or +a Soyuz for $50M. We have built lots of capsules in the last 30 years +so I don't think it needs to be that expensive. - Soyuz is not available, how can LLNL have it in their plan ? A capsule of $ 200 M is inadequate, as a minimum a Gemini type vehicle is required which is more like $ 2 - 3 B. Remember you need long duration EVA, it may take a couple of weeks to get a failed LLNL fully deployed. As I understand it, LLNL is not planning on developing a spacecraft which can deploy the Earth Station under a "worst-case" scenario, just a simple capsule which can get the astronauts into orbit. It's prohibitively expensive to cover all possible failure modes. The worst case scenario for any space station is a launch explosion, but in order to cover for this, you would need to make backups for all of your modules. Is this going to be done for Freedom? Evidently, LLNL does not consider the possibility of a complete deployment failure to be worth $2-3 B, which seems reasonable to me since this would probably exceed the entire projected development cost of the Earth Station. If we had access to Soyuz and Soviet technology, the cheapest approach would be to scrap LLNL and use Mir. If you just wanted to do microgravity research, then this might be true, but the Earth Station is not designed for microgravity research -- it's designed for artificial gravity research and to support the Gas Station as part of the larger mission to establish permanent manned bases on both the moon and Mars. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") (11/06/90)
In article <2666@polari.UUCP>: >Soyuz is not available, Yes it is. I spoke with a vice president of Space Commerce Inc. recently. He told me that for $50M he would deliver you a Soyuz. I'm sure you could also get a quanity discount. >how can LLNL have it in their plan? They don't as far as I know. I am only demonstrating that it can be done. >A capsule of $ 200 M is inadequate, as a minimum a Gemini type vehicle >is required which is more like $ 2 - 3 B. You have yet to justify that number in any way. Why won't ACRV work? Also, for $2 to 3 billion (assuming your numbers are correct) you could build and launch ~5 Earth Stations. If the first one fails, the second one will. This second one will be built and launched for less than the cost of ONE shuttle flight. >Remember you need long >duration EVA, it may take a couple of weeks to get a failed LLNL >fully deployed. Or it might not. Skylab didn't need two weeks. > If we had access to Soyuz and Soviet technology, the cheapest >approach would be to scrap LLNL and use Mir. Mir does not provide artificial gravity. It is also not clear that the Soviets would sell it (after all, it is starting to show a profit). Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | | aws@iti.org | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it | | | works or not? - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts |
v071pzp4@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L Cole) (11/06/90)
In article <2666@polari.UUCP>, crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes... > > >>How *is* LLNL planning to get astronauts up to the station? >+Put a capsule on a Delta. Is LNLL sure the Delta can be made man-rated? Cheaply? Just throwing a capsule on top of a Delta doesn't sound particularly safe. I know Delta has a great launch record, but I doubt it was ever designed for manned-flight. Craig Cole V071PZP4@UBVMS.BITNET V071PZP4@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") (11/07/90)
In article <44579@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>: >>>How *is* LLNL planning to get astronauts up to the station? >>+Put a capsule on a Delta. >Is LNLL sure the Delta can be made man-rated? Cheaply? LLNL has no intention of man-rating whatever launchers they use. Since the operational record of Titan and Delta is better than the Shuttle's operational record and about equal to outside estimates of Shuttle reliability there seems little point. Man rating adds cost but doesn't add reliability. >Just throwing a >capsule on top of a Delta doesn't sound particularly safe. I know >Delta has a great launch record, but I doubt it was ever designed >for manned-flight. If the vibration load on the crew isn't too bad, why not? Consider two hypothetical launchers. One man rated which kills about 10% of the crews who fly on it in 100 flights. Another is not man- rated and kills about 5% of the crews who fly on it in 100 flights. Which would you rather fly on? Now suppose that in 100 flights two other launch vehicles kill ~2% of their crews (again, one is man-rated and the other isn't). The man rated one costs four times as much to fly as the non rated one. Which would you rather fly (assuming you are paying for the ticket)? I myself would fly the non man-rated launcher in both cases. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | | aws@iti.org | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it | | | works or not? - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts |
jkonrath@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jon) (11/07/90)
In article <9011061721.AA24422@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: >In article <44579@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>: >>>>How *is* LLNL planning to get astronauts up to the station? >>>+Put a capsule on a Delta. > >>Is LNLL sure the Delta can be made man-rated? Cheaply? > >LLNL has no intention of man-rating whatever launchers they use. Since >the operational record of Titan and Delta is better than the Shuttle's >operational record and about equal to outside estimates of Shuttle >reliability there seems little point. Man rating adds cost but doesn't >add reliability. > >>Just throwing a >>capsule on top of a Delta doesn't sound particularly safe. I know >>Delta has a great launch record, but I doubt it was ever designed >>for manned-flight. > >If the vibration load on the crew isn't too bad, why not? its not just vibration load (which is probably too bad) its also the acceleratation. Most of the payload rockets made have way too high acceleration rates for humans....even with gsuits/seats/etc.. sure, a chunk of metal and silicon can take it, but not a human.... one of the reasons most manned flights are liquid powered or use way more advanced solid boosters.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JKONRATH@silver.ucs.indiana.edu if youre old fashioned (VMS) @rose.ucs.indiana.edu if just plain archaic (prime) @sbway.iusb.indiana.edu and if you can't even log in: 58319 Ironwood, Elkhart, IN 46516 disclaimer: these cannot be my thoughts, as someone still claims me on their taxes: furthermore, all comments were an act of God: sue your church -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) (11/07/90)
In article <70202@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> jkonrath@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jon) writes (with regard to manned Delta): >its not just vibration load (which is probably too bad) its also the >acceleratation. Most of the payload rockets made have way too high >acceleration rates for humans....even with gsuits/seats/etc.. >sure, a chunk of metal and silicon can take it, but not a human.... >one of the reasons most manned flights are liquid powered or use >way more advanced solid boosters.... Advanced solid boosters? Wow, sort of like a power-hungry libertarian, I guess... Phil
aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") (11/07/90)
In article <70202@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>: >>If the vibration load on the crew isn't too bad, why not? [send people on >>a Delta] >its not just vibration load (which is probably too bad) Or it may not be too bad. Anybody know for sure? >its also the acceleratation. >Most of the payload rockets made have way too high >acceleration rates for humans....even with gsuits/seats/etc.. So what are the max Gs for Delta and Titan? Tell you what, if you object to the solids we will use an Atlas. It's a bit more expensive but it doesn't use solids, lifts more than a Delta, and variants have flown men before. >sure, a chunk of metal and silicon can take it, but not a human.... You may be right but so far it is unproven. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | | aws@iti.org | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it | | | works or not? - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts |
crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) (11/07/90)
In article <2666@polari.UUCP>: >Soyuz is not available, +Yes it is. I spoke with a vice president of Space Commerce Inc. recently. +He told me that for $50M he +would deliver you a Soyuz. I'm sure you could +also get a quanity discount. - That is not the problem. US State Department technology restrictions prohibit hi-tech co-operation with the Soviets. US aerospace companies and government agencies are not allowed to send their employees to the USSR without an export license, which is virtually impossible to get (with one exception, Payloads Systems Inc managed to slip through the net and flew an experiment on Mir. The net has subsequently been tightened). And US companies and government agencies are not allowed to permit Soviet citizens to enter sites where aerospace work is being done. So you will get your Soyuz and maybe some manuals in Russian. But nobody in the west will know how to launch or fly the thing, and nobody from the USSR will be allowed to train the US personnel. If you don't believe me, ask the Australian Cape York Space Agency what is giving them their biggest headache.....they want to get a US company to operate Soviet Zenit launch vehicles, and the US State Dept is saying - "forget it !" - >how can LLNL have it in their plan? +They don't as far as I know. I am only demonstrating that it can be done. - So what DO they propose ? +Also, for $2 to 3 billion (assuming your numbers are correct) you could +build and launch ~5 Earth Stations. If the first one fails, the second +one will. This second one will be built and launched for less than the cost +of ONE shuttle flight. - I guess that is the cheapest approach, if you believe the costs. But they will still need a $ 2 - 3 B crew shuttle and ACRV, it really cannot be done for less, it needs to stand high G, re-entry, etc. Non-trivial engineering issues. >Remember you need long >duration EVA, it may take a couple of weeks to get a failed LLNL >fully deployed. +Or it might not. Skylab didn't need two weeks. - They were lucky. They did have two week capability if it had proven necessary. > If we had access to Soyuz and Soviet technology, the cheapest >approach would be to scrap LLNL and use Mir. +Mir does not provide artificial gravity. It is also not clear that +the Soviets would sell it (after all, it is starting to show a profit). - Now you are contradicting yourself. You said congress wants a microgravity facility and criticised NASA for "adding the kitchen sink". Then you advocate a LLNL where artifical gravity eliminates all microgravity research capability........Artifical gravity is neither necessary, nor helpful, for an Earth orbit station, where crews are rotated every 90 days.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/08/90)
In article <2669@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes: >... (with one exception, Payloads Systems Inc >managed to slip through the net and flew an experiment on Mir. The >net has subsequently been tightened). References please. They didn't "slip through", they got proper permission for everything in advance, and as far as I know they're going ahead with their plans to fly more. Their payload is protein-crystallization experiments for drug development, and their comment was that the precautions needed to keep drug companies' materials secret from other companies far exceeded what the US government asked for to keep them secret from the Soviets. They also observed that the Soviets were willing to accept safety certification from an independent US lab (something that NASA would never have gone for). This eliminated any need to tell the Soviets what was inside the box or permit them to open it. > If you don't believe me, ask the Australian Cape York Space Agency >what is giving them their biggest headache.....they want to get a US >company to operate Soviet Zenit launch vehicles, and the US State >Dept is saying - "forget it !" References please. United Space Boosters Inc. had their application to participate approved a couple of months ago, admittedly after some delay and dithering. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") (11/08/90)
In article <2669@polari.UUCP>: >(with one exception, Payloads Systems Inc >managed to slip through the net and flew an experiment on Mir. The >net has subsequently been tightened). They didn't 'manage to slip through the net'. They followed the correct procedures in an open and above board manner. >And US companies and government agencies are not allowed to permit >Soviet citizens to enter sites where aerospace work is being done. Reports say that a Soviet Cosmonaut will fly on a Shuttle within the next couple of years (a US Astronaut will also fly on Mir). I wonder how we will get the Cosmonaut onto the shuttle without allowing him onto a site where aerospace work is being done? > So you will get your Soyuz and maybe some manuals in Russian. >But nobody in the west will know how to launch or fly the thing, and >nobody from the USSR will be allowed to train the US personnel. The US company operating Cape Your will get extensive training on Zenit. Your statement here is minsiformed. > If you don't believe me, ask the Australian Cape York Space Agency >what is giving them their biggest headache.....they want to get a US >company to operate Soviet Zenit launch vehicles, and the US State >Dept is saying - "forget it !" Again, you're not up on current events. First of all, the State Department was an early and strong supporter of Cape York, it was DoD and Commerce who opposed it. Second of all, Cape York is a done deal. It will be designed and operated by a US company. It's not as hard as it looks. >But they will still need a $ 2 - 3 B crew shuttle and ACRV, it really >cannot be done for less, it needs to stand high G, re-entry, etc. >Non-trivial engineering issues. You have yet to justify that number. Your last cost estimate for Titan's was off by a factor of two. >Artifical gravity is neither necessary, nor helpful, for an Earth orbit >station, where crews are rotated every 90 days. True enough. On the other hand, it would be nice if you want to keep a crew up there for a year or so. Doing this would shave billions off life cycle costs. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | | aws@iti.org | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it | | | works or not? - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts |
sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ken Sheppardson) (11/08/90)
In article <9011072124.AA13810@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: >In article <2669@polari.UUCP>: > >>And US companies and government agencies are not allowed to permit >>Soviet citizens to enter sites where aerospace work is being done. > >Reports say that a Soviet Cosmonaut will fly on a Shuttle within >the next couple of years (a US Astronaut will also fly on Mir). > >I wonder how we will get the Cosmonaut onto the shuttle without >allowing him onto a site where aerospace work is being done? > We recently (last month) had a group of Soviet citizens tour the facilities here at Langley. I certainly hope we aren't going to start disputing whether or not we here at LaRC are doing 'aerospace work' :) =============================================================================== Ken Sheppardson Email: kcs@sso.larc.nasa.gov Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office Phone: (804) 864-7544 NASA Langley Research Center FAX: (804) 864-1975 ===============================================================================
crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) (11/08/90)
Payload Systems did indeed slip through the net. What I mean by that is that they did obtain an export license, but the license was issued by the Department of Commerce, and not by the Department of State. The latter was extremely annoyed, and had strong words to say to the Dept of Commerce. It is now highly unlikely that Commerce will want to incurr the wrath of State again, and are not likely to issue any more licenses without State's approval. Ref USBI and CYSA - there were lots of reports in the media in the summer that an export license had been issued to USBI. However, I never saw a formal announcement. I attended the Vandeburg Space Week conference at the end of July, where Norman Bowles, Associate Director of Licensing Programs at the Department of Transportation stated strongly that the reports in the media were incorrect, and that no formal approval had been given. I still have not seen a formal announcement. Have you ? If on the other hand, USBI did get a license, then it sets a significant precedent. I will investigate the possibility of buying stock in CYSA and/or USBI, since with low cost soviets launch vehicles, they cost to orbit will be unassailable.
crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) (11/09/90)
OOps, I guess government centers are not subject to the restrictions of commercial companies. The premise there I suppose is that government security centers have "better" security arrangements that commercial companies. By thesame token, it should be that much easier for LLNL to launch their staion using Soviet boosters, and to purchase Soyuz vehicles, cheaper than developing their own.
crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) (11/09/90)
+this will be my last reply (nothing new is being said anyway). Mr. +Radley is welcome to have the last word. - I found your posts most stimulating and enlightening, I hope you will continue to share your news and thoughts as time permits. Let me add some "new" thoughts...... +My preference is to let them fight it out. Fund both until one is + up and working then kill the other. A little competition goes a long way. - It looks more like Freedom and LLNL could be COMPLIMENTARY, since they appear to have different missions. The question is, which mission(s) is/are the right ones. I am opposed to Mars missions, but favor a lunar base processing lunar soil. Since Great Exploration is Mars oriented, I don't like it. +BTW, how many space stations has your employer built? If the answer is not at least 3 then I would say you don't have a track record either. - My employer is not building a space station, and probably never will. We have been making space mechanical subsystems for over 20 years. Our customer, McDonnell Douglas, built Skylab, which was the US's only space station. The Freedom contractors have an average of 20 years experience in large space systems. +No I quote the original cost and schedule as provided to Congress + in 1984. - Congress was provided with various estimates as the program developed. 1984 was the Rockwell era. Later, Phase-C was awarded to a different consortium who quoted a different price. +Freedom FEL comes up there will be TWENTY flights ahead of you. Is +Freedom going to tell those people to take a hike? - It is similar to a planetary mission with fixed launch windows, Ulysses and Galileo got up on schedule, and other flights worked around them. +Actually, it makes micorgravity better. By putting the microgravity +facility in a crew-tended free flyer it won't be subjected to the +vibration which Freedom will subject it to. - True, but it won't benefit from continuous manned presence to fix problems. For a free-flyer to fly "in-formation" with a nearby manned base will require frequent disruptive thruster pulses, so it is not totally quiet. Otherwise it would have to rely on nodal regression to rendezvous with a station, with weeks or months of no human access. >It also makes studies of biological effects of zero-g impossible. +You could add a zero-G module in the middle if you want. Or if the +LLNL station demonstrates the viability of the concept you can build +large 0G stations for a very very small amount of money. - You get cheap empty shells, it costs plenty to fit them out with state of the art scientific equipment. LLNL may be lighter and cheaper than using metal modules a' la Freedom, but most of Freedom's weight and cost is in the science and support equipment, the module structure is small fraction of the total. + [text deleted] Now if this redesign happens, I would tend to +support it (provided commercial needs are met). - What commercial needs ? It puzzles me why people such as yourself prefer a small station to a big one. Every year Freedom's capability is cut, and the schedule slipped. We, the designers, find it most frustrating. I think it would have been cheaper in the long run to have built the station which was bid 4 years ago. Since then congress has blown about 10,000 man-years of effort by forcing annual redesigns. And then people such as yourself blame it on NASA and the contractors, AARGH ! +So tell me, what is the value of man rating when man rated systems +end up being no safer but four times as expensive as the non-man +rated ones? - That was not true of Mercury through Skylab, nor Vostok through Soyuz. >You mean they will design, build and fly twelve precursor (Gemini) >spacecraft to develop the technology, +Yep. Those missions have already been flown (the program was called +Gemini). That knowledge didn't just e+rase itself you know. - Gemini did not test inflatable space structures. Nobody has done that. Much of the Gemini heritage has been erased, try and get a set of Gemini manufacturing drawings. +The station flies up unmanned and inflates itself. When the +environment is OK, people go on board. What's wrong with this? - Nothing that a full qual program can't fix :-) >+Yep it has. Tell me, in 90 $$ how much does an Apollo capsule >+cost? >The tooling for Apollo has been destroyed, and there are >very few drawings left. Apollo's cannot be built for all the tea >in China. You will have to build a new vehicle. +You didn't answer my question. How much in 90 $$ does an Apollo CM +cost? Please provide a source. After all, how can we estimate the +true cost of developing a suitable capsule without looking at past +experience? - I did answer, all-the-tea-in-china is a euphamism for "indeterminite very high cost". Nobody can give a numerical answer today. And why do you want an obsolete museum peice ? New electronics and new materials permit more lightweight designs. Heck, those old Apollo computers simply ain't available any more. It is like asking today's Detroit to build you a model-T Ford, even if they could figure out how, it would take forever and nobody could afford to buy one ! The Japanese and ESA concluded that a new winged mini-shuttle is the answer and they talk $ 10s of Bs, NASA is not alone. A CM is not adequate because it could last about 30 minutes on battery power, you would need an SM to go with it. +Nope. A Titan III costs $125M list (Avation Week Jan 8, 1990 page +43). A Titan IV is less than 200M (150M according to Tech. Review). - I stand corrected. +Two Titans gives you more interior room than Freedom. - Interior volume is not particularly exciting, except for recreation. Maybe useful if we ever get a space tourism industry up and running. Right now more interested in maximum science for minimum weight and cost. >Pads 40 and 41 are already in use by USAF and commercial users. >The launch rates you quote require at least one new additional pad. +Yes the pads are in use. That doesn't mean they are unavailbe all +the time. According to OTA, no new pads are needed to achieve this +launch rate. - I have personal experience of a case where a Commercial Titan launch was bumped by a military launch. The pads are already very busy. If Henry Spencer is correct, and State Dept awarded an export license to USBI, then LLNL should be talking to them because Zenit is much cheaper than HLV or Titan. +Finally, I note that Mr. Radley has not made any major points +against the LLNL approach. His only complaint, testing, is invalid +because LLNL does do testing using methodologies considered +adaaquate for Apollo. Mr. Radley has given no detailed assessment +of why LLNL testing methodology is flawed for the level of risk +assumed and his - Testing is neither my only nor my biggest complaint. The "biggie" is the total lack of any realistic proposal for a manned ferry craft, $ 200 M doesn't cut the mustard, and US Law prohibits collaboration with the Soviets, so forget Soyuz etc. I am not familiar with LLNL's specific test approach, and you have not posted anything specific for me to critique. The costs quoted rule out Apollo style testing. To assume the first flight article will inflate first time is optimistic. And I said all along, my main problem is the cost, not so much the technical approach. +other comments indicate that he doesn't understand how the program works. - Probably true, have had trouble getting data. Unwilling to contact LLNL myself, very little available public domain.
leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (11/10/90)
In article <2688@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes: >+Freedom FEL comes up there will be TWENTY flights ahead of you. Is >+Freedom going to tell those people to take a hike? >- >It is similar to a planetary mission with fixed launch windows, >Ulysses and Galileo got up on schedule, and other flights worked >around them. I expect Fred will be as 'on schedule' as Galileo - first planned for launch in 1982, slipped to the end of the decade due almost entirely to shuttle-related problems including lack of suitable shuttle-qualified upper stages and 3 years of downtime. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``Scientific progress goes "Boink"?'' - Hobbes
eempa@iceman.jcu.oz (M Parigi) (11/10/90)
In article <1990Nov7.175448.17819@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <2669@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes: > > If you don't believe me, ask the Australian Cape York Space Agency > >what is giving them their biggest headache.....they want to get a US > >company to operate Soviet Zenit launch vehicles, and the US State > >Dept is saying - "forget it !" > > References Please. This is now been reduced to the second biggest headache! The aboriginals (native Australians) who live in the general vicinity of the Cape York Site are giving them the biggest headache. They think they own the whole of Australia (their ancestors actually did) and they aren't going to move from their wilderness paradise living off social security payments for anyone (especially for "highly desructive developments"). The greenies around here have given their cause a great deal of credibility. They are opposing all developments here. Hopefully, public opinion will sway against them. With our economy going into recession, this is just the sort of high-tech development that we need more of. Disclaimer:- a lot of people in my university disagree with me. Marco Parigi, James Cook University of North Queensland
crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) (11/11/90)
Why not tell the aboriginies and the greens about this:- Most launch sites are wildlife sanctuaries. For example, Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and Vandenburg Air Force Base, all of which I know well first hand. KSC is crawling with alligators, manatess, and birds of infinite variety. When working at KSC for Galileo preps there was a Shuttle launch, and I watched the tourists line up in their thousands on the causeway. Little did they know, a couple of hundred metres behind them was a waterway where I used to see a pair of alligators have their morning swim on my daily commute. (They have crocodiles in Queensland don't they ?) In all those locations the wildlife is protected from the development going on outside. Those launch sites all border on prime real estate, which property develpers are overbuilding as fast as they can. Queensland is rather more remote, but with a booming tourist industry, is slowly becoming more developed, and a launch site there would protect the local ecology. Launch sites, for safety reasons, tend to prefer large open space where rockets can explode and stages can drop, and propellant can leak, without hurting people or property. At Vandenburg a week ago I saw a heard of wild deer next to the flight line, and a single Roe deer in the middle of the industrial area. There is also a small pride of mountain lions in a canyon behind the Atlas pads on the south base.
gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond) (11/12/90)
Charles> Why not tell the aboriginies and the greens about this:-
Charles>
Charles> Most launch sites are wildlife sanctuaries.
More to the point, the site chosen is not virgin wilderness, but has
been a pastoral lease for years and years. In fact, one of the
hurdles was (is?) a contract dispute over who has title to the land
and who can sell/lease it to CYSA (worth a considerable sum of money).
This doesn't seem to impress either greenies of aboriginal activists.
What will kill the project, assuming it ever gets past the luddites,
is that it is principally a _property development_, not a spaceport.
And there is no money for investing in property at the moment.
Greg.
--
Gregory Bond, Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
Internet: gnb@melba.bby.oz.au non-MX: gnb%melba.bby.oz@uunet.uu.net
Uucp: {uunet,pyramid,ubc-cs,ukc,mcvax,prlb2,nttlab...}!munnari!melba.bby.oz!gnbschaper@pnet51.orb.mn.org (S Schaper) (11/13/90)
Why not let the free-flyer be the one to orbit without the thruster
corrections, except for the ones necessary to maintain orbit, let the manned
platform do the formation flying? That may turn out necessary for Freedom as
ell
to have the materials sciences on a separate platform - an expanded Columbus,
and let the manned platform do the biological experiments and have the SEI
and OMV's to service the Columbus and EOS platforms. Perhaps an LLNL spun
section could be added to the station. Even sent up first to house astronauts
for construction phase? Thoughts, as this is also problematic.
Could Hermes be launched from an upgraded Titan IV (LRB's)? We could purchase
some for crew transfer, freeing the aging shuttle fleet for what it does best.
Zeitgeist Busters!
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil
INET: schaper@pnet51.cts.com