Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1990 18:44-EST From: space-tech-request@cs.cmu.edu To: "~/st/lists/stdigest" Subject: Space-tech Digest #49 Contents: George Ott No Waste In Space [low-budget space activity] Edward Wright Re: No Waste In Space George Herbert Re: No Waste In Space George Ott Saturn V Jean Kim Re: No Waste In Space George Herbert Re: No Waste In Space Peter Thomas Re: No Waste In Space George Herbert Re: No Waste In Space Henry Spencer Re: No Waste In Space Henry Spencer Re: No Waste In Space Henry Spencer Re: No Waste In Space Greg Lindahl Shuttle-C economies of scale? George Herbert Re: No Waste In Space ------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 08:08 CST From: GOTT@wishep.physics.wisc.edu Subject: No Waste In Space To: space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU X-VMS-To: IN%"space-tech@cs.cmu.edu" There is a horrendeous waste of on-orbit materials going on in the USSR. The Mir space station is resupplied via Progress delivery vehicals. Each Progress has it's own rendezvous and docking system and about 1000kg of payload. Once a Progress has been unloaded at Mir, it gets loaded with trash and reentered sans heat shield. (now that's an incinerator :) Why not keep them on orbit? Use them for expansion "elbow room" (every crew member gets their own "room" ie one member per Progress), or as shielding or as platforms for other stuff. Perhaps those groups looking at uses for the shuttles external tank should see how much Glavcosmos (sp?) wants for a delivered Progress. Hmmmm.... How's this for a scenario: 1. Start buying Progress's from the USSR. Spring for the extra delta V needed to keep them on orbit for a while. 2. Contract to buy two or three external tanks from the US. 3. Design a life support system that...wait, just buy one from the USSR, they've done all the R&D already. Put a Soviet LS system in a can and have it flown by whoever has the low bid (subject to a modifier for reliability) 4. Design a structure that will hold all of the pieces together and an attitude control system, communications etc. Put it all up on a Proton or Energia. Make use of LLNL's kevlar ideas. Keep as a design philosophy: Simple, repairable, rugged. 5. For on-orbit assemble their are a couple of choices, assemble it by remote control or subcontract to those cosmonauts. 6. Move in a crew, test the thing out open for business. 7. Continue to buy up shuttle external tanks and Progress ships. 8. EXPAND. Geez I want to get started on it NOW! :) :) Expensive? Yeah, but I don't know how expensive. Does anyone know what the most expensive privately funded project is/was? I have never seen anybody say that space industry could not make money given the chance, the arguments are that it's too expensive and too difficult to get that first platform up. Let's get to it!! The urge to bootstrap is upon me! As an aside, does anyone have tech. specs. on the Progress vehical and/or know how often they get launched? "I must not fear. Fear is the Mind killer...." Bene Gessirit Let's go. George K. Ott just a flunky at The University of WI - High Energy Physics Department GOTT::WISHEP ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 14:43:57 CST From: "Edward V. Wright" To: GOTT@wishep.physics.wisc.edu, gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu, space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: No Waste In Space How about rebuilding the Saturn V? I know that NASA's estimated "redevelopment program" would take longer and cost more, in adjusted dollars, than the original Saturn development program. But can't we convince the government to "privatize" the Saturn design, the way they did with Delta, Atlas, and Titan? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 11:51:56 PST From: gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu To: GOTT@wishep.physics.wisc.edu, space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: No Waste In Space That's an interesting proposal. It might do well if combined with one that i've been working on, to wit: Fly two playloads: One, a Titan IV with a big pressurized storage and airlock module, filled to the corners with interior fitting parts and various equipment. The second is a Shuttle ET, with a 'bottom of the ET cargo bay' module attatched: which is a life support system and an interface to the Titan module, and a hatch into the LH2 tank. Bootstrap time, people...everyone want to fly their own favorite ideas? :-) -george ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 15:13 CST From: GOTT@wishep.physics.wisc.edu Subject: Saturn V To: space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU X-VMS-To: IN%"space-tech@cs.cmu.edu" Why bother rebuilding the Saturn V when we can just buy Soviet machines that are already around? Build the whole thing with existing hardware - start making $$$ THEN sink a good percentage of the profit into R&D on materials, structures, mass drivers laser launchers... whatever. Start with what we have, it's (almost) GOT to be cheaper than inventing/ designing something new. George K Ott BitNet GOTT@WISHEP InterNet GOTT@WISHEP.PHYSICS.WISC.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 15:01:03 PST From: Jean Kim To: ewright@convex.com, space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: No Waste In Space writes: >How about rebuilding the Saturn V? Does NASA still have the blue prints for them?? The last I heard, the scientists were measuring 'em with the rulers (i think they said micrometer) out on the fields where the late great rests. For a while there the rumor was that NASA deliberately destroyed the blue prints for Saturn V so that Space Shuttle program would not get the axe. ??Who knows?? -jeanie ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 16:07:55 PST From: gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu To: space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: No Waste In Space Cc: gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu The cost estimates show it to be cheaper to build a Shuttle-C variant than to make more [including reverse-engineering costs] Saturn-V's [from memory, correct me if i'm wrong] for the equivalent payload delivered. And a shuttle-C will be faster to come online. -george ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Feb 90 10:37:50 EST From: Peter Thomas Subject: RE: No Waste In Space To: space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released George--now you're talking! First off, on the "Progress buy-out" plan--I think we would have to look fairly carefully at what exactly the layout of the vehicles are (I've never seen even a picture, myself)--basically, though the idea of "glueing" boosters, expended mid-stages, etc., together to build a space-station is not a new one--but it is a feasible one, as far as I can tell. All of my thoughts have run towards building mostly from scratch--but I see no reason that we couldn't start with a seed platform of "second-hand" building materials. The reason I like the idea is that it allows us to do a (relatively speaking) low-cost proof-of-concept, get the investors to start rolling in, and then work from there. Shuttle ET's have the kind of volume that I would like to see for station modules. I'm sure people have looked at this question before--how hard is it to get the ET into a (reasonably stable) orbit...Long enough to adjust it and tow it to where you want it at a later time? --Pete --- KramMail v1.13E * Origin: Singularity Hostel CBCS (1:109/141) -- Peter Thomas at The Black Cat's Shack (Fidonet 1:109/401) Internet: Peter.Thomas@f141.n109.z1.fidonet.org UUCP: ...!uunet!blkcat!141!Peter.Thomas ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 01:23:12 PST From: gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu To: Peter.Thomas@f141.n109.z1.fidonet.org, space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: RE: No Waste In Space Cc: gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu The shuttle is forced to do a slighly inefficient burn to dump the ET safely into the indian ocean. If they don't have to do that, it apparently will raise the payload to orbit capacity by some small amount, along with having the tank there :-) This excess capacity ought to go into the mods on the ET for life support and a hatch to the inside. The orbit that you'll end up in is the standard shuttle orbit. -george william herbert gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 12:46:34 EST To: rscene.hac.com!jeanie@zoo.toronto.edu Cc: ewright@convex.com, space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: No Waste In Space > >How about rebuilding the Saturn V? > > Does NASA still have the blue prints for them?? NASA still has most -- not all -- of the plans for the Saturn V. However, the tooling is all gone, many of the subcontractors are gone, many details of operation and manufacturing (especially of subcontracted pieces) never got written up and are now lost, and the launch facilities have been converted for the shuttle. Reviving the Saturn V would be marginally easier than building it the first time was, but only marginally. A good bit of it would have to be re-developed, and everything would have to be re-tested. And you'd have to build yourself a KSC equivalent, since NASA is using the one it's got :-). The real problem with any big-booster project, including Shuttle-C and ALS, is: where are the customers? The list of approved missions that could use heavy-lift capability is really short. To create a serious market for a heavy booster, you need to assume that somebody -- NASA, SDI, whoever -- gets a big jump in budget and starts doing a lot in space. (Those are two distinct requirements: net space activity bought by several billions of dollars of space-station budget to date has been zero.) That does not seem very likely given the current US budget situation. Unless you are willing to gamble on either that, or a massive reduction in launch costs that would (you hope) open up major new markets, a heavy booster looks like a poor investment right now. Sigh. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 12:53:53 EST To: wishep.physics.wisc.edu!GOTT@zoo.toronto.edu Subject: No Waste In Space Cc: space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU >... Does anyone know what the >most expensive privately funded project is/was? The electric-power utilities routinely make multi-billion-dollar investments. (One can argue about how "private" such things are, since government loan guarantees and the like sometimes figure into them, but...) Big hydro projects like James Bay cost tens of billions of private dollars. However, these are considered very "safe" investments, virtually certain to return substantial flows of money for very long periods. Attracting similar amounts to more speculative projects is very difficult. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 12:33:45 EST To: space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: RE: No Waste In Space > ... I'm sure people have looked at this question before--how hard is > it to get the ET into a (reasonably stable) orbit...Long enough to adjust > it and tow it to where you want it at a later time? Unfortunately it's not simple. The ET is big and light, and is badly affected by air drag. Worse, if it is just left to itself, it will stabilize in a gravity-gradient orientation, with its axis lined up pointing to the Earth... meaning that it is broadside-on to air drag. Getting the thing up high enough for a good lifetime requires sacrificing most of the shuttle's payload. Nor is that all... If you just park the thing in orbit, it has a high probability of being punctured by space debris in a relatively short time. Worse, it makes its own space debris, because its spray-on insulation will "popcorn" in vacuum. The Gamma-Ray Imaging Telescope folks (who want to convert a tank to a gamma-ray telescope) figure it will require wrapping a combined debris shield and retaining bag around the whole tank. To cap it off, NASA management has a bad case of Skylab Syndrome, and will not put a tank in orbit for you unless it is equipped with a 100% reliable de-orbit system, so that if it does start to come down, it can be brought down in a controlled way in an uninhabited area. For this and other reasons, I believe NASA has rejected putting tanks in orbit "on speculation" against the possibility of later use. One problem with any scheme wanting to use an ET is finding a shuttle mission that can supply one. The direct-ascent trajectory that the shuttle now uses does not incur a fuel penalty to drop the tank in a safe place, so getting it into orbit instead is no longer free. Given the way the shuttle manifest is stacked up, even if NASA was happy with your plans and willing to give you a tank when practical, "when practical" might be quite a while. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon Feb 26 14:11:13 1990 From: Greg Lindahl Reply-To: gl8f@bessel.acc.virginia.edu To: space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Shuttle-C economies of scale? Henry Spencer writes: > is: where are the customers? The list of approved missions that could > use heavy-lift capability is really short. But I thought the entire point of the Shuttle-C was that it is mostly composed of standard Shuttle components, so that building only 3 or 4 of them to use for space station launches would be economical? It should require many fewer launches than the ALS to ammortize the development and tooling costs. ------ Greg Lindahl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 14:44:48 PST From: George William Herbert To: henry@zoo.toronto.edu, space-tech@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: RE: No Waste In Space Cc: gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu Henry, you lack Faith :-) The amount of debris that an ET's insulation will produce in orbit isn't a problem for your station; it ought never come back and nail you any faster than it was 'popped' off the outside [simplified answer, but in general correct]. Being hit by other debris is a problem for anything in orbit. Orienting it for low drag and such will take some fuel...but the drag that Freedom will produce with those nice aerodynamic open structures will be worse. :-( It's a factor in any design you fly, an ET based one no worse than others. I was unaware of the changes in the shuttle launch trajectory. I would hope that we can find a relatively light launch [? well, even the shuttle can 'bulk out'] in the next two or three years... I do agree with not letting the tank lie around in orbit. If we were to actually build one of these i would launch the Titan stuff first and then fly the shuttle up to it. -george william herbert ------------------------------ End of Space-tech Digest #49 *******************