Energia to launch Freedom: It just might happen.
Allen W. Sherzer
There is a new effort under way to use Energia to launch Freedom. Some
well placed NASA engineers have concluded that Freedom cannot be assembled
using only the Shuttle. In addition, they are also concluding that the
money to do it just won't be there.
In an effort to simplify assembly and save money a plan was developed
to use Energia for Freedom addembly. The plan would lift Freedom with three
Energia and three Shuttle flights. Energia and Shuttle would meet in orbit
and astronauts would perform EVA's to do the (much reduced) assembly tasks.
Flight one would lift the entire Truss assembly (complete with the power
system). The truss would be broken into three parts to fit inside the
Energia shrowd and would be assembled in orbit. Flight two will lift the lab
and hab modules fully integrated and tested. The final flight would lift
the modules provided by Europe and Japan. A fourth flight would be held
in reserve and may be used for logistics. To do all this, the orbit of
Freedom will change from 28 degrees to 51 degrees (which makes remote sensing
applications available).
This plan will cause a slip of FEL to 1997 but PMC will be achieved in 1998
which is two years ahead of schedule. Costs for the Energia flights are
estimated at about $400M each which includes a custom shrowd. This reduces
assembly costs from ~$15 billion with the Shuttle to about $2.7 billion.
A couple of years ago I asked some Freedom managers why they didn't use
Energia and they swore it just wasn't possible. Funny what a tight budget
will do. :-)
Allen
--
+ They're just jealous because they don't have three +
| wise men and a virgin in the whole organization |
| --Vincent Cianci on the ACLU suit to remove a nativity scene |
+----------------------427 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Matthew DeLuca
>
>There is a new effort under way to use Energia to launch Freedom. Some
>well placed NASA engineers have concluded that Freedom cannot be assembled
>using only the Shuttle. In addition, they are also concluding that the
>money to do it just won't be there.
The problem I have with this is that we have absolutely no idea as to
the reliability of Energia; it's made only two flights (if memory serves)
so far. Granted, they may make a few more launches before 1997, but
then again, maybe they won't; the rocket hasn't flown since 1988.
Not a completely unreasonable plan, but I don't like the idea of trusting
something like Freedom to something that is essentially unproven as a
launch vehicle.
--
Matthew DeLuca Dorsai's Golden Rule of Empire:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Office of Information Technology Do unto others as they would do unto you...
Internet: cco...@prism.gatech.edu ...and do it first!
Thomas Grant Edwards
create a satellite-based teleconferencing system for state
officials so they wouldn't have to drive 900 miles across the
state. But he was a little ahead of his time in the 70's.
Jerry Brown is very supportive of civilian space efforts,
space science, remote imaging, and alternative energy)
JERRY BROWN: A TRUE FRIEND OF SPACE EXPLORATION
"I believe our future in space should be a very significant one. I
don't agree with the attitude you find in Congress and even the
Democratic party, that space is a very low priority. We should be
investing in projecting human beings into space. It ought to be done
on a multinational basis, and it ought to be an occasion not only for
scientific innovation but also for social innovation, as we create
more shared working and experimental opportunities for human beings.
Space research can break down political barriers as well as pushing
back scientific frontiers. And it's a crucial part of the investment
strategy of this nation."
-- Jerry Brown, interview with Express newspaper, 22 March 1991
JERRY BROWN:
* Recognizes the vital need to intensively study our world from orbit
through such programs as LANDSAT and Mission to Planet Earth, and to
study other planets such as Venus and Mars, in part to gain a better
understanding of how our planet's environment works.
* Emphasizes the need and value of much-increased international
cooperation in space research and exploration.
* Intends to support an expanded space and environmental programs in
part to employ many scientists, engineers, technicians and others
displaced by reduced post-Cold War military spending.
* Strongly supports innovative space research and technology endeavors.
* Backs resuming human exploration of the Moon and going on to Mars.
* Favors completing the initial reconnaissance of the Solar System on
a timely schedule.
* As President would seriously consider appointing as NASA
Administrator a leading space scientist and space/environment
advocate, such as Sally Ride or Carl Sagan.
* As Governor, Brown advocated establishment of the California Space
Institute (CalSpace), now headed by former astronaut Sally Ride, the
first American woman in space.
* Apollo 9 astronaut Russell L. "Rusty" Schweickart served as Gov.
Brown's science adviser on environment, space, energy and other matters..
* Brown made California the leading state in producing alternative
energy (such as solar, wind, and geothermal), and would reinvigorate
the role of NASA and other federal agencies in pursuing alternative
energy research and development.
-Thomas Edwards
Brown for President 1-800-426-1112
Henry Spencer
>The problem I have with this is that we have absolutely no idea as to
How do you feel about launching space-station elements using the
equally-unproven ASRMs? That's the current plan, assuming ASRM doesn't
get cancelled between now and then.
Or is it only Western aerospace groups that get to declare hardware
"operational" after only a couple of flights?
--
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
-Dick Dunn | he...@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Phil G. Fraering
>In article <51...@hydra.gatech.EDU> cco...@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>The problem I have with this is that we have absolutely no idea as to
>>the reliability of Energia; it's made only two flights ...
>How do you feel about launching space-station elements using the
>equally-unproven ASRMs? That's the current plan, assuming ASRM doesn't
>get cancelled between now and then.
>Or is it only Western aerospace groups that get to declare hardware
>"operational" after only a couple of flights?
That's a valid complaint, Henry, but I have a _different_ problem with
Energia: is it really cheaper than the shuttle? After all, if we abandon
bookkeeping completely, and abandon any moral qualms about forced conscript
labor, maybe we could launch it at the same price and have the money
(or the gruel used to feed the people we're forcing to do the grunt work
of ground support) stay right here in North America.
I'm suprised everyone's let the matter of the riot be forgotten so easily.
>GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> -Dick Dunn | he...@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Wasn't Unix one of the early versions of Ultrix?
--
Phil Fraering p...@nasa12.usl.edu 318/365-5418
Disclaimer: The preceeding is my opinion alone. These machines are
called the nasa## machines for historical reasons, so these are not
the opinions of USL, NASA, etc... ||"Ninety-two," he said, "and you don't
John A. Weeks III
> This plan will cause a slip of FEL to 1997 but PMC will be achieved in 1998
> which is two years ahead of schedule. Costs for the Energia flights are
> estimated at about $400M each which includes a custom shrowd. This reduces
> assembly costs from ~$15 billion with the Shuttle to about $2.7 billion.
A billion here and a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about
real money. One could probably buy the Energia company lock stock and
barrel for a fraction of the savings.
-john-
--
=============================================================================
John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 jo...@newave.mn.org
NeWave Communications, Ltd. ...uunet!umn-cs!kksys!tcnet!newave!john
John A. Weeks III
> In <1992Mar8.2...@iti.org> a...@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> > There is a new effort under way to use Energia to launch Freedom.
> Granted, they may make a few more launches before 1997, but
> then again, maybe they won't; the rocket hasn't flown since 1988.
> Not a completely unreasonable plan, but I don't like the idea of trusting
> something like Freedom to something that is essentially unproven as a
> launch vehicle.
Given that using Energia can potentially save $12-billion, we could use a
billion of this to fund a few test flights. After all, Saturn V flew only
a few times before NASA launched it with people on board.
Henry Spencer
>... I have a _different_ problem with
>Energia: is it really cheaper than the shuttle? After all, if we abandon
>bookkeeping completely, and abandon any moral qualms about forced conscript
>I'm suprised everyone's let the matter of the riot be forgotten so easily.
So add a 5% surcharge to the bill for improving salaries and living
conditions at Baikonur. With payment in hard currency and a suitable
incentive structure for the contractors, that would probably be plenty.
If we want to improve the lot of people in the ex-USSR, and encourage the
ones in charge to make life more pleasant for those under them, the single
best thing we can do is *buy stuff from them*. "Money can't buy happiness,
but poverty guarantees misery."
--
Gary Coffman
>In article <1992Mar8.2...@iti.org> a...@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>
>>There is a new effort under way to use Energia to launch Freedom. Some
>>well placed NASA engineers have concluded that Freedom cannot be assembled
>>using only the Shuttle. In addition, they are also concluding that the
>>money to do it just won't be there.
>
>The problem I have with this is that we have absolutely no idea as to
>the reliability of Energia; it's made only two flights (if memory serves)
>so far. Granted, they may make a few more launches before 1997, but
>then again, maybe they won't; the rocket hasn't flown since 1988.
>
>Not a completely unreasonable plan, but I don't like the idea of trusting
>something like Freedom to something that is essentially unproven as a
>launch vehicle.
If an Energia fails, only some hardware will go in the drink. Most of
the cost of SSF is in ground based design and in transportation cost.
If the Russians agree to be paid only for successful launches, we're
only out some bent metal if a launch fails. That's a relatively small
risk.
Gary
Allen W. Sherzer
>>Not a completely unreasonable plan, but I don't like the idea of trusting
>>something like Freedom to something that is essentially unproven as a
>>launch vehicle.
>If an Energia fails, only some hardware will go in the drink. Most of
>the cost of SSF is in ground based design and in transportation cost.
>.. we're only out some bent metal if a launch fails.
There is a bit more to it than that. One factor motivating this idea is
the growing realization that Freedom *CAN'T BE BUILT ANY OTHER WAY*. The
assembly tasks are too complex, the Shuttle can't sustain the needed
flight rate, and the integration testing needed just isn't enough.
Allen
--
+ They're just jealous because they don't have three +
| wise men and a virgin in the whole organization |
| --Vincent Cianci on the ACLU suit to remove a nativity scene |
+----------------------426 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Frank Crary
>A billion here and a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about
>real money. One could probably buy the Energia company lock stock and
>barrel for a fraction of the savings.
Wait, if we did that we'd already have a space station: Energia NPO
(Scientific/Industrail Association) owns Mir. We could even modify the
two Freedom connection port specifications, and let the Japanese and
ESA attach their lab modules to Mir instead of Freedom (power would be
a problem, since Mir only has about 40 kW of power, and none to spare. But
at least two of the solar pannels are removeable: Replacing them with
higher efficiency and/or larger ones might bring Mir up to the hypothetical
75-kW level of Freedom PMC.)
Frank Crary
UC Berkeley
Matthew DeLuca
original article.)
he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <51...@hydra.gatech.EDU> cco...@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>The problem I have with this is that we have absolutely no idea as to
>>the reliability of Energia; it's made only two flights ...
>How do you feel about launching space-station elements using the
>equally-unproven ASRMs? That's the current plan, assuming ASRM doesn't
>get cancelled between now and then.
>Or is it only Western aerospace groups that get to declare hardware
>"operational" after only a couple of flights?
The ASRM project is a linear descendant of the SRM's currently used on
the Shuttle; as a result, they should be pretty well understood even before
they are tested for the first time. Energia, on the other hand, is a
completely new project; if memory serves, it's the Soviet's first attempt
at a hydrogen-fueled heavy booster...there is no previous engineering and
operational experience pool to draw from. That, plus the current chaos
in the CIS space program makes me doubt the viability of the scheme.
Matthew DeLuca
>> Not a completely unreasonable plan, but I don't like the idea of trusting
>> something like Freedom to something that is essentially unproven as a
>> launch vehicle.
>Given that using Energia can potentially save $12-billion, we could use a
>billion of this to fund a few test flights. After all, Saturn V flew only
>a few times before NASA launched it with people on board.
A good idea, but the only problem I see with this is that 'saved' money,
in this case, the $12 billion, isn't actually money in hand; it's just money
that (in the case of the U.S. government) isn't being borrowed. I wouldn't
want to see the floor debates on whether or not the U.S. should spend a
billion dollars to test a foreign nation's space hardware, even if it is
to our benefit.
C. Taylor Sutherland III
Please excuse my unfortunate ignorance, but what is Energia?
--
I've heard a good .sig can let you meet people....
Anybody got any good ideas for one?
The Fly Boy <| E-MAIL: tay...@hubcap.clemson.edu |>
+--<| My life is a math question with one equation and 42 unknowns. |>--+
Henry Spencer
>>How do you feel about launching space-station elements using the
>
>The ASRM project is a linear descendant of the SRM's currently used on
>the Shuttle; as a result, they should be pretty well understood even before
Uh, the ASRM is a near-total redesign. In particular, the joints and the
nozzle are almost completely new. (That's the idea, in fact, since the
existing ones are not very good.) New design, new contractor, new plant,
new manufacturing processes. They're even having to revise some of the
KSC facilities to match, since the new segments are bigger and heavier.
(The KSC facilities contract was let just recently.) The similarity is
that they're both big solid rockets of roughly similar dimensions.
>... if memory serves, it's the Soviet's first attempt
>at a hydrogen-fueled heavy booster...
If memory serves, the final stage of the usual Proton configuration is
hydrogen-fueled, although my references aren't handy and I could be wrong.
The Saturn V was the US's first attempt at a hydrogen-fueled heavy booster,
and the third flight carried a crew despite engine problems on the second.
>... That, plus the current chaos
>in the CIS space program...
It's worse than the chaos in a US program that gets its funding dialed
up and down every year? :-) (Actually, scratch that ":-)"... Energia
is in better shape, chaos-wise, than its proposed payload.)
The quickest way to end that chaos is some hard-money customers.
--
Edward V. Wright
>There is a new effort under way to use Energia to launch Freedom. Some
>well placed NASA engineers have concluded that Freedom cannot be assembled
>using only the Shuttle. In addition, they are also concluding that the
>money to do it just won't be there.
>A couple of years ago I asked some Freedom managers why they didn't use
>Energia and they swore it just wasn't possible. Funny what a tight budget
>will do. :-)
There's also a renegade group in the Space Station office that has proposed
scrapping, or at least postponing, Freedom and launching the backup Skylab
that sits in the Smithsonian instead.
Hm, I wonder how much cheaper Skylab + Energia would cost?
Joseph Burger
and the latitude of Tyuratam is 45.6 degrees. Additionally, Tyuratam
has normally launched to 51.6 degree inclinations in the past decade
as the lowest inclination. This is probably due to booster drop off
considerations. To then perform a dogleg that would bring it to a
28.5 degree inclibation would cost an awful lot of fuel - and hence
a lot less that could be boosted to orbit in the way of a payload.
The other, mor logical approach would be for the shuttle to launch to
51.6 degrees. That would now cost the shuttle in payload weight.
If the Canadians decide to build a space centre near Halifax NS,
you might have a reasonable chance for a joint space station.
========================================================================
Joseph J. Burger | The more corrupt the state, the more |
Space Analysis & Research | numerous the laws. - Cornelius Tacitus |
Colorado Springs, CO | |
jburger%old...@csn.org | In politics. an absurdity is not a |
ding.a.ling (719) 260-0500| handicap. - Napoleon |
========================================================================
Frank Crary
>The other, mor logical approach would be for the shuttle to launch to
>51.6 degrees. That would now cost the shuttle in payload weight.
>If the Canadians decide to build a space centre near Halifax NS,
>you might have a reasonable chance for a joint space station.
I think the payload penalties of a launch to a 51.6 deg oribt from
Florida are about the same as that for a launch from Halifax. But if the
station elements were launched by the CIS, why is this a problem? NASA
would be doing crew rotation and resupply, but neither of these should
require maximum payload to orbit.
Frank Crary
UC Berkeley
Frank Crary
>If memory serves, the final stage of the usual Proton configuration is
>hydrogen-fueled, although my references aren't handy and I could be wrong.
It's liquid oxygen/kerosene.
In any case, if reliability is an issue, I'd think the Energia strap-ons
are a bigger problem: They are modified Zenit first stages, and the last
two Zenit launch attempts have been major failures.
(I don't see why reliability is an issue: We're talking about a launch of
space station components, right? If the launch vehicle is only 50% reliable,
it would still be a good risk: The potential savings in launch/assembly
costs are greater than the costs of rebuilding the station elements after
a failure.)
Frank Crary
UC Berkeley
Allen W. Sherzer
>[Russians launch to 51.6 degree orbits and we do 28.5 degree orbits]
>The other, mor logical approach would be for the shuttle to launch to
>51.6 degrees. That would now cost the shuttle in payload weight.
that's exactly the plan. If this is done Freedom will fly in the Russian
prefered orbit.
Allen
--
+ They're just jealous because they don't have three +
| wise men and a virgin in the whole organization |
| --Vincent Cianci on the ACLU suit to remove a nativity scene |
+----------------------425 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Kieran A. Carroll
>>at a hydrogen-fueled heavy booster...
>
>If memory serves, the final stage of the usual Proton configuration is
>hydrogen-fueled, although my references aren't handy and I could be wrong.
>
Nope. First three stages use N2O4/UDMH, fourth stage uses LOX/RP-1,
according to the ``International Reference Guide to Space Launch
Systems'' (Steven J. Isakowitz; AIAA, 1991). In the same reference, on
p. 107, the Energiya LOX/LH2 engines are claimed to be the first of
their kind in the Soviet fleet.
--
Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcar...@zoo.toronto.edu
Henry Spencer
>In any case, if reliability is an issue, I'd think the Energia strap-ons
>are a bigger problem: They are modified Zenit first stages, and the last
>two Zenit launch attempts have been major failures.
Although, if the reports are to be believed, neither involved a first-stage
malfunction.
Jon Leech
> A good idea, but the only problem I see with this is that 'saved' money,
> in this case, the $12 billion, isn't actually money in hand; it's just money
> that (in the case of the U.S. government) isn't being borrowed. I wouldn't
> want to see the floor debates on whether or not the U.S. should spend a
> billion dollars to test a foreign nation's space hardware, even if it is
> to our benefit.
I don't know about the rest of Congress, but several members of
the House Space subcommittee seemed very much in favor of this idea,
and none of them spoke against it, in the recent hearings I summarized
to the net.
--
Jon Leech (le...@cs.unc.edu) __@/
"Enjoy the roller coaster ride of a potential relationship. It's one
of the best in the amusement park of the Universe." - Keith Hughes
Matthew DeLuca
>>The ASRM project is a linear descendant of the SRM's currently used on
>>the Shuttle; as a result, they should be pretty well understood even before
>>they are tested for the first time...
>Uh, the ASRM is a near-total redesign. [...]
>The similarity is that they're both big solid rockets of roughly
>similar dimensions.
Having a design heritage doesn't mean they have to have common parts. The
important principle is that we have a large pool of data and experience
to draw from, gained from the the eighty-odd shuttle SRB's that have been
fired and the other large SRB's such as on the Titan. By comparison, the
Soviets have no similar base of experience.
>If memory serves, the final stage of the usual Proton configuration is
>hydrogen-fueled, although my references aren't handy and I could be wrong.
A couple of posters have pointed out that it runs on kerosene; to the
best of my knowledge, Energia is the first and only of it's type by the
CIS. With only two flights to date, it's still experimental.
>The Saturn V was the US's first attempt at a hydrogen-fueled heavy booster,
>and the third flight carried a crew despite engine problems on the second.
Agreed. I would have similar reservations for any rocket with only two
test flights and a similar lack of operational experience. Of course, crews
are more easily replaceable than hardware, but that's another issue altogether.
Keep in mind, also, that we were under an ideological deadline to get the
show on the road...that's not the case now.
>>... That, plus the current chaos
>>in the CIS space program...
>It's worse than the chaos in a US program that gets its funding dialed
>up and down every year? :-) (Actually, scratch that ":-)"... Energia
>is in better shape, chaos-wise, than its proposed payload.)
Really? Considering that we could all wake up one morning to find that
Ukraine and Russia are invading each other, or that the rocket plants are
being converted to toaster-oven plants, routine budgetary games sort of
pale in comparison.
>The quickest way to end that chaos is some hard-money customers.
Not really. No matter how many Energias we buy from them, that won't help
them get a food distribution network in order, or keep the apartments warm
at night, or settle ethnic warfare across the nation. Until the former Soviets
get their societal problems in order, Western money will have only a Band-Aid
effect on the situation.
Mind you, I'm not trying to nix the idea of using Energia; if we could see
a couple more flights in the next couple of years, and then have all the
telemetry data released (I don't know whether this has been done or not) to
Western experts for analysis, then sure, I'd say go for it. I'm just saying
that with the current state of affairs, it doesn't look like a good bet.
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> Re: using Energiya to launch SSF. The latitude of KSC is 28.5 degrees
> The other, mor logical approach would be for the shuttle to launch to
> 51.6 degrees. That would now cost the shuttle in payload weight.
With Fred in a 51-degree orbit, perhaps some of the long-abandoned
Earth-observation experiments could be restored. Also, a majority of
U.S., Canadian, Japanese, and ESA taxpayers could see the station from
their homes. I always enjoy seeing Mir go over Chicago (we're at 42
degrees North).
O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/
- ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
/ \ (_) (_) / | \
| | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
\ / Bitnet: HIG...@FNALB.BITNET
- - Internet: HIG...@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS
David Meiklejohn
:-) (you can groan, now...)
--
David Meiklejohn | Internet : dav...@qdpii.comp.qpdi.oz.au
Computer Systems Officer, QDPI | Fax : +61 70 92 3593
Mareeba, Australia | Voice : +61 70 92 1555
Michael Wallis
> If we want to improve the lot of people in the ex-USSR, and encourage the
> ones in charge to make life more pleasant for those under them, the single
> best thing we can do is *buy stuff from them*. "Money can't buy happiness,
> but poverty guarantees misery."
I agree entirely, and part of me wants to go dust off the Energia
contact file I built several years ago and have another whack at it,
but the inevitable chicken and egg problem occurs. I can't get a
payload signed until I have a firm booster, and I doubt I could get
the booster without at least one bird to launch.
Sigh.
Well ... if it were easy, everyone would be doing it.
Michael
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis |UUCP: mwa...@clubzen.fidonet.org
Computer Consultant |CI$: 75470,1264
Santa Clara, CA |bix: mwallis
"I'd rather be building spaceships!" |#include <Standard/Disclaimer.h>
Michael Wallis
> Wait, if we did that we'd already have a space station: Energia NPO
> (Scientific/Industrail Association) owns Mir. We could even modify the
> two Freedom connection port specifications, and let the Japanese and
> ESA attach their lab modules to Mir instead of Freedom (power would be
> a problem, since Mir only has about 40 kW of power, and none to spare. But
> at least two of the solar pannels are removeable: Replacing them with
> higher efficiency and/or larger ones might bring Mir up to the hypothetical
> 75-kW level of Freedom PMC.)
And where would that leave the Canadian Service Module, which spends
most of it's time mounted on the Truss?
John A. Weeks III
> Please excuse my unfortunate ignorance, but what is Energia?
Energia is both a company and a large booster rocket.
Energia NPO is a space design & operations company in the former Soviet
Union. They developed the Energia rocket, operate the Mir space station,
and the Braun space shuttle (if I remember correctly on the latter). They
have recently proposed building a large orbiting communications platform, and
they still have dreams of building the huge Mir II space station complex.
The Energia booster is a very large rocket. It has a payload of about
100 tons, which is about twice the Saturn V and several times the effective
payload of the Shuttle. Energia has a large central fuel tank, and a
number of strap on boosters. The number of boosters can be adjusted for
are/were plans to recover and recycle the various Energia parts after a flight.
Energia is the booster used to launch the Braun space shuttle (which has no
main engines--only small guidance rockets).
Henry Spencer
Them's fightin' words. :-) I think you've been looking at the wrong numbers.
Saturn V payload is 50 tons *to the Moon*. 4-booster Energia payload is
100 tons *to low orbit*.
An 8-booster Energia, mind you, probably would beat the Saturn V.
Henry Spencer
>>Uh, the ASRM is a near-total redesign. [...]
>
>Having a design heritage doesn't mean they have to have common parts. The
>important principle is that we have a large pool of data and experience
>to draw from, gained from the the eighty-odd shuttle SRB's that have been
The other important principle :-) is that details matter, and knowing how
similar systems behave doesn't necessarily tell you how the one you've got
behaves. As witness a certain O-ring problem that was never seen on the
Titan SRBs. Design heritage is overrated.
>>It's worse than the chaos in a US program that gets its funding dialed
>>up and down every year? :-) (Actually, scratch that ":-)"... Energia
>>is in better shape, chaos-wise, than its proposed payload.)
>
>Really? Considering that we could all wake up one morning to find that
>Ukraine and Russia are invading each other, or that the rocket plants are
>being converted to toaster-oven plants, routine budgetary games sort of
>pale in comparison.
No, the analogy is pretty good. Of course, instead of the Ukraine and
Russia we have Marshall and Johnson. :-) Nobody could realistically call
the station's rererererereredesign process "routine budgetary games".
>>The quickest way to end that chaos is some hard-money customers.
>
>Not really. No matter how many Energias we buy from them, that won't help
>them get a food distribution network in order, or keep the apartments warm
>at night, or settle ethnic warfare across the nation. Until the former Soviets
>get their societal problems in order, Western money will have only a Band-Aid
>effect on the situation.
You don't think poverty has something to do with their problems? Trade
would go a long way toward solving many of them. (It even helps with
ethnic warfare, by giving people incentive to settle differences quietly.)
Not one-time charity, mind you, but ongoing trade.
Michael V. Kent
>In an effort to simplify assembly and save money a plan was developed
>to use Energia for Freedom addembly. The plan would lift Freedom with three
>Energia and three Shuttle flights. Energia and Shuttle would meet in orbit
>and astronauts would perform EVA's to do the (much reduced) assembly tasks.
This in itself sounds very reasonable
>To do all this, the orbit of
>Freedom will change from 28 degrees to 51 degrees (which makes remote sensing
>applications available).
I can see advantages and disadvantages to this. Advantage, remote sensing
like Allen says. Disadvantage, reduced payload capability for the Shuttle
and others launched from Kennedy. Will a Shuttle be able to carry a fully-
loaded logistics module and still make a 51-degree orbit?
>This plan will cause a slip of FEL to 1997 but PMC will be achieved in 1998
No No No No NO!! Don't slip FEL! If we don't get the thing off the ground
soon, we probably never will.
>which is two years ahead of schedule. Costs for the Energia flights are
>estimated at about $400M each which includes a custom shrowd. This reduces
>assembly costs from ~$15 billion with the Shuttle to about $2.7 billion.
??? Are you using your $900 million per flight again? Using $350M/flight
gives a reduction from $6.0 billion to $2.3 billion. Still a substantial
savings.
>A couple of years ago I asked some Freedom managers why they didn't use
>Energia and they swore it just wasn't possible. Funny what a tight budget
>will do. :-)
Always a smart ass. Can you think of anything in the Soviet Union that may
have changed since a couple of years ago?
I am all for saving money wherever we can, as long as it doesn't degrade our
capabilities. Am I the only one who sees forcing our manned space program
to rely on an unreliable launcher launched from an unreliable spaceport by
an unstable country, er commonwealth, to be a potentially dangerous situation?
What happens if we redesign our space station (Again!) and Energia isn't
around to launch it?
Mike
--
Michael Kent ke...@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information. All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author. Apple II Forever !!
peter card
mwa...@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis) writes:
>And where would that leave the Canadian Service Module, which spends
>most of it's time mounted on the Truss?
In Canada ?-)
--
__._____.___._____.__._______________________________________________________
__|_. ._| ._|_._._|__| Peter Card, Joint European Torus, Abingdon
| | | |_. | | | Oxfordshire OX14 3EA UK. tel 0235-464871 FAX 464404
| | | _| | | | email p...@jet.uk or compuserve 100010,366
._| | | |_. | | | GLASGOW `95 - The SF Worldcon of the (possible) future
--`--~'-+---+-+-+----+-------------------------------------------------------
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
Peter J. Scott
> In article <51...@hydra.gatech.EDU> cco...@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
> >>Uh, the ASRM is a near-total redesign. [...]
> >>The similarity is that they're both big solid rockets...
> >
> >Having a design heritage doesn't mean they have to have common parts. The
> >important principle is that we have a large pool of data and experience
> >to draw from, gained from the the eighty-odd shuttle SRB's that have been
> >fired and the other large SRB's such as on the Titan...
>
> The other important principle :-) is that details matter, and knowing how
> similar systems behave doesn't necessarily tell you how the one you've got
> behaves. As witness a certain O-ring problem that was never seen on the
> Titan SRBs. Design heritage is overrated.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't funding for the ASRM terminated?
What effect does that have on this discussion?
--
This is news. This is your | Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news. Any questions? | (p...@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov)
Henry Spencer
>> >>Uh, the ASRM is a near-total redesign. [...]
>> The other important principle :-) is that details matter...
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't funding for the ASRM terminated?
>What effect does that have on this discussion?
The Administration's next-year budget proposal calls for termination of
ASRM funding. Whether that will actually happen is very unclear. Much
of the money is being spent in the district of a powerful Congressthing
who can be expected to vehemently oppose cancellation. (On the other
hand, reportedly he is ill and may not be in shape for a major battle.)
It's not unheard-of for NASA to try to cancel a program year after year,
only to see Congress put it back in year after year.
In any case, it doesn't much affect this discussion, which involved ASRM
only as an example of NASA being willing to launch space-station parts
on relatively untried boosters.
Frank Crary
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't funding for the ASRM terminated?
>>What effect does that have on this discussion?
>In any case, it doesn't much affect this discussion, which involved ASRM
>only as an example of NASA being willing to launch space-station parts
>on relatively untried boosters.
In that case, could someone please tell me how (officially) NASA plans to
launch Freedom? The pressurized modules (excpeting the nodes) require an
ASRM-equipted shuttle to launch. If the ASRMs are canceled, then how do
they expect to launch Freedom?
Frank Crary
UC Berkeley
Henry Spencer
>ASRM-equipted shuttle to launch. If the ASRMs are canceled, then how do
>they expect to launch Freedom?
I think the current official answer is to offload equipment, which will
go up on extra flights. There was a time when official policy was not
to rely on the ASRMs for Fred, but I guess that has slipped as weights
have grown.
Launch on Energia is looking better all the time.
Michael V. Kent
>In that case, could someone please tell me how (officially) NASA plans to
>launch Freedom? The pressurized modules (excpeting the nodes) require an
>ASRM-equipted shuttle to launch. If the ASRMs are canceled, then how do
>they expect to launch Freedom?
Officially, I have nothing to do with NASA, but I think I know how they'll
handle the problem.
Currently, there is about a 5000 lb margin built into Endeavour, meaning that
Endeavour is expected to be able to carry 5000 lb more than the planned upper
limit for Freedom. Looking at the most recent manifest, I noticed that all
of the early assembly flights have been switched to Endeavour and Discovery.
These are the #'s 1 and 2 orbiters, respectively, in terms of payload weight.
NASA put in that margin for just such a problem, and it looks lie they're
going to need it.
The first ASRM flight is MB-6, carrying the US lab and the robot arm's mobile
base. These two payloads can be separated. I don't know how they'll handle
the European and Japanese labs, but my guess is the excess over the margin
can be handled by flying the labs up empty. I would think the experiments
could be launched on a utilization flight, since that is one of the purposes
of the utilization flights anyway.
Like I said before, I'm not official, but I bet I'm not too far from the
truth.
Frank Crary
>I think the current official answer is to offload equipment, which will
>go up on extra flights.
Weren't the modules reduced to 2/3 size, to allow them to be launched with a
full load of equipment? If they are going to give up on that (due to a
lack of ASRMs), why don't they go back to full sized modules? (I think a
full sized module, without equipment, can launch without ASRMs).
Frank Crary
UC Berkeley
Gary Morris @lone
>>If the ASRMs are canceled, then how do they expect to launch Freedom?
>I think the current official answer is to offload equipment, which will
>go up on extra flights.
Yesterday in testimony before some committee (on NASA Select), Dick
Truly said cancelling ASRM would only cause a delay of 6 to 9 months in
getting to permanent manned capability.
--GaryM
--
Gary Morris Internet: g...@telesoft.com
KK6YB (N5QWC) UUCP: uunet!telesoft!g
TeleSoft AMPR: KK6YB @ W2XO
San Diego, CA Phone: +1 619-457-2700
ROGER DENDY
>In <1992Mar10....@hubcap.clemson.edu> tay...@hubcap.clemson.edu:
>
>Energia NPO is a space design & operations company in the former Soviet
>Union. They developed the Energia rocket, operate the Mir space station,
>and the Braun space shuttle (if I remember correctly on the latter). They
What a typo!! What would old Werner von B have thought of the Soviets
naming their shuttle after him?
Uh, it's supposed to be Buran.
>-john-
>
>--
>=============================================================================
>John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 jo...@newave.mn.org
>NeWave Communications, Ltd. ...uunet!umn-cs!kksys!tcnet!newave!john
R Dendy
Josh 'K' Hopkins
shuttle has it's problems. However, I'm a little skeptical about planning
around a rocket that has only flown twice and, as I understand it, is no longer
being built. (I know the program is still referred to as being in danger
of cancellation, but haven't they already converted some crucial production
facilities to making consumer goods?). Do you honestly believe that an order
for two rockets will garentee that the the CIS will be able to provide them in
five years?
Besides, if you're gonna use Energia, use the proposed 8 booster,
stacked payload version - the one that could put a half million pounds in 51
degree inclination orbits :)
Josh Hopkins
lau...@ssdvx2.mdcbbs.com
> In <1992Mar16....@zoo.toronto.edu> he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>>If the ASRMs are canceled, then how do they expect to launch Freedom?
>>I think the current official answer is to offload equipment, which will
>>go up on extra flights.
>
> Yesterday in testimony before some committee (on NASA Select), Dick
> Truly said cancelling ASRM would only cause a delay of 6 to 9 months in
> getting to permanent manned capability.
The ASRM's were only going to be used on a few flights. MB-6 (The LAB module
flight) required ASRM's. We've heard rumors about further offloading of
LAB A with a new MB-6a flight to take up the offloads.
--
Opinions are mine, or someone elses, but definitely not MDSSC's!!
Internet: lauger%ssdvax...@mdcgwy.mdc.com -- Huntington Beach, Ca.
UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,att}!ssdvax.mdcbbs.com!lauger (714) 896-1393
Michael Wallis
> There's also a renegade group in the Space Station office that has proposed
> scrapping, or at least postponing, Freedom and launching the backup Skylab
> that sits in the Smithsonian instead.
I don't think that'll work at all. The Skylab had to be cut in half
to get into the hall and there's a ring segment missing that's at the
Rocket and Space Museum in Huntsville because the thing was too big
once inside.
Pat
>and the Braun space shuttle (if I remember correctly on the latter). They
from toasters to spacecraft :-)
John A. Weeks III
OK...just a short burst of Dylexia there... At least I got close.
BTW, just to get back to a Soviet space related subject, did you hear that
the US government OK'ed the purchase of Soviet space items from Russia?
The first three things include a Topaz nuclear reactor, 4 thrusters (of
a type that could be used on a space station), and a quantity of Plutonium.
Sounds like a start, at least. The story on NPR said that these items
were beyond the current US state of the art and it was cheaper to buy them
than to do the research.
Stan Brown
>In article <1992Mar24....@access.digex.com> p...@access.digex.com (Pat):
>> In article <13...@newave.UUCP> jo...@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>> > and the Braun space shuttle (if I remember correctly on the latter). They
>> ^^^^^ I guess the germans are investing in the russians.
>> from toasters to spacecraft :-)
>OK...just a short burst of Dylexia there... At least I got close.
>BTW, just to get back to a Soviet space related subject, did you hear that
>the US government OK'ed the purchase of Soviet space items from Russia?
>The first three things include a Topaz nuclear reactor, 4 thrusters (of
>a type that could be used on a space station), and a quantity of Plutonium.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Sounds like a start, at least. The story on NPR said that these items
>were beyond the current US state of the art and it was cheaper to buy them
>than to do the research.
Would someone care to explain waht's"beyond the current US state
of the art" about plutonium ?
--
Stan Brown P. C Design
Home (404) 299-2225 Atalanta Ga. (USA)
Work (404) 363-2303 st...@dixie.com
dixie.com = Public Access UNIX in Georgia
--
Stan Brown P. C Design
Home (404) 299-2225 Atalanta Ga. (USA)
Work (404) 363-2303 st...@dixie.com
dixie.com = Public Access UNIX in Georgia
Greg Moore
>jo...@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Mar24....@access.digex.com> p...@access.digex.com (Pat):
>>the US government OK'ed the purchase of Soviet space items from Russia?
>>The first three things include a Topaz nuclear reactor, 4 thrusters (of
>>a type that could be used on a space station), and a quantity of Plutonium.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>Sounds like a start, at least. The story on NPR said that these items
>>were beyond the current US state of the art and it was cheaper to buy them
>>than to do the research.
>
> Would someone care to explain waht's"beyond the current US state
> of the art" about plutonium ?
>
facility for producing it. Hanford(?) is off-line for the
forseeable future. Though once we start taking warheads off-line,
we should be able to recover enough for deep-space missions.
>--
>Stan Brown P. C Design
>Home (404) 299-2225 Atalanta Ga. (USA)
>Work (404) 363-2303 st...@dixie.com
>dixie.com = Public Access UNIX in Georgia
>--
>Stan Brown P. C Design
>Home (404) 299-2225 Atalanta Ga. (USA)
>Work (404) 363-2303 st...@dixie.com
>dixie.com = Public Access UNIX in Georgia
--
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Greg d. Moore | Str...@acm.rpi.edu
Green Mountain Software | "All that is gold does not glitter."
Carpe Diem |
Paul Dietz
>In article <b=fj...@dixie.com> st...@dixie.com (Stan Brown) writes:
>> Would someone care to explain waht's"beyond the current US state
>> of the art" about plutonium ?
> Well, nothing, but we don't have a current
> facility for producing it. Hanford(?) is off-line for the
> forseeable future. Though once we start taking warheads off-line,
> we should be able to recover enough for deep-space missions.
There is apparently some confusion here.
The plutonium used in RTGs is Pu-238. It is an alpha emitter with
a halflife of 87 years, and emits very little gamma radiation.
The plutonium used in bombs is Pu-239 (mostly). It has a halflife in
the thousands of years, and is unsuited for use in RTGs.
Pu-238 is made by the neutron irradiation of Np-237 in a special
reactor (the US one was at Oak Ridge, I think). Weapons grade Pu-239
was made in different reactors elsewhere. The Np-237 for Pu-238
production was, I believe, a byproduct of military fuel reprocessing,
but there is quite likely more of it available than can be used.
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
Gary Coffman
> of the art" about plutonium ?
All of Art's production reactors are down for the count for one thing.
Such is the sad state of the US nuclear program.
Gary