Version: 5 Labels: Note: This is the header of an rmail file. Note: If you are seeing it in rmail, Note: it means the file has no messages in it. 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA18377; Wed, 1 Oct 86 03:02:37 PDT id AA18377; Wed, 1 Oct 86 03:02:37 PDT Date: Wed, 1 Oct 86 03:02:37 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610011002.AA18377@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #0 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 1 Oct 86 03:02:37 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #0 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 0 Today's Topics: Administrivia: Happy Fiscal New Year Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain Re: L5 society National Space Society (was Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing) Re: Re: L5 society Re: TAV is too secret Seed the Stars ? Re: replacing the SRBs How to view a Space Shuttle launch Re: replacing the SRBs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Administrivia: Happy Fiscal New Year Date: 1 Oct 86 0:00:01 PDT From: space-request@Angband (The Moderator) I want to wish everyone reading the Space Digest a very happy and prosperous Fiscal New Year! As some of you may have realized the Space Digest changes volumes on the first of the Fiscal New Year (as the US Government sees it). This issue should be Volume 7, issue #0. For those of you who keep track of such things, the last issue of last year was number 403. Let's all hope this year will be better for space development than last year was; it could hardly be worse. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 86 08:22:12 GMT From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > I'm sorry. Expanding life off the planet is, to me and many others, several > orders of magnitude more important than any pure science. Even without > this, there is no reason that knowledge of the planets and universe is > intrinsically more important that knowledge of how gravity affects life > or the fundimental properties of materials. In fact, scientific fads > aside, there is no reason to believe any knowledge more important than > any other for its own sake. Only in application does importance take > on any but a personal meaning. In application, of course, materials > and life science are far more important than astronomy. Both of these > fields require manned presence. Rather than argue fundamental philosophy, I'll just point out the self-conflict in your argument. Our current method for reaching space is far too expensive to make sense for all but a very small, select set of space applications (communications, remote sensing, etc). In particular, space travel far too expensive (by many orders of magnitude) for "moving life off the planet"; that's just not realistic with present technology. (By "present technology" I don't mean just the Shuttle; I mean "chemical rockets"). Truly major technological advances (of the type that would really make space travel and habitation practical on a meaningful scale for a much wider variety of purposes) tend to occur only after an increased understanding of the basic laws of nature. Even "routine" engineering work, as empirical as it is, requires a deeper understanding of mathematics and the physical sciences today than in the past. Face it, the brute-force Thomas Edison approach just doesn't hack it anymore. Instead of tediously trying 6,000 different materials for light bulb filaments until you find one that works, it makes far more sense in the long run to understand why certain filaments last longer than others by studying the basic physics involved. If you're going to have any chance at all of "expanding life off the planet", you're going to have to discover some new physical phenomenon you can use to replace chemical rockets. Now it seems logical that you're more likely to find a new physical phenomenon in an exotic place people haven't looked at before, and certainly many of the objects astrophysicists like to study fall under the definition of "exotic". QED. (1/2 :-) A word that has gotten bandied about a lot here lately is "infrastructure". I understand this to mean "the collection of facilities, people, engineering knowledge, etc., that support an ongoing space exploration capability", as distinguished from any specific mission. It is alleged (and I agree) that taking the time to build the proper "infrastructure" results in much better results in the long run, even if that delays short-term results. So why isn't the same true for science and technology as a whole? Just because a particular pure science space mission doesn't immediately aid your single-minded goal of "expanding life off the planet", why dismiss it? It might be the one that discovers the key physical principle you need to further your aims. Clearly we need a wide range of scientific activities in space. I didn't say that life sciences research involving human presence isn't worthwhile. I'm only saying that, in my personal opinion, it has gained an unwarranted overemphasis at the cost of many other equally (or more) deserving fields that, unfortunately, lack the political sex appeal of a floating astronaut waving to a TV camera. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 86 23:50:42 GMT From: al@ames-aurora.arpa (Al Globus) Subject: Re: L5 society Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > In recent flaming people have said some pretty disparaging things about the > L-5 society. In the board's opinion, is it still worth joining? As one of the flamers AGAINST L5, I recommend that you join. It's actually quite a good society if your tolerance for right wing shuck and jive is moderately high. The society does do some good work and the L5 News (the major benefit of membership) has apparently improved of late. Some of the local chapters are excellent. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 86 12:45:48 GMT From: adelie!munsell!infinet!barnes@ll-xn.arpa (Jim Barnes) Subject: National Space Society (was Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing) Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <351@lewey.UUCP> evp@lewey.UUCP writes: >If you're interested in a good view of a launch (when they resume), >join the National Space Society and take their launch tour. Phone >number is available from Washington D.C. AT&T Information, I don't >have it handy. I don't have a phone number handy, but their address is: National Space Society P.O. Box 7535 Ben Franklin Station Washington D.C. 20044 Annual membership dues are $30 (tax deductible in 1986 :-). Jim Barnes ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 86 00:15:34 GMT From: al@ames-aurora.arpa (Al Globus) Subject: Re: Re: L5 society Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > At one point I urged people to join the Planetary Society, > Unfortunately, the PS now appears to be devoting most of its > efforts to promoting a Marsdoggle program. I forgot, another thing incredibly annoying about L5 is their hatred for the Mars project. If the trip to Mars is to set up a permanent base it could be decisive in developing space society. Only if it is a one shot would it be disadvantageous. > It's (the Planetary Society) a club run by Sagan and his cronies. The reason for L5's hatred of Mars lies in this sentance. Sagan, of course, has done more to popularize space than perhaps any single individual and certainly more than the L5 society has. He has put together a society with about 110,000 members while L5 has about 6-9,000. Worse than that, he's a liberal. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 86 00:06:49 GMT From: amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Frank Adams) Subject: Re: TAV is too secret Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <732@riccb.UUCP> jmc@riccb.UUCP writes: >So you see >if it's a military bird first, the arlines will pick up on it sooner >or later; where as if not, it may go the way of the SST and only OTHER >countries will have it. A good point, but the SST hardly provides the kind of example you are looking for. Supersonic aircraft *were* developed by the military. Quite successfully, too. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108 ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 86 20:44:00 GMT From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@caip.rutgers.edu Subject: Seed the Stars ? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa [al@aurora.UUCP ] >Expanding life off the planet is, to me and many others, several >orders of magnitude more important than any pure science. (1) I agree. 2) I read it to mean *human* life and its environment. But what if we read it literally, meaning *any* kind of life? It could probably be done right now, sending out some assortment of hardy spores in appropriate containers, and initial environment for them to start new life and evolution. They could be sent to places known to be lifeless - or at random outside the Solar system. Is this desirable? Should this be done, at least, if things get really hot here? (Not that all life on Earth is likely to perish - but all possibility to spread it might). Is this a Good thing to do, a Bad or an Indifferent thing? I lean on the side of doing it - but am interested in opinions and arguments. Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 86 14:13:29 GMT From: emil@rochester.arpa (Emil Rainero) Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa >As background, I'll say a few words about why reusable liquid >boosters seem (to me) such an obviously desirable option. > >One major factor is simply performance. Liquid fuels pack more energy >per pound of propellant, giving higher specific impulse. Moreover, >the dry mass of a liquid fueled booster would be substantially less >than that of a comparable solid booster, since the entire casing of a >solid booster must withstand the kind of pressure that only has to be >contained in the main combustion chamber of a liquid fueled rocket >engine. That helps performance even more. As a result, liquid fueled >boosters would enable the shuttle to reach higher orbits with heavier >payloads, without having to drive the SSME's past 100% thrust rating. What about being able to withstand the force of impact? As I seem to recall, the casings were being pretty bent up due to high impact velocity. This may have been to an early problem with the parachutes. Anyone else recall seeing anything recently on this? I'm also not convinced that build a one million plus thrust booster is all that easy. The saturn five used a 1.5 million pound first stage engine (5 of them), but it was definitely not reusable, steerable, or throttleable. Perhaps these features are not that important, the SRB's get along just fine with a crude steering system. Another very big advantage to a liquid SRB is the possible abort to launch site that is almost impossible while the SRB's are firing. A liquid booster could be turned off and a safe separation would be much more likely. There is also a much greater safety risk when the SRB's are in the vehicle assembly building. I remember reading that the vehicle assembly building was off limits to tours until a separate isolated SRB storage building (READ BOMB PROOF BUILDING) was completed. Overall, I think there might be some justification to the argument that a liquid booster is preferred, but we definitely don't have all the facts and since these decisions were made 10-15 years ago when liquid boosters were really the top banana, there were probably good reasons for a solid booster. Emil Rainero: emil@rochester.arpa ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 16:33:08 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: How to view a Space Shuttle launch Someone asked about how to best view Space Shuttle launches. My experience on Shuttle launch viewing is based on my seeing the STS-1 launch from the VIP area. The following is a list of possible ways of viewing a shuttle launch and how to set it up: 1) The absolute best place is from inside the space shuttle itself, preferably from the left hand, front seat. 2) The next best place is in the NASA Kennedy employee viewing area which is next to the VAB, north of the Saturn Causeway. Obviously only Kennedy employees with friends and family can get in there. 3) The VIP & Press area is south of the Saturn Causeway but near the firing room. It's chief disadvantage is that you are looking straight into the SRB's plume. However you can see SRB separation **if** you position yourself as close to the Saturn Causeway as possible. 4) Causeway West is were they stick all non-Kennedy NASA employees and dependants. It is easier to see SRB separation here but it is further away from Pad 39-A than the VIP area. 5) The worst place is the area outside the fence near Titusville where the riffraff and anyone who can't finagle a pass has to go. Not only is this spot far away but it smells horrible from decaying vegetation, (Cape Canaveral is built on a swamp). The airport to fly to is Orlando Airport. Make hotel reservations well in advance of the launch date and plan on the launch being delayed by at least 2 days. The traffic into NASA Kennedy is terrible, so build that into your planning. You could well find yourself viewing the launch from a traffic jam on the road leading into the launch facility if you're not careful. NASA is very tricky about issuing passes. If John Q. Public asks for a launch pass, they will prompty send him a very official looking (and totally worthless) pass that puts him in on the public side of the fence in Titusville with the unwashed masses. If your friend at NASA asks for a pass, he will end up at Causeway West. The best trick is to work a pass through a NASA Kennedy employee or secure press credentials (that was my trick). If you can sneak into the press area, don't forget to check the literature room. The amount of information about the shuttle available to the press is absolutely amazing. Their are pamphlets and handbooks describing the shuttle down to the rivet head, and they're all distributed free to the press. However don't try and sneak in without a pass. Security is very tight as it should be. NASA security police were nabbing guys right and left when I was there. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 86 06:20:32 GMT From: amdcad!cae780!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Why not liquid fuel SRB's? I could make some guesses. It may be that the plumbing and combustion chambers for a liquid fueled rocket won't survive a drop into the ocean, so you'ld have to give up the reusability. That might not be so bad--i was assuming that it wasn't really cost effective to reuse the boosters anyway, that it was more of a political issue. david rickel cae780!weitek!sci!daver ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #0 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA29811; Thu, 2 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT id AA29811; Thu, 2 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT Date: Thu, 2 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610021002.AA29811@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #1 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 2 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #1 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 1 Today's Topics: Re: number of falling satellites Re: Re: JEP statements snippet from Aug 4 AW&ST Re: JEP statements Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain Langrange points American Astronautical Society And one more flame against L-5 SRB boosters, yet once again dammit Shuttle Solid Rocket Motors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Sep 86 20:13:07 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: number of falling satellites Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ... Given that these things are > massive (55 feet and 12 tons for Big Bird) and fall out of the sky so > often, all the attention lavished on Skylab before it decayed seems a bit > silly. Skylab wasn't even the biggest thing to fall out of orbit. That honor belongs to the Saturn V second stage that accompanied it into orbit, and fell several years earlier, probably in central Africa. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 86 21:40:56 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Re: JEP statements Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > > I certainly wouldn't support them (Planetary Society) while they have > > likes of Van Allen on their letterhead. > > I dislike Van Allen's recent positions, but he is a great scientist and > a space pioneer. Which, unfortunately, is not inconsistent with being a short-sighted fool. How apt that the deadliest hazards to manned spaceflight near Earth are named after him. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 86 20:29:42 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: snippet from Aug 4 AW&ST Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Something that I missed in my earlier posting of space news from this issue of Aviation Week, several weeks ago... In a discussion of solid- booster technology in Japan, which is working up to building the big solids for the H-2 heavy launcher: "The Japanese did not raise technology transfer as an H-2 booster issue during the Aviation Week visit -- but they also politely refused to show any of the H-2 solid rocket booster hardware that has been developed, and the only photographs of the hardware they would provide were of a desk-top model and a flexible bearing under development". Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 86 20:08:29 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: JEP statements Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > However, I think even the Planetary Society has come around to a > compromise position that we will FIRST build the infrastructure and > lunar base, and THEN go for Mars... Unfortunately, the emphasis in the politicking is still on "Mars" and not on "infrastructure". Most everybody agrees that the Mars mission *should* be done by infrastructure-building, but we all know where the road paved with good intentions leads... The situation is not unprecedented. Although the Saturn V's basic requirements were dictated by Apollo, it was also intended as an item of fundamental infrastructure. It was going to be NASA's heavy launcher well into the 1980's, launching things like space stations and heavy planetary probes as well as lunar exploration. Then the budget crunch hit, and all the "infrastructure" part got quietly deleted because the "Moon" part had been publicized as the major objective. I'm afraid the Mars-mission people, with the best of intentions, are setting us up for a repetition of this. We need a *commitment* to infrastructure-building, not just good intentions. I fear that this requires putting the infrastructure out front and the Mars mission in the background, even if this doesn't make for quite such exciting press releases. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 86 21:56:13 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Are you referring to the experiment that tested the effects of zero gravity > on moths, or are you referring to the experiment that tested the effects of > weightlessness on monkees, or... :-) I'm sure you can read the manifests for Spacelab missions and the mid-deck payload lockers just as easily as I can. > Ahem. My point is not really that there aren't worthwhile experiments > involving human intervention, but that they've been given an importance (PR > appeal?) far out of proportion to their real significance. I wouldn't mind > so much if it didn't interfere with the less glamorous, but clearly more > important space applications which are better off without humans getting in > the way... Clearly, their "real significance" and whether they are less "important" is a function of who you talk to. Personally, I would class most of the astrophysics etc. experiments you laud so highly as *more* glamorous, but it's not at all clear that they are more important. > Or ask the satellite operators who are faced with safety requirements orders > of magnitude more stringent than anything they had to deal with on > expendables because of the "man-rated" factor. This is a real problem, but it has much more to do with overconservative management brought on by severe budget pressure and a ridiculously tiny orbiter fleet than with any inherent requirement of manned spaceflight. Those satellites are all carried to the launch area on manned trucks. > > Clearly the best solution for planetary science in the long run [...] > > is the "orbital propellant farm" concept [...] > > Clearly the best solution for planetary science in the long run is a large, > unmanned, expendable booster in the Titan III-E class or better. Titan > worked very well for Voyager, Viking and Helios... I was thinking in terms of something that would be *better* than early-70s launchers like Titan/Centaur, which do have their limits. Actually, there was a line of large expendables which were much better, but the planetary science community quietly stood by while Congress gutted them in the name of economy. Perhaps because they were associated with manned spaceflight (although they were perfectly capable of unmanned missions) and hence were contaminated and taboo. Titan/Centaur can't launch Ulysses into an orbit that will meet its mission goals, last I heard, not even with the fatter Centaur variants originally developed for the shuttle. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 86 20:50:49 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Langrange points Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Can someone show how to derive the positions of L4 and L5? Last time I > tried, I made too many simplifying assumptions... I've never seen a simple and intuitive explanation of the L4/5 points; it's not a trivial result. I'd recommend Archie E. Roy's "Foundations of Astrodynamics" [I think -- I'm typing this from memory], which gives a complete derivation without *excessive* math. (You will need calculus and some idea of what vectors are about.) Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 86 16:25:48 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Graham Bromley) Subject: American Astronautical Society Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Recently I saw a brochure describing the annual meeting of the AAS in Boulder during October. Can anyone tell me anything about AAS? In particular, how it differs from the other space-related groups like National Space Committee, L5 etc. Perhaps 30% of the convention sessions are chaired by NASA HQ people, a lot of space station stuff, little mention of the shuttle (the shuttle seems to have become a "non-person" in the NASA world). As the convention fee for non-members includes one year's membership dues, and as I may be passing through Boulder when the meeting is on, I'm thinking of stopping by. Any info. will be appreciated. Thanks much. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 86 16:49:52 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: And one more flame against L-5 I think I'll add my flamage to the rest by pointing out that L-5 was a flawed organization from day one. As their name suggests, their whole focus was on only one issue, namely the fabricating of space colonies at the libration points. I personally think this is a really **dumb** idea. Why invest all that effort and energy to lob stuff up from the moon to a Lagrangian point for making a colony when it would be vastly simpler and cheaper to merely bore tunnels into the moon's crust and make enormous underground colonies. Because it focused on only one idea and an unfeasible one at that, L-5 never really had any credibility. L-5 has done some good things however. For example, they played an important role in preventing ratification of the so called Moon Treaty by Congress. There has been sufficient flamage against the Moon treaty already, so I shall not repeat it. Let it suffice that for having opposed the Moon treaty the L-5 leadership should have their names inscribed in gold letters on a stone monolith set on the lunar surface. The problem with L-5 and other space activist groups is that they tend to get flakey or locked into single issues. The Planetary Society is following this same track with this nonsense being spewed by Van Allen. Stan Kent was a very important space activist, and skillfully used the Viking landers as a basis for advancing his influence. However the Vikings crapped out on him, destroying the sole basis for his organization's income. Besides Stan couldn't figure out whether he wanted to be an aeronautical engineer or a rock star. He made the mistake of allowing his credibility to sink to zero and getting labeled as a "flake". This is the fundamental contradiction in space activism. I'll call this the "Carl Sagen Syndrome". How does one go public in advocating space industrialization and still maintain his credibility as an Aerospace Engineer. It is typical for these space groups to turn into "Star Trek fan clubs". Or even worse, someone will build up an organization and then stupidly allow someone who is hearing voices from Mars to get on the executive committee. One would think that the AIAA should serve as the prime advocate for space industrialization. However the AIAA is too wrapped up with the military-industrial complex, and with such down-to-earth things like "next years Star Wars budget" to be concerned with pie-in-the-sky like colonizing the moon. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 86 10:07:18 PDT From: Dana Myers To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: SRB boosters, yet once again dammit > Why aren't SRB casings threaded and screwed together like iron pipe? Like almost everyone else on this net, I am only marginally qualified to answer, but, like everyone else on this net, I will anyway.... I suspect that the heat and acceleration have a lot to do with why the segments aren't threaded and joined, but I think that the most important issue is that of the wall thickness. I once read (in a screw brochure) that using a coarse thread gives maximum strength. A fine thread does not have nearly as much strength. A fine thread would be used where adjustability is important. The segment wall thickness might allow a very weak fine thread to be made - no way. A coarser thread could be cut if the SRB segment wall was a lot thicker... that's pounds off your payload, bud. Another fact to consider is that cracks in metal tend to occur near sharp edges or corners - when building a high performance internal combustion motor, an important step is de-burring and smoothing the block to avoid block cracks. Cutting (or casting) a thread into the SRB segment wall would (a) raise the issue of sharp edges and (b) reduce wall thickness in many places. A cracked booster would leak, and we all know what a leaking booster does.... The sharp edge issue could be reduce by rounding the thread cuts, but I think then you start to lose strength even more. A final point is that a segment below another will tend to swell at the top - the threads would have to be coarse enough to allow for that and that also means thicker walls... Could you imagine if, while assembling the SRBs, one got CROSS THREADED? .............. dana ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 86 01:08:12 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Felton) Subject: Shuttle Solid Rocket Motors Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa NASA News - September 5,1986 NASA Awards Study Contracts For Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., has awarded study contracts to five aerospace firms for conceptual designs of an alternative or Block II Space Shuttle solid rocket motor (SRM). The 120-day contracts, not to exceed $500,000 each, were awarded September 3 to Aerojet Strategic Propulsion Co., Sacramento, Calif.; Atlantic Research Corp., Alexandria, Va., United Technologies Chemical System Div., San Jose, Calif.; Hercules Aerospace Company's Aerospace Div., Salt Lake City, Utah; and Morton Thiokol, Inc., Brigham City, Utah, NASA's contractor for current SRM. The contracts call for each study to provide a conceptual design for a Block II SRM, a preliminary development and verification plan for the SRM defining how the proposed SRM program would be conducted, a capability assessment report defining the resources needed by the contractor to conduct the program, a cost estimate for the program and production cost of a flight set of Block II SRM's. In addition, the contractors will provide conceptual designs of their proposed SRM case joints within 60 days. It was a failed joint on the current SRM which lead to the failure of Mission 51-L. The design concepts for the SRM essentially must duplicate the outside geometry of the current Shuttle solid rocket motor and its interfaces with other Shuttle elements. But, with few exceptions, the studies provide the five contractors a free hand to propose a new SRM. The studies will lead to a final product geared to helping determine NASA's long-term policy for Shuttle SRM's. When the studies are completed, NASA will consider the benefits to be gained from the Block II studies, determine how the ongoing solid rocket motor redign efforts are proceeding and from that determine NASA's long-term strategy. ------------------------------------------------------------- NASA News Release 86-124 by Sarah Keegan Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Ed Medal Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Ala. Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution NASA News Releases Originate from NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #1 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06374; Fri, 3 Oct 86 03:02:35 PDT id AA06374; Fri, 3 Oct 86 03:02:35 PDT Date: Fri, 3 Oct 86 03:02:35 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610031002.AA06374@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #2 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 3 Oct 86 03:02:35 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #2 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 2 Today's Topics: Chariots for Apollo #2 - A one way trip? Re: Seed the Stars ? Re: Re: L5 society Kirin vs. CFE Why I don't think HOTOL separates nitrogen space suit power supply Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing Space Station & decaying orbits Conestoga Booster Re: replacing the SRBs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Sep 86 21:44:33 GMT From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Chariots for Apollo #2 - A one way trip? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa The fact that the United States had no large boosters in its inventory caused several farfetched schemes to surface. One such proposal promoted rendezvous and refueling while in transit to the moon, a concept pushed persistently by a firm named AstraCo. ... Another approach was the proposal to send a spacecraft on a one- way trip to the moon. In this concept, the astonaut would be deliberately stranded on the lunar surface and resuppiled by rockets shot at him for, conceivably, several years until the space agency developed the capability to bring him back! At the end of July 1961, E. J. Daniels from Lockheed Aircraft Corporation met with Paul Purser, Technical Assistant to Robert Gilruth, to discuss a possible study contract on this mode. Purser referred Daniels to NASA Headquarters. Almost a year later, in June 1962, John N. Cord and Leonard M. Seale, two engineers from Bell Aerosystems, urged in a paper presented at an Institute of Aerospace Sciences meeting in Los Angeles that the United States adopt this technique for getting a man on the moon in a hurry. While he waited for NASA to find a way to bring him back, they said, the astronaut could perform valuable scientific work. Cord and Seale, in a classic understatement, acknowledged that this would be a very hazardous mission, but they argued that "it would be cheaper, faster, and perhaps the only way to beat Russia." There is no evidence that Apollo planners ever took this idea seriously. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0. -- Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 86 21:00:40 GMT From: husc6!husc4!chiaraviglio@zarathustra.think.com (lucius) Subject: Re: Seed the Stars ? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Actually, seeding the stars blindly would be very unethical. Just think of this situation: how would you like it if someone else decided to do that, only their hardy organisms (not necessarily spores in the sense that molds and bacteria have -- who knows what might develop elsewhere?) are much more robust than most Earth life and take over, and thus everyone dies a horrible death by disease and/or starvation. Imagine if what was sent out was something like the creatures in Aliens? While our bacteria aren't that horrible at a macroscopic level, they could possibly be just as horrible microscopically. It would be pretty bad if we sent some yeast or mold or bacteria which just happened to be incredibly more efficient than the native life where it landed at utilizing the resources, or just happened to find the organisms there (possibly including intelligent ones) to be an attractive alternative growth medium, and thus killed everything off. I am in favor of going to the stars -- but keep in mind that doing so irresponsibly could be very bad for others. Therefore, go ahead and send out star probes, but please take the same precautions as were taken for the Mars landers: make sure that anything that lands is sterile, at least until we know what we are dealing with on the other end. Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.ARPA seismo!tardis!lucius ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 86 02:55:48 GMT From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: Re: L5 society Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > > It's (the Planetary Society) a club run by Sagan and his cronies. > > The reason for L5's hatred of Mars lies in this sentance. Sagan, of > course, has done more to popularize space than perhaps any single > individual and certainly more than the L5 society has. > He has put together a society with about 110,000 members > while L5 has about 6-9,000. Worse than that, he's a liberal. Even more annoying to many L-5 people is that Sagan is ardently anti-SDI. The Planetary Society promotes the Mars mission primarily as a substitute for SDI, something that demands peaceful cooperation between the US and USSR. Whatever they (and I) may feel about the relative merits of manned and unmanned missions to Mars, an expensive manned mission is enormously preferable to the continuation of Star Wars, even if unmanned missions could perform the same scientific functions more cost-effectively. I am a member of the Planetary Society. I have always found their publication (the Planetary Report) to be much more informative and educational than the L-5 news. The L-5 news always seems to be filled with political rumors, radical philosophical diatribes and the like. The Planetary Report usually contains at least one excellent article per issue by a scientist closely involved in one of the various space science missions. But then again I have this layman's interest in planetary science, which of course is worthless because it does nothing to further moving mankind off the planet... Phil ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 86 17:57 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Kirin vs. CFE X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.arpa",DIETZ Fortune magazine (10/13/86, page 33) reports that Amgen, a California biotech firm, and Kirin Brewery Co., a Japanese beer maker, are cooperating to make erythropoietin (EPO) with genetically modified microorganisms. Amgen cloned the EPO gene in 1983. EPO occurs in minute quantities in urine; McDonell-Douglas has been trying to purify natural EPO with its microgravity continuous flow electro- phoresis machine. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 17:00 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa, ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Why I don't think HOTOL separates nitrogen X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.arpa",IN%"ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu",DIETZ In response to a query I sent him on the HOTOL engine, Gary Allen posted his synthesis of some rumors on an oxygen condenser the HOTOL engine may contain. I said: >> Wouldn't one get more thrust (and, due to the lower exhaust temperature, >> more complete combustion) if the nitrogen were not excluded [from >> the oxygen/hydrogen reaction] ? Gary said: > Burning air in the rocket wouldn't work because too much energy would > go into heating the nitrogen and forming useless NOx molecules. The > specific impulse would be [too] small to make the [propulsion] system > viable against a pure oxygen system... I believe Gary is wrong here. Yes, pumping the nitrogen into the combustion chamber will decrease exhaust temperature and exhaust speed, but specific impulse is proportional to exhaust speed only in rockets that carry their own oxidizer. Specific impulse is thrust per unit *fuel* divided by g. Adding nitrogen will greatly increase the exhaust mass (by a factor of 4) and so should, in the absence of other effects, decrease exhaust speed by a factor of 2 and increase thrust by a factor of 2 -- *for the same fuel consumption*. Note that this decreases the exhaust speed of the engine from around 4000 m/sec to around 2000 m/sec -- which is a bit greater than Mach 5, as one would expect if HOTOL stops breathing above that speed. I've ignored the drag suffered when slowing down atmospheric nitrogen, but unless the engine can separate N2 and O2 in a hypersonic airstream the drag will be unavoidable. Gary points out that NOx will be formed. However, the equilibrium concentration won't be very high, especially if more hydrogen is injected than is stoichiometrically necessary to burn all the oxygen (note that in the SSME's the molar ratio of H2 to O2 is about 4:1). About Gary's heat exchanger: I don't think the trick of getting ice crystals to form in "mid air" does the trick, since the real problem is then separating the ice crystals from the air parcels in which they formed. Also, I don't see how Gary can extract heat from "mid air" in his design, unless he runs the air through a compressor and an intercooler before expanding it again. In any case, Gary's design accelerates atmospheric nitrogen up to vehicle speed, which should cause large amounts of drag. Only if the nitrogen is mixed into the engine exhaust can this be overcome. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 86 20:26:44 pdt From: bradley thompson To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: space suit power supply what is the mass [and volume] of the power supply for the US space suits? if it is alot would it not be better to transmit power by microwave or something on a continuous basis to the suit? merci brad thompson ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 86 00:05:18 GMT From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@hplabs.hp.com (Alan Silverstein) Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > To get inside, you need a vehicle pass. > I got mine by calling my Senator's office... No need to do that unless you're hoping for a VIP pass, which might get you a little closer (unless something's changed). Otherwise,... /* hpfcla:net.columbia / ajs / 11:53 am Sep 12, 1984 */ I called the folks that hand out car passes... phone number is 305-867-2363, and the address is: NASA Public Affairs PA-VIC Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899 The lady I talked to said that the passes are good to get you four miles from the pad, not six as I heard earlier. Alan Silverstein ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 86 05:14:26 GMT From: melpad!osi3b2!james@ngp.utexas.edu Subject: Space Station & decaying orbits Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa How high will the Space Station be placed? Main Question: how long will it stay in place without needing some boost to maintain position? Due to the cost I assume it is meant to stay there a long, long time. James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-ngp!utastro!osi3b2!james Live Free or Die ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 86 14:40:41 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Conestoga Booster Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa NASA News - September 8, 1986 SPACE SERVICES INC. TO USE NASA LAUNCH FACILITY NASA and Space Services Inc. of America (SSI), a Houston-based aerospace company, have agreed to general terms on the use of NASA's Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va., for the launch of the expendable Conestoga booster. SSI will reimburse NASA for all direct costs for launch operations support provided by NASA to SSI. Under the agreement, SSI will be responsible for preparation and launching of the vehicles, including all required non-NASA resources, and NASA will participate as observers to the extent necessary to insure compliance with all range and safety requirement. Overall range control, safety and operation will be the responsibility of the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., which controls the Wallops Flight Facility. In signing the agreement, Isaac T. Gillam IV, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Commercial Programs, said, "Here is a clear and early example of NASA's continued support and commitment to the President's commercial space policy." "With some modification and the construction of a Conestoga gantry at one pad, the Wallops facility is ideal for our type of operation", said Donald K. "Deke" Slayton, President of SSI. "It's an exciting arrangement and we are looking forward to working with the NASA people at both Goddard and Wallops." First flight of the Conestoga with a commercial payload could come as early as 1987 followed by two to three launches in 1988. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA News Release 86-128 by Azeezaly S. Jaffer Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Reproduced with permission for electronic distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 86 06:47:12 GMT From: melpad!osi3b2!james@ngp.utexas.edu Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I have some questions about SRBs and I'll post it as a followup of Roger's message. In article <348@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: > As background, I'll say a few words about why reusable liquid > boosters seem (to me) such an obviously desirable option. > > One major factor is simply performance. Liquid fuels pack more energy > per pound of propellant, giving higher specific impulse. Moreover, > the dry mass of a liquid fueled booster would be substantially less > than that of a comparable solid booster, since the entire casing of a > solid booster must withstand the kind of pressure that only has to be > contained in the main combustion chamber of a liquid fueled rocket > engine. That helps performance even more. As a result, liquid fueled > boosters would enable the shuttle to reach higher orbits with heavier > payloads, without having to drive the SSME's past 100% thrust rating. Is this really the case? I was under the impression that the solids give substantially more thrust than the liquids. I realize that solids are not as consistent as liquids in performance, and that performance cannot be adjusted in flight, and assumed that's why there are liquid rockets. > A "wild card" factor is environmental considerations. Solid rocket > exhaust is pretty awful stuff. I don't recall how many tons of > hydrochloric acid are dumped into the atmosphere by one shuttle > launch, but I do recall that it's measured in tons. The only reason > that it's not a problem is that shuttle flights are too infrequent > for the pollution to really matter much. If the shuttle, or shuttle > derived vehicles using the SRB's, were to fly with the frequency that > was originally projected, the pollution would definitely be an issue. What is the fuel composition of the solid fuel? I remember from when I saw the Spacelab-I launch that the solids are an off-orange or brown exhaust, whereas the liquids is white apparently. There's one thing I haven't seen discussed much in the news. When the Challenger blew up, the SRBs survived pretty much intact and continued operating. While a seal break from the SRB's ultimately caused the explosion, I wonder why more attention hasn't been paid to the fact that the SRB's are pretty sturdy and reliable devices if they survived an explosion with the energy of a very small nuclear device so close, and continued operating after a fashion (since I never heard otherwise, I assume from looking at the TV pictures that the SRBs continued burning). But given the obvious and numerous disadvantages of solid fuel boosters, I had always assumed they had much greater thrust per $ than liquids. James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-ngp!utastro!osi3b2!james Live Free or Die ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #2 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA29113; Sat, 4 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT id AA29113; Sat, 4 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT Date: Sat, 4 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610041002.AA29113@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #3 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 4 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #3 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: Emergency Locater Re: replacing the SRBs Re: How to view a Space Shuttle launch Re: Re: L5 society Re: A couple of satellite questions Re: Space without science ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Sep 86 14:08:32 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Emergency Locater Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa NASA News - September 11, 1986 NONSTOP GLOBAL VOYAGER AIRPLANE TO CARRY EMERGENCY LOCATER The around-the-world flight of the Rutan Voyager airplane, a 25,000 mile, 12 day, non-stop, unrefueled mission, can count on assistance from an international search and rescue system -- COSPAS/SARSAT -- if it runs into problems. The Voyager will carry an emergency international search and rescue beacon similar to the ones which have saved more than 600 lives over the past 4 years. Four satellites -- three from the Soviet Union and one from the United States -- can pick up "emergency" signals from downed aircraft or ships at sea and relay the information to rescue forces. A lightweight prototype personnal locator beacon will be provided to the airplane's crew by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. The 1-1/2 pound, waterproof beacon is powered by five 9 volt alkaline batteries, according to Fred Flatow, mission manager for the search and rescue project at Goddard. The Voyager aircraft, designed by aeronautical engineer Burt Rutan, will be piloted by his 45-year-old brother, Dick, and 32-year-old Jeana Yeager. The pair will take off from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., on Sept. 15 and fly westward via Australia and Africa. They will be confined in a cockpit on 39-1/2 inches wide and 33 inches deep. The Voyager has a wingspan of 111 feet, about the same as a Boeing 727 jet. It weighs only 1,838 pounds, but with its crew and 1,400 gallons of fuel, takeoff weight will be approximately 11,300 lbs. The prototype transmitter, built by Telonics, of Mesa, Ariz., will transmit on frequencies of 406 and 121.5 MHz, according to Morton L.Friedman, the project's systems engineer. The 406-MHz frequency signal would be used primarily to determine the location of a transmitted distress signal. The 121.5 MHz signal would be used by rescue forces to "home in" on the beacon. Friedman says tests of the prototype transmitter, of which there are only two, indicate the beacon could operate for up to 23 days. He said tests indicated the prototype provided an extremely good signal which would permit ground stations to pinpoint its location very accurately. COSPAS/SARSAT, an acronym meaning, in general, search and rescue satellite aided tracking, is a cooperative program between Canada, France, the Soviet Union and the United States. Other nations participating in the program include Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Brazil is expected to join in the near future and other nations have expressed an interest in COSPAS/SARSAT. Should the Voyager encounter an emergency and the crew were to activate the emergency transponder, its signal would be relayed via satellite to a a ground station. In the event the satellite is not within range of a ground station, the signal would be recorded for later transmission to one of the eleven ground stations around the world. Four stations are located in the U.S. at Scott Air For Base, Ill.; Kodiak, Alaska; Pt. Reyes, Calif.; and the Goddard Space Flight Center. Three stations are in the Soviet Union at ARchangel, Moscow and Vladivostok. Other stations are located at Toulouse, France; Lasham, England; Ottawa, Canada; and Tromso, Norway. Since the program began in September 1982, 606 lives have been saved in 251 different emergencies worldwide, according to Flatow. Of the rescues, 259 have been maritime saves; 326 have been air and 21 have been terrestrial, such as hikers and campers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NASA News Release 86-132 by Jim Kukowski Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Jim Elliot Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Reproduced with permission for electronic distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 86 06:58:35 GMT From: melpad!osi3b2!james@ngp.utexas.edu (James R. Van Artsdalen) Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa More questions from an amatuer interested in NASA: In article <21112@rochester.ARPA>, emil@rochester.ARPA (Emil Rainero) writes: > The saturn five > used a 1.5 million pound first stage engine (5 of them), but it was definitely > not reusable, steerable, or throttleable. Perhaps these features are not > that important, the SRB's get along just fine with a crude steering system. > Another very big advantage to a liquid SRB is the possible abort to launch > site that is almost impossible while the SRB's are firing. A liquid booster > could be turned off and a safe separation would be much more likely. > There is also a much greater safety risk when the SRB's are in the > vehicle assembly building. I remember reading that the vehicle assembly > building was off limits to tours until a separate isolated SRB storage building > (READ BOMB PROOF BUILDING) was completed. 1) Where the Saturn V's really not steerable or throttleable??? How did they steer the spacecraft and keep it going up instead of down? Also, I seem to recall that the Shuttle varies thrust to manage aerodynamic pressure. Did the Apollo launches not worry about aerodynamic pressure or what? 2) "almost impossible [to abort] while the SRB's are firing". May I take this to mean absolutely impossible to abort? Assuming that the SRB's could be released while still firing, wouldn't they run ahead of the Shuttle uncontrollably for a little while and expose the Shuttle to SRB exhaust heading the other direction? 3) As regarding the "bomb proof building", does the solid fuel burn oe explode? I thought the liquid fuel would explode but that the solid fueld only burned. This is admittedly a minor difference: enough fuel burning fast enough would be just as bad (and at some point you end up calling a fast burn an explosion anyway I suppose). James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-ngp!utastro!osi3b2!james Live Free or Die ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 86 20:05:28 GMT From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: How to view a Space Shuttle launch Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Having been fortunate enough to see a launch (STS-9) from the press site, I fully agree that this is the way to go if you can arrange it. I came back with a stack of literature almost a foot thick, including one of those comprehensive press kits on the Space Transportation System. One really nice thing about getting in as press was that NASA offered a steady stream of bus tours out to the pad in the days before launch. Watching the Rotating Service Structure being rolled back and the lights turned on while standing just east of the pad after sundown is an experience not to be forgotten. The problem with KSC is a) it's enormous, and b) there's little there to give the structures a sense of scale. You can only appreciate the size of the pad by going out there. At the time, pad 39-B was still under construction, so they were able to take us right into the flame duct on the north side of the pad. This thing is B I G! Phil ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 86 20:38:14 GMT From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (e.c.leeper) Subject: Re: Re: L5 society Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > > Unfortunately, the PS now appears to be devoting most of its > > efforts to promoting a Marsdoggle program. > > I forgot, another thing incredibly annoying about L5 is their > hatred for the Mars project. If the trip to Mars is to set > up a permanent base it could be decisive in developing space > society. Only if it is a one shot would it be disadvantageous. We had a great plan in the 1960's to make a moon landing. There was even talk of a permanent lunar base, etc., etc. And the result? We landed 12 men on the moon between 1969 and 1972 and haven't been back for 14 years. What makes you think that a Mars landing would be any different? > > It's (the Planetary Society) a club run by Sagan and his cronies. > > The reason for L5's hatred of Mars lies in this sentance. Sagan, of > course, has done more to popularize space than perhaps any single > individual and certainly more than the L5 society has. > He has put together a society with about 110,000 members > while L5 has about 6-9,000. Worse than that, he's a liberal. There's nothing wrong with popularizing space, but when it comes to *doing* something, I think one has to look at the activity involved. The North Jersey L5 chapter, for example, has made two trips to Washington to meet with all the senators and representatives from New Jersey to raise their awareness about space. Its members have written many letters in support of funding bills that were up for votes in Congress. It recently got about 15 phone calls to Senator Bradley in favor of transferring $2.9M from DoD to NASA for a replacement orbiter. (And if you don't think that 15 phone calls in a 4-hour stretch to a Senator's office on a committee vote (not a floor vote) is a lot, you don't realize how apathetic most people are.) The North Jersey chapter also sponsors informational booths at the New Jersey State Museum for the Museum's Super-Science Weekend, helps organize Space Day activities at the Museum (including a speech by astronaut Terry Hart and two NASA science demonstrations last year and a space-related art show and film festival the previous year), helps judge space-related exhibits at the Murray Hill Science Fair for high school students, and provides speakers for other organizations interested in hearing about the future in space. The strength of the L5 Society is in its chapter organization. You may or may not agree with the national organization's position or the actions they are taking, but you'll never change it by doing nothing, and the "grass-roots" nature of the chapters makes it possible for *you* to do something. Needless to say, I'm a member. Standard disclaimer applies: I am speaking for myself. Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@topaz.rutgers.edu UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 86 10:24:32 GMT From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: A couple of satellite questions Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > (1) How long are GEO satellites expected to stay up? In particular I > was just reading a science fiction story in which, 8 million years > from now, there aren't any left. Is this realistic? Certainly it is > for LEO but I thought GEO was high enough to avoid atmospheric drag. It's hard to project such things out so far into the future, but it seems safe to say that geostationary satellites will not eventually decay due to atmospheric drag. A much more significant set of forces acting on them involve perturbations due to the sun, moon, and non-spherical shape of the earth. These tend to be "conservative" forces, in that they do not change the amount of (kinetic + potential) energy in the satellite, they simply move the orbit plane around. But who knows what will happen in 8 million years? > (2) How does a sun-synchronous orbit work? This is an orbit that > always stays over the terminator. My understanding was that the plane > of the orbit is always fixed with respect to the fixed stars, so that > if it's sun-synchronous at one point it's not three months later. > What's wrong with this picture? Your understanding of a fixed orbit plane would be correct if the earth was a point mass with perfect spherical symmetry. It isn't. The real earth has a very pronounced bulge around the equator due to its spin. This causes what are called "secular perturbations", variations in the satellite's orbital elements which accumulate over time (as compared with "short period perturbations", which cancel out over an orbit). Secular perturbations occur in right ascension of the ascending node (RAAN) and the argument of perigee. In a circular orbit the argument of perigee is undefined, so the important one here is the RAAN. This defines the "celestial longitude" where the satellite crosses the equator going from south-to-north (the "ascending node"). If you select the inclination and the orbital period properly, you can cause the RAAN to increase at a steady rate of 360/365.25 degrees per day. This exactly matches the apparent increase of the sun's right ascension, hence the orbital plane maintains a constant orientation with the sun-earth line. This doesn't have to be over the terminator, it can be at any angle you want. The RAAN rate-of-change is negative for inclinations below 90 degrees and positive above. This is why all sun-synchronous orbits are slightly retrograde (inclination between 90 and 180 degrees), since they need a positive RAAN increase of + 360/265.25 degrees/day. This is usually achieved from Vandenburg by launching to the south-southwest, and from Kourou by launching to the north-northwest. Either direction will satisfy the orbital mechanics; if you can launch either way you have two launch windows per day, but if you can only launch one way (as is the case at both sites for range safety reasons) then you only get one chance per day. These windows are usually VERY short, 5 minutes or so, and will be quite a challenge for the Shuttle should it ever fly out of VAFB. The launch time depends, of course, on the angle you want between the orbital plane and the sun-earth line. These orbits are usually specified in terms of local equator crossing times, e.g., a 6am/6pm sun-synchronous orbit would have the satellite crossing the equator southward on one side at 6am local time and then again northward 1/2 orbit later at 6pm local time. It would be launched from Vandenburg somewhat after 6AM Pacific Standard time. Sun-synchronous orbits are very useful for earth observation satellites of all types, since they maintain relatively constant sunlighting conditions on the earth below. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 86 17:36:08 GMT From: cbatt!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Hogg) Subject: Re: Space without science Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Summary: In article <158@ka9q.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes: >> You don't _need_ mathematics for space travel. With enough power, orbits >> don't have to be elegant. > >Utter nonsense!! >Mathematics is so completely intertwined with technology (including space >technology) that the latter is impossible without the former. How do you >design your rocket engines? Or your mechanical structures? ... >Engineering would be completely Hit-or-miss (mostly the latter) without >mathematical analysis tools. Not really nonsense; merely very expensive and difficult. Mathematical analysis is just a way of making mistakes cheaply. The builders of the great cathedrals of Europe didn't have any engineering knowledge in the modern sense, and as a result, they had a failure rate that we wouldn't accept today. It also helps that their structures didn't have to be optimized for weight. Early engineers *were* frequently hit-or-miss, and their bridges fell down too. But if the structural demands aren't too great, you can be mathematically ignorant and still succeed. Do you calculate the failure modes when you hammer together a picnic table? I just cut down a large enough tree. "But," you say, "spacecraft aren't like that. They *have* to be weight optimized." This is only true if you start at the bottom of a large hole. Had we evolved on the moon, we would have spread through much of the solar system by now, and be marvelling at the pictures sent back from the crushing gravity of Earth by unmanned probes. (A beautiful and strange place, but unvisitable by man; even if we could survive on its surface, we could never build a vehicle capable of landing and lifting off to orbit again. Although some wild-minded types suggest that the thick atmosphere could actually be used to advantage...) The time-worn truism is that you can jump off a small enough moon, and that takes that mathematical ability of a grasshopper. Rules of thumb for building craft and calculating orbits may evolve through time. However, there's no reason that a low-G environment could not lead to the creation of a low-tech craft. And space Vikings in their space roundships might care little about the cost in lives. John Hogg hogg@utcsri.uucp hogg@csri.toronto.cdn ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #3 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA26416; Sun, 5 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT id AA26416; Sun, 5 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT Date: Sun, 5 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610051002.AA26416@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #4 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 5 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #4 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 4 Today's Topics: Re: replacing the SRBs Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain do we need new technology? Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars response to space group flame ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Sep 86 21:49:23 GMT From: husc6!husc4!chiaraviglio@zarathustra.think.com (lucius) Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I'm not an expert on the subject of solid-fuel vs. liquid fuel rockets, but I'll say what I have read or otherwise found out anyway. Warning: I read some of this stuff up to 10 years ago, and am saying it from memory. Do not rely on this information alone when designing rocket motors. :-) Specific impulse depends on how much useable thrust you can get for a given amount of energy (in this case chemical) expended. Since exhaust velocity for exhaust of a given molecular weight is dependant on temperature, and velocity for exhaust of a given temperature is inversely dependant on molecular weight (that is, for exhaust ejected by thermal expansion -- does not apply to ion drives and propellors, for instance), specific impulse is to a significant degree inversely dependant on the molecular weight of your exhaust (smaller molecules composing exhaust means it comes out faster for a given temperature (which is dependant on how much energy you get per molecule), giving you more useable thrust and less energy wasted as unuseable heat). Now, if you are getting your energy from a chemical reaction, you can't make your exhaust be of the lightest molecular weight possible for any substance. Free protons and electrons and monatomic hydrogen are out because you can't get them from an energy-producing chemical reaction, and diatomic hydrogen and several other things lighter than water are out for that reason or because chemical reactions which produce them do not make enough energy to be useable as rocket fuels (besides which they also tend to make heavy and generally non-gaseous products -- no good for your thrust-to-weight ratio). That leaves us with things like water and diatomic nitrogen and a number of other compounds of similar or somewhat heavier weight which can be produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions which do not also produce non-gaseous products (assuming complete combustion). However, note that hydrogen and fluorine would be unacceptable as a fuel/oxidizer combination, even though the reaction is highly exothermic and the exhaust is light, because the exhaust (hydrogen fluoride) and the fluorine are too dangerous (not to mention the trouble you would have to go to to make engines that wouldn't corrode in that stuff at high temperature). With liquid fuels you can get exhaust as light as water (molecular weight 18) if you use hydrogen and oxygen as fuel and oxidizer, and the formation of water gives a good amount of energy. Problem with solid fuels is, in order to make a fuel that is solid at a useful temperature, you have to use carbon in your compounds. Carbon is trouble because it wants to form carbon monoxide (bad stuff) or preferably carbon dioxide, and even though the formation of carbon dioxide gives more energy than the formation of water (per molecule), it uses twice as much oxygen (per molecule of carbon dioxide formed), and the molecular weight of carbon dioxide is 44, which cuts down on specific impulse of carbon-based fuels relative to hydrogen/oxygen. Now, specific impulse is not the only issue in how good a rocket fuel is. Energy produced per weight of fuel is of course another consideration -- the best of liquid and solid fuels are pretty good in the respect (although I think solid fuels waste some weight-to-energy ratio in glue to hold the stuff together); how fast you can burn the fuel is another consideration. The faster you can burn the fuel the better it will be, because the less time you will spend fighting gravity in a given part of your launch trajectory. Since solid- fuel engines are simpler than liquid-fuel engines, it is easier to design a huge solid-fuel engine than to design a huge liquid-fuel engine. Also, while liquid hydrogen is very good in energy-to-weight ratio, it is very poor in weight-to-space ratio (density); having to build a huge tank, insulation, and supporting structure for a small amount of fuel is no insignificant matter (I think this was one of the reasons for using kerosene in some liquid-fuel rockets, such as the first stage of the Saturn rockets). Also, if you are building 1-shot rockets or rockets which are going to take a swim in the ocean after each use, the lesser complexity (which probably also means lesser cost) of solid-fuel rockets can be an important consideration. Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.ARPA seismo!tardis!lucius ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 86 05:16:05 GMT From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa >> Or ask the satellite operators who are faced with safety requirements >> orders of magnitude more stringent than anything they had to deal with >> on expendables because of the "man-rated" factor. > This is a real problem, but it has much more to do with overconservative > management brought on by severe budget pressure and a ridiculously tiny > orbiter fleet than with any inherent requirement of manned spaceflight. Overconservative management? Where have you been since January?? Do you seriously believe that the safety requirements for shuttle payloads are actually going to get *easier* in the future? We've been over this issue many times before. Manned vehicles, particularly expensive, reusable shuttles, put far more at risk on each mission than unmanned expendables. There's just *no way* that the safety requirements for the Shuttle can ever be made equal to or less stringent than those for expendables. Given that the shuttle orbit by itself is pretty much useless for many (if not most) space applications, you'll always need to carry extra propulsion to get into a useful orbit. And propulsion is generally considered a "hazardous system", for which the weight of the safety paperwork must exceed the weight of the system or else it can't fly. Curiously enough, though, many people justified the shuttle because it would somehow make payloads cheaper to build... Phil ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 86 07:37:46 GMT From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (d.l.skran) Subject: do we need new technology? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa == From: karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) == == Rather than argue fundamental philosophy, I'll just point out the == self-conflict in your argument. Our current method for reaching space is far == too expensive to make sense for all but a very small, select set of space == applications (communications, remote sensing, etc). In particular, space == travel far too expensive (by many orders of magnitude) for "moving life off == the planet"; that's just not realistic with present technology. (By "present == technology" I don't mean just the Shuttle; I mean "chemical rockets"). I must agrue most strenously with this conclusion. There has been strong reason to suppose for many years that a combination of chemical technology for reaching LEO and Mass Drivers/Ion Motors for getting around in space will be sufficent for "moving life off the planet" in the sense of establishing self-sufficient bases in space. The fact that the shuttle was not "cheap" does not prove that it is not possible to build "cheap" chemical powered shuttles to LEO. == If you're going to have any chance at all of "expanding life off the == planet", you're going to have to discover some new physical phenomenon you == can use to replace chemical rockets. Now it seems logical that you're more The major thrust of the discusion of space development since Von Braun has been that we don't need some super nifty technology; we just need to do it! This is not intended to imply that no further engineering work is needed, just that were Von Braun still with us and getting all the money he needed, I bet he could do it in about five years. == Clearly we need a wide range of scientific activities in space. I didn't say == that life sciences research involving human presence isn't worthwhile. I'm == only saying that, in my personal opinion, it has gained an unwarranted == overemphasis at the cost of many other equally (or more) deserving fields == that, unfortunately, lack the political sex appeal of a floating astronaut == waving to a TV camera. My personal opinion is that the time has come to build infrastructure rather than send 20 probes to the outer planets. Let's fund planetary exploration on the level we fund other "big science" projects like particle physics. NASA's infrastructure building should be funded at 10X that amount or more - still a tiny fraction of the federal budget. == Phil Dale ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 86 06:55:56 GMT From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (d.l.skran) Subject: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa ==> At one point I urged people to join the Planetary Society, ==> Unfortunately, the PS now appears to be devoting most of its ==> efforts to promoting a Marsdoggle program. == == I forgot, another thing incredibly annoying about L5 is their == hatred for the Mars project. If the trip to Mars is to set == up a permanent base it could be decisive in developing space == society. Only if it is a one shot would it be disadvantageous. I absolutely agree with your position. That's why I'm so concerned with the Proxmire/Matsunaga joint US/Soviet Mars expedition as endorsed by the New York Times. Such a mission would almost certainly be a one shot political stunt that would result in little more infrastructure in space that an old space station and four used up shuttles. The Mars expedition described in the National Commission on Space report is that way to go - after a lunar mining base and numerous space stations have been established - at the END of a FIFTY YEAR program of infrastructure building. Remember folks: Apollo was supposed to be followed by a base on the moon. We must focus solidly on building an industrial future in space, not on glitzy space adventures that finally are nothing but an insult to the underclass of America. == > It's (the Planetary Society) a club run by Sagan and his cronies. == The reason for L5's hatred of Mars lies in this sentance. Sagan, of Nonsense. 1)My original intent was to point out that the PS is not a democratic organization and that L5 was. The members of the PS do not elect a board of directors - the members of L5 do. This matters to me. 2)I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't think the L5 Society "hates Mars." Pro and Anti Mars articles have appeared in the L5 News. I think it's safe to guess however, that most L5 members would not like to see a one shot stunt Mars expedition. I also think almost all would be glad to see a permanent base on Mars. == course, has done more to popularize space than perhaps any single This is exceedingly debatable == individual and certainly more than the L5 society has. True. Sad, but true. == He has put together a society with about 110,000 members == while L5 has about 6-9,000. Worse than that, he's a liberal. The problem with Mr. Sagan is not his liberalism. Mr. Sagan believes living and working in space is a childish dream. See the June 86 isue of Space World for a transcript of a debate between O'Neill and Sagan. As I see it, Mr. Sagan has fastened on a Mars expedition as a way to pry loose the public support for space science. Since polls the PS took revealed strong support for humans in space, the entire orientation of the society apparently has shifted toward promoting a Mars expedtion, any Mars expediton. With this in mind, I think Mr. Sagan must be viewed as one of the greatest enemies of space developement at this time since he offers in its place the seductive dream of vicariously bounding over the sand dunes of Mars by TV camera. Dale Skran Speaking only for himself. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 86 08:32:07 GMT From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (d.l.skran) Subject: response to space group flame Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa == Subject: And one more flame against L-5 == == I think I'll add my flamage to the rest by pointing out that L-5 was a == flawed organization from day one. As their name suggests, their whole == focus was on only one issue, namely the fabricating of space colonies at == the libration points. I personally think this is a really **dumb** Although this was true at one point, L5 has shifted its focus from L5 Space colonies per se to space development and the human habitation of space in general, although clearly space colonies are still a major concern. In fact, for reasons I don't want to go into, it was almost immediately realized that the L5 points are not the best place to put colonies. == idea. Why invest all that effort and energy to lob stuff up from the == moon to a Lagrangian point for making a colony when it would be vastly == simpler and cheaper to merely bore tunnels into the moon's crust and == make enormous underground colonies. Because it focused on only one idea == and an unfeasible one at that, L-5 never really had any credibility. I personally find the notion of colonies in space as described in numerous books, including NASA summer studies, to be more sensible and feasible than this concept of tunnels in the moon. I suggest that you read "Space Settlements- A Design Study(NASA summer study)" and "The High Frontier" by O'Neill and then we can continue this discussion at a later time. Still, if lunar colonies are really the better idea, I feel confident L5 members will support them. == L-5 has done some good things however. For example, they played an == important role in preventing ratification of the so called Moon Treaty == by Congress. There has been sufficient flamage against the Moon treaty == already, so I shall not repeat it. Let it suffice that for having == opposed the Moon treaty the L-5 leadership should have their names == inscribed in gold letters on a stone monolith set on the lunar surface. Surely an organization deserving such an honor also deserves some support between now and the time we can actually return to the moon to build the monument? == The problem with L-5 and other space activist groups is that they tend == to get flakey or locked into single issues. The Planetary Society is == following this same track with this nonsense being spewed by Van Allen. == Stan Kent was a very important space activist, and skillfully used the == Viking landers as a basis for advancing his influence. However the == Vikings crapped out on him, destroying the sole basis for his == organization's income. Besides Stan couldn't figure out whether he == wanted to be an aeronautical engineer or a rock star. He made the == mistake of allowing his credibility to sink to zero and getting labeled == as a "flake". This is the fundamental contradiction in space activism. I suggest you read Trudy Bell's discussion of Stan Kent and the failure of Delta Vee in Upward: Status Report and Directory of the American Space Interest Movement(1984-1985). Clearly Delta Vee suffered from being a one issue group. It also suffered by Kent's own admission from being a one man show. == I'll call this the "Carl Sagen Syndrome". How does one go public in == advocating space industrialization and still maintain his credibility as Why call it the Carl Sagan anything? When has Mr. Sagan ever advocated space industrialization? == an Aerospace Engineer. It is typical for these space groups to turn == into "Star Trek fan clubs". Or even worse, someone will build up an What organization do you have in mind? I can't think of any. == organization and then stupidly allow someone who is hearing voices from == Mars to get on the executive committee. One would think that the AIAA This seems even more unlikely. Examples please. == should serve as the prime advocate for space industrialization. However == the AIAA is too wrapped up with the military-industrial complex, and == with such down-to-earth things like "next years Star Wars budget" == to be concerned with pie-in-the-sky like colonizing the moon. On this I agree with you; the conservatism of AIAA is well known. == Gary Allen My personal opinion is that the space interest groups are failures in general, including L5, because their members are incapable of working together and making the compromises necessary for political success. By this I mean working with Jerry Pournelle even if he right wing and for SDI. By this I mean being willing to put aside liberal/conservative flamage to support the space station, the space shuttle, and space industrialization. By this I mean being able to understand the need to support existing programs like the shuttle while working for future oriented programs like the TAV. If every L5 member who quit because they *thought* L5 had done something to support SDI re-joined, and if every L5 member who quit because they had a personal dislike for some particular officer re-joined, and if every L5 member who quit once they realized the purpose of the society was not to entertain them via the L5 News re-joined, by god, L5 might become a really meaningful force rather that the gamely struggling group it is. Give it some thought folks. Are we going to grow up and work together to get into space, or spend our days until WWIII arguing about the shuttle? Send $30 dues to the L5 Society, 1060 E. Elm Street, Tucson, Arizona, 85719 Dale Skran ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #4 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13249; Mon, 6 Oct 86 03:02:46 PDT id AA13249; Mon, 6 Oct 86 03:02:46 PDT Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 03:02:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610061002.AA13249@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #5 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 03:02:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #5 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 5 Today's Topics: Re: Chariots for Apollo #2 - A one way trip? Re: Space without science more on replacing the SRBs.. Re: sun-synchronous orbits shuttle solid rocket boosters Re: A couple of satellite questions Screw-threaded SRBs Liquid vs. Fuel boosters how to get a press pass for shuttle launches? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Sep 86 21:50:59 GMT From: blarson@oberon.usc.edu (Bob Larson) Subject: Re: Chariots for Apollo #2 - A one way trip? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa There was a (made for TV?) movie based on this concept. (Aprox. 1968) The lunar lander was a gemeni capsule on a lunar module base. I saw this on the late**3 show on one of the independent stations here in LA about a year ago. Bob Larson Arpa: Blarson@Usc-Eclb.Arpa or blarson@usc-oberon.arpa Uucp: (ihnp4,hplabs,tektronix)!sdcrdcf!usc-oberon!blarson ------------------------------ To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Space without science Date: Mon, 29 Sep 86 21:32:53 -0500 From: James R. Van Zandt Joel Swank writes: >In article <15800016@uiucdcsp>, jenks@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >> >> Ever wonder what a space-faring culture might be like (if it is possible) >> without mathematics? What would _we_ be like if not for Newton, Mach, >> Einstein, etc.? >> >> You don't _need_ mathematics for space travel. With enough power, orbits >> don't have to be elegant. > >Are you serious? We couldn't come close to space travel without mathmatics. >No advanced society could even exist without science. Every advancement >depends heavily on all that went before. How would you do it? Prayer? You need mathematics for _rockets_. However, there just might be a simpler way to travel that we've overlooked so far. There have been a couple of stories in Analog recently on this theme. Speaking of technology - the December issue of Analog has an article by Thomas Donaldson on some really advanced stuff that particle physics may bring - commercial production of antimatter, magnetic monopoles, strings, collapsed matter (to form "quark matter", not neutronium or black holes) and strange matter. Neat stuff. - Jim Van Zandt ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 86 06:05:07 GMT From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: more on replacing the SRBs.. Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa My thanks to those who have replied, both on the net and by email, to my previous posting on "replacing the SRBs". I'll summarize here what I've been able to glean so far, and add a few more thoughts. My question asked why it was "that NASA has evinced so little interest in developing reusable liquid fueled boosters as replacements for the Shuttle SRBs". I consider the question still very much open, as I've seen no really definitive replies. On the technical side, it happens that solids do have some advantages over liquids, aside from reliability and lower development cost. In particular, it's easy to achieve high thrust in a comparatively small solid rocket, just by shaping the fuel cores for a fast burn rate. The rocket won't burn very long, and it won't be terribly efficient, but if high thrust for a short time is all you need, then solids are the way to go. For a liquid fueled rocket, thrust depends on the power of its pumps, which sets a limit on how fast fuel can be forced into the cumbustion chamber. It is certainly possible to produce a liquid fueled rocket with as much thrust as the Shuttle SRBs (2.1 million pounds), but it might be felt that such a development would be wasted on a "mere" SRB replacement. If you were going to go to that effort, you'd want it to be part of a larger effort leading to a new generation, fully reusable system. I'm only speculating about that latter point, but I can understand such a point of view. The Shuttle design is presumably optimized for maximum effectiveness of the Shuttle main engines. The size and burn rate for the SRBs would be calculated for the minimum needed to get the stack out of the atmosphere and to the point that the SSMEs can carry the orbiter and external tank the rest of the way to orbit. It is certainly possible, in principle, to replace the SRBs with reusable liquid fueled boosters programmed to emulate the SRB boost profile, but if that's all you did, you wouldn't be getting nearly as much out of them as they would be capable of delivering. If you had a reusable liquid fueled booster, you'd really want it to burn longer and do more of the "work" of the launch than the SRBs now do. But then, unless you increased the Shuttle payload quite a bit, you'd be under-utilizing the SSMEs. And you can't increase the Shuttle payload by much, because of vehicle structural limitations. Of course, the fact that a system optimized for a reusable LF booster wouldn't involve merely replacing the existing SRBs doesn't prove that such a replacement isn't desirable. You could come pretty close to an optimized design by also modifying the external tank. Shorten the LOX tank, add LOX crossfeed from the booster to the smaller tank, and stick on the Aft Cargo Compartment that Martin is itching to build. You'd end up with a system that might deliver 100,000 pounds to LEO, exclusive of the orbiter vehicle and the external tank, and could handle larger diameter payloads to boot. Several who responded mentioned the problem of ocean recovery for a liquid fueled booster. That's not surprising, since I know that at one time, early in the program, NASA was very seriously considering use of liquid fueled boosters for the Shuttle, and it was the ocean recovery problem that was generally acknowledged to have killed that option. There were two issues that I'm aware of--concern for the ability of the lighter and thinner shell of a liquid fueled booster to withstand ocean impact, and concern for the effects of salt water on the pumps and engines. More specifically on the latter point, there was concern for what it would cost to guarantee, after each flight, that no corrosion damage was present. It was assumed that the whole works would have to be disassembled and inspected. Ocean recovery is a problem only if you assume that you're going to be fishing the booster out of the drink. That's what we do with the SRBs, certainly, but I can think of at least three alternatives. The most obvious is to give the boosters true fly-back capability. That ups the development ante, and creates even more incentive to make the development part of a whole new system. The other alternatives would be less costly, but I don't think I want to try to explain them here. The most basic issue seems to come down to whether or not it's worth making a major investment to improve the current shuttle system. Many space advocates seem to feel that, given the reality of limited budget resources, it's best to do only the minimum necessary to get the Shuttle flying again, and put maximum effort into the aerospace plane. At any rate, that's the way NASA seems to be headed. That's something that scares the hell out of me. It's entirely too reminiscent of the situation back at the start of the shuttle program. At that time, a deliberate decision was made to focus all development effort on "the" space transportation system, or STS, as the program was known. The manned space program basically went on hold for 10 years, and the rest of the space program limped along at low levels with the same expendable launch vehicles that had been in use for years. We didn't like it, of course, but accepted it because we knew "THE SHUTTLE IS COMING". We are now witness to the bitter fruits of that policy, yet we seem intent on repeating history. Only this time, of course, it's "THE SPACE PLANE IS COMING". I dunno, maybe the space plane will be the wonder that everyone is hoping for. My cynical heart merely whispers a couple of disquieting facts: 1) it's never much fun to clean up a project that you weren't responsible for; given half a choice, any normal manager or engineer prefers to start with a clean slate. In fact, they will go to great lengths to convince you that the old system is beyond repair, but if you let them do it RIGHT.. Sometimes, they're even correct. More often, the new system ends up with just as many problems as the old. 2) for all its elegant "efficiency", the space plane does little or nothing directly to address the single overwhelming element in the high cost of flying the Shuttle: the army of technicians and support personnel that labor for months after each flight preparing the vehicle for its next launch. Cost of fuel has essentially nothing at all to do with the price of a Shuttle flight. If you want cheaper space transportation, the one and only factor you currently have any business looking at is vehicle turnaround costs. Enough! Thanks, all, for your indulgence. - Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: Tue 30 Sep 86 02:43:21-EDT From: Robert.Berger@c.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: sun-synchronous orbits To: space@s1-b.arpa Orbits would stay fixed relative to the star field IF the earth were a perfect sphere. In reality, the flattening of the earth at the poles causes orbits to precess. The rate and direction of the precession depends on the orbital period and inclination. By choosing these paramaters appropriately, an orbit can be produced which precesses once per year in the direction needed to produce a sun-synchronous orbit. An interesting sidenote is that the required inclination is > 90 degrees, which means the satellite travels to the west. Most satellites travel to the east to take advantage of the rotational speed of the earth during launch. -Robert Berger berger@cmu-c ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 86 02:32:39 GMT From: video.dec.com!kovner@decwrl.dec.com Subject: shuttle solid rocket boosters Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I seem to recall that the original design for the space shuttle did not use solid boosters at all, but that it had a re-useable PILOTED 'first stage'. In that design, the orbiter would have engines for a and fuel for a powered re-entry and landing. As is often the case in government projects (except for military ones), the budget was cut back to the point where the design had to be simplified to lower development costs. (Who cares about the costs later. :-) The budget restraints also resulted in changes in the way NASA tested the parts. Their previous practice would be to test EACH PART. In the case of the shuttle, they had to test the engines complete. This found problems, which caused delays, which caused budget overruns..... When will they ever learn? The GAO study found that the delays in getting the shuttle flying were primarily due to insufficient funding at an early stage, where problems could be corrected more cheaply. Maybe NASA should hire some military contractor's lobbyists. If they could afford them. :-) Steve Kovner ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 86 13:38:17 GMT From: ihnp4!chinet!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Burch) Subject: Re: A couple of satellite questions Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <3195@columbia.UUCP> eppstein@garfield.columbia.edu (David Eppstein) writes: >(1) How long are GEO satellites expected to stay up? In particular I >was just reading a science fiction story in which, 8 million years >from now, there aren't any left. Is this realistic? Certainly it is >for LEO but I thought GEO was high enough to avoid atmospheric drag. Well.. First, there is SOME drag at 22,000 miles. Drag from the solar wind, drag from the Earth's magnetic tail, and drag from impact by micrometeoroids. However, the most important effect on a satellite in the Clarke Orbit is that of gravitation. The moon alternately speeds up and slows down these satellites on a monthly cycle. The planets exert small varying forces on these bodies. The sun exerts a varying pull as the Earth moves from perihelion to apohelion. Over 8 million years, these would sweep clean anything in an orbit that was not self-correcting. For example, I think that something in the Earth-Sun L5 point MIGHT be there in 8 million years. -David B. (Ben) Burch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 86 09:52:53 PDT From: Todd Johnson To: king@kestrel.arpa Cc: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Screw-threaded SRBs > Does anyone know why SRB's segments are NOT simply threaded and > screwed together like iron pipe? >-dick Sure. If you accidentally got some of the solid propellant on one of those screw threads and tightened - bang! (That's not as impossible as it seems). More importantly, adding screw threads increases the chances of having the SRB come apart due to fatigue loading. Also, how could you accurately torque a 2 meter wide segment? Equally, how true does the roundness of the SRB have to be in order to screw together properly? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 86 13:33 EST From: "Sherlock Holmes" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Liquid vs. Fuel boosters X-Vms-To: IN%"space@s1-b.arpa" >Can anybody out there tell me why it is that NASA has evinced so little >interest in developing reusable liquid fuel boosters as replacements for >the Shuttle SRB's? From what I understand (this is second generation `sound', ie I got it from someone who has accesss to reliable sources) about the situation, the entire Shuttle program is going to be replaced by some sort of TAV (well, hopefully and eventually), so long-term development ideas for the shuttle are not being considered. Keep in mind that most of the shuttle was designed many years ago, so the SRB's were great then, and liquid fuel boosters did not seem as feasable. For now, they are trying to redesign the SRB's with as little money as possible, and this removes the possibility of major development, and really new ideas (like liquid fuels, new composite materials, and others). -Chris Welty RPI/CIE Systems Mgr. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 86 16:33:30 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Graham Bromley) Subject: how to get a press pass for shuttle launches? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Several people have commented that a good spot for viewing a shuttle lauch is the press area, for which a press pass is necessary. But how could I get one of those, considering that I don't work for NBC etc? Presumably one does need genuine press credentials to get such a press pass. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #5 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA28378; Tue, 7 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT id AA28378; Tue, 7 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610071002.AA28378@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #6 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #6 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 6 Today's Topics: Question about getting to orbit Re: Question about getting to orbit Re: Question about getting to orbit Re: Question about getting to orbit Re: Question about getting to orbit Question about getting to orbit What is the most likely design of the HOTOL propulsion system ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Sep 86 09:05:42 GMT From: tektronix!orca!tekecs!kendalla%blast.gwd.tek.com@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Kendall Auel) Subject: Question about getting to orbit Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I have been wondering about something, and it seems that this group is full of people who should have the answer. Why aren't/can't rockets be put into orbit in the following way: 1) Launch/Fly at sub-sonic speeds, until you're about 100,000 feet up (Whenever the atmosphere gets thin). 2) Kick in the big rockets and accelerate to orbital velocity, without all the aerodynamic drag. I'm very naive about these things, but it seems to me that if you took something along the lines of a DC-9, stuffed it full of rocket fuel intead of people, flew it as high as it could go (maybe with a gentle boost from the rockets), that you could then accelerate to orbital speeds fairly easily. I guess the real question is: how much fuel is spent fighting aero- dynamic drag, and how much is used to actually get into orbit? Also, the fuel that is burning to overcome this drag had to be accelerated, so the extra fuel needed to do that must be included. If you want to send up a couple of people in a small cockpit, just how much extra mass do you need to get them there? In 1960 it was an Atlas rocket (or whatever). What I would like to see is something on the scale of a VW bug. Kendall Auel Tektronix, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 86 13:59:39 GMT From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Re: Question about getting to orbit Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <7692@tekecs.UUCP> kendalla@blast.UUCP (Kendall Auel) writes: >I have been wondering about something, and it seems that this group >is full of people who should have the answer. Why aren't/can't rockets >be put into orbit in the following way: > >1) Launch/Fly at sub-sonic speeds, until you're about 100,000 feet up > (Whenever the atmosphere gets thin). > >2) Kick in the big rockets and accelerate to orbital velocity, without > all the aerodynamic drag. As a previous article said, this slow start isn't enough to seriously save much in orbit insertion costs. The `space plane' or Trans Atmospheric Vehicle (TAV) is meant to give you a bigger start, even more than an SR-71's height and speed, by using more exotic engines and materials. Even when you're that high, the air still causes a lot of heat and drag because you're moving so fast, so the TAV will be difficult to design and build. Your question about the cheapest possible way to get into orbit is hard to answer because there are so many possibilities. We're at the bottom of a deep gravity well, so expect to burn a lot of energy to get out. Here are some ideas gleaned from several sources I've read over the past few years: 1) A small, cheap TAV, launched from a high plateau (maybe Tibet), to get you high enough to rendezvous with an orbital tug at its lowest possible orbit. Maybe something along the lines of Hermes, a French shuttle design, would be close to what is needed. 2) Get in a rocket with no engine and let large ground-based lasers burn the fuel in your combustion chamber. This saves a lot of weight and money. SDI research is producing big, powerful lasers that may be applicable. 3) A small rocket launched VERTICALLY that deposits your capsule within reach of a long space station that catches you and accelerates you up to orbital velocity to dock. Remember to pack a parachute if you miss (:-). 4) An even smaller rocket can get you high enough to grab a tether suspended from low orbit. Then as the tether rotates, jump off at the high end onto a higher tether or rendezvous with another spacecraft. 5) A `launch loop' can throw your capsule high enough so that a small rocket boost will get you into orbit. The launch loop is a huge chain of steel accelerated to orbital speeds (while held to the ground at the ends!) using linear electric motors and bending magnets. A capsule rides on top of the loop, magnetically supported and accelerated. 6) Just step into the elevator and ride up to orbit on a `beanstalk'. If we can find a material strong enough, we can attach one end to the ground near the equator and the other to a station at geosynchonous orbit. Then your elevator climbs the cable using electric power generated from solar power satellites. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 86 14:49:00 GMT From: silber@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Question about getting to orbit Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Actually, some of the SDI and anti-satelite missles are launched from F-16s, so I suppose that it's possible. The biggest problem would be re-entry. I remember a mid-30s SF story which involved getting into space in a small airplane, the way suggested in the base note. in the story, the pilot merely flew his plane back into the atmosphere. If I remmember correctly, re-entry velocity tends to be over 15000 mph from LEO, and arround 25000 from a lunar mission. What might be possible would be some sort of space plane similar to the X-15, dropped from a high altitude, high payload aircraft. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 86 03:07:53 GMT From: karn@petrus.arpa (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Question about getting to orbit Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Actually, some of the SDI and anti-satelite missles are launched from > F-16s, so I suppose that it's possible. The American ASAT (launched from F-15's) is never anywhere close to being in orbit. It is just lobbed up into the path of the oncoming satellite, which smashes into it. "Orbital altitude" is easy; it's the VELOCITY component that's hard. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 86 18:08:14 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Question about getting to orbit Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > I'm very naive about these things, but it seems to me that if you took > something along the lines of a DC-9, stuffed it full of rocket fuel > intead of people, flew it as high as it could go (maybe with a gentle > boost from the rockets), that you could then accelerate to orbital > speeds fairly easily. In principle this is correct. In practice, the DC-9 is heavy and its payload is limited, and when you do the arithmetic it comes out "no go". What is needed is a very light vehicle which can carry a very large load of rocket fuel to quite high altitudes. People have been looking at such things for a long time; the arithmetic keeps saying "it's just barely possible, which means that in practice you might not pull it off". The situation is getting better, however, as better structural materials are developed and rocket engines become more efficient. > I guess the real question is: how much fuel is spent fighting aero- > dynamic drag, and how much is used to actually get into orbit? ... To a very sloppy first approximation, the shuttle's solid boosters are to get it up above the atmosphere, and the main engines are to accelerate it to orbital velocity. The shuttle is not moving all that fast at booster burnout, but it's above most of the air. Most of the fuel in the external tank goes for near-horizontal acceleration at very high altitudes. > If you want to send up a couple of people in a small cockpit, just how > much extra mass do you need to get them there? In 1960 it was an > Atlas rocket (or whatever)... It's not going to get too much smaller and lighter than an Atlas. The Atlas in particular was and is an outstandingly lightweight booster. Note that the basic Atlas, as used in the Mercury program, is only "one and a half" stages (the "half" is that two of its three engines are jettisoned at high altitude, but there is only one set of tanks for all three) and nevertheless puts a modest payload into orbit. Compare this to Titan or Ariane, which are three-stage rockets. Atlas could certainly be improved by using modern engine technology and possibly liquid hydrogen as fuel, but that would not produce a drastic shrinkage. Atlas shows the right order of magnitude for the effort needed to launch payloads with chemical fuels. Repackaging into a reusable vehicle won't alter that. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 13:26:48 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: space Cc: tektronix!orca!tekecs!kendalla%blast.gwd.tek.com@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Question about getting to orbit In answer to your question about aerodynamic drag let me quote from a table of altitude versus pressure from the "Handbook of Tables for Applied Engineering Science". Note that the pressure is basically the weight of all the air above you (per unit area). Since the weight is a very weak function of altitude (below 300,000 feet) the pressure in units of atmospheres gives you the precentage of the atmosphere above you. alt. pressure alt. pressure (K ft) (atm) (K ft) (atm) 0 1.000 20 0.474 1 0.966 30 0.313 2 0.932 40 0.200 3 0.899 50 0.124 5 0.837 75 0.038 10 0.697 100 0.012 15 0.577 200 0.000237 18.677 0.500 (interpolated) 300 0.000001 A commercial jet can fly as high as 40,000 ft without much trouble which that is above 80% of the atmosphere. Since velocities during the early part of a shuttle flight are fairly low and mostly vertical this is not much of a problem. Air drag is the reason for this flight profile, but that doesn't add to the difficulty of getting to orbit. The actual altitude is about 1/15 of the energy required to get to orbital altitude. But the real problem is that 600 mph is only about a 1/30 of the required velocity and the energy deficit is proportional to the square of that ratio (about one part in 1000). A jetliner is not a big help from either drag or energy standpoints. I'd approach this problem with the following line of argument. The rocket uses its fuel at a roughly constant rate. We can ask: how much of its time does a rocket spend in the atmosphere (or within the performance envelope of an airplane)? My recollection is that the Shuttle is well outside these parameters within 30 seconds. I vaguely recall that the SSMEs run for 10 minutes (more or less). So about 5% is inside the atmospheric region. And during that time it is surely not spending more than 10% of its force pushing air so I'd guess the air resistance factor at less than one half percent. In answer to the question: why not on the scale of a VW bug? The basic problem is that the mass ratio of a rocket is exponential in required velocity. Mass ratio is the ratio of the fuel mass to the payload mass and a rocket is anything that must carry its own reaction mass (airplanes use the air, cars use the road surface). Since you need so much velocity to reach orbital velocity this exponential is affects every aspect of rocket design. Using multiple stages helps a lot but not enough. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 86 10:42:52 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: What is the most likely design of the HOTOL propulsion system Paul Dietz and I are engaged in a running debate on the operating principles of the HOTOL. My position is that the HOTOL burns pure oxygen extracted from air that is passed through a supersonic inlet and over a liquid hydrogen heat exchanger in a region of separated flow. Paul's position is that atmospheric gases are liquified through turbomachinery and combusted in the HOTOL's rocket engines, with the nonreacting nitrogen acting constructively as a working fluid. I've based my view on having seen one cross sectional diagram of a Japanese HOTOL type propulsion system that was displayed in an obscure corner of the Japanese section at the 1986 International Luftfahrt Ausstellung (Hannover Airshow). The main reason why I don't think Paul's view is correct is that at Mach 5 the stagnation temperature for air as it hits the vehicle is 1800 deg. Kelvin. After undergoing mechanical compression I strongly suspect that the air will be so hot that keeping Paul's turbomachinery from melting would require excessive cooling and plumbing. I have heard through the grape vine that materials problems due to heating are the number one difficulty in the HOTOL. I was also told that the total weight and mass ratio are big problems with the HOTOL. For example the HOTOL must be launched from a cradle that is left behind to save mass. It seems unlikely that the designers would tolerate the extra mass of a complicated turbocompressor. In addition it seems to me that a practical design would favor an oxygen extraction system that employs no moving parts rather than a relatively unreliable turbocompressor. Anyone familar with the history and troubles connected with the Rockwell SSME Powerhead could see the wisdom in avoiding complicated turbomachinery if possible. However I should emphasize that Paul's and my discussion on this issue border on a theological debate. Nobody really knows what Rolls Royce has up its sleeve with the HOTOL. The design isn't even frozen yet. It is quite possible that they could reject the design that I've described and adopt something like Paul's. What I find interesting about the HOTOL concept is that it could provide a means for small countries to get into low earth orbit. Also the HOTOL propulsion system would be very useful for the NASP because the NASP's scramjets are useful only at high Mach number. I think a rocket based system would be better for getting the NASP's scramjets to their operating point rather than a variable cycle turbojet. Gary Allen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #6 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01459; Wed, 8 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT id AA01459; Wed, 8 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT Date: Wed, 8 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610081002.AA01459@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #7 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 8 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #7 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 7 Today's Topics: L5/ PS Flames Re: (none) Re: DoD and funding research Re: Re: L5 society Re: Space Station & decaying orbits Re: replacing the SRBs Re: And one more flame against L-5 Re: replacing the SRBs Re: L-5 Society ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Sep 86 14:25:24 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Subject: L5/ PS Flames Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I've read several articles blasting the L5 society while comparing with the Planetary Society (PS). I for one use to belonged to both and decided to terminate my support for the Planetary Society in favor of L5. It was a stressful decision because I fundamentally agree with many of the goals of the Planetary Society, however, not being rich I felt it nonproductive supporting two groups that where hurting each other. L5 came out for the space station and PS was pretty much against it. (Notwithstanding the "Mars Mission" PS is generally against man space missions.) Despite comments to the contrary, L5 and many of its members, including me, are not pro SDI. And yes for your bucks PS gives you a very slick publication, clearly superior to the L5 news. The true difference between the organizations is not along the lines of liberal/conservative but rather scientific inquiry/space development. L5 is dedicated to establishing permanent space colonies and the development of space resources. The Planetary Society is dedicated to scientific exploration of the COSMOS. Both are noble objectives. The problem comes when both groups get politically active and fight over the same "limited" Federal funds for their pet projects. In an ideal world, both groups would get what they need to accomplish their goals. I personally feel a need to do more than just read about the COSMOS. I'd like visit it personally, well if not me then my grandchildren. I also feel that channeling our resources into opening up the "High Frontier" is far more productive than building more weapons to turn the Earth into atomic rubble. It really is a crime that these two highly intelligent groups of motivated people can't learn to work with each other instead of against each other. Perhaps the human race deserves to fall back into the primeval goo, instead of inheriting the stars. Fred Mendenhall ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 86 18:40:30 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: (none) Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Does anyone know why SRB's segments are NOT simply threaded and > screwed together like iron pipe? Probably because it's too difficult to do in such large sizes. Those segments are not even rigid objects at that size, as witness problems with things like out-of-round segments. Also, threads are not necessarily the answer to everything: the key problem is the gas-tight seal, not the mechanical joint. As witness the huge bites out of the recovered SRB pieces where the leak was, a gas leak can chew away solid steel at a shocking rate when the pressures and temperatures are at SRB levels. Threads that size almost certainly could not be made gas-tight; it would be necessary to use sealing rings, and the control over seating and so forth would probably be more difficult. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 86 19:18:12 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: DoD and funding research Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > The department of Health and Human services should fund biomedical research, > not DoD. The only function DoD should serve is the defense of our country... The two functions are not mutually exclusive. World War II was the first major war in which the bulk of the military casualties were from wounds rather than disease. The military has a major and legitimate interest in the practical side of medical care. More fundamental research, though, is indeed an arguable point. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 86 19:29:41 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Re: L5 society Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > But then again I have this layman's interest in planetary science, which of > course is worthless because it does nothing to further moving mankind off the > planet... The average space-interested layman likes unmanned planetary missions only as a somewhat-unsatisfactory vicarious substitute for getting people -- not just a handful of specially-trained people, but lots of people, specifically *himself* or his children -- into space. (His support for the Shuttle is only a little warmer, because it's clearly a step in the right direction but nowhere near enough.) Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 86 19:32:28 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Station & decaying orbits Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > How high will the Space Station be placed? Main Question: how long will it > stay in place without needing some boost to maintain position? ... I don't remember the numbers, but the working plan for some time has been to reboost every few months, as I recall. If reboost coincides with visits by shuttle to resupply the station, this adds the useful bonus that the shuttle can meet the station at its lowest point rather than its highest, increasing the shuttle payload. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 86 18:58:02 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Can anybody out there tell me why it is that NASA has evinced so > little interest in developing reusable liquid fuel boosters as > replacements for the Shuttle SRB's? ... Because there is no money for it. NASA badly wanted a liquid booster in the first place. When funding made it impossible, NASA pushed a liquid booster as a mid-life upgrade for the shuttle for quite a while. The issue has been dropped in recent times mostly because it has become clear that it will never be funded. > That leaves the issue of development cost... > ... -if- the decision not to pursue development of liquid > fueled boosters came down to the issue of development costs, then I'd > like to know what the parameters were thought to be, and what > tradeoffs were considered. Basically, there were no tradeoffs involved: everyone agreed that liquid boosters were better but would cost somewhat more to develop, since they are more complex. (Seawater protection for the engines is a particularly significant issue, whereas the SRB casings don't need much protection.) For much of its early life, Shuttle development was constrained by an absolute non-negotiable $1G/yr limit set by OMB. After a lot of trying, NASA concluded that there was no way to develop a liquid-booster system within that limit. End of story. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 86 19:08:47 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: And one more flame against L-5 Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ...L-5 was a > flawed organization from day one. As their name suggests, their whole > focus was on only one issue, namely the fabricating of space colonies at > the libration points... I believe there was actually a major debate about this at one point, and the upshot was that L5 explicitly moved away from that sole emphasis and towards promoting space development in general. Your use of the past tense is appropriate; L5 is not a space-colonies-only group today. > I personally think this is a really **dumb** > idea. Why invest all that effort and energy to lob stuff up from the > moon to a Lagrangian point for making a colony when it would be vastly > simpler and cheaper to merely bore tunnels into the moon's crust... The whole space-colony concept arose only when it became clear that, given an economical source of lunar or asteroidal materials, virtually every aspect of a colony is easier in space than on/under the moon. Boring tunnels into the moon's crust is not as simple or cheap as it looks. > L-5 has done some good things however. For example, they played an > important role in preventing ratification of the so called Moon Treaty... What do you mean, "important role"? L5 prevented the ratification of the Moon Treaty, pure and simple, in the face of general apathy from most of the rest of the space movement and active hostility from the US State Department and several other groups. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 86 19:51:35 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ... I was under the impression that the solids give > substantially more thrust than the liquids... Other things being equal -- which they often aren't -- liquids have higher thrusts and higher exhaust velocity (which is the important parameter for rocket performance in general). They are more complex and hence more expensive to develop, however. Cost dominated many aspects of the shuttle design. > What is the fuel composition of the solid fuel? I remember from when I > saw the Spacelab-I launch that the solids are an off-orange or brown > exhaust, whereas the liquids is white apparently. To a very sloppy first approximation, the solid fuel is powdered aluminum and synthetic rubber. So the exhaust is aluminum oxide plus assorted breakdown products of the rubber, probably carbon dioxide, water vapor, hydrogen chloride, and a whole mess of partly-burned organics. The liquid exhaust from the shuttle is water vapor, with some unburned hydrogen (the mixture must be kept hydrogen-rich because an oxygen-rich mixture will destroy the engine walls very quickly) and some small amounts of other odds and ends caused by things like interactions with the air. > I wonder why more attention hasn't been paid to the fact that the SRB's are > pretty sturdy and reliable devices if they survived an explosion with the > energy of a very small nuclear device so close... It's two sides of the same coin: once they start burning, they keep on doing it until they run out of fuel. They don't pay much attention to what's happening outside them, which means neither unwanted disturbances nor an urgent need to shut everything down has much effect. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry [Similar information also from: From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu -Ed] ------------------------------ To: Space@s1-b.arpa Cc: rohn@rand-unix.arpa Subject: Re: L-5 Society Date: Wed, 01 Oct 86 15:12:25 PDT From: rohn@rand-unix.arpa AG> = Al Globus AG> As one of the flamers AGAINST L5, I recommend that you join. It's AG> actually quite a good society if your tolerance for right wing shuck AG> and jive is moderately high. The society does do some good work and AG> the L5 News (the major benefit of membership) has apparently AG> improved of late. Some of the local chapters are excellent. Al makes two good points here: the L-5 News has, in my opinion, improved quite a bit in the past few years, and many of the local chapters are very active and quite good. However, I don't think the comment about "right wing shuck an jive" is fair. There are many members of L-5 at both ends of the political spectrum. I've heard at least as much anti- militarism/SDI as pro-militarism/SDI and as much left wing "shuck and jive" as right wing. There are also members on both sides of the abortion issue, but what has any of that got to do with being pro-space? The L-5 Society is made up of people, all of whom have their own views. That doesn't mean any of those views are those of the Society as a whole. AG> I forgot, another thing incredibly annoying about L5 is their hatred AG> for the Mars project. If the trip to Mars is to set up a permanent AG> base it could be decisive in developing space society. Only if it AG> is a one shot would it be disadvantageous. L-5 does not hate the idea of a Mars project. There was a short series of articles (2 or 3, I think) called "The Case Against Mars" in the L-5 News recently, but, again, this does not mean that L-5 is against going to Mars. If an equally well-researched and well-written article in favor of going to Mars were submitted, I have little doubt that it too would be published. The Society presents information in its publica- tions and at its conferences which it feels will be of interest to its members. It does not necessarily endorse any of those viewpoints. I've been an active member of L-5 for about 6 years now, and, while I haven't always agreed with the views of some of the Society's leaders, I still think L-5 is a good group with worthwhile goals. I encourage people to join. I don't think you'll be disappointed. *=*=*=*=*=*=*= Lauri Rohn rohn@rand-unix.arpa ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #7 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05443; Thu, 9 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT id AA05443; Thu, 9 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT Date: Thu, 9 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610091002.AA05443@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #8 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 9 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #8 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 8 Today's Topics: Solid Fuel Solid Rocket Motor fuel The F-1 engines of the Saturn V. Seed the Stars ? Re: Al Globus, L5 Society Re: L5 flamage Re: What is the most likely design of the HOTOL propulsion system ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 08 Oct 86 09:44:36 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: Solid Fuel to: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) >> What is the fuel composition of the solid fuel? >To a very sloppy first approximation, the solid fuel is powdered >aluminum and synthetic rubber. So the exhaust is aluminum oxide plus >assorted breakdown products of the rubber... Wrong. To a sloppy first approximation, the solid fuel is Ammonium Perchlorate (Often called "AP",technically an oxidizer, but it will burn without any further additional fuel.) To a second approximation, the fuel is AP plus a rubbery binder, which holds the AP together and acts as additional fuel (I think the binder used is HTPB, but I'm not sure). To a THIRD approximation, the fuel is this plus aluminum powder, not strictly necessary but it adds a little (about 10% if I recall correctly) to the specific impulse. Exhaust products are those expected from the decomposition of Ammonium perchlorate and the reaction of the products with the mostly organic binder, primarily things like HCl, H20, and CO2. >[Similar information also from ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET -Ed] Similar, but not the same. --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA (alternate route: ucbvax!jade!BROWNVM.ST401385@jade.Berkeley.Edu) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 86 11:22:28 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Solid Rocket Motor fuel > [Similar information also from ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET -Ed] Similar, but not the same. I apologize for glossing over this misunderstanding. I thought SRMs burned powdered aluminum oxidized by the rubber binder. In retrospect I realize this is fairly unlikely. Ted Anderson (aka -Ed) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Oct 86 13:58:47 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: The F-1 engines of the Saturn V. In SPACE Digest V7 #0, Emil Rainero had the following to say about the Saturn V. The saturn five used a 1.5 million pound first stage engine (5 of them), but it was definitely not reusable, steerable, or throttleable. Emil is partially correct on the first point, dead wrong on the second point and possibly correct on the third. There were plans to recover the S-Ib stage of the Saturn V **if** the Apollo program had been continued into establishing a permanent lunar base, or expanded into a Mars program (yes, we could have had a Mars program based on Saturn V technology). However the whole thing got canned, so there was no point in modifiying the first stage into being recoverable. Saying that the F-1 engines of the S-Ib couldn't be steered reflects poorly on Emil. The F-1s were mounted on hydraulic actuators for gimballing. Next time you see a movie of the Saturn V taking off, take a close look at the F-1s and you'll see that they're gimballing like crazy. The need for doing this is obvious since the Saturn V stack is staticly unstable and requires an active control system to keep it from tumbling over. Besides a lunar injection trajectory requires alot of precision. You couldn't have the Saturn V flying around willy-nilly on the first stage, with the upper stages taking up the slack. The energy penalty would be too high. I am not certain that Emil is right on the third point. However I have never heard that the F-1 could be throttled. It is interesting to note in passing that Hughes is considering two F-1s for its Jarvis medium lift ELV. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 86 10:06 EDT From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@lll-mfe.arpa Subject: Seed the Stars ? To: space@s1-b.arpa Apart from the moral question, the technical aspects of "seeding the stars" seem prohibitive. The "appropriate containers" for the spores have to travel distances measured in light years at sub-relativistic velocities, during which time any life-support equipment will surely break down. Also you need astronomical numbers of containers to have any chance of hitting a planet instead of a star. You might as well just forget the containers and shoot them out of a cannon from the space shuttle. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 1986 22:46-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Al Globus, L5 Society In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Wed, 1 Oct 86 03:14:05 PDT Please note that Mr. Globus is in error. It is more likely you need a high tolerence for LIBERTARIAN shuck and jive. (The society has no particular political stand, but there are enough of us flaming libertarians around to give it a certain flavor if you get into rambling conversations with a group of us) Liberals and Conservatives never could tell the difference. Libertarian ideas just don't fit into their overly limited and rather dogmatic worldviews. We confuse them by actually thinking about our stands rather than accepting them straight from Mother Jones or The 700 Club. There are also some people who cannot accept being surrounded by a wide range of opinions, and thus typify an organization by the opinions of those who don't agree with them. Our organization encompasses quite a wide variety of people. We are not right wing. We are not left wing. We are not Republican. We are not Democrat. We are all of the above and none of the above. A shuckin and jivin Libertarian space activist, Dale Amon disclaimer: None of the above should be construed to be an official statement about the L5 Society. I am speaking strictly personal flamage and not in my official capacity. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 1986 13:45-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: L5 flamage I consider the fact that people bother to attack L5 as a sign that we are quite successful. Our purpose is not to be universally beloved. It is to kick ass and get a space civilization going TOMORROW. And we really don't give a damn whose pretty toes get stubbed or what powerful figures we make a fool of in the process. Our attitude is simple. Get moving or get the hell out of the way. You either commit yourself to doing something or shut up and leave. That's why we call ourselves THE Active Space Organization. There are lots of turkeys out there who will cast stones at anyone who has the gall to actually DO something. Well I challenge all of you. Do you want a space program or do you want to talk about it? Do you want to spend all your time in catty attacks on people who are actually trying to do something and are carrying YOUR share of the load or are you going to take some of your precious spare time and skip a golf game or two and work? If I've gotten some of you good and mad, then good. Take that anger and sign up with a space organization and prove that I'm wrong about you. There are enough organization out there with enough different stands that you can find one to suit your tastes. And if they aren't doing enough, and are using your capabilities, then call the main office until something happens. Don't wait for me to get around to your share of the work. ACT!!! Here is a brief list of organizations: L5 Society Merging with NSS soon. Promotes commercial space development and a primary emphasis on creation of space settlements. Organized international grassroots activism. 80 chapters in US, Canada, Australia, Sweden. Active members in Scotland, England, Germany and many other countries. Apolitical. Space Studies Institute Doing better, cheaper and more advanced research than NASA. When we set up our lunar base, nearly all the basic research will have been done by them. All research supported by public subscription. Apolitical. World Space Foundation One of the organizations supporting Elinor Helen's asteroid search. Solar Sail under construction, to be flown in a few years as proof of concept. Apolitical. Independent Space Research Group Student organization at RPI that has been building an amateur space telescope over the last 5 years. Apolitical. National Space Society Merging with L5 soon. NSS was formerly NSI. Founded by Werner Von Braun. Apolitical. Spacepac Political action. Has seperate Republican and Democrat funds you can earmark your donations to. American Astronaut Memorial Foundation L5 spinoff to construct a national astronaut memorial in DC. Chaired by Eugene Cernan. American Space Foundation Political action. Slightly conservative leanings. AMSAT Design, build and operate amateur radio satellites. Working on a packet radio satellite. Spaceweek Coordinates the annual anniversary celebration of the flight of Apollo 11. United States Space Foundation Colorado area. Slightly conservative leanings. Very professional. Students for Exploration and Student organization. Development of Space Chapters on several university campuses. Number of chapters varies by a large magnitude from year to year, as with any student organization. Apolitical. Planetery Society Founded by Sagan, Friedman & Murray. Was primarily planetary science oriented, has shifted to strong support of manned Mars mission. Anti-SDI. International. Campaign for Space Political action. I know little about them. High Frontier Pro defense, pro SDI, pro commercial Development STARS Anti defense, anti SDI Hypatia Cluster Feminist space group Space Generation Foundation Foundation to promote international awareness of space among youth. Young Astronauts Promote space as an education tool in primary and secondary schools And many others (sorry if I didn't remember you) If you don't actively support one or more of these then start your own. Maybe start the "Gay Androgenous Necrophiliac Terran Rocketry Yahoos (GANTRY)" If you don't fit anywhere else. Just don't cry about our space program. Get off your ass and DO something. NOW. Shuckin' and Jivin', Dale Amon ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 86 20:56:23 GMT From: rutgers!husc6!husc4!chiaraviglio@spam.istc.sri.com (lucius) Subject: Re: What is the most likely design of the HOTOL propulsion system Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I may be missing something that was said before, but how would one pull pure oxygen out of the air at the speed needed to run a variety of jet engine or rocket motor? My understanding of the method for extracting liquid oxygen from air is that it requires repeated fractional liquification and distillation, because the boiling points of oxygen and nitrogen are not far apart, and because most of the air is nitrogen. This sounds like something that would take far too much weight to be practical on an air- or space- craft. Could someone please explain? I may be speaking from knowledge of outdated technology. Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.ARPA seismo!tardis!lucius ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #8 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02094; Fri, 10 Oct 86 03:02:54 PDT id AA02094; Fri, 10 Oct 86 03:02:54 PDT Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 03:02:54 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610101002.AA02094@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #9 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 03:02:54 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #9 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Re: (none) Re: replacing the SRBs Electrodynamic tethers again Bootstrap Starships Re: Seed the Stars ? U.S. Space Muddle (i.e. Program) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Oct 86 16:37:49 GMT From: fbr@astro.as.utexas.edu (F. B. RAY) Subject: Re: (none) Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <7165@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > Does anyone know why SRB's segments are NOT simply threaded and > > screwed together like iron pipe? Because no one makes a "pipe wrench" to handle those diameters. Imagine what applying such torques as are necessary to tighten those huge threads would do to the walls of the tubes. If the tube walls were made stong enough to withstand such forces, then the SRBs would very likely not be cost effective. The fact that the SRBs fly at all means they are fairly efficient aerospace structures, a class, incidentally, quite removed from those appropriate for plumbing, and thus they involve the structural tradeoffs common to all airframes. The designer must allow a degree of flexibility to guarantee flight, and yet supply enough integrity and strength in the design to keep things from flying apart. All aerospace designers face the risk that they have not anticipated the totality of operating conditions for their craft, but considering the complexity of the various space programs, they do remarkably well. In most exploration, one of the most fearsome unknowns is the cost, but we must realize that it is always greater than we expect it to be. Courageous explorers may stop a few moments longer to re-evaluate the probability involved in risking their own lives, but there will be droves of replacements. There is probably no reliable method of assessing the benefits of space exploration versus the unknown cost. It pretty much boils down to whether the powers-that-be want to do it (or must do it). These monumental efforts, we should all realize, may yield benefits only for our great grandchildren or perhaps for their great grandchildren, but it seems appropriate to allocate a portion of the budget for that sort of investment, and this must include considerations that an engineer, a pilot, a bureaucrat, etc. may err seriously. In the Kennedy years, we seemed more united in the push to land men on the moon. Now the goals are more diffuse, the apathy growing, the doubts rampant. What is interesting is that space exploration is continuing, much like other areas of research, losing its romantic connotations (remember the 50's?) and its forbidding mystery, so deftly exploited by science fiction writers, and that's a much better environment in which to make decisions. fbr@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU Frank B. Ray, McDonald Observatory University of Texas at Austin, 78712 [Threaded SRB responses also received from: From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu (Ken Jenks) From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcms!niland@hplabs.hp.com ( Bob Niland ) -Ed] ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 86 16:45:36 GMT From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Specific impulse depends on how much useable thrust you can get for a > given amount of energy (in this case chemical) expended. > ... > Now, specific impulse is not the only issue in how good a rocket fuel > is. Energy produced per weight of fuel is of course another consideration -- Specific impulse is the amount of impulse (transferred momentum) you get for a given amount of MASS expended. It is measured in the number of seconds you can get 1 pound of thrust out of 1 pound (actually 1/32.2 slug) of propellant -- or equivalently, the number of seconds you can get 1 kilogram (actually 9.8 newtons) of thrust out of 1 kilogram of propellant. Specific impulse has dimensions of impulse/mass = force*time/mass = velocity. It is often given in seconds because of improper cancellation of force and mass. I have a paper by P. W. Healy entitled "Rockets and Interplanetary Flight", which gives the following table. Propellant Exhaust velocities km/second Oxygen/gasoline 2.5 Oxygen/methane 2.6 Oxygen/ethanol 2.5 Oxygen/ammonia 2.6 Oxygen/hydrogen 3.6 Nitric acid/gasoline 2.4 Fluorine/hydrogen 3.8 Fluorine/hydrazine 3.2 Hydrogen peroxide/gasoline 2.3 "Values calculated for reasonable motor losses and chamber pressures as used in rockets in 1951. Values 10% higher would be obtainable if chamber pressures were doubled. Optimum mixture ratios and operation in a vacuum have been assumed (After Arthur Clarke)." Considering how nasty fluorine and hydrofluoric acid exhaust are, the attraction of oxygen/hydrogen is apparent. > Since exhaust > velocity for exhaust of a given molecular weight is dependant on temperature, > and velocity for exhaust of a given temperature is inversely dependant on > molecular weight (that is, for exhaust ejected by thermal expansion -- does not > apply to ion drives and propellors, for instance), specific impulse is to a > significant degree inversely dependant on the molecular weight of your exhaust Indeed, coupled (as you later say) with the amount of energy released in the chemical reaction. Propellers are of course another ballgame because they use external reaction mass. Ion drives are also dependent on the exhaust particle weight because velocity depends on net charge/particle mass. Knocking one electron off a hydrogen is more effective than knocking one electron off an iron. On the other hand, heavier atoms don't hold on so tightly to their outer electrons, and require less energy to knock one off. Ion drive efficiency involves the cost (weight) of the energy source as well as the exhaust velocity. I understand current ion engines use mercury as the propellant. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 86 22:40 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Electrodynamic tethers again X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.arpa",DIETZ An additional comment on electrodynamic tethers being used to drive engines: Even if this doesn't make sense as an OTV engine, it could still be useful as a power source for a space station. The idea is to draw power from the tether, diverting some into a rocket to maintain momentum and using the rest to power the station. At 100% efficiency one could use this scheme to extract all the orbital kinetic energy of the expelled mass. One metric ton of reaction mass per month in low earth orbit could generate 11 kilowatts. More practically, this scheme could be used to recover energy from waste fluids that would otherwise be vented. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 86 17:22 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Bootstrap Starships X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.arpa",DIETZ Here are a couple of ideas for engines for interstellar travel. Both are based on the idea of generating energy by interacting with ambient matter, and using that energy to eject reaction mass, much like the tether/engine combination mentioned previously. In the first design, a collector is used to generate energy from passing interstellar gas. I assume the vehicle is travelling at a good clip (.1 c, say) before this engine is turned on. The generator is a thin foil a few atoms thick. On either side of the foil I place a sparse grid negatively charged with respect to the foil. Interstellar hydrogen atoms will hit the foil and be ionized. Their nuclei will pass unhindered through the trailing grid. The electrons, which are much less energetic, will oscillate between the grids, losing energy in the foil, eventually stopping there. Electrons can be drawn off the foil to do useful work, like driving an ion engine. The electrons are eventually ejected out the back to neutralize the gas atom nuclei. Some problems: the foil will lose mass by sputtering, and the vehicle will have to travel light years to get significant acceleration because the interstellar gas is thin. However, the idea does seem more feasible than ramjets of various kinds. By turning off the ion engine and the electron gun we can let the generator become very negatively charged. Gas nuclei will be accelerated up to the vehicle's speed. The generator acts as a parachute. A second design is for ultrarelativistic flight. It interacts with the cosmic background radiation. At high speeds the spacecraft perceives a temperature gradient: the radiation is hotter in front than behind. This gradient can be used to drive a heat engine, and the energy used to expel reaction mass. The low density of the CBR means this engine is best used for long trips at very high speeds (for intergalactic travel). ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 86 03:31:00 GMT From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@caip.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Seed the Stars ? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa [chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu ] >It would be pretty bad if we sent some yeast or mold or bacteria >which just happened to be incredibly more efficient than the na- >tive life where it landed at utilizing the resources, or just >happened to find the organisms there (possibly including intelli- >gent ones) to be an attractive alternative growth medium, and >thus killed everything off. Yes, this is a danger. We might try to estimate this risk and guard against it. There's no way to make it zero, though. If we send probes first, they may be mistaken. But another risk is that life is very rare or even unique to Earth and can die here. This is what the idea is about, and these opposite dangers need to be balanced. The rarer life is estimated to be in the universe, the less the contamination risk, and the greater the opposite risk . Any other program of space exploration involves risk, too - both for alien life and for life on Earth in case we contact something nasty, and it follows us here. Again, it can be guarded against but not eliminated. Perhaps combined probes/seeders could be designed that would get destroyed in any atmosphere, thus selecting only airless worlds? Is there any objection to immediately seeding some places on lifeless worlds like the Moon and Mars ? So far (if I am not mis- taken) we have avoided contaminating them with life. It could provide some pointers about whether to go on, and how. Besides the goal stated, it would be an interesting experiment. And (I only just thought of it) it would gain some extra publici- ty for the space program. There would be exciting reports on how our terrestrial co-beings are doing out there. Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 86 18:41:46 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: U.S. Space Muddle (i.e. Program) Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa There's an interesting article in this month's National Geographic describing the USSR Space Program. The article makes the point that the USSR program is in some ways more successful than the US program, the difference being relentless consistency on the USSR side: US: Technology: rapid, leading-edge technological developments during periods of adequate funding, due to superb U.S. technological infrastructure. Planning: long term planning impossible due to short-term funding cycle; strong preference for expensive, shorter term programs, which are fundable year to year, sustain NASA (for now), and are impressive to the public mediawise. Such programs are often a poor or useless long-term investment due to their inherent short-term orientation. USSR: Technology: slower developments generally using well proven, dated technology. Leading edge technological developments hampered by backwardness of USSR technological infrastructure. Planning: long term planning aided by political stability and long term funding cycle. Preference for steady, relatively safe block-building missions which support progess towards long-term goals. Closed society reduces attractiveness of risky, flashy missions which may jeopardize long-term funding. The Baikonur spaceport is many times the size of Kennedy, and lauches ten times as many vehicles per year. The technology may not be breathtaking to watch on TV but most of them get up there just the same. The launch rate has been maintained year in, year out and no doubt will be in future (probably increased). In addition to development of a new, massive unmanned booster, the USSR shuttle is probably a few years away from flight. The landing runway at Baikonur has been built. A shuttle was photographed atop a Bison bomber which had skidded off a runway while a US satellite was overhead. It will carry a larger payload than the US shuttle due to better design (no rocket engines on orbiter). Long-term, the goals are certainly continuous, increasing manned presence in earth orbit, and very likely a manned mission to Mars around 2000. Both goals can be done with extensions to current technology, given consistent application, of which the Russians are obviously capable. The US Muddle? (there I go again, I mean Program). Ah well. There's a revealing front page article in today's USA today (10/2). The situation can only be described as pathetic. Some quotes: '...was an up and coming Boeing Aerospace analyst six months ago, refurbishing the shuttle's launch pad. Today, he pushes a broom at Cornerstone Church for $5 an hour.' 'He's moved 10 times in 11 years to stay in the space industry. "It's a vicious cycle. Every couple of years you get laid off."' '"What am I going to do, work at Wendy's?"' '"I wish I had gotten into another field and with a sturdy company."' "'I've got to get out of here. I thought this was my career."' What comment does that make about a society which reduces irreplaceable, highly skilled engineers to broom pushers and hamburger servers? It seems that that's what you get in this country for devoting your working life to space exploration. Not only is the U.S. program inherently incapable of pursuing long-term goals, even short term goals fall flat without DOD support (shuttle) or a catch-up-with-the-Russians panic when they appear to have gotten ahead (Mercury/Gemini/Apollo). Both these stimuli depend on the USSR's rate of progress. Apollo would never have flown without Sputnik, the shuttle was whittled down to mediocrity because the Russians didn't have one, and Americans won't go to Mars unless it appears the Russians might otherwise get there first. So you see, those of us keen to see the U.S. space program flourish should keep our eyes on the Russkies. If the USSR shuttle goes up before the SRB's are fixed, NASA will on $20 billion a year in no time. And if the Russians are dumb enough to reveal an imminent manned trip to Mars, watch out! You won't be able to get a hamburger in Titusville for love or money. Several thousand McDonald's and Wendy's employees will revert to aerospace engineers overnight. On the other hand, the smart ones may learn their lesson and hang in there for promotion to manager of a fast food outlet. Or maybe they'll go for job stability by working for the Russians at Baikonur. But what would life be worth without Big Macs? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #9 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02646; Sat, 11 Oct 86 03:02:16 PDT id AA02646; Sat, 11 Oct 86 03:02:16 PDT Date: Sat, 11 Oct 86 03:02:16 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610111002.AA02646@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #10 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 11 Oct 86 03:02:16 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #10 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: Re: Al Globus, L5 Society Solid versus Liquid Re: U.S. Space Muddle (i.e. Program) Re: U.S. Space Muddle (i.e. Program) Re: Seed the Stars ? Re: JEP statements ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Oct 86 08:16:29 GMT From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: Al Globus, L5 Society Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ...It is more likely you need a > high tolerence for LIBERTARIAN shuck and jive. (The society has no > particular political stand, but there are enough of us flaming > libertarians around to give it a certain flavor if you get into > rambling conversations with a group of us) Bingo!! This is a very apt description. I, too, dabbled in libertarian philosophies for a short time a few years back. I still support many of the purely "civil libertarian" aspects, as do many people who are not "libertarians" per se. However, I kept running into a fundamental contradiction. On the one hand, libertarians believe in an utterly laissez-faire economy. On the other, I believe that the ONLY way a number of very worthwhile activities will ever get funded is for the government to do it through taxation: free public education, basic scientific research and, yes, SPACE EXPLORATION. How do you reconcile this with libertarianism, where some even go so far as to suggest that "free enterprise" can and should replace government courts of law! In the end, I concluded that libertarianism is a very simplistic and naive approach to an economy that is and must be a hybrid of public and private activities. To be fair, a popular rallying cry in L-5 is "get government out of the way of private enterprise in space". This argument is certainly consistent with libertarian philosophy. There's nothing wrong with it as such, except that it's a red herring. The real barriers to commercial space development have far more to do with technological and economic facts of life than with government red tape, but the latter makes a convenient scapegoat. After all, who could possibly FAVOR "red tape" or oppose motherhood and apple pie? I wonder, though, how many of those same "libertarian L-5'ers" wrote letters and telegrams to their Congresspeople urging them to exact money under penalty of law from (i.e., tax) every American in order to pay for the Space Station, the 5th (now 4th) orbiter, and other nifty space toys. You can't have it both ways. TRUE libertarians would demand that NASA be shut down. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 1986 16:10:44-EDT From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu Subject: Solid versus Liquid Apparently-To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc Solid rockets versus liquid rockets: 1) Solids are cheaper to develop. 2) High thrust solids are easier to develop. 3) Solids have a much lower specific impulse. 4) Solids can only be throttled in a fixed manner, and can't be restarted. 5) Solids give a much rougher ride. 6) Solids are harder to reuse. 7) Solids have a dirty exhaust. H2-O2 liquids have the highest specific impulse, but are the most difficult to get high thrust from, and the most expensive to develop. Kerosene-O2 liquids have an intermediate specific impule and higher thrust, due to the much higher density of kerosene. Solid fuel rockets like the SRBs are much like Estes rockets. They are sort of like rubber erasers consisting of I think ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer), aluminum powder (fuel), a little iron powder (mystery ingredient), and plastic binder. H2-O2 flame is clear or pale blue, and then the water vapor condenses. You can't see the excess hydrogen. I recall from childhood than kerosene-O2 is rather yellow, and then you get water vapor condensation and invisible CO2, and random car-like pollutants. I assume SRC exhaust is mostly aluminum oxide powder and other random junk and is white, just like an Estes rocket. Liquid rockets are nice because they are smooth, and can be throttled or stopped. Remember, if only one SRB ignites on the launch pad, you're dead, since the hold-down clamps won't hold. Not so with the SSMEs, as has already been shown with the shuttle, and also one of the Gemini missions. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 86 15:11:20 GMT From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: U.S. Space Muddle (i.e. Program) Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <610@athena.UUCP>, grahamb@athena.UUCP (Graham Bromley) writes: > There's an interesting article in this month's National Geographic > describing the USSR Space Program. > ... > A shuttle was photographed atop a > Bison bomber which had skidded off a runway while a US satellite was > overhead. It will carry a larger payload than the US shuttle due to > better design (no rocket engines on orbiter). I read that too, but I don't understand how "no rocket engines on orbiter" can be an advantage. The engines have to carry the vehicle to orbit (or darn near it), so what difference does it make (as far as payload is concerned) whether they are attached to the orbiter or the external tank? National Geographic says that having them on the tank raises payload, but I just can't see it. Furthermore, mounting them on the orbiter allows them to be brought down intact for the next flight. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 86 19:43:56 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: U.S. Space Muddle (i.e. Program) Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa To understand why the Soviet "Shuttle" concept is superior to ours, you have to look at that capabilities the Soviets have in space, and what additional capabilities a Shuttle gives them. In particular, they already have cheap, routine access to space. Both the SL-series (manned) and Proton (unmanned) boosters are stamped out like beer cans. These will soon be joined by a heavy-lift (Saturn V class) expendable booster which will be capable of orbiting entire space factories. So they already have the ability to put people, satellites and habitats into space reliably and at low cost. So what does a Shuttle offer them that they don't have? Reusability? I doubt that this matters. Their program has so far been based on the idea of cheap, mass produced expendables, and I don't think the US experience with reusable boosters has done much to change their minds. Besides, the Soviet Shuttle is probably going to be a payload on their heavy-lift expendable, which greatly diminishes any advantages of reusability. What a Shuttle (especially one without engines) does offer is a very large payload-return capsule. It's hard to bring something the size of a Shuttle cargo bay down in a ballistic capsule, and harder still to get it to survive a parachute landing. A Shuttle-like vehicle provides a much more comfortable ride. So what are they going to bring back? Beats me, but if I had to guess I'd say that they've decided (after a lot more firsthand experience than we have) that in-space repair of space habitats is a pain in the butt, and that it's easier to just bring the things back to the ground for repairs. After repair, the space habitat modules (remember, Mir is a "modular" station) can be returned to orbit with the heavy-lift vehicle, or maybe even with the Proton. Note that in the Soviet program, the shuttle plays a much more limited role than it does in the US program; I don't really expect to see that many Soviet shuttle flights after the initial development is completed. So anyway, in the limited role of large payload-return capsule, the best Shuttle design is one which has the biggest cargo bay and the lowest weight. Leaving the engines off makes a great deal of sense. Dan Starr One more prediction about the Soviet Shuttle: It will be launched unmanned. The crew will be launched separately aboard a Soyuz (possible many weeks earlier, to do some work aboard Mir), and will board the Shuttle for the return flight. This avoids the potentially expensive process of man-rating the heavy-lift booster. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 86 02:06:00 GMT From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@caip.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Seed the Stars ? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa [janw@inmet.UUCP ] >Perhaps combined probes/seeders could be designed that would get >destroyed in any atmosphere, thus selecting only airless worlds? >Is there any objection to immediately seeding some places on >lifeless worlds like the Moon and Mars ? Perhaps it is unclear what I meant by seeding airless worlds like the Moon. My idea was that a combination of organisms could be found or manufactured that, given some initial artificial en- vironment, could function under the surface of the planet and ex- tract water and other stuff from some materials there. In case of worlds with *ice*, it is probably possible. As for the Moon, I doubt it now. And yet, the first Apollo missions guarded against organisms *indigenous* to the Moon - this would be even less likely than survival of specially prepared imported flora! ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 86 18:29:06 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: JEP statements Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa >> However, I think even the Planetary Society has come around to a >> compromise position that we will FIRST build the infrastructure and >> lunar base, and THEN go for Mars... > In article <7141@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Unfortunately, the emphasis in the politicking is still on "Mars" and >not on "infrastructure". Most everybody agrees that the Mars mission >*should* be done by infrastructure-building, but we all know where the >road paved with good intentions leads... > ... >I'm afraid the Mars-mission people, with the best of intentions, are >setting us up for a repetition of this. We need a *commitment* to >infrastructure-building, not just good intentions. .. . What we need is to develop the technology of fusion to do really significant things beyond LEO. DoE has demonstrated it can't make a workable commercial fusion power generator, and it certainly doesn't have the incentive or the resources, if the last twenty years of their effort can be used in evidence. The DoE is primarily funding twenty five year old concepts and has an internal policy not to do even exploratory work on new ones. NASA would have an advantage, since it is mission oriented it could apply mission related engineering criteria to these concepts and immediately dismiss them as not usable. The DoE's OFE only applies "physics" criteria. Then once work starts on the innovative concept that fits the mold, prototype fusion engines could be operating just after three years. These engines if based on PLASMAK(TM) technology, would burn hydrogen(protium) boron (eleven) which generates pure helium(four) and no radiation. Otherwise, no matter which way the Mars mission is set up, it will take many times too much out of us to be able to solve the fusion, farm and any other crisis that should arise. Fusion is so much cheaper and so much quicker on the time frame envisioned for the Mars mission. Unfortunately, for the gutless bureaucracy, it is too unpredictable, so they would prefer spending twenty to one hundred times as much and taking another ten to twenty years. Too bad, because it can be fun, and one engine could lift 1.5 million pounds payload into orbit from a level takeoff. Besides, who in hell wants to be a fuel transport jockey. Paul M. Koloc {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #10 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06133; Sun, 12 Oct 86 03:02:11 PDT id AA06133; Sun, 12 Oct 86 03:02:11 PDT Date: Sun, 12 Oct 86 03:02:11 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610121002.AA06133@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #11 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 12 Oct 86 03:02:11 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #11 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 11 Today's Topics: Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars Revive the Saturn V ? Re: Revive the Saturn V ? Chariots for Apollo #3 - adventure or Moon-Doggle? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Oct 86 14:44:46 GMT From: magic!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Dale Skran wrote: > [Sagan's proposed Mars] mission would almost certainly be a one > shot political stunt that would result in little more > infrastructure in space that an old space station and four used > up shuttles. The Mars expedition described in the National > Commission on Space report is that way to go - after a lunar > mining base and numerous space stations have been established > [...] We must focus solidly on building an industrial future in > space, not on glitzy space adventures that finally are nothing > but an insult to the underclass of America. Funny how people can have so diametrally opposite ways of lookng at the same things. I would rather say that the economic prospects of space industrialization are just a glitzy dream, and the way they have been exaggerated by NASA and the pro-space groups is nothing less than an attempt to defraud the public. I do believe that one day we will have space colonies and moon bases, and that we will be mining the asteroids and manufacturing goods in space for use in space. However, I believe that even with wildly optimistic assumptions about funding and politics, this will take much, much more time than all the man-in-space enthusiasts believe (or want us to believe). Let us first consider the development of a COMMERCIAL space industry, that is, mining and manufacturing in space of goods for consumption on Earth. This is generally cited by space enthusiasts as the main reason why the man-in-space program should get all the money it needs. There are other reasons, of course, but I will leave them for a future flame. I will also ignore for the moment the INFORMATION industry (communications, remote sensing, etc.), and consider only the production of material goods. I claim that a program to establish mining or manufacturing operations in space WILL NOT MAKE ANY SENSE for at least thirty years. In fact, I believe that shipping material goods from space to Earth is probably NEVER going to make any economic sense. For the next thirty years or more, I believe the following will be true: 1. Factories in space and on the Moon cannot be expected to manufacture sophisticated products. High-tech products like computers, jet engines and automobiles require much more equipment, manpower and infrastructure than what we will be able to launch in the foreseeable future. Therefore, space industries will be limited to either low-tech products and bulk materials, or to a few intermediate steps of Earth-based manufacturing processes. 2. Right now there is no mineral resource on the Moon that would be worth mining. Some metals like titanium and chromium seem to be more abundant there, but they are fairly abundant on Earth, too. Those metals are relatively cheap now, and will continue to be so for a while. For example, titanium metal (powder, 99.7% pure) costs about $7/lb, according to the Rubber Bible. In fact, the price and demand for several metals (copper, aluminum) has been dropping of late. 3. From what we know of the history and geology of the Moon, we can expect rich ore bodies to be much less common there than on Earth. Most of our commercial ore deposits can be traced to hydrological and hydrothermal processes, which as far as we know never existed on the Moon. 4. The Moon is very poor in many important elements, notably hydrogen. That means we cannot count on using the Moon as a fueling station; quite on the contrary, rocket fuel for traveling on and out of the Moon will have to be brought from the Earth. Also, if the manufacturing or smelting processes use water or hydrogen in any form (or chlorine, or nitrogen, or...), extra equipment and energy will be necessary to recover those precious elements from the waste products. 5. Even ignoring transportation costs, manufacturing anything in space is bound to be substantially more expensive than manufacturing the same product (or a functionally equivalent one) on Earth. Labor, materials and equipment for space manufacturing are more sophisticated than their Earth equivalents. 6. In spite of all the hype, it is still highly unlikely that those few resources that are unique to space (such as microgravity and abundant high vacuum) will ever find significant industrial applications. Zero-g alloys MAY turn out to have unique properties, but `unique' doesn't necessarily mean `desirable', much less `extremely valuable'. There still is no bio-industrial process that would be significantly easier in zero g, and there are good reasons to doubt such thing will ever be discovered (Note that the growing of big protein crystals is pure science, not industry). 7. Someone mentioned crystal-growing for the semiconductor industry. The processes used by the semiconductor industry on Earth are the result of some 20 years of intensive development, and are still being improved. It will take a long while for radically new space-based processes to reach the same level of perfection. How long (and how much) will it take for a space-based company to learn how to make 3"x2' silicon monocrystals better than those we can buy right now on Earth? 8. In fact, the lack of gravity and a limited air supply are a serious problem for many industrial processes. Traditional chemical methods such as GAMT, ESGM, TIMEX-V and HPVLQ (and many more) do are much harder or impossible to perform in zero g. A LOCA that would be of no consequence on Earth may seriously harm a space station and/or its crew. Even p-GaLiAs becomes an extremely hazardous substance in zero g. (Two p-GaLiAs containers which flew on one of the last Shuttle flights had to be specially designed, and cost more than $100,000 a piece. In contrast, a standard p-GaLiAs container for use on Earth costs less than 60 cents). 9. To the basic cost of doing something in space, we must add the costs of designing, building, and launching the factory. The smallest space factory or lunar mine is going to cost billions of dollars more than a comparable facility on Earth. If such a factory is going to make 100,000 somethings a year for ten years, it would have to charge its customers THOUSANDS of dollars more per unit just to pay the extra fixed costs. 10. Orbiting factories will have to get all their raw materials from Earth. Lunar factories may be able to get some materials from the Moon itself, but will need a steady stream of `space trucks' to lift the product out to space. In both cases, transportation alone is going to cost several hundred dollars per pound of product. 11. A space factory or moon base is going to take some five to ten years to build; during that period, demand for its product may easily evaporate. This is much more true true for high-tech spacial-purpose products such as advanced alloys and biologicals (In fact, this is happening right now to McDonnell's electrophoresis separation project). Thus, there is a very serious risk of such a plant becoming hopelessly obsolete and useless even before it is finished. 12. Most of these problems apply also to the mining of asteroids. Except that some (like transportation costs) will be a lot worse. Besides, we still don't know for sure what the asteroids are made of. Before we embark in a multibillion, multi-decade asteroid mining program, perhaps we should send a couple of cheap unmanned probes to check whether there is something there worth digging, no? All these problems may be solved in time, but hardly within the next thirty years, no matter what we do or how much money we spend. NASA and the space societies are trying to sell the space station and the lunar base for its industrial prospects; this may work for a while, but will be disastrous in the long run. Sooner or later the paying public will realize that those projects will only bring multibillion-dollar losses to the economy, year after year for the foreseeable future. If you think that the post-Apollo debacle was bad, wait until this one. Of course, we may be lucky. NASA may discover a new marvelous process that can be carried out ONLY in space, and which allows a multibillion-dollar industry to save $1000 per pound of processed material (product + wastes). Man-in-space enthusiasts may be ready to bet many billion dollars on this, but I am not sure those who will end up paying the bet would like the dea. Pournelle's statement against the Mars project can be easily turned around and fired against hs own pet dreams: If we go ahead and devote all the space budget to the establishment of space stations and lunar bases, then after thirty years we will have no profitable space industry, no planetary exploration, no space science --- only a bunch of obsolete "infrastructure", that costs billions a year to maintain, and serves no discernible purpose. Sorry, folks: the commercial development of space may be inevitable, but we are not ready for it yet. (Stay tuned --- I will return after these messages) Glossary -------- GAMT = Gravity-Assisted Mass Transfer (a.k.a. "pouring") ESGM = Elasto-Static Gravimetry ("weighting") TIMEX-V = Thermally Induced Molecular EXcitation and Vaporization ("boiling") HPVLQ = High Precision Vertical Liquid Quantification ("pipetting") LOCA = Loss Of Containment Accident ("spill") p-GaLiAs = pressurized Gas-Liquid Assemblage ("coke", or "pepsi") ARPA: stolfi@src.dec.com UUCP: ..{..decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!stolfi ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 86 13:05:42 GMT From: cbosgd!ian@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Neil Kirby) Subject: Revive the Saturn V ? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa To all of you who work in the space industry: What would it take to build another Saturn V? Since the shuttle can't lift really huge payloads (like space station parts) and the Saturn can, why not launch the bigger chunks (if not the whole deal in one shot) on a *few* Saturn V's? As I recall, not all of the third stage is used to get to orbit, leaving alot of space or extra mass to play with. So: How expensive to build is a Saturn V? How expensive to launch? Could modern technology make it any better (as opposed to building one exactly the same as the others)? And: How expensive is a single shuttle launch? How many launches would it take to put the station up? As I understand it, the Saturn can lift a station much heavier than a Soviet Saluyt or Mir station. Why not the US? We have the technology.... Neil Kirby ...cbosgd!ian ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 86 20:43:53 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: Revive the Saturn V ? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > To all of you who work in the space industry: > > What would it take to build another Saturn V? Since the shuttle can't > lift really huge payloads (like space station parts) and the Saturn can, why > not launch the bigger chunks (if not the whole deal in one shot) on a *few* > Saturn V's? As I recall, not all of the third stage is used to get to orbit, > leaving alot of space or extra mass to play with. > So: How expensive to build is a Saturn V? How expensive to launch? In 1969, an Apollo/Saturn moon shot cost $360M. With inflation, it would probably be about twice that. On the other hand, a significant portion of the cost of the moon shot was the Apollo spacecraft. Also, for orbiting large payloads such as a space station, the third stage is not required (Skylab was built in the third stage fuel tank; the second stage went up into orbit with it). Both of these could reduce the 1986-dollar cost of a Saturn V Earth orbit mission to somewhere in the general neighborhood of $4-500M plus payload. > Could modern technology make it any better (as opposed to building one exactly > the same as the others)? The Saturn series was designed to meet a tight schedule; there are probably many cost reductions possible, such as some way of re-using the first stage. > And: How expensive is a single shuttle launch? How many launches would > it take to put the station up? I don't know this one for sure, but I seem to recall having seen the figure of $50M per shot. This would mean that the Shuttle would become cheaper than expendable Saturn V's *on the basis of number of launches, not payload* after eight to ten flights. If one figures that the Saturn's payload capacity is about four times the Shuttle's, then you have to fly each Shuttle successfully 32-40 times before it's cheaper. And I tend to suspect that by the time you'd launched 40 of them, you could have cost-reduced the hell out of the Saturn. > As I understand it, the Saturn can lift a station much heavier than > a Soviet Saluyt or Mir station. Why not the US? We have the > technology.... The problem is that we don't have the technology any more. The Saturn V "assembly line" is gone; it's not sitting in some warehouse waiting to be restarted. The launch pads would have to be changed back from their current Shuttle configuration. The technical expertise and knowledge gained during Saturn development would have to be rediscovered, and a lot of it would have to be redeveloped. For an example of how to keep the technology alive, see the article on the Soviet space program in the October National Geographic. Note that the SL-6 rocket that carries their crews up to Mir is the same basic booster that put up Sputnik. With thirty years and hundreds if not thousands of launches on this one vehicle, they must be stamping them out for pennies and laughing hysterically at us by now... ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 86 23:15:36 GMT From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Chariots for Apollo #3 - adventure or Moon-Doggle? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In June 1964, the minerology and petrology planning team underscored these hopes by drawing an analogy between the lunar voyage and another historic event: Some time before the year 1492, a group of workmen were standing in a shipyard looking at a half-constructed craft. One of them said "It won't float"; another said "If the sea monsters don't get it first, it will fall off the edge"; a third, more reflective than the others, said "What do they want to go for, anyway?" The Apollo Project is primarily a glorious adventure in which man will for the first time tread upon the surface of another celestial body. It will be a magnificent feat, amd a milestone in the history of the human race. No other purpose or justification is necessary. Important scientific knowledge will result from the landing. First among the scientific objectives of the Apollo mission will be the return of samples of the lunar surface materials. The study of such samples will tell us of the thermodynamic conditions under which they were formed; whether the moon is a differentiated body or not; and perhaps where it was captured by the Earth or was formed from it in the distant past. ... Shortly after Headquarters reorganized for improved management of Apollo and Mueller made his changes to enhance the chances for meeting schedules, the whole nation was wracked by a series of traumatic events. President Kennedy was assasinated, and his alleged killer was murdered while the country watched. No one who had access to a television set can ever forget those days. In the soul-searching that followed, national goals and social priorities were questioned. Periodicals such as Science were soon attacking what they called NASA's misplaced priorities, and books like The Moon-Doggle were expressing disillusionment with Apollo. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0. -- Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #11 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09727; Mon, 13 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT id AA09727; Mon, 13 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT Date: Mon, 13 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610131002.AA09727@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #12 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 13 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #12 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 12 Today's Topics: Tentative call for papers Re: The State of the Space Program Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain Shuttle and other things Viewing a shuttle launch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Oct 1986 14:17-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: "/usr/amon/Email.space" Subject: Tentative call for papers We are having a technical track at the next Space Development Conference and are interested in papers on the subject of innovative space systems, with a particular emphasis on propulsion and CELSS. If you might be interested in attending the conference and giving a paper on Friday March 27, 1987 at the Pittsburgh Hilton, please send me your name, address, phone and a rough idea of the subject you would be interested doing your paper on. I will pass the information on to Dr. David Webb, who is running the track. Please contact before next Wednesday if at all possible. I would also appreciate it if you pass this note on to people who do not have net access, and send me their info if they are interested. This is tentative and should not be construed as a full committment on either your part or our part. The existance of this track will depend on the quantity and the quality of the responses we recieve. Thank you, Dale Amon Chairman, 6th Space Development Conference ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 86 17:48:02 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: The State of the Space Program Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Everyone needs cheaper access to space. The commercial prospects for > space development will be far clearer with reliable launchers available > on dependable timetables at sensible prices. There is a move afoot to do something to encourage development of cheaper access to space. The Citizens' Advisory Council on National Space Policy recently issued a report which has been mentioned previously in this newsgroup: "America: A Spacefaring Nation Again". (It's available from L5 for something like $10, and well worth reading, even though you probably won't agree with everything in it [I certainly didn't].) Apart from some short-term measures, such as a strong recommendation to begin flying the shuttle again IMMEDIATELY, it contains what may be a very significant thing: draft legislation entitled the "Commercial Space Incentive Act". What the proposed bill essentially says is that the US government will pay $500/lb for any payload placed into orbit by a US commercial launch company, subject to one or two restrictions. *Any* payload -- satellites, materials, water, sand, anything. Minimum payload size is 10,000 pounds. The offer is good for a maximum of one million pounds per year and lasts ten years. There is a 50% bonus if the payload is manned. The government gets a chance to use the launch for its payloads, at that price; failing that, the price gets paid no matter what gets launched. If some other customer has bought the launch and has paid less than $500/lb, the government makes up the difference so the launch company still gets $500/lb. The launch company has to meet launch-safety requirements, but there is no other restriction on payloads or launch methods. The numbers are not random. 10,000 pounds is enough to launch a lot of useful things in one piece. $500/lb is about one-tenth of the current real costs of flying the shuttle or shuttle-competitive expendables. One million pounds per year is roughly the current Soviet launch rate. Note that this is not particularly expensive, at worst half a billion a year plus administrative costs. It provides the thing that is most needed to justify the development of *new* commercial launch services (not just more production of expensive 20-year-old expendables): a guaranteed market. At least three companies have indicated intent to proceed with such development if something along these lines is done. Apparently there is already significant support in Congress for the idea. This might just be what's needed to make the US a true spacefaring nation. ("Spacefaring", by analogy to "seafaring", means widespread and affordable access for large numbers of people and many different purposes. Despite the title of the report, the US is not now and has never been a spacefaring nation, John F. Kennedy's 1962 pledge to make it one notwithstanding.) It would certainly make an enormous difference. Now may be a bit early to start seriously lobbying for it... but it sure wouldn't hurt to tell your Congresscritter about it and ask him to support it. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 86 20:14:16 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > >> Or ask the satellite operators who are faced with safety requirements > >> orders of magnitude more stringent than anything they had to deal with > >> on expendables because of the "man-rated" factor. > > > This is a real problem, but it has much more to do with overconservative > > management brought on by severe budget pressure and a ridiculously tiny > > orbiter fleet than with any inherent requirement of manned spaceflight. > > Overconservative management? Where have you been since January?? Do you > seriously believe that the safety requirements for shuttle payloads are > actually going to get *easier* in the future? I stand by my statement. 51L was not caused by a payload failure. It is most unlikely that any Shuttle crash will ever be caused by a failing payload, since the requirements are so harsh. NASA's sloppiness about its own systems (the SRBs, and for that matter Shuttle/Centaur) does not extend to places where other people foot the bill for compliance with regulations. I agree that the situation is not going to ease off, but then why would you think it would? 51L is going to make NASA management *more* conservative, not less. This does not imply that it inherently has to be that way. > We've been over this issue many times before. Manned vehicles, particularly > expensive, reusable Shuttles, put far more at risk on each mission than > unmanned expendables. Consider the Hercules. It's a modest military cargo aircraft, vaguely the same size as the Shuttle. Like the Shuttle, it flies a wide variety of missions carrying a wide variety of payloads. It is about two orders of magnitude less expensive than the Shuttle, but then its production run has been two orders of magnitude larger, so this is hardly a surprise. Its payloads have to meet much the same requirement as those for the Shuttle: they must not endanger the aircraft. This means, mostly, that they must be securely tied down and must not explode or do anything else unpleasant. Landing loads etc. are similar. The Shuttle does impose more longitudinal acceleration, but 3 G is hardly bone-breaking. Both expose their payloads to noise and vibration, much more intense for the Shuttle but much more prolonged for the Hercules (Hercules passengers get handed earmuff-type hearing protectors as they board). Apart from the longitudinal acceleration, the big difference in payload environment is that Shuttle payloads are exposed to space once in orbit, and Hercules payloads are not. This does complicate matters, but it's not hopelessly bad if you don't insist on gold-plating everything; for a very minor case in point, the "Canada" and the flag on the Canadarm were ordinary hardware-store paint rather than the $XXX/pint stuff NASA would have preferred, and this has caused no problems. (In any case, the problems in question are Shuttle-launch qualification, not space qualification.) So the Shuttle environment is more severe, but it's not orders of magnitude more severe. Now compare the paperwork needed to fly something on the Shuttle vs on the Hercules. Now *there* we have an orders-of-magnitude difference. Why? Is it because the Shuttle is reusable? No -- so is the Hercules. Is it because the Shuttle is manned? No -- so is the Hercules. Is it because the Shuttle is run by NASA? Well, maybe to some small extent, but a lot of Hercules are run by the USAF, which hasn't got a reputation as a great cost-cutter either. Is it because the Shuttle carries other payloads which must be protected? No, multiple payloads are common on both the Hercules and the expendable boosters. Is it because the Shuttle uses very costly launch facilities which cannot be risked? To some extent, but this does not explain why the Shuttle is so much worse than something like a Titan, which also uses scarce and expensive launch facilities. However, we're starting to get warm. The reason why it is so much easier to fly a space-qualified payload on a Hercules than on a Shuttle is that a single Hercules crash does not drastically reduce the capacity of the fleet, ground all the others for two years, and create a political uproar that endangers the whole program. The result is that Hercules crashes are treated as undesirable misfortunes that will happen occasionally despite all reasonable precautions. But a Shuttle crash is such a major disaster that the word "reasonable" vanishes from the phrase, since crashes cannot be allowed. (Although we all know that the probability is nevertheless non-zero, and will remain so.) Since there is no such thing as perfect safety, and the Shuttle part of NASA is not footing the bill for meeting the safety rules, there is no inherent limit to the harshness of the precautions that are imposed. Oh, eventually there won't be any customers if it gets too bad... but there are enough benign payloads with owners who will tolerate monumental paperwork to keep things going. So the equilibrium point is reached near the upper extreme of regulation and restriction, where anything even vaguely hazardous is utterly forbidden, and everything else is groaning under the weight of paperwork needed to certify compliance with draconian restrictions. Better to abandon the Shuttle's original objective -- routine access to space -- than to take even the slightest risk of a crash. But this obsession with safety to the exclusion of utility is not an inherent characteristic of manned reusable vehicles. It is the result of a tiny orbiter fleet with very tenuous political support, run by a bureaucracy which is not held firmly to any long-term goals and hence concentrates solely on short-term survival. It's true that the Shuttle puts more at risk with each launch than an expendable. The Hercules puts more at risk than an unmanned one-shot cargo carrier would. But Lockheed builds the Hercules by the hundreds and doesn't bother with unmanned one-shot cargo carriers. The risk of using a manned reusable Hercules is seen as manageably small, to the point where developing an alternative isn't worthwhile. There are Hercules crashes every year; so what? > There's just *no way* that the safety requirements for > the Shuttle can ever be made equal to or less stringent than those for > expendables... It suffices to make them, say, only twice as bad as flying on a Hercules. There is no intrinsic reason why this cannot be done. And if it can be done, it doesn't *matter* that they are somewhat worse than on expendables. > ... Given that the shuttle orbit by itself is pretty much useless > for many (if not most) space applications, you'll always need to carry extra > propulsion to get into a useful orbit. Can you say "Space Tug"? Sure you can. The Shuttle orbit was known from the beginning to be pretty much useless, and there was a plan for dealing with it in the Shuttle system design. The Shuttle can hardly be blamed for not doing something that it was never supposed to have to do. > And propulsion is generally considered a "hazardous system"... Hazardous systems, including a lot of weaponry that is *designed* to be hazardous on request, fly routinely in the Hercules. It does take a bit more in the way of approvals, I would suspect, than more benign loads. > Curiously enough, though, many people justified the shuttle because it would > somehow make payloads cheaper to build... The potential was (and is, given that the orbiter production line is still [barely] open) there. It is unlikely to be realized by the current Shuttle, or indeed any new launch system built and run under similar constraints. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 86 18:52:26 CDT From: Carl Rosene Subject: Shuttle and other things To: space%s1-b%csnet-relay.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa (Sorry guys, couldn't get Dave directly...) So sorry to take so long to reply: 1) I remember the article about costs. It was posted by Paul Dietz. He quoted extensively (in fact, exclusively) from an article in Discover. The article was very slanted. Where its numbers were right, their interpretation was wrong. An important thing to remember is that there is a BIG difference between fixed, marginal, short term, and long term costs. It is not completely fair to compare the Saturn V with Shuttle. One of the reasons is that the Saturn V doesn't give you the freebies that come with a manned flight. Another is that the costs for the Saturn V were short term marginal costs. These though were compared with long term costs of the shuttle that include fixed costs not included in the costs of the Saturn V. 2) I think you are confusing number of flights of an orbiter with the number of an engine. Orbiters are still expected to last 150 to 200 flights each. You are correct that the present engines have an expected lifetime of 25 years. But, this is down from only 30-not 100. Meanwhile, a research program is under way to change that. There is no reason not to believe they will be successful. One of the advantages of running the current system is that you can concentrate on a few bugs not a whole mess of new ones. Anyway, the Shuttle does still come out cheaper. 3) You say you would have liked to something like the (HL-10?). Well, the HL-10 and the rest of the lifting body research craft (X-21, X-22...) DID become a vehicle. That is, the information discovered from the research vehicle was used to design a craft. That craft is the Shuttle Orbiter. That is the most that can be achieved by a research craft. They are designed to find out something about a new region of flight. They are not designed to be useful for doing anything but getting measurements. Which brings me to a comment about the TAV. The TAV being considered by the Air Force is also a research vehicle. The lag between the lifting bodies and Shuttle was about ten years. Give another ten years for the TAV itself and you get 20 years before anything useful for space exploration or transportation comes out of it. Which is another reason I support the Single Stage to Orbit Concept as a follow on to Shuttle. It will require no such time consuming intermediate step. Nor is it the technological risk that the TAV would be. End of Soap Box, Carl Rosene ------------------------------ Return-Path: Date: Sat, 4 Oct 86 21:38:35 PDT From: Tom Wadlow To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Viewing a shuttle launch I can also testify that the press area is a wonderful place from which to see a shuttle launch. I saw the first Atlantis lauch from there, and I can tell you that what you see on TV is to an actual lauch what a tin-can phone is to a CD player. Unfortunately, that launch was a classified military mission, so there was essentially no information to be had until T-9 minutes. But NASA made up for it by sending all the PR types home at 5pm the day before leaving me free to wander between the press center and the VAB and the cafeteria. With Atlantis on the pad, Columbia, Challenger, and Discovery in the VAB and Enterprise sitting in the parking lot by the Saturn V, it was clearly worth the trip (and the mosquitoes, which routinely kill housepets and carry off children). Alas, you may find it difficult to get in nowadays (as may I). A friend at NASA Houston tells me that the press dept. is drastically cutting down on the press list as a result of the vast number of "space groupies" that are abusing the system. It's not so much the people that go in to watch a launch, it's people like one lady in the mid-west who somehow got herself listed as a library, and then subscribed to all the free NASA publications and videos that a library is entitled to (a staggering amount). She was making a nice living selling the materials by mail. He also claimed that NASA brass was alarmed at the dropping ratio of "real" press to "amateur" press at the launches and landings. --Tom ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #12 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13877; Tue, 14 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT id AA13877; Tue, 14 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT Date: Tue, 14 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610141002.AA13877@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #13 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 14 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #13 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 13 Today's Topics: Lecture: Feynman on Challenger Commission Re: Lecture: Feynman on Challenger Commission space news from Sept 1 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 9 Oct 86 13:55:28-PDT From: Matt Heffron Subject: Lecture: Feynman on Challenger Commission To: space@s1-b.arpa Address: Beckman Instruments, 2500 Harbor X-11 Address: Fullerton, CA. 92634 Phone: (714) 961-3728 As part of the Earnest C. Watson lecture series: Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Laureate and the Richard Chace Tolman Professor of Theoretical Physics on "My Experiences on the Challenger Commission" October 15, 1986 8:00 pm Beckman Auditorium California Institute of Technology 1201 E. California Boulevard Pasadena, Ca 91125 Open to the public without charge. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 86 04:56:29 GMT From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu Subject: Re: Lecture: Feynman on Challenger Commission Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa The referenced posting mentioned Feynman's Watson Lecture at Caltech next week. Feynman is in the hospital again, so this lecture is quite likely cancelled or delayed. Call the Caltech Ticket Office (818-356-4652) for information on this and other Caltech events. Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 86 22:21:41 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Sept 1 AW&ST Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa (For those who are interested: the subscription address for Aviation Leak is Aviation Week & Space Technology, PO Box 1505, Neptune NJ 07754. You should write for a "qualification card", since if they like what you put on the card, you get a lower subscription rate. Not cheap either way, maybe $50+/year [don't have US rates handy].) Galileo may be too heavy for launch on the shuttle using a solid upper stage. The old idea of sending the probe and orbiter separately is being explored again. They would launch on missions about a year apart. One possibility is to fly the probe on the engineering model of the spacecraft. USAF issues request for proposals for Phase 2 (development and launch) of its new medium-expendable competition. NASA Marshall, plus contractor yet to be selected, will study an add-on gadget for the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle that would permit retrieving tumbling objects. Insurance underwriters have sold Palapa B2 (one of the satellites retrieved by the Shuttle a while ago) to Sattel Technologies, a designer of satellite networks and builder of ground hardware. The company plans to resell it. Challenger debris recovery has been terminated. The SRB recovery ships have been doing most of the work of late, and they have finally been called off it. Some 122 tons have been recovered; one major piece that will not be recovered is the left wing, found almost intact on the ocean floor. NASA wants to dispose of the recovered debris in a secure area, probably in a couple of abandoned Minuteman silos on the Cape. Repairs to the Titan pads damaged by the Titan 34D explosion in April are almost complete. Repairs were easier than originally thought. Titan launches probably will not resume until about February, although the pads will be ready much earlier. NASA teams will review the design and work assignments for the space station, assessing the problems that made Fletcher put a hold on station changes in July. The Space Station Configuration Critical Evaluation Task Force will look at the design and related matters like EVA requirements, launch needs, and assembly sequence. The Executive Technical Committee will oversee the task force and will assess the impact on NASA centers and contractors. The White House is studying [so what else is new? -- HS] a new national space policy, since so many of the old policy directives are now clearly inappropriate. ETA for a new policy is about a year. A more specific recovery strategy, aimed at short-term needs, is about to be signed; this orders the Challenger replacement, the phase-out of use of the Shuttle for routine commercial satellite launches, and a general policy of trying to maintain both the Shuttle and expendables, and trying to make critical payloads compatible with both. The previous directives that are expected to be re-evaluated in the new space policy are: - NSDD-44, the 1982 overall policy, which strongly pushed use of the shuttle, called for closer management ties between civil and military space plans, endorsed moving shuttle operational management away from NASA once the program matured (this policy is no longer considered viable), and mumbled about encouraging private investment (this is now given greater weight). - NSDD-50, which outlined policy on international activities. Now seen as needing attention due to the desire to fit key international payloads into a more limited shuttle manifest. - NSDD-80, which directed production of orbiter structural spares. These spares are going to be very important in building the replacement orbiter; when it nears completion, questions will again come up about maintaining production capabilities and building another set of spares. - NSDD-94, endorsing commercialization of expendables. This will presumably be strengthened. - NSDD-144 and others, outlining implementation decisions like the goal of a fully operational shuttle program by 1988. Obviously needs revision. - NSDD-164, calling for dual (shuttle/expendable) launch capability for important payloads. The original made the shuttle the primary launcher while sanctioning Titan 4 as a backup; the revised version will probably put them on a more equal footing. - NSDD-181, setting shuttle pricing policy based on full cost-recovery starting late in 1988. The NASA budget will also be an issue, of course. AIAA report says that current NASA budget plans are insufficient to maintain US leadership in space. "The current no-growth budget policy will ensure that the US becomes and remains a second-class power in space." It emphasizes the need for new policy with clear long-term objectives, and says that the current policy-setting structure is inadequate to produce national policies independent of parochial agency interests. Rockwell plans to start preliminary work on a replacement orbiter, for delivery in July 1990. This will be mostly long-lead work, and will not (for the moment) include construction of engines. There will be some design changes, notably carbon brakes, improved fuel cells, a better auxiliary power unit, and updated computers. Other areas being studied are single-point-failure areas in electronics, the 17-inch propellant disconnect valves (identified by the Rogers Commission as a major danger area), the addition of burn-through sensors for the shuttle's thrusters and orbital-maneuvering engines, and wheel rims that would give a roll-on-flat capability in the event of tire blowout. Aries sounding rocket destroyed by range safety at White Sands after an apparent guidance malfunction. Preliminary investigation suggests human error in guidance-system assembly. Payload was an X-ray telescope. First test of SRB joints using a new test rig at Morton Thiokol. The test setup is essentially a shortened SRB built out of fewer segments. Initial tests will use the old joint design for calibration, then new features will be tested. Tests on this rig should finish next summer. These tests, plus full SRM firings to begin in December this year, will lead to flight qualification of an improved design. Delivery of first flight-cleared motor near end of 1987. Bad News Of The Month Award: NASA will cancel 15-18 Spacelab missions planned to fly in the next five years, greatly reducing opportunities for man-tended space-science experiments in the near future. NASA is likely to fly only three more Spacelab missions this decade, notably the Astro UV telescope, a life-sciences module in 1989, and a microgravity payload. The UV telescope and the microgravity experiment will not use the pressurized module. SDI wants to use the pressurized module twice in the next few years for laser-tracking experiments. Cancelled missions include a wide range of flights, mostly microgravity, astronomy, and life sciences. They may be restarted in the 1990s, but there is thought to be no point in continuing work now when flight opportunities are so far away. The impact on space science is expected to be severe, since most of these users have no money to buy expendables. Astronomy and life sciences are particularly hard hit; the microgravity people can continue to do limited work using ground-based and airborne facilities. Spacelab may be in even deeper trouble if shuttle landing-weight limits are tightened due to greater safety paranoia. Previous Spacelab missions have routinely flown with cargo-weight safety waivers, which are expected to be harder to get. Shuttle weight increases caused by safety-related changes will also eat into the permissible payload weight. Spacelab planning will be difficult for the near future, since firm weight limits will not be known for a couple of years. Two Spacelab missions which were being readied at the time of 51L -- Astro 1 and Life Sciences 1 -- continue to be worked on, although flight dates are uncertain. Several Earth-observation missions are among the cancelled or delayed missions; part of the first one was owed to ESA in payment for the Spacelab 1 launch delays that reduced data yields for some ESA experiments. There is discussion of combining as many Earth- observation payloads as possible into a single high-priority mission. Nobody is sure whether the civil Spacelabs or the SDI Spacelabs will get higher priority. Other Spacelab customers include Japan and West Germany. The West Germans don't expect Spacelab D2 to fly until the early 1990s, even though it is one of the 15 high-priority commercial flights on NASA's list. Several photos of the Tyuratam launch facilities for the Soviet shuttle and Saturn-V-class booster, taken by the Spot Earth-resources satellite. NASA completing agreements with General Dynamics and Space Services Inc. for private launches at Cape Canaveral and Wallops Island. Subject to approval by Congress. Jean-Loup Chretien named primary French crewman for a French/Soviet mission on the Mir space station late in 1988. Dutch government considers major increases in space spending. Spacehab Inc. is preparing for construction of three middeck augmentation modules for the Shuttle. These vaguely resemble very short Spacelab modules, and are intended to function as extensions of the Shuttle mid-deck work area and locker space. (Historically, mid-deck space is at a premium and there is intense demand for it.) Ariane management emphasizing quality control heavily, since they need to establish a good reliability record to compensate for recent failures, while making the transition from prototypes to mass-produced hardware. Ariane flights may resume early in 1987, probably with a more powerful igniter system for the troublesome third-stage engine. An ongoing program to monitor the third-stage engine will also be established, partly because it is seen as the launcher's weakest link and partly because, as Europe's first major oxyhydrogen engine, it is a major stepping stone to the much bigger oxyhydrogen engines under development for Ariane 5. NRC panel, at Congressional request, to review shuttle launch rates, distribution of payloads between shuttle and expendables, and relative costs. FCC licenses Geostar Corp., MCCA American Radiodetermination Corp and McCaw Space Technologies Inc. to launch and operate satellites for precision location of mobile transceivers. Geostar has determined that the receivers in its package aboard GTE Spacenet's GStar 2 failed due to shorts in power wiring, possibly the result of hydrazine spillage during launch preparations. The Geostar packages scheduled for GStar 3 and 4 will incorporate better fusing and tighter seals at places where wire harnesses enter the package. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #13 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16722; Wed, 15 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT id AA16722; Wed, 15 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT Date: Wed, 15 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610151002.AA16722@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #14 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 15 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #14 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 14 Today's Topics: space news in Sept 8 AW&ST Draft of letter to Congress and the President Long term stability of GSO shuttle launch viewing Re: Al Globus, L5 Society ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Oct 86 18:39:05 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news in Sept 8 AW&ST Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Surprise Of The Month: Fletcher claims NASA needs a fifth orbiter to meet launch demands in the 1990s, and will consider private funding for it. NASA's office of commercial programs has prepared an RFP for a privately funded orbiter, but has not been given the go-ahead to release it; it does not specifically identify whether a fourth or fifth orbiter is intended, although Fletcher has said that the fourth orbiter will not be privately funded. The NASA task force reviewing the space station design is working like mad trying to finish before Congress adjourns for the elections, although the official line is that they will miss the deadline rather than compromise quality. Missing the deadline would imply delaying release of RFPs for detailed design and development until early next year. Congress tax committee considering softening the impact on satellite firms from the tax-reform bill; the specific intent is to go easy on companies whose launch plans are on hold due to the Challenger disaster. Latest models of Hotol show some redesign. The forward canards are gone, tests having shown that the forward vertical fin provides enough control. And the under-fuselage engine intake is a bit farther forward now. Arianespace issues tentative manifest for resumption of Ariane flights, listing 7 missions in 1987, 8 in 1988, 9 in 1989. Feb 1987 is target for the next flight, V19, an Ariane 3 carrying an ESA/Eutelsat ECS-4 plus either Aussat 3 or GTE Spacenet's GStar 3. After that is V20, Ariane 2 carrying the West German TVSat 1, scheduled for April. The first Ariane 4 will be V21, carrying ESA's Meteosat P2 weather satellite, Panamsat, and an Amsat amateur radio satellite. The new manifest is tentative and depends on both tests of the third-stage engine and the results of an overall review. The precise V19 launch date will be set in November, after the test review. New payload on the new Ariane manifest is the Geostar spacecraft, pencilled in for V37 in May 1989. This would not be a custom-built satellite; Geostar apparently is negotiating for a lease on Arabsat 3, currently in ground storage as a spare. The intent would be to launch it into Geostar's orbital slot and use it there until Arabsat needs it, at which time it would be shifted to a new orbital position. Martin Marietta outlines their plan for commercial Titan 3. Low-orbit payload is 31,900 lb. Payload fairing, probably the Contraves fairing already in use for Ariane, will hold a payload 47 ft long by 13 ft dia. First launch planned for spring 1989. Initial launches will be into low orbit rather than geosynchronous transfer orbit, because MM sees the initial market as primarily ex-Shuttle payloads which are equipped to boost themselves out of low orbit. Direct injection into transfer orbit is possible for later Titan launches. MM says Ariane will be the tough competition. They also say that the offering of commercial Titan is not dependent on MM winning the USAF medium-expendable competition. Federal Express signs with Martin Marietta for a commercial Titan launch in 1989, also an option for another. CNES, the French space agency, has proposed merging the production programs for Helios (French military spysat) and the advanced versions of Spot (the semi-commercial Earth resources satellite). CNES already runs Spot, and Helios will use the same spacecraft bus with different sensors. France hasn't yet settled what role CNES will play in military space programs such as Helios. KSC contractor workforce will be reduced by 1100. A shuttle pad and mobile platform will be closed temporarily to reflect the shuttle standdown. The reduced need for external tanks, and the lack of storage space for them, will mean 700-800 layoffs at Martin Marietta's Michoud facility. Lockheed Space Operations will cut its Vandenberg staff of 2400 in half, 250 at once. Weather satellite launch from Vandenberg delayed until Sept 17 at earliest due to a LOX leak. NASA recommends Shuttle/IUS as best replacement for Shuttle/Centaur in launching Galileo, Ulysses, and Magellan. NASA will probably place a sole-source order on the grounds that nothing else comparable will be available in time. Magellan will launch in April 1989, making one orbit around the Sun before reaching Venus in July 1990. The long trajectory is not so much to save fuel as to move Magellan's launch window away from the crowded period in fall when Galileo and Ulysses must launch. Galileo would launch in November 1989, making a Venus flyby and two Earth flybys to reach Jupiter without needing a more powerful upper stage. Galileo will need sunshades to keep it cool near Venus. Arrival at Jupiter would be in 1995, 11 years behind the original 1984 target date. Ulysses could launch in late 1989 or late 1990, depending on how long it takes to put together an IUS and a PAM, both of which will be needed. Arrival in the solar polar region will be 1994-6. Although NASA is making plans for launching Galileo on Shuttle/IUS, the possibility of putting it on a Titan 4 has not been ruled out. At least one military Titan 4 payload is shuttle-compatible, and NASA would like to arrange a swap. It's not clear that DoD will go for this. NASA is considering delaying launch of Mars Observer from 1990 to 1992. The glut of comsat capacity is starting to drop off, although it's still substantial. Idle transponders are now at 12%, versus as high as 43% a few years ago. Orbiter Atlantis to go to pad 39B in mid-September for fit checks on a new weather-protection system that gives an on-pad shuttle more shielding against rain and hail. Other tests will include strain gauges on the joints of one SRB, to measure stresses associated with movement to the pad, and a changeout of a fuel cell to demonstrate that it can be done on the pad. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Oct 86 10:47:03 pdt From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum) To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Draft of letter to Congress and the President Cc: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu I am drafting a letter to be sent to my representatives in Congress and the President expressing, in general terms, my concerns over the goals (or lack thereof) of the space program. Your comments would be welcome. [Gentlemen:] I am writing to you to express my concern over the lack of direction present in our nation's space program. It is apparent to me, based on reports in the popular media and other sources, that our national space program's projects have been of an ad hoc and narrow focus nature. Many members of Congress and the Administration have stated the need for a strategic plan to guide NASA and other space related public agencies and private organizations; yet a strategic planning process and strategic plan have not materialized. Instead, more single focus projects and quick fixes have been proposed. I cannot suggest a particular plan; you are in a much better position than I to initiate a strategic planning process and ensure the necessary long term funding. You have access to the suggestions of concerned citizen's groups, agency reports and proposals, and your knowledge of the needs of this country. Further, it is your responsibility as a representative and leader of our nation to assess the purposes, goals, and values of our nation, and establish the objectives of our space program. Sincerely, Eric Hildum ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Oct 86 20:50 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa, ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa Subject: Long term stability of GSO X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.arpa",IN%"ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa",DIETZ In response to a question about the long term stability of objects in geostationary orbit, Phil Karn wrote: >It's hard to project such things out so far into the future, but it >seems safe to say that geostationary satellites will not eventually >decay due to atmospheric drag. A much more significant set of forces >acting on them involve perturbations due to the sun, moon, and >non-spherical shape of the earth. These tend to be "conservative" >forces, in that they do not change the amount of (kinetic + potential) >energy in the satellite, they simply move the orbit plane around. But >who knows what will happen in 8 million years? A significant nonconservative force is light pressure. During the sunward part of the orbit the object will experience a slightly larger force (due to the Doppler shift) than during the other half of the orbit. Also, sunlight reflected from the object or reradiated by the object will be slightly blue shifted in the direction of motion; this also will rob energy from the orbit (the Poynting-Robertson effect). How fast will the orbit decay? Light pressure at earth orbit is about 4.5E-6 newtons per square meter. An object in GSO travels at about 3 km/sec, or about 1E-5 of the speed of light. I'll assume the object experiences a drag force of about 4.5E-11 N/m**2. This force will kill the entire orbital velocity (of 3 km/sec) in 2E6 M / A years, where M is the mass of the object in kilograms and A the cross section in square meters. Of course, the object will spiral closer to the Earth as the orbit decays and pick up additional energy, but it will also travel faster, increasing the photon drag. It may only be necessary for the object's orbit to decay until the orbital frequency is some integer multiple of the Moon's (or, some rational multiple, where the ratio has a small denominator). In the asteroid belt such resonances have been found to propel asteroids into chaotic orbits. Interactions with the solar wind and the earth's magnetic field might also dissipate energy, but I can't calculate the magnitude of the effects. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 19:47 EDT From: Mark Purtill Subject: shuttle launch viewing To: space@s1-b.arpa There's been a lot of discussion about the best place to see a shuttle launch. Given, however, that you'll after wait over a year, may I offer an alternative? Find an IMAX theatre and watch "The Dream is Alive." This seems almost as good as the real thing (altho I've never seen the real thing, so I could be wrong). At one point, it seems to me, someone made a list of all the IMAX theatres showing the film. Maybe someone could repost that? ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 86 05:06:00 GMT From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!nrh@caip.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Al Globus, L5 Society Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa >I, too, dabbled in libertarian philosophies for a short time a few >years back. I still support many of the purely "civil libertarian" >aspects, as do many people who are not "libertarians" per se. However, >I kept running into a fundamental contradiction. On the one hand, >libertarians believe in an utterly laissez-faire economy. On the >other, I believe that the ONLY way a number of very worthwhile >activities will ever get funded is for the government to do it through >taxation: free public education, basic scientific research and, yes, >SPACE EXPLORATION. How do you reconcile this with libertarianism, >where some even go so far as to suggest that "free enterprise" can and >should replace government courts of law! Phil, There are people with (by me) good libertarian credentials who believe the government should exist to take care of a fairly restricted range of functions. Some of these "minarchists" include space exploration on their "little lists" because it's arguably an economic externality. I don't happen to agree, but I don't doubt that their hearts are in the right place. I've talked with a man named Hudson, who's a private citizen trying to get the air force to get NASA out of the way so he can get USAF booking (in the form of launch sales) for his privately-designed-and-run launch vehicle. He thinks it's silly to think that only governments can go into space, but points out that while NASA is there, it's unlikely that anyone else will be allowed or able to get into space, for two reasons. 1. Artificially tough competition: I can't remember the exact figures Hudson cited, but it works out like this: Hudson can put up a satellite for about half the cost that NASA incurs putting up the same satellite, but NASA, supported by taxes, charges less than Hudson's cost, exclusive of profit, for doing so. In other words, as taxpayers, we're helping NASA to smother competition. 2. Artificially nasty regulation. Hudson didn't talk so much about this two years ago (although it was certainly mentioned) but the subject has now become a very hot one. Take a look at G. Harry Stine's "The Space Beat: The Other Shoe Drops" in Far Frontiers, Fall 1986. As he puts it, "We've been had. Badly". Very briefly, the government, in the form of an agency called OCSI, has given itself (via insertion into the Federal Register) the right to stop any launch that it decides is not "in the national interest". They also have unlimited inspection rights, so if you want to send up a really private cargo, you're out of luck. Reasonable? Maybe. I suggest you read Stine's article if you think so. It wasn't the Spanish Armada that discovered America for Spain, but a (relatively) private citizen with some back-door government backing. With this new regulation, space belongs only to whatever the government feels like allowing up there. This may or may not include a private space industry -- but the problems with the private space launching have little to do with technical issues: the real issues are issues of power and politics. >In the end, I concluded that libertarianism is a very simplistic and >naive approach to an economy that is and must be a hybrid of public and >private activities. One hears this complexity argument often, but it is nonsensical: which activity is more complex: that of traders of the stock market pit or that of the same number of regimented troops? How about the economy of the US and that of the USSR? If things are too complex, it typically means that you CANNOT run them by authority from above -- you need a distributed scheme to handle the complexity. (Von Mises took this to the extreme, demonstrating that a purely socialist economy cannot function because it cannot set prices correctly without a capitalist economy to "ape") Now that we've each had our say on that -- let's move further non-space-related libertarian topics to talk.politics.misc, hokay? >To be fair, a popular rallying cry in L-5 is "get government out of the >way of private enterprise in space". This argument is certainly >consistent with libertarian philosophy. There's nothing wrong with it >as such, except that it's a red herring. The real barriers to >commercial space development have far more to do with technological and >economic facts of life than with government red tape, but the latter >makes a convenient scapegoat. After all, who could possibly FAVOR "red >tape" or oppose motherhood and apple pie? Okay -- let's have NASA charge full cost for launches, and have the government allow anyone to compete, with minimal intrusion. As I understand it, that's all Hudson is asking. He offers to save the taxpayer a bundle. Any takers? No? Well why not? I think your "red herring" argument is a "red herring". >I wonder, though, how many of those same "libertarian L-5'ers" wrote >letters and telegrams to their Congresspeople urging them to exact >money under penalty of law from (i.e., tax) every American in order to >pay for the Space Station, the 5th (now 4th) orbiter, and other nifty >space toys. > >You can't have it both ways. TRUE libertarians would demand that NASA >be shut down. And some do. There was an article called "Scuttle the Shuttle" in the June, 1986 issue of Reason, and another one (which I can't find) called "NASA's War on Private Space" or some such, a few months earlier. From "Scuttle the Shuttle": It's easy to understand why the space lobby wants another shuttle--it's simply more business for them. It's the other space lobby -- individuals who join the L-5 society and the Planetary Society and who have The Dream of going into space themselves -- whose members should take a second look before cranking up a lobbying campaign. They have to recognize that although the shuttle is a technical marvel, it's not the solution but part of the problem. It's not the road to space but a choke point on the road to space. The clue is the reaction of the administration and Congress to the idea of another shuttle. They say that in a time of $200-billion deficits and of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit-reduction measures we can't afford to spend several billion on a replacement for the Challenger. Clearly, to Congress and the administration, the shuttle is a money-loser, not a money maker. If it were making revenue they'd be jumping at the chance to "enhance revenue" by building another one. No one knows how much money is lost on each shuttle flight. Revenues for a full shuttle bay come to about $80 million per flight. Estimates of the cost of a flight run as high as $200 million. Different economists, making different assumptions, reach different results. But the exact numbers aren't important. What is important is that each shuttle flight represents a loss to the taxpayers of something like $100 million. The result is that the amount of traffic to orbit via the shuttle will be limited by the amount of money the government is willing to lose. The loss of the Challenger hasn't changed that reality. It has only made it more visible. Has anyone read "I, Claudius"? In it, the emperor Tiberius, faced with someone proposing a project he didn't like (as I recall, it was a memorial to his hated mother Livia), offered to fund it, and then (after a great many delays) didn't actually come up with the money. You might say he killed the project with kindness. It is awfully "kind" of the government to offer to send payloads up, don't you think? Needless to say, nothing I say here should be taken as a reflection on the opinions of my employers or associates. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #14 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02220; Thu, 16 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT id AA02220; Thu, 16 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT Date: Thu, 16 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610161002.AA02220@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #15 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 16 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #15 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 15 Today's Topics: Re: And one more flame against L-5 Re: Tentative call for papers How do you abort an SRB? Space Telescope Re: Lagrange points Space travel without Science and the signal-to-noise ratio of Re: shuttle launch viewing Re: Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain HOTOL: Complicated turbocompressor L-5 Society, More on Re: Bootstrap Starships ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Oct 86 22:07:54 GMT From: ihnp4!chinet!aicchi!ignatz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ihnat) Subject: Re: And one more flame against L-5 Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ....Why invest all that effort and energy to lob stuff up from > the moon to a Lagrangian point for making a colony when it would > be vastly simpler and cheaper to merely bore tunnels into the > moon's crust and make enormous underground colonies. I really don't want to get involved in how crazy or not crazy the L-5 society is. However, I would like to point out the fact that there's a lot to be said for constructing facilities outside the gravity well of a planet. You can turn on or off your 'gravity' at selected points in your environment, for research, health, manufacturing, or recreation; and it doesn't cost as much to get around once you're there. The latter point is a big win, as far as getting to the asteroid belts. I'm not sure I ever really bought their idea of getting to the moon, then building the mass launcher; you're right about the fact that, once you've spent that much time there, the lunar colony would be fairly extensive in its own right. But the idea of free-space colonies isn't all that whacky in and of itself. Dave Ihnat Analysts International Corporation (312) 882-4673 ihnp4!aicchi!ignatz || ihnp4!homebru!ignatz ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 86 19:55:36 GMT From: amdcad!cae780!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: Tentative call for papers Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I seem to be stupid today. What is CELSS? david rickel cae780!weitek!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Oct 86 09:52:18 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: How do you abort an SRB? James Van Artsdalen in his 28 Sept. raised the issue of aborting an SRB while it's still burning. The shuttle astronauts **can** detach from the SRBs while they are still burning, but to do so would be an act of suicidal desperation. The SRBs use aluminum dust as its propellant with ammonium perchlorate as the oxydizer. I have been told that the rocket plume from the SRB is like a sand blaster except instead of sand you have burning aluminum flakes. The ET (external tank) has aluminum walls that are made as thin as possible to save weight. While it is true that the ET is thermally insulated, this insulation is against aerodynamic heating and would not stand up against the SRB's plume. The alternative of the Orbit Vehicle (OV) separating from the SRB/ET stack is also unviable. I'm not certain of my numbers but I think the OV can only withstand about 1.5 g in a lateral direction. I know from Aviation Week that it was aerodynamic forces and **not** the force of the ET explosion that brokeup the OV. There is one last possible fix and that is to put a linear charge on the pressure dome on the end of each SRB. If the SRBs misbehave, one could blow the ends off and the thrust goes to zero almost at once. This is the usual method of range safety with solid fueled ICBMs. The SRB **does** have a linear charge that goes down the length of it. This works great from a range safety standpoint (and was actually used), but can't be used if the SRB is still mated to the ET and OV. Probably the reason why one can't simply blow off the pressure domes of the SRB is that a rocket plume would proceed in front of the shuttles trajectory which would eventually impinge and destroy the ET. I guess the real answer is that you just make sure your SRB design is good enough that it doesn't fail. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 86 18:52:49 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!raybed2!rayssdb!rxb@ll-xn.arpa (Richard A. Brooks) Subject: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Is there anyone out there that knows details on the Space Telescope (ST)? My questions are : (1) Will the transmissions from the ST be PUBLIC DOMAIN? (free to be recieved by anyone with the satellite equipment to pick them up) (2) Will the transmissions be scrambled or encrypted in any way to prevent interception? (other than encoding necessary to send the video data to earth) (3) What Image Processing equipment would be required to obtain a suitable input to a PC or VCR. (4) If the answers to the above are favorable, does anyone have projects in the works to do this? I would be extremely grateful for any help. The ST is about the only thing going up that would make it worth getting a satellite reciever, Who needs HBO when you can watch the STARS!!! Richard Brooks {allegra, gatech, ihnp4, linus, raybed2}!rayssd!rayssdb!rxb Raytheon Submarine Signal Division Portsmouth, Rhode Island ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 86 04:40:49 GMT From: necntc!adelie!axiom!linus!alliant!spain@talcott.harvard.edu (Dave Spain) Subject: Re: Lagrange points Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <7153@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Can someone show how to derive the positions of L4 and L5? Last time >> I tried, I made too many simplifying assumptions... > >I've never seen a simple and intuitive explanation of the L4/5 points; >it's not a trivial result. In fact to make matters worse, you have to take into account the Sun's interaction along with the Earth/Moon/you setup if you wish to use the Lagrange points for something on a long-term basis, like a space colony. Although I can't cite you an explicit reference, I know I've read that because of the interaction between the 4 bodies (Sun, Earth, Moon and you) an object at L4 or L5 would actually transcribe a small orbit around the "points" depicted in the 3 body case (Earth/Moon/You only). Thus for something like a space colony, even though it may be quite near these points, it is still traversing an orbit and a small number of station-keeping adjustments would be needed from time-to-time. Particularly, if it is to remain there for long periods of time. If memory serves correctly, I believe I first saw this explanation in a NASA publication. It was a book form of a summary report by a summer study group at Stanford (circa 1976 perhaps?), that was among the first in-depth studies done on the feasibility of putting up a Space Colony. The names of the book and the study group escape me, the book was borrowed from a friend, but I'm sure there are plenty of netfolk out there that can fill in the blanks, as this was a major undertaking. [Didn't many of the results of this study provide the back- round for O'Neil's famous book? Or do I have the order of events wrong?] Anyway, one of the topics covered was an overview of the orbital mechanics involved in placing a colony at L4 or L5, but not to the depth you are probably looking for. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Oct 86 09:05:29 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Space travel without Science and the signal-to-noise ratio of Space Digest There have recently been a series of postings concerning "space travel without science" or "space travel without mathematics" in Space Digest. These postings raise two interesting points. The first is what sort of guidelines should there be to keep the signal-to-noise ratio for Space Digest above a reasonable level. The second point is where does one draw the line between valid topics about aerospace engineering versus those concerning science fiction. The concept of "space travel without mathematics" can be with some confidence, assigned to the category of science fiction. I would like to encourage the moderator of Space Digest to direct discussions of this sort to other ARPANET newsgroups such as SF-LOVERS where there is a receptive audience. I might add in passing that I am seriously thinking of DEsubscribing from SF-LOVERS because the signal-to-noise ratio in that newsgroup is so ridiculously low. It would be sad if a similar fate was in store for Space Digest. The second point on science fiction versus valid engineering notions is a prickly issue. In 1949, travelling to the moon was widely regarded as science fiction. If people had clung to that notion, we would have never embarked on the Apollo program. The Daedalus project by the British Interplanetary Society was a paper study directed towards examining the feasibility of an unmanned interstellar probe to Bernard's Star. One problem this study has always had is that people just implicitly assume that interstellar travel is impossible and science fiction. However, I believe that the study showed the feasibility for unmanned interstellar travel. Therefore, the problem in essense is how does one keep the discussion sufficiently free to discuss a wide range of ideas (including crazy ones like interstellar travel), without having the discussion forum being swamped with nonsense like "space travel without science"? Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 86 08:20:39 GMT From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: shuttle launch viewing Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa To be perfectly honest, "The Dream is Alive" is in many ways BETTER than seeing the real thing. Though you *should* go down there at least once if you can. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 86 01:12:58 GMT From: al@ames-aurora.arpa (Al Globus) Subject: Re: Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ... space travel far too expensive (by many orders of magnitude) for > "moving life off the planet"; that's just not realistic with present > technology. (By "present technology" I don't mean just the Shuttle; I > mean "chemical rockets"). Not so. Apparently most of the weight of the shuttle stack is oxygen (does anyone know the actual numbers?). Therefor, the aerospace plane, if successful, should give us a very large reduction in launch cost. Possibly good enough for moving fragile (living) cargoes off the planet in fairly large quantities. For bulk materials an electromagnetic launcher (also more of less current technology) should work fine. Needless to say, in place resources (e.g., the moon and asteroids) must supply the bulk of the material needed to develop a large society in orbit. New concepts in physics do not appear to be necessary to develop a large presence in orbit, although they might help. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 10:59:43 PDT From: Murray.pa@xerox.com Subject: HOTOL: Complicated turbocompressor To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Cc: Murray.pa@xerox.com From scanning the ads in AW+ST, the jet engine business looks pretty rough to me. There must be a lot of smart people working hard to build better ones. I could easily believe that it would be better, faster, or cheaper to take advantage of that technology curve rather than starting over. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 11:41:39 PDT From: crash!pnet01!mhughes@nosc.arpa (Mari Hughes) To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: L-5 Society, More on Recently there have been a number of postings to this digest on the nature of the L-5 society compared to that of the Planetary Society. I found these postings to be both confusing and misleading. Perhaps Jerry Pournelle and other famous members of the L-5 society are right-wing and SDI lovers, but Jerry is NOT the L-5 society! This group is a grass roots group and if you get involved on a local level, you will find that most members don't know or could care less what a few of the famous think. I resisted joining L-5 for years because of my impression that they were a bunch of liberals/radicals who were unable to be sane when it came to the idea of the military in space. When I read all these postings about L-5 society being a bunch of right-wing, rabid supporters of SDI, I felt like I had entered the Twilight Zone! My main complaint with the group, is that most members I have come into contact with are rabid supporters of NASA and feel that to critize NASA is to critize the idea of the space program (i.e., if you don't like NASA you are anti-space). It didn't take the Challenger tragedy to make me realize that NASA is an agency riddled with internal problems, but I was rarely able to convince those members of the L-5 society I came into contact with that NASA could do wrong. As far as the Planetary Society is concerned, I don't see that it is immune from all those critisisms leveled at the L-5 Society! In the future, I would hope that you refrain from coming down on an entire organization for the comments/opinions of a few members with a high profile Mari Hughes [P-Net: mhughes] ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 86 10:58:54 GMT From: ihnp4!ihopa!riccb!jmc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jeff McQuinn ) Subject: Re: Bootstrap Starships Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Here are a couple of ideas for engines for interstellar travel. > > In the first design, a collector is used to generate energy from > passing interstellar gas. I assume the vehicle is travelling at a > good clip (.1 c, say) before this engine is turned on. The generator > is a thin foil a few atoms thick. On either side of the foil I place > a sparse grid negatively charged with respect to the foil. > Interstellar hydrogen atoms will hit the foil and be ionized. Their > nuclei will pass unhindered through the trailing grid. The electrons, > which are much less energetic, will oscillate between the grids, > losing energy in the foil, eventually stopping there. Electrons can > be drawn off the foil to do useful work, like driving an ion engine. > The electrons are eventually ejected out the back to neutralize the > gas atom nuclei. I've often wondered how ideas like these can work. I know I must be missing something but won't the mass you collect at the front end cause drag which will be equal and opposite to the acceleration provided by ejecting the same material out the back as reaction mass? (This all assumes that you have not brought a fuel source with you to raise the energy levels of the collected mass else why are you collecting material to begin with) If this question is to mundane for general discussion respond by e-mail otherwise I just love free-for-alls! Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #15 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04990; Fri, 17 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT id AA04990; Fri, 17 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT Date: Fri, 17 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610171002.AA04990@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #16 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 17 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #16 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 16 Today's Topics: fusion rockets net.columbia saved; voting closed Re: Bootstrap Starships bootstrap starships Re: Bootstrap Starships Re: Bootstrap Starships ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: space From: bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa Sender: ota Subject: fusion rockets Date: 7 Oct 86 22:59:00 EDT Reply-To: Many years ago (1976) I seem to remember seeing some articles on the idea of fusion 'pulse-rockets' based on small (very small) laser inititated fusion explosion. Sort of a pure fusion version of Orion. Anyone have any refs. to this? Hopefully, more recent than my distant memories?? Also, anyone have any info on NASA's intermittent experiments with spin-polarized hydrogen as a fuel for attitude jets on satellites? ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 86 19:12:18 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!msb@seismo.css.gov (Mark Brader) Subject: net.columbia saved; voting closed Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa The proposal to rmgroup net.columbia (or not create sci.space.shuttle) and consolidate with net.space (sci.space) is DEFEATED. The voters are enumerated below. I offer a gentle razzberry in the direction of those who thought the first posting was for someone ELSE to respond to, so that the voting ended up dragging out over about 6 weeks; and great thanks to everyone for voting by mail and not clogging the net with this. While I would, of course, have preferred to see the groups consolidated, I thought the next best thing would be to start a Shuttle mailing list on the Arpanet and have it gatewayed to and from net.columbia; this would probably go a long way toward getting the Shuttle traffic out of net.space. Erik Fair, keeper of the Berkeley gateway, said that he was willing to set up such a gateway. However, Ted Anderson, moderator for the Arpanet side of net.space, said: > I don't think I'd be interested if there is any significant chance of > getting multiple copies of things. I think probably be best idea for > the Arpanet side of things is for me to send the interesting > net.columbia submissions to the Space Digest by hand. I now have > access to the unix news groups and since there isn't much traffic that > shouldn't be too hard. This seems infeasible to me, because "the interesting submissions" in net.columbia would then end up in net.space also, put there automatically by the Berkeley gateway; even if Message-ID tracking can keep track of them and prevent this, followups to them (from the Arpa side) would. Thus this would make things worse and not better... unless, of course, there was someone moderating the Arpanet-to-Usenet gateway. It still seems to me that, lacking moderation at that point, the best way to resolve things is for the Arpanet side to mimic the Usenet side and have two lists. If the same person moderates both, they could eliminate duplication. But I am in no position to make such a thing happen, only to suggest, and at this point I drop out of the discussion. Mark Brader utzoo!dciem!msb There were, in the end, 47 No or qualified No votes. I deleted one voter's name (the one who said "I agree with Karl Heuer") before I decided I should include qualified votes. The remaining ones are listed here, alphabetically by surname or, if none, userid. styx!mcb (Michael C. Berch) epimass!jbuck (Joe Buck) saber!msc (Mark Callow) cmcl2!chenj (James M.C. Chen) omepd!davec (Dave Cobbley) amd!tc (Tom Crawford) amdahl!kim (Kim DeVaughn) lpi!jeff (Jeff Diewald) hou2f!5113dcd (Doug Donohoe) topaz!friedman (-Gadi) hound!55jcf (Jim Frauenthal) randvax!jim (Jim Gillogly) watnot!rdgreenall (Richard Greenall) cuae2.ATT.COM!heiby (Ron Heiby) haddock!karl (Karl Heuer) cad.dec.com!insinga (Aron Insinga) alice!jj ll1!cej (Llewellyn Jones) faron!jnk (John N. Kemeny) tomk@leia.GWD.TEK.COM (Tom Kloos) tekecs!andrew (Andrew Klossner) netxcom!rkolker (Rick Kolker) alex@xios.XIOS.UUCP (Alex B Laney) northstar!glee (Godfrey Lee) mtgzy!ecl (EveLyn C. Leeper) felix!bytebug (Roger L. Long) epicen!kreg (Kreg Martin) ut-ngp!osmigo1 (Ron Morgan) wudma!oldroyd (L. A. Oldroyd) alice!mat (Mat Pirz) fluke!johnr (John Redfield) whuts!brt (Ben Reytblat) elroy!david (David Robinson) beowulf.UCSD.EDU!rose (Dan Rose) cornell!jts (Jim Sasaki) unicus!cks (Chris Siebenmann) ethos!gary (Gary J. Smith) topaz!steiner (Dave Steiner) newton!clt (Carrick Talmadge) unicus!sat (Scott A. Thurlow) wldrdg!tony netxcom!ewiles (Edwin Wiles) hpfcda!woof (Steve Wolf) vax4.dec.com!wood (John F. Wood) hao!woods (Greg Woods) nike!yee (Peter Yee) And the 33 YES votes: s1-b.arpa!ota (Ted Anderson) infinet!barnes (Jim Barnes) bogstad@BRL.ARPA lznv!psc (Paul S. R. Chisholm) osu-eddie!jac (James Clausing) oddjob!matt (Matt Crawford) rochester!crowl (Lawrence Crowl) usc-oberon!demke (Christopher Demke) mtuxo!tee (Tim Ebersole) unicus!rae (Reid Ellis) ucbvax!fair (Erik E. Fair) tekcbi!jeffg (Jeff Glover) watmath!sahayman (Steve Hayman) drivax!holloway (Bruce Holloway) masscomp!carlton (Carl Hommel) allegra!karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) gilbbs!mc68020 (Tom Keller) uiucdcs!kenny (Kevin Kenny) druhi!tml (Tim Larison) amdahl!jon (Jonathan Leech) van-bc!sl (Stuart Lynne) wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin) amdahl!gam (Gordon A. Moffett) csustan!smdev (Scott Hazen Mueller) MCC!PITTS (Greg Pitts) skatter!greg (Greg Retzlaff) mtgzz!dls (Dale Skran) gatech!spaf (Gene Spafford) utzoo!henry (Henry Spencer) watvlsi!ksbszabo (Kevin Szabo) mks!tj (T. J. Thompson) dadla!dant (Dan Tilque) cfa!willner ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 86 06:52:20 GMT From: voder!aitnet!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Bootstrap Starships Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa $ Here are a couple of ideas for engines for interstellar travel. $ $ In the first design, a collector is used to generate energy from $ passing interstellar gas.... $ Interstellar hydrogen atoms will hit the foil and be ionized. $ Their nuclei will pass unhindered through the trailing grid. $ The electrons, which are much less energetic, will oscillate $ between the grids, losing energy in the foil, eventually stopping $ there. Electrons can be drawn off the foil to do useful work... $ $ A second design is for ultrarelativistic flight. It interacts with $ the cosmic background radiation. At high speeds the spacecraft $ perceives a temperature gradient: the radiation is hotter in front $ than behind. This gradient can be used to drive a heat engine... TANSTAFFL. Both schemes ignore the momentum of the particles you are extracting energy from. Both electrons and photons deposit their momentum in the spacecraft they strike the collection surface. The energy extracted is really coming from the spacecraft velocity as it slows downdue to "equal and opposite" reaction to the impinging particles. Ed Post {hplabs,voder,pyramid}!lewey!evp American Information Technology 10201 Torre Ave. Cupertino CA 95014 (408)252-8713 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 10:40:32 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: Paul Dietz , space digest Subject: bootstrap starships Concept one: ionize the interstellar hydrogen, keep the electrons but not the protons, and use the energy so collected to drive the ship. Problem: where does the energy to ionize the hydrogen come from? answer: it comes from drag on the collectors. In other words, you are extracting the energy from the ship`s motion to power the ship. No go. Design 2: make a heat engine from the fact that the cosmic background in front of the ship is doppler shifted relative to that behind the ship. comment: a neat way to get around the third law of thermodynamics. If it worked, you could dispense with the starship--just put your heat engine on a centrifuge. question; where does the energy come from? answer: it comes from the doppler shift of the radiation. The photons incoming from the front of the ship are higher energy than those rejected to the rear. But this means they have higher momentum. So you lose momentum to the background radiation. Once more, you are extracting energy from the drag on the ship. If you think about it for a moment, you will realize that neither of these schemes will work. You are re-inventing the old "put a windmill at the front of the ship, and use the energy to drive a propellar!" concept; ie., the energy you are extracting out of the interstellar medium and/or radiation field is the energy lost to drag. At best you can break even (unless the medium itself is moving with respect to your destination) --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 86 19:11:52 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Bootstrap Starships Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ... The generator is a thin foil a few atoms thick. On either side > of the foil I place a sparse grid negatively charged with respect to > the foil. Interstellar hydrogen atoms will hit the foil and be > ionized. Their nuclei will pass unhindered through the trailing grid. > The electrons, which are much less energetic, will oscillate between > the grids, losing energy in the foil, eventually stopping there. > Electrons can be drawn off the foil to do useful work, like driving an > ion engine... Uh, Paul, where does the energy *come from* in this system? At first glance, what is happening is that you are transforming the kinetic energy of the vehicle into electric power. Splitting an atom into nucleus and electron takes energy; with the electron bound to the vehicle and the nucleus leaving rearward, the nucleus will be dragged along to some extent by the attraction between it and the electron. Actually it will be worse than that, it will be dragged along quite a bit by all that negative charge on the whole assembly. The net result is that your vehicle will lose kinetic energy at the same time as it gains electrical energy. A useful braking system, yes, but not otherwise enormously interesting. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 86 16:04:23 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Re: Bootstrap Starships In Vol. 7, No. 9 of Space Digest, Paul Dietz proposed some "Bootstrap Starship" ideas. I am very reluctant to criticize this sort of article because this is **exactly** the sort of thing I like to see in Space Digest. I compliment Paul for using his head. However I don't think his idea will work. My embarassing question about his design is "where does the energy come from?". Paul's obvious answer would be that it is coming from the surrounding interstellar medium. I shall focus on his second design since it's easiest to criticize. You have a vehicle going at about 10 psol (percent speed of light). The front is interacting with the interstellar medium (hydrogen at about 0.1 particles per cubic centimeter). The front will heat up. In Project Daedalus it was assumned that the front of the vehicle would have a temperature of around 200 deg. Kelvin. We could assume that the rear would be at almost 0 deg. Kelvin. In theory the Carnot efficiency would be near perfect. However all of your energy would actually be coming from original kinetic energy lost due to drag. We can calculate power by assuming a disc of 55 meters radius travelling at 10 psol (relativistic effects are insignificant), and assume an interstellar medium as originally described. From the vehicle's frame it sees particles streaming in at 10 psol. The mass of intersellar medium impacted on the forward shield of the vehicle for one second would be 1.118e-8 grams. From this we may estimate the energy available in one second based on KE=(1/2)*M*(V**2). This calculates to be 5.355 kilowatts. This would be very useful for powering such on board systems as a navigation computer. However it is insignificant in terms of the vehicle's total kinetic energy. This is extremely **fortunate** by the way, for if drag was significant then intersteller travel would indeed be impossible. A side point is **if** the 1.118e-8 grams/sec. could be converted entirely into energy by some magic way then you would have approximately one megawatt of power, or 1350 horse power, which is remarkably little. You might use this to push out a reaction mass but then you have the embarassing question of where do you get the reaction mass from? It was a good attempt Paul, but you'll have to try again. Gary Allen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #16 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03720; Sat, 18 Oct 86 03:02:10 PDT id AA03720; Sat, 18 Oct 86 03:02:10 PDT Date: Sat, 18 Oct 86 03:02:10 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610181002.AA03720@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #17 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 18 Oct 86 03:02:10 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #17 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 17 Today's Topics: bootstrap starships Re: Space Telescope Re: Space Telescope Re: Space Telescope Re: Space Telescope Re: Space Telescope Lunar vs. Orbital Colonies slight misconception about "beanstalks" Recent articles: Planets of binary stars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 86 08:52 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu, space-incoming@s1-b.arpa Subject: bootstrap starships Geoffrey, You seem to be missing the basic point here. Let me explain. I can generate arbitrary impulse (that is, momentum change) for a given amount of energy by ejecting the reaction mass *slowly*. For example, if I eject 1 kilogram of mass at 1000 km/sec, I generate 1E6 newton-seconds of impulse, and must expend 5E11 joules of energy. If I eject 10,000 kg at 10 km/sec, I still expend 5E11 joules of energy but produce 1E8 newton-seconds of impulse. Clearly, by increasing the mass and decreasing the velocity of the exhaust, the ratio of thrust (impulse per time) to power (energy per time) can be made arbitrarily high. Note that this only works if I was carrying the reaction mass with me; external reaction mass must be expelled at greater than its incoming speed. Since thrust/power ratio can be made arbitrarily high, it can be made higher than the drag/power induced by the generator. Please crank through the numbers, ok? A variant of the rocket equation can be set up to decide what the optimal exhaust velocity should be (in order to minimize reaction mass consumption). Specific criticisms: (1) Ionizing incoming interstellar gas. Ionizing an atom takes, at most, a few tens of electron volts. Travelling at 10% of the speed of light a hydrogen atom has ~5 *million* electron volts of energy. Ionization losses are insignificant. (2) Cosmic background radiation generator. Yes, radiation pressure drag would be produced. However, if the exhaust velocity is low enough (remember, this is reaction mass we were already carrying) the thrust will exceed drag. And yes, it *will* work in principle on a centrifuge! Paul Dietz ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 86 00:25:11 GMT From: jwp@unix.macc.wisc.edu (Jeffrey W Percival) Subject: Re: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <1322@rayssdb.UUCP> rxb@rayssdb.UUCP (Richard A. Brooks) writes: > (1) Will the transmissions from the ST be PUBLIC DOMAIN? > (2) Will the transmissions be scrambled or encrypted > (3) What Image Processing equipment would be required > (4) Does anyone have projects in the works to do this? The HST will transmit its data at one of 2 rates (4 kbits/sec and 1 Mbit/sec) to a TDRS satellite, which will forward the data to White Sands. Thence they go to the east coast via DomSat, to be recieved at the data capture facility at Goddard. Processing is done there, as well as sending the signal via microwave link to the Science Institute in Baltimore. Before leaving the HST, the data have Reed-Solomon encoding performed on them, and then whatever blocking is required for the NASCOM transmission process. I don't know much more in the way of details, but it seems to me that it would require a bunch of effort to eavesdrop. We had a thermal vacuum test at Lockheed this summer, with the HST at times being commanded remotely from Goddard, and I know that at times, even *they* were quite pleased to get some data. Jeff Percival ...!uwvax!uwmacc!sal70!jwp or ...!uwmacc!jwp ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 86 17:45:03 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > (1) Will the transmissions from the ST be PUBLIC > DOMAIN? (free to be recieved by anyone with > the satellite equipment to pick them up) My understanding is that they are technically private. Space Telescope data is the property of the investigator for some relatively short period (six months? two years?) and then becomes public domain. This is intended to protect things like publication rights while making sure that the results eventually become available to everyone. Eavesdropping on the ST should thus fall under the general rule that radio transmissions not intended for public broadcast may be listened to but may not be passed on to others. (Note that various bits of legislation like local anti-scanner laws and the recent obnoxious anti-interception bill in Congress may modify this.) > (2) Will the transmissions be scrambled or encrypted > in any way to prevent interception? (other than > encoding necessary to send the video data to > earth) The transmission encoding probably isn't going to be trivial, but I don't think there is any plan to deliberately encrypt. > (3) What Image Processing equipment would be required > to obtain a suitable input to a PC or VCR. Basically you'd need something to capture the digital data coming down -- I think the ST transmissions will be all-digital -- into memory or a storage medium. After that, output onto a screen should be trivial, and onto a VCR will involve no more than the normal problems of transferring a computer-generated image to a VCR. The hard part will be deciphering the transmission in the first place, since the ST people probably haven't worried much about being compatible with existing standards. I'd also be surprised if they were using commercial-satellite frequencies, although the relay from White Sands to Goddard may. > ...Who needs HBO when you can watch the STARS!!! Bear in mind that most of the ST data is going to be exceptionally dull except to the astronomer who's waiting for it. Pictures of random star fields will pall quickly. It may be difficult to get sufficiently detailed advance information to pick interesting observing times. I believe the ST's slew rate is rather slow, also, so it will be "in transit" from one viewing direction to another quite a bit. Finally, note that only two of the five sensors aboard the ST are cameras; data from the others is going to be *really* uninteresting to the casual observer. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 86 16:59:36 GMT From: jwp@unix.macc.wisc.edu (Jeffrey W Percival) Subject: Re: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Here's another complication. The ST's High Speed Photometer can sample the intensity of incoming light in several ways: a 12-bit a/d conversion of a photocurrent, and a readout of a photon counting device with either 8, 16, or 24 bit word size. What's more, we can alternate between 2 internal detectors. Our data stream can be quite complex: detector 1 "analog", detector 1 "digital", then repeat for detector 2, back to detector 1, and so on. And the information describing the interleaving is not part of the downlinked data. You'd have to try and figure it out on a case by case basis by staring at the numbers. Whew! Jeff Percival ...!uwvax!uwmacc!sal70!jwp or ...!uwmacc!jwp ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 86 18:04:17 GMT From: fritz@astro.as.utexas.edu (Fritz Benedict) Subject: Re: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > except to the astronomer who's waiting for it. Pictures of random > star fields will pall quickly. It may be difficult to get > sufficiently detailed advance information to pick interesting > observing times. I believe the ST's slew rate is rather slow, also, > so it will be "in transit" from one viewing direction to another quite > a bit. We hope to be obtaining science photons 35% of each day. During the months just after launch, this may rarely exceed 10%. > Finally, note that only two of the five sensors aboard the ST are > cameras; data from the others is going to be *really* uninteresting to > the casual observer. > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry In addition to the 5 always discussed scientific instruments, HST has three Fine Guidance Sensors, one of which we will use for very precise (0.002 arcsecond) measurements of the positions of stars. So there are really six scientific instruments on board. What kind of science can come from precise measurements of the positions of stars? How about absolute geometric distances to stars, detection of extrasolar planetary systems, a much better test of relativity (stars deflections due to gravity) .... Oh, and dull fails miserably to describe the yawn-producing unprocessed bit stream from HST. 8-) Fritz Benedict (512)471-4461x448 HST Astrometry Science Team uucp: {...noao,decvax,ut-sally}!astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU!fritz arpa: fritz@ut-ngp snail: Astronomy, U of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 86 20:43:51 GMT From: rutgers!husc6!news@ames-titan.arpa (USENET News System) Subject: Re: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa The data from ST observations will be the property of the astronomer (Principal Investigator) for ONE YEAR. At that time it all becomes public-domain info. From: mmiller@husc4.harvard.edu (Martin Miller) Path: husc4!mmiller As others have said, it will all be unbelievably dull, except in its final, published form. If anyone is interested, there are rumors afoot of an Amateur Space Telescope, I believe a 24 inch to be launched in the 1990s, which will actually transmit its data on ham radio frequencies. I'd tell you more about it except that I threw the brochure away. Tony Lazar STScI, Baltimore ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 18:25 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa, ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Lunar vs. Orbital Colonies I sent a response to Gary Allen's anti-L5 message. Gary asked me to resubmit it to the mailing list so he could respond publicly. Here's a rephrasing of my message: Gary criticized the fixation on orbital colonies by pointing out that lunar underground colonies will likely be cheaper. I responded by saying that there is a plausible economic rationale for orbital colonies -- powersat construction -- but there doesn't appear to be an economically justifiable reason for putting *large* numbers of colonists on the moon. If one simply wants to warehouse people somewhere, one should use some of the unoccupied spots on this planet (if we're talking about underground living there's lots of room). ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 86 18:16:02 GMT From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Wayne Throop) Subject: slight misconception about "beanstalks" Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > dcn@ihuxl.UUCP (Dave Newkirk) > 6) Just step into the elevator and ride up to orbit on a `beanstalk'. > If we can find a material strong enough, we can attach one end to > the ground near the equator and the other to a station at > geosynchonous orbit. Then your elevator climbs the cable using > electric power generated from solar power satellites. Somewhat misleading. It is fairly easy to show that this wouldn't be very workable without a ballast beyond GEO. What I presume is meant is If we can find a material strong enough, we can attach one end to the ground near the equator and the other to a ballast somewhere *beyond* geosynchronous orbit. Note that the center of mass of the beanstalk/ballast system should be just at (or very slightly beyond) geosynchronous orbit. There ought indeed to be a station just *at* GEO... at that station, just stepping off the elevator places one in orbit. (Unless, of course, you are talking about a beanstalk which rests its weight on the earth's surface and depends upon compressional strength to stand, rather than the more usual type which is (in effect) in free fall and depends upon tensional strength. I have my doubts about the first notion ever being practical, since the second one is so much easier...) Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 86 10:53:56 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: Recent articles: Planets of binary stars Update on Lunacrete An article by W.D. Kelly in _Journal of Astronautical Science_ (34:2, April-June 1986, p.209) studied the stability of planets in binary star systems by numerical integration. He assumed that a planet existed at a position such that the surface temperature would be roughly the same as Earth's, and then looked at what happens to the orbit as a function of time. What he discovered is that, when the two stars have eccentric orbits (and the average eccentricity of binary star orbits is ^0.3), that when the outer star reaches periastron (ie., closest approach) the planet's orbit takes a jump in eccentricity. In particular, he did this for planets of Alpha Centauri and Procyon (two prominent binary stars relatively similar in type to the sun) and found that neither one had orbits in roughly the Earth's position likely to be stable for geological time periods. (Alas). He also showed one nifty simulated orbit where the planet circling one star was gradually perturbed by, and then captured into an orbit around the other star. (Such numerical simulations always have to be taken with some degree of skepticism. Integrating 1/r2 potentials for the three-body problem with non-circular orbits is always subject to finite step error, and it is not always clear how much of the results you see are due to the error accumulating (anybody remember trying to orbit the "star" in the original version of "SPACE WAR"?) He didn't discuss procedure enough for me to tell what he did to limit such error.) On a related subject, somebody asked earlier whether air drag at geosynchronous altitude would limit the lifetime of synchronous satellites. The quick answer is, there isn't drag at synchronous altitude. The Earth's atmosphere is corotational with the earth, so the air isn't moving with respect to the satellite. However, perturbations due to the Moon, Sun, and non-spherical mass distribution of the Earth will destroy orbits in times that are short compared to millions of years. Geosynch satellites need to use thrusters to stay on station (typically nitrogen gas jets). I remember reading a study once on lunar orbiters, which concluded that about two months was the longest time you could keep something in orbit around the moon before perturbations made the orbit intersect the surface. I'm not sure whether the major perturbation is due to the Earth, or to masscons on the moon, but I think the latter. UPDATE ON LUNACRETE: The June-July 1986 issue of _NASA Activities_ had a report on the results of an experiment to make concrete from lunar soil (discussed in this digest about eight months ago.) They gave 1/3 cup of actual lunar soil sampled from Apollo to T.D. Lin to make concrete with. The result was a concrete with 10,800 PSI strength, which is 5% better than terrestrial high-strength concrete, and twice the specification for structural concrete. The increased strength may be due to the absence of organics, which are considered an undesirable contaminant in concrete. --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #17 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06455; Sun, 19 Oct 86 03:02:07 PDT id AA06455; Sun, 19 Oct 86 03:02:07 PDT Date: Sun, 19 Oct 86 03:02:07 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610191002.AA06455@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #18 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 19 Oct 86 03:02:07 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #18 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: Re: Solid versus Liquid Re: Solid versus Liquid Re: Solid versus Liquid Re: Solid versus Liquid Re: Solid versus Liquid Re: Solid versus Liquid Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Oct 86 22:13:28 GMT From: nsc!amdahl!apple!ems@hplabs.hp.com (Mike Smith) Subject: Re: Solid versus Liquid Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I brought up this point some many months ago, and it didn't prompt much debate. Being an incurable optomist, I'm going to try again ... In all the discussions of srb design we get a 'solids vs liquids' debate going. All or nothing. Black or white. With us or 'agin us. There is another way, a middle ground ... Solid fuel with liquid oxidizer. (one would assume solid oxidizer with liquid fuel would work also ...) These are usually made by having a rubber like fuel pellet, ala srb solids, but having an oxidizer injector near the top. One can throttle the engines, like liquids, while having a basic engine much like a solid. But there are problems ... evenly burning the fuel pellet can be tough as the oxidizer is not evenly spread down the center of the pellet, you have all the pain of handling liquid oxidizer and yet still need to have the entire engine casing withstand thrust presures. etc. Even if the ability to throtle/shutdown/restart is limited it beats the pants off of no ability at all. Seems to me that we should be able to design a hybrid rocket that was not too much different in size from the existing srb's, could be handled by much of the same equipment, and yet provided an abort during boost capability. (Then again, I have *NO* expertise in rocketry other than building a few models that (mostly) worked ... Maybe the hybrid is a real turkey when it comes to performance.) Anyone on the net know about hybrids and why they seem to be dead? E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 86 07:29:07 GMT From: husc6!husc2!chiaraviglio@rsch.wisc.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: Solid versus Liquid Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I've heard of the concept of hybrid rockets before, but never heard of it being tried. It seems that it wouldn't work very well because the reactants would be brought together from opposite sides, and thus the liquid fuel or oxidizer would tend to be mostly blown out in the exhaust. This would become even more so as the solid reactant retreated as it burned away. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu seismo!tardis!lucius ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 86 01:17:49 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Solid versus Liquid Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Anyone on the net know about hybrids and why they seem to be dead? The best comment I've heard on hybrids was from Gary Hudson (admittedly not an unbiased source): "Hybrids combine all the advantages of solid and liquid rockets, and all their disadvantages too." Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 86 01:48:19 GMT From: pyramid!gould9!telesoft!roger@lll-lcc.arpa (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: Solid versus Liquid Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ... > Anyone on the net know about hybrids and why they seem to be dead? > What I can recall about hybrids, off the top of my head, is this: 1) They were being developed and promoted by a private company, whose name, I believe, was "Star Struck". I could be wrong about the name; I may be confusing them with another group; 2) The company that was developing them was a serious outfit. My impression is that it had a number of young, idealistic employees, but they were bright and competent. The largest investor was one of the principals in Apple Computers, though I don't recall who. Anyway, they conducted a number of successful static test firings and pretty well proved that the concept was feasible. They even got to the point of making a test launch of the first stage of the orbital rocket that they were trying to develop. The test launch was largely successful; it was marred slightly, as I recall, by a malfunction in the guidance system midway through the test, but the hybrid rocket itself performed well. 3) Unfortuanately, it took them about twice as long and cost three times as much to get to the point of that successful test launch as they had originally planned. On that basis, their financial backer(s?) concluded that they would not have the resources to carry the development through to the point of a marketable launch vehicle. So they threw a big party, updated their resumes, and went off to seek greener pastures with the established aerospace companies. Or at least that's how I heard it. If anyone out there has better info, I'd be interested in hearing about it. As to the technical merits of hybrids, I think it's pretty safe to say that their strong point is safety. They really can't blow up, even if they rupture a casing, and they can be shut down or throttled. They should even be restartable. Hybrids should also be cheaper than solids, and perform slightly better. The rubber-like fuel cores they employ are cheaper to make than solid rocket fuel cores, and don't require expensive safety precautions for handling. Liquid oxygen is very cheap, and provides substantially more energy per pound than the oxidizers encorporated into solid rocket fuels. Unfortunately, hybrids still requires the same heavy, high pressure casings that solid rockets require, and their performance alone is not sufficiently better than solids to send anyone like NASA scrambling off to develop them. It's also possible that there are technical problems with uneven fuel burning that I didn't hear about, but that would make them unusable for something as large as a Shuttle SRB. Again, if anyone out there in net land has more info, by all means, don't keep it to yourself. - Roger Arnold ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 86 14:48:09 GMT From: hplabsc!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Re: Solid versus Liquid Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa There is a company in Menlo Park, CA called American Rocket Co. which is headed by George Koopman which is developing a hybrid solid fuel/ liquid oxydizer rocket. They have already tested a basic engine module at Edwards Air Force Base, and plan on strapping together 19 of them for a rocket capable of lifting 3,000-4,000 lb. into a 135 mile orbit. Their projected launch date is Jan. 1988. The Airforce and GE's Space Division have expressed interest, and GE has signed a $5 million letter of agreement with Koopman to launch their Space Recovery Vehicle on Koopman's rocket. Koopman is currently trying to raise $35 million. He claims he can launch something for $5-$8 million per launch. Jim Kempf hplabs!kempf ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 86 20:44:45 GMT From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: Solid versus Liquid Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <755@hplabsc.UUCP>, kempf@hplabsc.UUCP (Jim Kempf) writes: > There is a company in Menlo Park, CA called American Rocket Co. which > is headed by George Koopman which is developing a hybrid solid fuel/ > liquid oxydizer rocket.... The San Jose Mercury News printed an article on this on Monday, Oct. 13, which is where I presume Jim got his information. Jim did a good job of distilling the article into one paragraph, but the whole article is worth reading. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 86 08:19:44 GMT From: ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Sorry about the length, but it is hard to condense some of this without the risk of altering the meaning. My editting is in []'s. In article <1288@magic.DEC.COM>, Jorge Stolfi writes a fairly length article : > [...] > > I do believe that one day we will have space colonies and moon bases, > and that we will be mining the asteroids and manufacturing goods in > space for use in space. However, I believe that even with wildly > optimistic assumptions about funding and politics, this will take > much, much more time than all the man-in-space enthusiasts believe (or > want us to believe). > > Let us first consider the development of a COMMERCIAL space industry, > that is, mining and manufacturing in space of goods for consumption on > Earth. [Ignoring information services] > > I claim that a program to establish mining or manufacturing operations > in space WILL NOT MAKE ANY SENSE for at least thirty years. In fact, > I believe that shipping material goods from space to Earth is probably > NEVER going to make any economic sense. NEVER?? I find it hard to believe that someone would say that, given the current rate of technological change. I agree that in thirty years the chances of any space-to-Earth commerce are pretty small, but in one hundred? Two hundred? A thousand? Never is a long, long time. A second point, which has been echoed in this group more than once: it will be economical to manufacture items for use *in space* long before it is economical to ship them back to Earth. There is one product which will be economical before any others : electricity. You forgot to mention powersats, which could, with an admittedly large investment, (10% of the DOD budget) turn into a multi-billion dollar a year industry by 2016. You also seem to have picked on the least promising part of the whole space-based industry idea : manufacturing in space for consumption on Earth. Sure, this will not be profitable for a long time, but meanwhile, you are ignoring information services, some of which are already making money, and manufacturing in space for use in space, which has the greatest potential of all. > For the next thirty years or more, I believe the following will be > true: > > 1. Factories in space and on the Moon cannot be expected to > manufacture sophisticated products. > > 2. Right now there is no mineral resource on the Moon that would be > worth mining. Agreed, though eventually a point will be reached where the amount of raw materials needed in orbit will make the cost of lauching it from Earth prohibitive, and a handy alternative source is the Moon. > 3. From what we know of the history and geology of the Moon, we can > expect rich ore bodies to be much less common there than on Earth. Sure, but so what? The energy to smelt the stuff is free, and the supply of raw materials is basically limitless. Who cares if your efficiency is only 10%? > 4. The Moon is very poor in many important elements, notably > hydrogen. That means we cannot count on using the Moon as a fueling > station; quite on the contrary, rocket fuel for traveling on and out > of the Moon will have to be brought from the Earth. Also, if the > manufacturing or smelting processes use water or hydrogen in any > form (or chlorine, or nitrogen, or...), extra equipment and energy > will be necessary to recover those precious elements from the waste > products. Agreed, the lack of volatile elements will be a problem. All the more reason for asteroid mining. Carbonaceous chondrites are *known* to consist of organics, and getting 10E5-10E7 tons of the stuff at once sure beats the hell out of shipping it from Earth. You are also assuming that the primary fuel for the next thirty years will be H & O, probably correctly. There have, however, been studies which use lunar soil to produce an aluminum-based solid rocket fuel. If you don't like this, there is always mass drivers. > 5. Even ignoring transportation costs, manufacturing anything in > space is bound to be substantially more expensive than manufacturing > the same product (or a functionally equivalent one) on Earth. > Labor, materials and equipment for space manufacturing are more > sophisticated than their Earth equivalents. Again, this is true as far as it goes. There are some highly complex pieces of equipment which are cheaper to construct here on Earth and then send into orbit, only because the demand for items of this type will be relatively low and the manufacturing infrastructure needed to produce it expensive. These are not the kinds of products that will be produced in space, though. > 6. [Generally negative comments on the usefulness of microgravity and high vacuum - "... it is still highly unlikely that those few resources that are unique to space will ever find significant industrial applications." - w.r.t. metallurgy, bio-industry] > 7. [Semi-conductor crystal growing is out of consideration due to the state of the art here on Earth.] Sure, for the next thirty years, this is true. However, you have to remember that the amount of research in this area is still incredibly small. We will never find out if any useful alloys or biological products can be produced until we actually try it. We don't know enough about zero-g manufacturing at this point to say that nothing useful will ever be discovered because we really haven't looked yet. > 8. In fact, the lack of gravity and a limited air supply are a > serious problem for many industrial processes. [Uselessness of > standard techniques of chemistry etc.] Again, we are just starting to explore the territory of zero-g manufacturing. It is obvious that new techniques will have to be developed. Some processes cannot be converted to zero-g. We have yet to be sure, but there must be a few that are simpler in zero-g. We need someone from SSI here to say a few words about low- and zero-g smelting. > 9. To the basic cost of doing something in space, we must add the > costs of designing, building, and launching the factory. The > smallest space factory or lunar mine is going to cost billions of > dollars more than a comparable facility on Earth. If such a factory > is going to make 100,000 somethings a year for ten years, it would > have to charge its customers THOUSANDS of dollars more per unit just > to pay the extra fixed costs. It all depends on what you make. Sure, you can send up a factory to stamp out zero-g Chevy front quarter panels, but that does not make economic sense. Noone is going to spend billions to manufacture a product in space which can be made cheaper here on Earth. For the foreseeable future, the only things which it makes *any* sense to manufacture in space are things which are going to *stay* there : simple but bulky construction materials, for example. We don't know enough about any exotic products to be able to say whether or not they can be produced economically. > 10. Orbiting factories will have to get all their raw materials > from Earth. Lunar factories may be able to get some materials from > the Moon itself, but will need a steady stream of `space trucks' to > lift the product out to space. In both cases, transportation alone > is going to cost several hundred dollars per pound of product. Agreed, but this high price also means that no high-quantity production will be going on. For the period of time we are discussing, the primary activity will be research, so the transportation costs of raw materials and finished products are not important. > 11. [Long lead time to construct a space factory - "during that period, demand for its product may easily evaporate".] See point #9. > 10. Most of these problems apply also to the mining of asteroids. > Except that some (like transportation costs) will be a lot worse. > Besides, we still don't know for sure what the asteroids are made > of. Before we embark in a multibillion, multi-decade asteroid > mining program, perhaps we should send a couple of cheap unmanned > probes to check whether there is something there worth digging, no? Actually, we have a fairly good idea of what they are made out of. Analysis of meteorites (iron, stony, and carbonaceous) indicate that there is just about all the raw materials we need : nickel, iron, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, silicon, add titanium and aluminum from lunar soil, and you can almost be self-sufficient. NASA has had an asteriod-rendevous project on the back burner for years. > All these problems may be solved in time, but hardly within the next > thirty years, no matter what we do or how much money we spend. I would *love* to be able to prove this wrong. What could NASA do with one hundred billion dollars a year for the next 30 years? (What could Gerard O'Neill & Harry Stein do with it?) > NASA and the space societies are trying to sell the space station and > the lunar base for its industrial prospects; this may work for a > while, but will be disastrous in the long run. Sooner or later the > paying public will realize that those projects will only bring > multibillion-dollar losses to the economy, year after year for the > foreseeable future. If you think that the post-Apollo debacle was > bad, wait until this one. Oops, I just saw a fallacy : "multibillion-dollar losses to the ecomony"??? What do you think they do with all the money that they use to build the shuttle? Take it up into orbit with them and dump it? NO!! It gets used to pay the people who run the program and build the hardware, who use it to buy groceries, and cars, and VCR's and personal computers so they can argue with each other at long distance! I don't have the reference, but I remember reading that every dollar spent on the space program (Apollo?) was recirculated in the economy seven times, one of the highest of any US government program. I won't even discuss the budgets of the Departments of Defense or the crowd who runs the social programs ("Uh, yea, the DOD spends NASA's entire budget every 14 days"). Face it : NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket. > [...] > Pournelle's statement against the Mars project can be easily turned > around and fired against hs own pet dreams: If we go ahead and devote > all the space budget to the establishment of space stations and lunar > bases, then after thirty years we will have no profitable space > industry, no planetary exploration, no space science --- only a bunch > of obsolete "infrastructure", that costs billions a year to maintain, > and serves no discernible purpose. Sorry, folks: the commercial > development of space may be inevitable, but we are not ready for it > yet. No, not yet, but only because we have just started. Once that infrastructure is set up, it will be considerably easier to do anything in space, including sending complex planetary probes, doing space science, whatever. I know you are ignoring the information industries in this discussion, but consider the comsats which could be orbited : 100m dishes, 1E6 separate channels, . . . The Dick Tracy wrist radio becomes a reality, and with it another quantum leap in the information industry. The applications for search & rescue and location-finding alone almost makes the infrastructure worth it. Powersats could, with a few years investment, be a paying proposition, but only by making maximal use of extraterrestrial materials - there's that infrastructure again. I really don't want to mention this, but just about any space-based components of SDI would benefit from the existance of a permanent presence in space. In conclusion, you are basically correct : space based manufacturing will not be economical for at least the next thirty years. But the thirty after that, watch out! Andrew Folkins ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #18 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09935; Mon, 20 Oct 86 03:02:55 PDT id AA09935; Mon, 20 Oct 86 03:02:55 PDT Date: Mon, 20 Oct 86 03:02:55 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610201002.AA09935@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #19 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 20 Oct 86 03:02:55 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #19 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 19 Today's Topics: Re: Seed the Stars ? HOTOL (last comment) Does anyone know the story about L-5 and the Moon Treaty? Space colonies, and a recommendation for the British Rebuttal to Gary Allen on Space Colonies Space Colonies -- Pro Mars colonies, Con Free Floaters ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Oct 86 19:31:00 GMT From: decvax!cca!mirror!datacube!adrienne@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Seed the Stars ? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa This sounds like an interesting idea, but several drawbacks come to mind. Supposing the "spores" arrived safely at planet already inhabited with life forms.Could the spores prove deadly to the inhabitants? Not by attacking but by being biologically dangerous? Also, could the spores be adversly affected by space travel and perhaps mutate?I am not a scientist but I do find this theory fascinating. Perhaps one day we will need a celestial Noah's ark! _Adrienne@Datacube ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 18:38 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: HOTOL (last comment) Gary's right, this does border on a theological debate, so I'll lay off until early next year. They're supposed to unwrap the details of the RB545 engine in January or February. Gary misquoted one part of my statement: I don't think the HOTOL liquifies air using turbomachinery. I don't think the air becomes liquid at all. Rather, some combination of coolers and compressors is used to make high density, high pressure air at a temperature above the freezing point of water. The air is fed directly into the rockets. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 14:20:35 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Does anyone know the story about L-5 and the Moon Treaty? I once heard this story about the Moon Treaty and L-5 which I believe is gossip. However I'd like to hear the truth about it if someone knows it. The story I heard was President Carter in one of the stupidest moves of his administration negotiated the Moon Treaty which would have strangled space industrialization in the cradle. The Moon Treaty basicly gave away most of the rights to space industrialization to the undeveloped world and was couched in such language that only a socialistic state could have legally functioned in space (this is the vague recollection that I have over this). The L-5 leadership wanted to intervene in stoping this stupid treaty from being ratified by the Senate but its membership wouldn't go along. The L-5 leadership then independently siphoned off much of L-5's cash and bought a high powered lobbyist. This single lobbyist was able to block the treaty because the Senate didn't take the Moon Treaty seriously, (the treaty had no special interest group supporting it). Thus the future of space industrialization was saved for the time being. I don't want to debate the merits of the Moon Treaty because this is old scandal. However I would be interested to hear if this bit of gossip was true. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 10:51:36 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Space colonies, and a recommendation for the British Interplanetary Society Dale Skran engaged in a long counter-flame to my original flame against L-5. I could provide a point-by-point response, but to do so would only bore the readership of Space Digest and serve no useful purpose. However I should say that my experiences concerning space activist groups are based on my two year tenure as chairman of the Stanford AIAA. The main insight that I gained from this two year exercise was that there is currently only one space activist group that is worth supporting and being a member of and this is the British Interplanetary Society. They are without question the best of the various space activist groups. Also in my remarks, I unintentionaly implied that Carl Sagan was an advocate of space industrialization. The assertion is more a reflection of bad english than a real belief. It is my understanding that Sagan is against space industrialization and sees space as only a scientist's play ground without commercial value. Dale referenced the NASA book "Space Settlements - A Design Study", NASA SP-413. An even better book is "Space Resources and Space Settlements", NASA SP-428. I will on occasion browse through my copies and engage in wistful sighing. Libration point colonies are sort of like Bussard ram scoops in that they appear to be a great idea at first glance but fail to hold up under detailed examination. In my reply to why libration point colonies won't work, I am responding to Paul Dietz's reply as well as Dale's counter flame. The main problem with totally contructed colonies in space is radiation shielding. Cosmic rays have hellish energies. A stone shield of a few inches thick will actually **increase** radiation exposure due to secondary particles generated in the shield. The shielding required for a libration point colony is on the order of 30 megatons of lunar stone. When I read that number I knew it was all over for this approach towards space colonization. This is only the first order difficulty. The second order difficulty is that human beings require gravity for their bodies to stay healthy. No problem, you just spin the colony. However if your colony weighs 30 megatons then there will be no way of supporting the structure under the centripital force. Again, no problem, you just put the spinning section inside a stationary section. However then the spinning section has to be mounted on bearings that will pass all colony life support. The bearings would have to be able to withstand megatons of force and be 100% reliable for a design life of a century. As an engineer, I find this approach utterly absurd. It's like permanently supporting the Brooklyn Bridge with helicopters. In contrast, here is how you make a life support cavity on the moon. First you assemble a large drilling rig that will bore a two meter diameter hole to about five hundred feet below the lunar (or martian) surface. At the bottom of this hole you place a "clean" thermonuclear explosive. You blow a big cavity in the lunar or martian crust. There would be a certain amount of cave in that would cover the stone that was activated by the explosion. You then line the interior of this cavity with bricks and seal the whole thing with a ceramic liner. Then you just pump in the air and you've got a radiation proof, meteroite proof habitat. This approach would use old, tried and true technology already developed for testing nuclear weapons. It could be used not only on the moon and Mars but also for hollowing out asteroids. I should also mention that Mars is more appropriate for colonization than the moon. The moon is almost devoid of nitrogen. This element is essential for ammonium fertilizers that would support plant life in the colony. Mars has **all** of the elements necessary for life and is rich in metals. The moon is mainly a big ball of basalt and not much more. However a small nongrowing colony on the moon would be useful for supporting industrial activity at geosynchronis orbit or scientific work on the moon itself. The L-5 premise of supporting space colonies through Powersats is a loser. The Powersat idea has repeatedly been shot down in various energy studies. Long before Powersats would be cost effective we could go to deep methane gas, thorium breeder reactors, nuclear fusion, and the list goes on. Besides Powersats are very hostile to the environment. The microwaves would do injury to the ozone layer and side lobes from the main beam would play havoc with communications and health. Bottom line is that the L-5 space colony is a ***dumb*** idea. However the idea of a colony in the martian or lunar crust holds alot of promise, provided the economics can be sorted out. And there is the rub. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 86 17:22 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa Subject: Rebuttal to Gary Allen on Space Colonies Reply to Gary Allen's criticism of space colonies: Gary claims a space colony will require 30 million tons of shielding. Where he gets this number from, I don't understand. Perhaps he is discussing a very large space colony? Since Gary wants to build a colony on the moon, I guess he is assuming that lunar gravity is sufficient for human health. Let's say the colony spins at 2 revolutions per minute. To produce lunar gravity, the colony has a radius of about forty meters. Assume the colony is a cylinder forty meters long. It has a surface area of about 2E8 cm**2. Earth's atmosphere provides 1 kg/cm**2 of shielding, so I'll assume that's sufficient to stop most cosmic rays. The shielding mass comes to 200,000 tons -- 150 times less than Gary's 30 megatons. Gary's example colony must be on the order of 1000 meters across! His shield would enclose a volume of about .4 cubic kilometers. I ask Gary to compare the difficulty of building a 30 megaton shell in space (probably with asteroidal materials) to that of excavating cavities with a total volume of .4 cubic kilometers in the lunar crust (those lunar cavities will contain over a billion tons of rock). Gary poo-poos the idea of mounting a spinning space colony inside a stationary shield. He states that the colony would have to rest on a bearing that would have to withstand megatons of force. Why? Centripetal force is supplied by structural members in the rotating section, not by the bearings. The bearings need only compensate for residual forces, such as tides or jolts from departing spacecraft. I assume we don't torque the colony to track the sun but allow it to remain pointed in a fixed direction, but even that force would not be large if the colony precesses once per year. Gary suggests using "clean" nuclear weapons to dig holes in the lunar crust to build colonies. Wouldn't such a hole be structurally unsound? After all, the blast wouldn't destroy the rock's atoms, it would just force them violently outward. Rock would be fractured and deformed for a considerable distance. The result on Earth is that the resulting cavity (which isn't very large) collapses quickly. I'll add that lunar regolith isn't terribly strong, and that on Mars one is likely to encounter permafrost, which could make living deep underground difficult. Gary states that the powersat idea has been repeatedly shot down by various studies. As I understand it, those studies assumed construction from terrestrial materials, and are near-term anyway. Gary states that powersats are "very hostile to the environment". I challenge Gary to substantiate this assertion. Sidelobes from microwave transmission would die off exponentially as the square of the distance from the rectenna center, and would pose no health danger. Indeed, the power level at the edge of the rectenna would be below US health limits, and the rectenna would be surrounded by unoccupied land. Little of the energy will be absorbed in the atmosphere (if it were, it would not be useful for power transmission). Certainly much less energy will be absorbed than sunlight already deposits. Communications satellites at the same frequency as the powersat beam (or at some harmonics) would be rendered useless, but powersats require very little bandwidth, and if we have gigawatts of power in GSO we can afford to make more powerful comsats anyway. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 86 11:40:54 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Space Colonies -- Pro Mars colonies, Con Free Floaters In an earlier posting, I attacked the idea of a free floating space colony and suggested an alternative space colony through construction of cavities in the Lunar or Martian crust. Paul Dietz provided the best counter attack and I shall respond to his arguments. He raised the first point: ===================================================================== Gary claims a space colony will require 30 million tons of shielding. Where he gets this number from, I don't understand. Perhaps he is discussing a very large space colony? ===================================================================== I got this number from "Space Settlements - A Design Study", NASA SP-413, page 44, Table 4-1. The shielding mass ranged from 9.9 megatons to 46.7 megatons, with populations ranging from 10,000 to 820,000 people. The designs considered are among those that L-5 and other groups have advocated. Paul's analysis on shielding based on the Earth's atmosphere is faulty. I recommend that he review the literature on space colonies where the calculations on habitat shielding are done in detail. Paul's second point considers the colony's bearings between it's rotating pressure vessel and its stationary 30 megaton radiation shield: ===================================================================== Gary poo-poos the idea of mounting a spinning space colony inside a stationary shield. He states that the colony would have to rest on a bearing that would have to withstand megatons of force. Why? ===================================================================== There's no such thing as a frictionless bearing. Even a magnetic levitation system has "friction" due to eddy currects. Also there is the question of starting the system into rotation with the colony being initially out-of-round. In addition with such an enormous structure you would find that the structure would be quite elastic. The action of starting or of the colony being hit by a large meteorite would cause the structure to oscillate. This oscillation would likely couple into the rotation causing large lateral loads on the bearing. The bearing would have to be designed to take this into account, and I strongly suspect that such a bearing is impossible due to strength of materials considerations. Paul then took the offensive and attacked my idea of constructing a Lunar colony: ===================================================================== Gary suggests using "clean" nuclear weapons to dig holes in the lunar crust to build colonies. Wouldn't such a hole be structurally unsound? After all, the blast wouldn't destroy the rock's atoms, it would just force them violently outward. Rock would be fractured and deformed for a considerable distance. The result on Earth is that the resulting cavity (which isn't very large) collapses quickly. I'll add that lunar regolith isn't terribly strong, and that on Mars one is likely to encounter permafrost, which could make living deep underground difficult. ===================================================================== The cavities made in the Nevada desert from nuclear tests are enormous. The cavity I suggested would be even bigger because it would be made in the soft lunar stone and the 6 meter diameter bore hole would be left unblock when the nuclear explosive (not weapon) was detonated. I wouldn't care to be anywhere near the mouth of that bore hole when a jet of megatons of vaporized lunar stone came blasting by. However it would leave a nice cavity afterwards. An additional thought just popped into my head that this would be a very good way of propelling an asteroid into a new orbit. Structural instability would be a problem afterwards, which is why I suggested bricking the interior and using a ceramic liner. Paul then went on to try and defend the idea of Powersats. This is a concept that has been beat to death. There are probably hundreds of reports in various Energy and Aerospace publications showing the infeasibility of this idea. It's absolutely dead-as-a-doornail. I will not weary the readers by repeating these arguments. Just go to your local library and pull aerospace journals made around 1980 and you'll find articles about this thing. Before finishing up, I should reemphasize that I am **for** Martian colonization. Mars is the place in terms of gravity, atmosphere, and availablitiy of all of the elements for life and industrial activity. It would be difficult to find a world **better** suited for space industrialization than Mars. It has an atmosphere thick enough for aerobraking and winged vehicles but thin enough to not be a major bother for launch into orbit. Its 1/2 G gravity is stong enough for the health of the colony, but weak enough for cheap launches into space. Phobos and Demios are ideal for forming the nucleus of orbital stations. While I see the moon as a dead end for space colonization and free floating colonies as a pipe dream, I find Mars very exciting indeed. However the big question as alway is: How are we going to economicly justify this Martian colony? Gary Allen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #19 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13815; Tue, 21 Oct 86 03:02:21 PDT id AA13815; Tue, 21 Oct 86 03:02:21 PDT Date: Tue, 21 Oct 86 03:02:21 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610211002.AA13815@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #20 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 21 Oct 86 03:02:21 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #20 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 20 Today's Topics: L5 vs the 'stay at homes" Specific Impulse Specific Impulse Re: Specific Impulse Re: Specific Impulse Re: What are L-points? Re: Lagrange points ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 14:34:48 cdt From: Hubert Daugherty To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: L5 vs the 'stay at homes" After reading the past few weeks of comments on the L5 Society I find my pride in membership growing again. When I first joined L5 the focus was on Space Colonies, Solar Power Satellites, asteroidal exploitation, and Human factors in space. There were "experts" who felt we would be lucky to see any progress within our lifetime on any of these goals. There were "dreamers" who wanted a manned Venus mission by 1985. And there were "folks" who wanted to make sure we kept doing SOMETHING in space. There was no shuttle at the time. The shuttle was being touted as the "DC3 of the Space Age" and the hope, at the time, was only that it work. The continued success of the Space Transportation System changed everyones view of the possibilities. The L5 Society, as an activist organization, became recognized as a responsible forum for critics and proponents of the new options available. And L5 broadened its base to include discussion of space development while retaining its "man in space" focus. Solar Power Satellites were evolving into an idea which, while technically feasible, would never fly in the political arena. Asteroids were interesting but required an established 'on orbit' infrastructure. Human factors are still being studied. All in all, L5's focus softened from a 'Space Colonies NOW' organization to a 'Lets keep America pushing forward with manned programs' organization. The comments in this forum continue to attack the differences between L5 and other space organizations. So be it. If their goals were the same then there wouldn't be different organizations, period, end of sentence! I would rather see arguments, pro and con, on why men should presume to join the gods on their own turf. After all, we don't, as a species, HAVE to go anywhere to retain our spot in the evolutionary chain. But, for myself, I WANT TO GO and I dream that my wants will be realized. If I wanted to know the gas chemistry of Jupiter my views would be different. If I wanted to blast the Soviets with my ray gun my views would be different. The frontier is waiting for me. Hubert Daugherty Former Director, L5 Society Note: The name of the organization was originally The High Frontier Society. The originator of the phrase decided, at the last minute, to deny its use. The name "L5 Society" is actually penned in over the marked out "High Frontier Society" in the official charter with the State of Arizona. Ad Astera, Per Perspera ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 10:22:46 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: Specific Impulse (David Smith) >Specific impulse has dimensions of >impulse/mass = force*time/mass = velocity. It is often given in >seconds because of improper cancellation of force and mass. Specific impulse (Isp) is DEFINED as Isp = I /(g*m) where I is total impulse (thrust times time), g is the standard gravity and m is the mass of fuel expended. The units are quite properly seconds The quantity g*Isp, with units of velocity, is correctly known as "exhaust velocity" (and correctly called such in the following table.) >> Exhaust velocity for exhaust of a given molecular weight is dependant >> on temperature, Right, E = 3/2 kT and E=1/2 mv**2, so v = SQRT (3kT/m) >> velocity for exhaust of a given temperature is inversely dependant on >> molecular weight (for exhaust ejected by thermal expansion) Square root of m >>specific impulse is to a significant degree inversely dependant on the >>molecular weight of your exhaust momentum p = mv, so momentum transfer (ie., thrust) per unit mass is exhaust velocity (and g times that Specific impulse). For a fixed temperature reaction, specific impulse is proportional to the inverse square root of the molecular weight. > Ion drives are also dependent on the exhaust particle weight because >velocity depends on net charge/particle mass. Yes, but with an ion drive, one is typically more concerned about getting the most performance out of the ENERGY source, which is usually the limiting factor instead of the reaction mass. A fixed voltage ion drive will give a fixed energy per unit charge, E. E=1/2 mv**2, so momentum transfer (mv) is SQRT (2mE). To optimize this per unit reaction mass, we want the smallest molecular weight possible. To optimize this per unit ENERGY, we want the HIGHEST molecular weight possible. That's why mercury or cesium is typically used. > heavier atoms ... require less energy to knock one [electron] off. Mostly irrelevant. The energy to ionize the atom is typically one or two electron volts, very small compared to the acceleration energies. However, easily-ionized ions make the source easier to make. --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 86 17:07:55 PDT From: Todd Johnson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Specific Impulse Some people have just recently misstated the quantization of specific impulse. This is a frequent occurence on this net so I would like to help people a little bit by quoting from "Rocket Propulsion And Spaceflight Dynamics" by J. W. Cornelisse et al., pub: Pitman Publishers Ltd., 1979. I refer interested people to pages 114-116, although I shall place for your edification equations 6.2-4 from page 115. Equation 6.2-4 states: I = m V / m g = V / g sp e o e o Where: I is the specific impulse, in SECONDS (Get this everybody) sp V is the exhaust velocity of the burning propellant e g is standard surface gravity. o m is the mass of propellant burnt. Specific Impulse is not a measure of velocity. It is best described as showing how much impulse can be obtained from a unit WEIGHT of propellant. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 86 21:30:19 GMT From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: Specific Impulse Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Some people have just recently misstated the quantization of specific > impulse. ... There's no quarreling with a definition. That's just what it is, period. And in the first part of my posting I gave this definition in words (the amount of time a pound of propellant will produce a pound of thrust). But why is it defined with that silly g-naught in the denominator? (all together now!) TO JUSTIFY MEASURING IT IN SECONDS! (Ignoring air drag and all that jazz,) burnout velocity is exhaust velocity times the log of the mass ratio. This is independent of what g-naught happens to be. Out in space, a rocket doesn't care what Earth's surface gravity is. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 86 21:55:06 GMT From: cartan!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: Specific Impulse Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <748@hplabsc.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >> >> I = m V / m g = V / g >> sp e o e o > >But why is it defined with that silly g-naught in the denominator? >(all together now!) > > TO JUSTIFY MEASURING IT IN SECONDS! David Smith is clearly right. The *only* possible justification for introducing a factor of g0 -- a completely arbitrary constant from the point of view of, say, a lunar lander! -- is to make things simpler for those who use the English system and don't know enough to distinguish between pounds and pounds-mass (or slugs). That it has always been done that way is no excuse. The misunder- standings of the past are no justification for continuing a source of confusion in the future. -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 86 16:28:07 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!faron!wdh@ll-xn.arpa (Dale Hall) Subject: Re: What are L-points? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <187@csustan.UUCP> smdev@csustan.UUCP (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: >In article <2016@sequent.UUCP> brian@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey) writes: >>... >>these L points. As I recall they were named for someone whose name >>began with L and they are the points at which the earth's and moon's >>gravity cancel each other. >> (...) > >Everyone who reads net.space is probably going to answer this, so I'll keep ^^^^^^^^ >my comments short. L = Lagrange, an astronomer. ^^^^^^^^^^ Including me, but only to plead for a proper remembrance of J.L. "Joltin' Joe" Lagrange (1736-1813), correctly identified as a mathematician (OK, so I'm biased). Of course, it could be that he was astromically inclined (I'm sure there's a real knee-slapper in there somewhere), but it would be due to the fact that every educated person knew where the sky was located in those days. I think Dylan put it best: "you don't need an astronomer to know where the sky goes". No real content here, I just wanted to have the mathematicians remembered properly. There's more than enough glory to go around, guys, and we mathematicians deserve our share. In fact, we deserve all of it. But we aren't piggish, we'll settle for the things that we wrote our names on. Like Lagrange points, Lagrange multipliers, e (for Euler), pi (for Pete, a guy I know who invented it), and Gaussian elimination (imagine that! in the days before gentle, yet effective laxatives). ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 86 22:40:22 GMT From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Re: Lagrange points Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Although I can't cite you an explicit reference, I know I've read that > because of the interaction between the 4 bodies (Sun, Earth, Moon and > you) an object at L4 or L5 would actually transcribe a small orbit > around the "points" depicted in the 3 body case (Earth/Moon/You only). > Thus for something like a space colony, even though it may be quite > near these points, it is still traversing an orbit and a small number > of station-keeping adjustments would be needed from time-to-time. > Particularly, if it is to remain there for long periods of time. > > If memory serves correctly, I believe I first saw this explanation in > a NASA publication. It was a book form of a summary report by a summer > study group at Stanford (circa 1976 perhaps?), that was among the > first in-depth studies done on the feasibility of putting up a Space > Colony. The names of the book and the study group escape me, the book > was borrowed from a friend, but I'm sure there are plenty of netfolk > out there that can fill in the blanks, as this was a major > undertaking. [Didn't many of the results of this study provide the > back- round for O'Neil's famous book? Or do I have the order of events > wrong?] From "Space Settlements - A Design Study", NASA SP-413: There are other shapings of space by gravity more subtle than the deep wells surrounding each planetary object. For example, in the Earth-Moon system there are shallow valleys around what are known as the Lagrangian libration points (refs 1&2). There are five of these points .. andthey arise from a balancing of the gravitational attractions of the Earth and Moon with the centrifugal force that an observer in the rotating coordinate system of the Earth and Moon would feel. The principal feature of these locations in space is that a material body placed there will maintain a fixed relation with respect to the Earth and Moon as the entire system revolves about the Sun. The points called L1, L2 and L3 are saddle-shaped valleys such that if a body is displaced perpendicularly to the Earth-Moon axis it slides back toward the axis, but if it is displaced along the axis it moves away from the libration point indefinitely. For this reason these are known as points of unstable equilibrium. L4 and L5 on the other hand represent bowl-shaped valleys, and a body displaced in any direction returns toward the point. Hence, these are known as points of stable equilibrium. They are located on the Moon's orbit at equal distances from both the Earth and Moon. There do exist, however, large orbits around L4 and L5. These have been shown to be stable (refs 3&4). A colony in either of these orbits would be reasonably accessible from both the Earth and Moon. Refs. 1. La Grange, J.L.: Oeuvres, vol. 6, pp. 262-292, Serror and Darbaux, Paris, 1873, "Essai Sur Le Proleme bese Trois Corps" (L'Academie Royale de Sciences de Paris, vol. 9, 1772). 2. Szebehely, V.G.: Theory of Orbits, the Restricted Problems of Three Bodies, Academic Press, New York, 1967, and Analytical and Numerical Methods of Celestial Mechanics, American Elsevier Publ. Co., N.Y., 1967, pp 227,229. 3. Kamel, A.A.: Perturbation Theory based on Life Transforms and Its Application to the Stability of Motion near Sun-perturbed Earth-Moon Triangular Libration Points, SUDAAR-391, NASA Contractor Report CR-1622, Aug. 1970. 4. Breakwell, J.V., Kamel, A.A., and Ratner, M.J.: Station-keeping for a Translunar Communication Station, Celestial Mechanics 10, Nov. 1974, pp 357-373. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #20 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA17870; Wed, 22 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT id AA17870; Wed, 22 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT Date: Wed, 22 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610221002.AA17870@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #21 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 22 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #21 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 21 Today's Topics: Re: Lecture: Feynman on Challenger Commission Tombaugh Observatory Funds! Article posted to net.jobs Chariots for Apollo #4 - behind the eight-ball re: USSR shuttle design Re: Revive the Saturn V ? Re: Space Telescope Re: Space Telescope Re: Space Telescope Re: Space Telescope Re: shuttle launch viewing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Oct 86 12:24:21 GMT From: sundc!hadron!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (Rick Kolker) Subject: Re: Lecture: Feynman on Challenger Commission Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <12245499078.12.BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA> BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA (Matt Heffron) writes: > Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Laureate and the Richard Chace Tolman Professor of > Theoretical Physics >on > "My Experiences on the Challenger Commission" Can highlights of this be posted. More important, will transcrpts, audio or videotapes be available? If so I want. rich ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 86 22:13:15 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A Andrews) Subject: Tombaugh Observatory Funds! Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa You Can Help Honor Pluto's Discoverer! Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, astronomy professor Emeritus at New Mexico State University, discovered Pluto in 1930. You now have a chance to show your appreciation and donate funds for the Tombaugh Observatory to be operated in New Mexico by several institutions and universities. A more nearly complete discussion will follow when I have time to digest the Alumni Newsletter info and post it. (I knew Dr. Tombaugh in the halycon days at NMSU, lo so many years ago, and he is a nice and gentle person as well as a great mind, and it is a pleasure to advertise a memorial to him while he is still alive to appreciate it!) In the meantime, if you can't wait, make out checks to the "Tombaugh Observatory Fund" and send them to the same name at New Mexico State University, University Park, NM 88002. More to follow. --arlan andrews ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 86 00:28:05 GMT From: pixar!malin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Malin) Subject: Article posted to net.jobs Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa A camera is being designed and built at Caltech for the next Mars mission. An engineer to lead the development of the camera's flight software is needed. See the job description in net.jobs under "Want to go to Mars?" ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 86 22:39:42 GMT From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Chariots for Apollo #4 - behind the eight-ball Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa The astronauts were an essential `subsystem' on the lunar module, and they were very much in evidence at Bethpage, as well as Downey, where they helped in the design of the command module. Scott Carpenter, Charles Conrad and Donn F. Eisle drew the lunar module as their special assignment, and William F. Rector, the lunar module project officer, frequently called upon them for help. He also urged other astronauts to take part in the periodic mockup reviews and significant design decisions: "They should be part of it," Rector said. "They're going to fly it." This was not an unusual arrangement; astronauts, being both engineers and test pilots, have played an active role in the design and development of every manned American space vehicle.* * An interesting example of pilot preference influencing spacecraft design revolved around including an `eight-ball' (an artificial-horizon instrument used for attitude reference) in the lunar module. Grummand had proposed an eight-ball, assuming tha astronauts would want it. Arnold Whitaker recalled, "The first thing NASA did was to say that there's no operational requirement for it - take it out. So we took it out. Then the astronauts came along and said, `That's ridiculous. We must have it.` So we put it back in. By this time, we're late. Dr. Shea had a program review and said, `What's holding you up?` And we said, `This is one of those things...` And he said, `Take it out. I'll accept the responsibility for it.` The astronauts found out about it and said, `We won't fly a vehicle until you put it in.` And NASA put it in, this time with a kit [for easy removal later]." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 86 22:23:06 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: re: USSR shuttle design Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Recently I posted some comments concerning the USSR shuttle, which is expected to fly in 88 according to Aviation Leak. The key difference between the two designs is that the USSR shuttle has no engines on the orbiter vehicle itself (apart from the usual small thrusters). The orbiter is powered by strap-on boosters, four I think, and these are all liquid fuel powered. Presumably the orbiter will be powered all the way to orbit insertion by these boosters. Someone asked, why is this design superior to the U.S. shuttle? Well, it might not be if the U.S. shuttle main engines (those on the orbiter) were more economical to operate. True, they are reused, but also require a complete strip-down and overhaul after every flight. There's a Catch-22 here - because the engines are on the orbiter, they must be light and small yet still generate adequate power - i.e. they must be very highly stressed. It's dubious whether the resulting high cost of operation really saves anything in the long run. The Soviet boosters will be thrown away, but can be cruder in design because they will not be not part of the orbiter. Production of these more simple engines by the hundred will also reduce the cost per flight. The orbiter is of course much lighter without three SSME's bolted on to it, all else being equal. This means that you can return a larger payload from orbit. There have also been rumors that the orbiter may carry one or two turbojets to give the orbiter genuine flight capability on its descent. This would certainly make a landing much easier; the return from orbit need only position the vehicle within flying distance from its base. The descent of the U.S. orbiter is much more tightly constrained. I'd guess that the Soviets designed their shuttle this way because: 1. They don't want to undertake development of liquid fueled SSME's on the orbiter ifself, which they have seen NASA have a lot of trouble with. 2. Their avionics technology can't be trusted to land an orbiter safely by itself; a powered descent would allow much cruder avionics to do the job. In addition, the liquid boosters for the Soviet shuttle will be used in other configurations to loft other payloads to orbit. One U.S. company has similar plans for the U.S. shuttle solid boosters; the idea is to attach a single SSME to the bottom of a shuttle tank, attach two solid boosters to the tank as usual and place the payload in the nose cone of the tank. Sounds like a good idea. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 86 16:47:37 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Revive the Saturn V ? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Apart from the (considerable) difficulties involved in reviving the Saturn production line and the Saturn technical crews, there is a major obstacle in that a lot of Saturn support hardware -- pads, launchers, service towers, the VAB itself -- was extensively modified for the Shuttle. It would not be sufficient to modify it back, since the Shuttle needs launch facilities too. One would have to design dual-mode hardware. This would *not* be simple; the difference in tower locations, for example, would be very hard to reconcile. It would probably have been easier if retention of Saturn launch capability had been a constraint from the beginning, but that idea was rejected in (I think) 1976. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 86 01:04:54 GMT From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcms!niland@hplabs.hp.com ( Bob Niland ) Subject: Re: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa re: "Is there anyone out there that knows details on the Space Telescope (ST)? My questions are :" You neglected to ask a question that is no doubt of intense interest to national security paranoids world-wide, namely Will the ST ever be pointed at the Earth? Regards, Hewlett-Packard Bob "I have no answers" Niland 3404 East Harmony Road [ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!rjn Fort Collins CO 80525 ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 86 18:19:40 GMT From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@hplabs.hp.com (Alan Silverstein) Subject: Re: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Will the ST ever be pointed at the Earth? Certainly possible, but it would constitute a gross defeat of free scientific endeavor. It would mean stealing precious time from the astronomers lined up to use the scope. (Time on big scopes is very hard to come by, I hear. It would be like all software engineers having to share time on only a handful of big, batch-job processors.) I bet you couldn't do it and keep it secret. Too many people would know about the time theft or notice the pointing direction. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 86 22:52:52 GMT From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > You neglected to ask a question that is no doubt of intense interest > to national security paranoids world-wide, namely > > Will the ST ever be pointed at the Earth? It has been remarked (I don't remember where) that the Space Telescope is basically an unclassified, civilian version of the KH-11 spysat. Of course, the instrumentation is probably quite different, and I suspect that it would fry instantly if pointed at the earth. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 86 22:00:33 GMT From: cartan!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <180@ka9q.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes: > >It has been remarked (I don't remember where) that the Space Telescope >is basically an unclassified, civilian version of the KH-11 spysat. Of >course, the instrumentation is probably quite different, and I suspect >that it would fry instantly if pointed at the earth. I can well imagine why the source of such an absurd statement would try to remain anonymous. About the only technology that I can imagine that would be applicable to both is the pointing instrumentation. In every other respect the objectives and technologies are completely different. -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 86 18:57:09 GMT From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@hplabs.hp.com (Alan Silverstein) Subject: Re: shuttle launch viewing Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ..."The Dream is Alive." ... almost as good as the real thing... The first, close-up shuttle launch sequence is MUCH BETTER than the real thing (from miles away). The screen's big enough and the noise is loud enough that you lose the limited feeling of watching a movie. And you'd never get that close in real life. Of course, in real life you get to fight traffic jams, wait out delays, risk postponements, fight off mosquitos, squint into the sun, hold binoculars steady, and fight traffic jams. Nothing like the real thing... Alan Silverstein ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #21 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02380; Thu, 23 Oct 86 03:02:20 PDT id AA02380; Thu, 23 Oct 86 03:02:20 PDT Date: Thu, 23 Oct 86 03:02:20 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610231002.AA02380@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #22 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 23 Oct 86 03:02:20 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #22 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 22 Today's Topics: Re: Question about getting to orbit Re: Al Globus, L5 Society Re: How do you abort an SRB? recursive compressive members as alternative to filling with gas Fool me twice, shame on you ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Oct 86 22:20:10 GMT From: pyramid!gould9!telesoft!roger@hplabs.hp.com (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: Question about getting to orbit Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa From Kendall Auel in referenced posting: > ... > I guess the real question is: how much fuel is spent fighting aero- > dynamic drag, and how much is used to actually get into orbit? Also, > the fuel that is burning to overcome this drag had to be accelerated, > so the extra fuel needed to do that must be included. Several responders have indicated that they didn't think getting out of the atmosphere was a significant performance factor. Well, it is and it isn't; for a multi-stage vehicle, it isn't much of a factor, but for a single stage to orbit (SSTO) design, it's a controlling factor. The best way to quantify the cost of climbing through the atmosphere is in terms of the delta vee needed to reach orbit. If the earth were devoid of atmosphere, the delta vee needed to reach orbit would be roughly 8000 meters per second; with the atmosphere, the minimum is slightly more than 9000 mps. That's a more significant difference than it may at first appear--particularly for SSTO vehicles. The mass ratio needed for a rocket to achieve a given delta vee is an exponential function of the delta vee divided by the exhaust velocity. Specifically: R = exp [Delta_Vee / V_Exhaust] where R is the ratio of initial to final mass for the rocket. Initial mass includes the structural mass of the rocket, its payload, and its fuel load. Final mass is just the first two (assuming that all the fuel is expended). For a high performance liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen egine (e.g., an SSME), the exhaust velocity is about 4500 mps. For a delta vee of 8000 mps, that implies a mass ratio of about 6.2, vs. a ratio of 7.4 for a delta vee of 9000 mps. It's barely possible to build a single stage vehicle that can carry 10 times its own weight in liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, if you don't have to worry about luxuries like wings and reentry shielding. If you only needed a mass ratio of 6.2, that would allow you about .9 pounds of payload for every pound of structural mass--a pretty respectable ratio. But at a mass ratio of 7.4, you'd be down to .5 pounds of paylad for every pound of structural mass. That extra 1000 mps of delta vee you need because of the atmosphere has cost you almost half your payload capacity. The real situation is even worse, for two reasons. First, the 9000 mps figure that I used is actually optimistic; 9300, I believe, is closer to what you'd really end up needing. Second, if you want the vehicle to be reusable, then most all of what you thought you had available for payload is going to have to go for wings and reentry shielding. The extra delta vee required to climb out of the atmosphere ends up making the difference between feasibility and non-feasibility of an SSTO rocket propelled vehicle. That's why several early proposals for the TAV involved launching the vehicle from atop a 747 carrier. (That was before the supersonic combustion ramjet was settled on as the propulsion system of choice for the TAV). There's also a fellow, whose name I've misplaced, who has for some time been promoting designs for what he calls a "space van", that would be launched from the back of a 747, or 747-like aircraft. For any of you wondering why launching from an airplane at high altitude can reduce delta vee to orbit by over 1000 mps, when the airplane is flying at less than 300 mps, the answer is somewhat complicated. Air resistance is only one factor in what you lose climbing out of the atmosphere. Another factor is losses due to fighting gravity during verticle climb. For a variety of reasons, the liftoff acceleration for a liquid fueled rocket is only about 1.2 gees. That means only .2 gees of net acceleration over gravity, for 1.2 gees worth of thrust, or an efficiency ratio of 1/6. The gravity losses would be less if the initial acceleration were higher, but that would result in going trannsonic at a lower altitude, where the shock wave pressures would be too intense to handle. - Roger Arnold ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 86 17:47:47 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Al Globus, L5 Society Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ...government, in the form of an agency called OCSI, has given itself > (via insertion into the Federal Register) the right to stop any launch > that it decides is not "in the national interest". They also have > unlimited inspection rights, so if you want to send up a really > private cargo, you're out of luck... Something I should have mentioned in my posting about the proposed Commercial Space Incentive Act is that one clause of the Act exempts launchers under it from all OCSI regulation except the launch-safety aspects. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 86 18:06:06 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: How do you abort an SRB? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > James Van Artsdalen in his 28 Sept. raised the issue of aborting an > SRB while it's still burning. The shuttle astronauts **can** detach > from the SRBs while they are still burning, but to do so would be an > act of suicidal desperation... Can you cite a reference for the existence of a separation system that will separate the SRBs while they are burning? The Rogers Commission report doesn't even mention this as a future possibility, let alone a present reality. > ... The alternative of the Orbit Vehicle (OV) separating from the > SRB/ET stack is also unviable. I'm not certain of my numbers but I > think the OV can only withstand about 1.5 g in a lateral direction... There is a "fast separation" procedure intended to separate the orbiter from the tank (after SRB jettison) quickly, but analysis of doing this while the SRBs were still burning indicated that the orbiter would hang up on its aft attach points and be destroyed. (ref: Rogers Commission) > ... There is one last possible fix and that is to put a linear charge > on the pressure dome on the end of each SRB. If the SRBs misbehave, > one could blow the ends off and the thrust goes to zero almost at > once... > ... Probably the reason why one can't simply blow off the pressure > domes of the SRB is that a rocket plume would proceed in front of the > shuttles trajectory which would eventually impinge and destroy the ET. According to the Rogers Commission report, the real problem is that one cannot reduce thrust to zero that quickly without putting unsurvivable stresses on the orbiter. NASA looked at "thrust termination" systems and concluded that anything which would terminate SRB thrust quickly would require extensive structural reinforcement, adding prohibitive amounts of weight. Terminating thrust slowly does not appear to be practical. The Commission did suggest further investigation of thrust termination, since it appears to be critical to providing any sort of abort capability while the SRBs are burning, but did not hold out much hope of success. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1986 October 12 06:39:04 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: "hogg%csri.toronto.edu"@relay.cs.net Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Subject: recursive compressive members as alternative to filling with gas JH> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 12:08:26 edt JH> From: John Hogg JH> Subject: Of foams and strings JH> They propose de-orbiting cones with an optional silicon "glaze" to JH> avoid ablation of the delivered metal; these cones would be 1-10 JH> tonnes in mass. They would be expected to bury *less* than 10m, JH> which makes remining fairly simple. Sounds nice, a tradeoff that avoids having to manufacture my foam yet avoids embedding deep in Earth. Still, you have to transport from the Sahara, it would be nice to be able to deliver to some point on Earth not near Libya, hence eventually foams may be useful so you can drop the payload near a populated area where the shock of the silica cone hitting Earth wouldn't be acceptable but a gentle foam would be ok. JH> Unless specifically requested, I won't comment further on your foam JH> proposals after this message, because I'm getting a bit pedantic and JH> off-topic. But once again, I have to throw a wet blanket over JH> lighter-than-air foams. The problem is not one of size, since by JH> the nature of the problem, bigger reduces complexity and in no way JH> makes manufacturing more complicated. The underlying brick wall is JH> not your recursive step, but the base case of trying to build JH> *anything* as an initial building block that is lighter than air yet JH> made out of iron. If the smallest unit is heavier than air, then JH> the larger units must span more space than they physically occupy, JH> and here we run into familiar difficulties. That's why you make vacuum pseudo-foam, the iron or whatever is heavier than air, so you include a lot of vacuum to increase volume without increasing weight. "Familar difficulties" must refer to holding back air that is trying to crush the contraption. So you need some airproof shell on the outside together with cross-members that resist compression (cross-members take the place of a gas filling the baloon). JH> I don't understand Fuller's recursive pull-only structures that JH> involve virtual push. However, I do know that somewhere in the JH> whole assembly, there must be members in compression both from the JH> external pressure and whatever internal tensions are required. Right. But instead of one long member that tends to bend when you press the ends together, you have a lot of short members that don't hardly bend at all when you press them. Try an experiment, get a piece of coppe wire about an inch long and hold it endwise between your finger and thumb. Squeeze and watch it easily bend. Now straighten it back out and cut off a piece only one 8th of an inch long and put that little piece endwise between your finger and thumb and squeeze and watch it puncture your finger and draw blood instead of bending. The cross section of the short piece is the same as the long piece, but the long one bends and the short one doesn't hardly bend at all. Now think of a whole bunch of short pieces end to end to make the original long piece. When you press the ends none of the pieces bend, but the joints between the pieces fly to the side. If you could hold all those joints laterally into correct position, you could puncture your skin just the same as when you had just one short piece. See more below... JH> Compressive loads require a structure which grows more than linearly JH> with length. No. If you can break up a structure into lots of short pieces (or just think of a long continuous structure as being composed of short pieces), and support the junctures between pieces (or support the continuous structure at lots of different points) against swaying to the side, then you can have an arbitrarily long piece with compressive strength determined solely by its cross-section, not growing weaker as it gets longer for a given cross-section. JH> The only way out is to use a structure that is truly in tension, JH> which is done by compressing the internal fluid. Almost correct. The basic structure can still be compressive, like lots and lots of little pieces end to end, but the resistance to lateral bending/swaying/bowing can be tension. That's how Bucky Fuller made his recursive tension-mostly structures. The basic member is lots of little compressive units end to end, the anti-bow member is lots of tension-only units. Here's a simple way to get a compressive object that is also stable. The goal is to create a member that connects two points and resists compression better than a simple member of the same length and cross-section. -- Suppose you want to span length 2*l with something of cross-section 3*c. You make 6 pieces, each of length l and cross-section c, put 3 of them into a skinny pyramid with triangular base, fasten the base together with string (lightweight tensile object), form other three into another skinny pyramid and put it upside-downunder the first pyramid linking the 3 points together. Now if you press against the top of the first pyramid and bottom of second (upside-down) pyramid, you get nearly three times the strength of a single length-l cross-section-c member, i.e. nearly what'd you'd get from a single length-l cross-section-3*c member, which is much better than if you simply took a length-2*l cross-section-3*c member because the latter would bow whereas the double-pyramid would merely stretch the tensile members instead. Now you recurse. Use six of those length-nearly-2*l strength-nearly-3*c members to make a larger double-pyramid of length nearly 4*l and strength-nearly-9*c. Repeat until you have desired length. Except for the small loss due to the triangle not being infinitesimal thus length is slightly less than (2**k)*l, force acting at an angle so strength is slightly less than (3**n)*c, and weight of the tensile members, you have scaled up a short compressive member without loss in strength/mass ratio. So long as there are no extra sideward forces on the large recursive compressive members, such as gravity or air friction, you can build a tower of arbitrary height with a fixed cross-section merely by dividing the cross-section into small enough pieces for the basic compressive member that after multipliying by (3**n) you are back to your planned cross-section. (Of course the practical limit is when the cross-section is smaller than a few atomic thicknesses.) I think Bucky had some even better designs, but I don't know them. The double-pyramid is one I came up with to illustrate the basic idea. (P.S. Thanks to Greg Yob, inventor of Wumpus, for showing me the Bucky stuff.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 17:24 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Fool me twice, shame on you A panel convened by the National Research Council at the request of Congress has concluded that, even with four shuttles, NASA will only be able to attain a launch rate of 11 to 13 flights per year, fewer than the 16 NASA is aiming for. The panel also said that a three shuttle fleet could attain 8 to 10 flights per year, and that only after a two year ramp-up. NASA is planning to fly the three shuttle fleet six times the first year and twelve times a year thereafter. The panel's lower numbers are still contingent on NASA improving its procedures, including stopping the canabalization of one orbiter to fly another, and assume that no orbiter becomes inoperable for long periods. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #22 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06032; Fri, 24 Oct 86 03:02:15 PDT id AA06032; Fri, 24 Oct 86 03:02:15 PDT Date: Fri, 24 Oct 86 03:02:15 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610241002.AA06032@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #23 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 24 Oct 86 03:02:15 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #23 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 23 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #11 Re: Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Oct 1986 14:38-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #11 In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sun, 12 Oct 86 03:13:29 PDT >I claim that a program to establish mining or manufacturing operations >in space WILL NOT MAKE ANY SENSE for at least thirty years. In fact, I >believe that shipping material goods from space to Earth is probably >NEVER going to make any economic sense. I agree that large scale mining will not be occuring in much under thirty years, and more probably fifty years. But if we don't begin to develop the infrastructure for chepa transport, it won't even happen then. Of course, if people such as Eric Drexler (Engines of Creation) and Hans Moravec (Mind Children, not yet in print) are correct, all bets are off. >For the next thirty years or more, I believe the following will be true: > > 1. Factories in space and on the Moon cannot be expected to > manufacture sophisticated products. High-tech products like > computers, jet engines and automobiles require much more equipment, > manpower and infrastructure than what we will be able to launch in > the foreseeable future. Therefore, space industries will be limited > to either low-tech products and bulk materials, or to a few > intermediate steps of Earth-based manufacturing processes. It is quite true about jet engines. I haven't heard a single suggestion for constructing them on the moon. The purpose of lunar mining is lunar construction and for the construction of things in space that would be prohibitively expensive if bulk materials were shipped from the Earth's deep gravity well. > 2. Right now there is no mineral resource on the Moon that would be > worth mining. Some metals like titanium and chromium seem to be more > abundant there, but they are fairly abundant on Earth, too. Those > metals are relatively cheap now, and will continue to be so for a > while. For example, titanium metal (powder, 99.7% pure) costs about > $7/lb, according to the Rubber Bible. In fact, the price and demand > for several metals (copper, aluminum) has been dropping of late. If you are talking about materials for export back to the earth, there is really only one that will be meaningful in the same time frame as the first mining efforts: He3. I presume we'll be able to get fusion power on a commercial footing by early in the next century, and this material has an enormous profitability. And we can't get it here. There just ain't none to be had. > 3. From what we know of the history and geology of the Moon, we can > expect rich ore bodies to be much less common there than on Earth. > Most of our commercial ore deposits can be traced to hydrological and > hydrothermal processes, which as far as we know never existed on the > Moon. However, the lunar highlands, as it sits is a rich in Ti as the rutile sands of Australia. It contains a great deal of pure Fe-Ni that can be magnetically seperated. The Aluminum is also fairly easy to seperate with cheap power available. The byproduct is O2 which is the heaviest portion of the standard H2/O2 fuel. It is cheaper to export Lunar oxygen to LEO than it is to ship it from the ground. The soils have a great deal of Si and thus can used to make some very useful fiber glass composites. The particle sizes are ideal for making a waterless concrete via vibration compaction and sintering, a technique used in steel mills for many years. > 4. The Moon is very poor in many important elements, notably > hydrogen. That means we cannot count on using the Moon as a fueling > station; quite on the contrary, rocket fuel for traveling on and out > of the Moon will have to be brought from the Earth. Also, if the > manufacturing or smelting processes use water or hydrogen in any form > (or chlorine, or nitrogen, or...), extra equipment and energy will be > necessary to recover those precious elements from the waste products. As noted above, it is the O2 that is most important in terms of weight costs. There is a very large net gain in shipping Lunar O2 to LEO. And the H2 may come from Earth in the short run, but it is probably simpler to go after a chondritic asteroid or a burned out comet. There are several that are energetically favorable. There is a great deal of research that has gone into doing the processes with only catalytic elements shipped from Earth. I would recommend your study the Space Manufacturing proceedings published every two years by the American Astronautical Society and the Space Studies Institute. > 5. Even ignoring transportation costs, manufacturing anything in > space is bound to be substantially more expensive than manufacturing > the same product (or a functionally equivalent one) on Earth. Labor, > materials and equipment for space manufacturing are more > sophisticated than their Earth equivalents. Possibly true on the early manned space station. Probably not after a decade of experience. And certainly not true on the lunar surface. Hell, you don't even need to sheild a nuclear reactor. Just sit it in a crater. (See papers by Dr. Kraftt Ehricke shortly before his death). There is certainly no reason why labor need be more sophisticated. For industry, I suspect that early salary structures and personnel will reflect an Alaska pipeline or deep sea drilling station model. And keep in mind that for quite a while the products will remain restricted to a few very high value items. > 6. In spite of all the hype, it is still highly unlikely that those > few resources that are unique to space (such as microgravity and > abundant high vacuum) will ever find significant industrial > applications. Zero-g alloys MAY turn out to have unique properties, > but `unique' doesn't necessarily mean `desirable', much less > `extremely valuable'. There still is no bio-industrial process that > would be significantly easier in zero g, and there are good reasons > to doubt such thing will ever be discovered (Note that the growing of > big protein crystals is pure science, not industry). The growth of the protein crystals has important possibilities for drugs. I also know of a successful business man who is donating large sums of money to electrophoresis research because his son has juvenile onset diabetes. The market will decide whether earthly processes will win out in terms of purity etc. And if you want to discuss, significantly easier, why don't we talk about processes which are simply not possible or that barely work at all under gravity? The only way I can imagine someone making this statement is that they have not been following the literature. > 7. Someone mentioned crystal-growing for the semiconductor industry. > The processes used by the semiconductor industry on Earth are the > result of some 20 years of intensive development, and are still being > improved. It will take a long while for radically new space-based > processes to reach the same level of perfection. How long (and how > much) will it take for a space-based company to learn how to make > 3"x2' silicon monocrystals better than those we can buy right now on > Earth? The truth is that amateurs with primitive equipment have generated crystals of the size and quality of earthly manufacture. I've seen the side by side slides. It is likely that zone refining will be able to generate defect free large wafers with simple zone refining. Remember wafer scale integration? The idea that failed and took Trilogy Inc (Amdahl & Co) with it? It is probably possible with zero G processing. > 8. In fact, the lack of gravity and a limited air supply are a > serious problem for many industrial processes. Traditional chemical > methods such as GAMT, ESGM, TIMEX-V and HPVLQ (and many more) do are > much harder or impossible to perform in zero g. A LOCA that would be > of no consequence on Earth may seriously harm a space station and/or > its crew. Even p-GaLiAs becomes an extremely hazardous substance in > zero g. (Two p-GaLiAs containers which flew on one of the last > Shuttle flights had to be specially designed, and cost more than > $100,000 a piece. In contrast, a standard p-GaLiAs container for use > on Earth costs less than 60 cents). There is very little in this that is correct if you wish to refer to an industrial facility. It will almost certainly be built with isolated modules for hazardous materials. Don't compare the standards for doing processing in an airplane with doing them in a mature industrial module in free orbit. Even if something blows up, you don't have a disaster. People got killed on the Alaska pipeline too. Any industry factors in an estimated number of on the job fatalities and balances the cost of safety measures versus the expected cost of accidents. Otherwise we'd only have waldoes in steel mills. And your comments about gravity processes are also completing in error. The advantage of space is that you can get ANY gravity or gravity gradient you want. Take two external tanks, tether them together, start the mess spinning and voila! Thousands of cubic feet of industrial space with whatever gravity field you want. So you do zero G processing in the zero G shed, then move the materials over to the half G shed for GAMT, ESGM, TIMEX-V and HPVLQ. Or maybe if you have a special requirement, run it over to the HiG/HiGradient shed with the short tether... > 9. To the basic cost of doing something in space, we must add the > costs of designing, building, and launching the factory. The > smallest space factory or lunar mine is going to cost billions of > dollars more than a comparable facility on Earth. If such a factory > is going to make 100,000 somethings a year for ten years, it would > have to charge its customers THOUSANDS of dollars more per unit just > to pay the extra fixed costs. You are using old fashoined thinking. You don't launch a factory. You launch the space age equivalent of a quonset hut and then you ship in modules for the processing you intend to do. And if you blow it, then the bank gets the mortgage, and someone else comes along and puts their equipment in for their bright idea. As for the cost of construction, I'd recommend you look at some of the automated partially self replicating factory systems discussed in the literature by such as Dr. Marvin Minsky (Marvin: you're welcome to jump in!!!) and also studied by Space Studies Institute and by NASA. Estimates are that such a system could be set up at the cost of 3-5 shuttle bays, including transfer fuel and engines. The size and weight keep dropping every time I check in on the field. > 10. Orbiting factories will have to get all their raw materials from > Earth. Lunar factories may be able to get some materials from the > Moon itself, but will need a steady stream of `space trucks' to lift > the product out to space. In both cases, transportation alone is > going to cost several hundred dollars per pound of product. You have not done your homework. The mass driver already works. It has been tested at (2/3?) of full scale size. A Mass driver including power supply could be delivered to the moon in less than a shuttle bay. Once in place, along with an automated (etc) as discussed earlier, it will begin delivering material very shortly afterwards. It's utterly ridiculously to consider landing and taking off with a rocket just to get bulk materials into LEO. The cost is dollars/lb. Read up on it. > 11. A space factory or moon base is going to take some five to ten > years to build; during that period, demand for its product may easily > evaporate. This is much more true true for high-tech > spacial-purpose products such as advanced alloys and biologicals > (In fact, this is happening right now to McDonnell's electrophoresis > separation project). Thus, there is a very serious risk of such a > plant becoming hopelessly obsolete and useless even before it is > finished. You are once again assuming that we're making finished products on the moon for export. This is a very silly idea for a long time to come. I expect such manufactures, but for local consumption. Exports will be bulk materials to LEO and GSO. Finished products will be made at LEO for Earth, Powersats will be made at GSO for export of power to Earth. > 12. Most of these problems apply also to the mining of asteroids. > Except that some (like transportation costs) will be a lot worse. > Besides, we still don't know for sure what the asteroids are made of. > Before we embark in a multibillion, multi-decade asteroid mining > program, perhaps we should send a couple of cheap unmanned probes to > check whether there is something there worth digging, no? We already know compositions of many near earth asteroids spectroscopically. You can say we don't know for sure, and that is correct. We need to collect some more 'Ground Truth' so we can be more confident in the assignments made so far. There are some quite valuable hunks of material found in the last few years by Elinor Helin and her Asteroid Project. (Partially funded by the World Space Foundation, the Planetary Society, off and on by L5 and L5 members, and I'm pretty sure a bit of NASA funding as well.) I certainly would not disagree with getting some probes out to look over the property. I doubt 3M will want to take possession site unseen... Since you don't have to go into any gravity well at all, the Delta V requirements for some are even less than for a trip to the moon, although considerably longer: 3-5 years total mission time. >All these problems may be solved in time, but hardly within the next >thirty years, no matter what we do or how much money we spend. NASA >and the space societies are trying to sell the space station and the >lunar base for its industrial prospects; this may work for a while, but >will be disastrous in the long run. Sooner or later the paying public >will realize that those projects will only bring multibillion-dollar >losses to the economy, year after year for the foreseeable future. If >you think that the post-Apollo debacle was bad, wait until this one. In less than thirty years we will probably be playing with some sort of fusion drive. There will probably be talk of building a practical anti-matter drive in a decade or two. With the fusion drive the solar system is wide open. For that matter, with the solar sail the solar system is wide open. The biggest shortcoming we have right now is in CELSS technology. It hasn't been 'sexy' enough to get sufficient funding and is lagging a decade behind other areas. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 86 21:07:50 GMT From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <507@aurora.UUCP>, al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) writes: > > ... space travel far too expensive (by many orders of magnitude) for > > "moving life off the planet"; that's just not realistic with present > > technology. (By "present technology" I don't mean just the Shuttle; > > I mean "chemical rockets"). > > Not so. Apparently most of the weight of the shuttle stack is oxygen > (does anyone know the actual numbers?). Therefor, the aerospace > plane, if successful, should give us a very large reduction in launch > cost. Each SRB weighs 1.82 million pounds empty and is loaded with 1.11 million pounds of propellant. That means 5.86 million pounds of the shuttle's takeoff weight is SRB. David Smith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #23 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11014; Sat, 25 Oct 86 03:02:05 PDT id AA11014; Sat, 25 Oct 86 03:02:05 PDT Date: Sat, 25 Oct 86 03:02:05 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610251002.AA11014@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #24 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 25 Oct 86 03:02:05 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #24 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 24 Today's Topics: Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars slrm8 not valid fusion engines Satellite observers poll Pop-top SRB's Re: recursive compressive members as alternative to filling with gas Re: Pop-top SRB's CELSS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Oct 86 02:30:28 GMT From: voder!apple!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Smith) Subject: Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa >> For the next thirty years or more, I believe the following will be true: >> >> 1. Factories in space and on the Moon cannot be expected to >> manufacture sophisticated products. >> >> 2. Right now there is no mineral resource on the Moon that would >> be worth mining. > >Agreed, though eventually a point will be reached where the amount of >raw materials needed in orbit will make the cost of lauching it from >Earth prohibitive, and a handy alternative source is the Moon. I have heard the argument that the moon contains reasonably large quantities of titanium that could be reasonably easily mined. (No, I don't have a definition of 'reasonably easy'). Titanium aint cheap. The idea went on to simplify the 'delivery' problem by shaping the titanium into shuttle like objects then de-orbiting them to reenter. On the earth surface, the VERY HOT gliders would be recovered (perhaps from a landing in water?) Is this a valid idea, or was it shot down long ago as bogus? >> 3. From what we know of the history and geology of the Moon, we >> can expect rich ore bodies to be much less common there than on >> Earth. > >Sure, but so what? The energy to smelt the stuff is free, and the >supply of raw materials is basically limitless. Who cares if your >efficiency is only 10%? Sorry, but nothin's for free. Sunlight on the earth surface is 'free' too, but the structure to recover it costs. The energy density per square metre may be greater in space, but the recovery devices cost plenty. As to limitless supplies... ever hear of transportation costs? We have lots of ore on earth that is 'basically limitless'. One small problem, you have to dig it up and move it some where. Both operations take capital. The real question is: Given the greater energy available in space and the particular transportation costs on the lunar surface; is it cheaper/better to make product there rather than here? (My *emotional* bias is to go set up shop on the moon because we ought to find out how to do it now. My *analytical* capitalisic side says that you have to show me how many dollars I'm gonna make before I'm willing to spend a nickel ... Lets do it for the right reasons, because we *WANT* to, regardless of the profit potential.) >> 5. Even ignoring transportation costs, manufacturing anything in >> space is bound to be substantially more expensive than >> manufacturing the same product (or a functionally equivalent one) >> on Earth. Labor, materials and equipment for space manufacturing >> are more sophisticated than their Earth equivalents. PROVIDED that thing *can* be produced on earth. What was the value of the picture of earth taken by the Apollo astronauts on the way to the moon? The one that shows the blue/white marble of earth sitting lonely in space? Commerce has made a lot of money from that image, humanity has gained even more in non-money ways. You don't have any idea how much profit can come from inventive minds in a new environment until you put them their. Any argument of the form "X will always be cheaper on earth" is bogus due to this one fact. (Give me sand, and I will give you Silicon Valley ... I wonder how much a 10% faster chip technology would be worth? If a company could get it's 10meg RAM chips to market two years before the competion by doing it in space, how many millions is that worth? I once worked at a semiconductor manufacturer down the street ... One of the wafers in my product line was worth about $40,000 per. Seems noone else could make that chip so the per unit price was about $200 ... Chip fab lines are not THAT large. Wonder how many wafers would fit in a shuttle ...) E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 86 07:16:47 GMT From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jonathan P. Leech) Subject: Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <211@apple.UUCP> ems@apple.UUCP (Mike Smith) writes: >(My *emotional* bias is to go set up shop on the moon because we ought > to find out how to do it now. My *analytical* capitalisic side says > that you have to show me how many dollars I'm gonna make before I'm > willing to spend a nickel ... Lets do it for the right reasons, > because we *WANT* to, regardless of the profit potential.) We went to the moon because we WANTED to. We didn't stay there. I think this could easily happen again. But if there's money to be made, the analytical capitalists will keep with it when the fickle public has moved on. That's the only way we'll ever see a large human presence in space - which is what I WANT. Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 86 08:02 MDT From: (Ray Rawlins) Subject: slrm8 not valid To: space@s1-b.arpa X-Original-To: space@angband.arpa Please remove slrm8@usu.bitnet from your mailing list. That account is nolonger active at this node. Thanks Ray Rawlins RAY@USU.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 86 11:49 EDT From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@lll-mfe.arpa Subject: fusion engines To: space@s1-b.arpa Paul Koloc writes: What we need is to develop the technology of fusion to do really significant things beyond LEO. DoE has demonstrated it can't make a workable commercial fusion power generator... ... prototype fusion engines could be operating just after three years. These engines if based on PLASMAK(TM) technology, would burn hydrogen(protium) boron(eleven) which generates pure helium(four) and no radiation. Actually DOE has done a responsible job of allocating scarce funds. The main problem is that congress lost interest in fusion when the the oil glut began. Also it is a long way from a prototype fusion engine (just a hydrogen-boron pellet being hit by a laser) to an engine which can actually lift a payload. We need better lasers and a good way to keep the containment vessel from eroding. I would prefer to see all of our pennies for space research being spent on shorter term missions, with fusion engines developing as best they can via military funding for laser research. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 86 17:08 SET From: Alessandro Berni Subject: Satellite observers poll To: Space digest Will all people interested in amateur satellite observing kindly drop me a quick note? I appreciate your help and thank you in advance. Alessandro Berni Genoa, Italy BitNet ------> einaudi@icnucevm ARPA ------> einaudi@cnuce-vm Internet ----> EINAUDI%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU ------------------------------ Sender: "Gooding:wbst200ul:Xerox.ns"@xerox.com Date: 14 Oct 86 13:50:35 PDT (Tuesday) Subject: Pop-top SRB's From: Gooding.WBST@xerox.com To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Gooding.WBST@Xerox.COM Consider the following scenario: A significant malfunction is detected during the early part of an STS mission following lift-off. The appropriate designated individual in mission control orders an abort. This order pops the tops of the SRB's off and away from the orbiter. Reverse thrust nozzles are now exposed and the SRB's top ends are ignited. The thrust of the already burning ends are effectively countered allowing the orbiter to detach before the SRB's buckle and submit to a destruct order along with the ET. The orbiter makes a best effort emergency landing based on speed, altitude, etc. Is this a viable method in which to minimize the risks of STS missions encountered from lift-off to SRB burnout? Steve Disclaimer disclaimer ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 86 18:46:27 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: recursive compressive members as alternative to filling with gas Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ...Still, you have to transport from the Sahara, it would be nice to > be able to deliver to some point on Earth not near Libya, Actually, the Australian desert is probably better than the Sahara for a number of reasons, political stability among them. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 86 21:02:34 GMT From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: Pop-top SRB's Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > This [abort] order pops the tops of the SRB's off and away from the > orbiter. Reverse thrust nozzles are now exposed and the SRB's top > ends are ignited. The thrust of the already burning ends are > effectively countered allowing the orbiter to detach before the SRB's > buckle and submit to a destruct order along with the ET. Based on what AW&ST said about the IUS/TDRSS failure (to the effect that continued chamber pressure is necessary to support combustion), maybe blowing the top off would extinguish the fire. Note that the SRB is hollow and burns from the inside out along its whole length. But if blowing the cap doesn't extinguish the motor, I doubt it would help. If the orbiter lets go, it will pivot around the rear attachment points and break up, as previously noted in this forum. If the SRBs are jettisoned, the orbiter and tank must fly through the plume. If nothing is cut loose, the front-end exhaust from the SRBs will impinge on the oxygen tank. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 86 11:10:28 pdt From: bradley thompson To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: CELSS I have noticed a couple of references in the net to CELSS and thought a short summary would be in order. CELSS [Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems officially or closed environmental LSS by some] is a concept being developed by a number of countries including our Soviet friends, the US, Japan, ESA members, and Canada. Basically it involves recycling the expendables used by and the wastes produced by cosmo-asto-aero-nauts during a mission. For short term missions recycling has not been considered. For longer term missions [mir-possible US- space stations, deep space exploration, colonies] recycling becomes economically feasable. Recycling of components like water, carbon dioxide [back to oxygen], and wastes can be done and will be initially done physiochemically. Food recycling to a form palatable to humans requires a biological link. A typical CELSS would look as below: water, food, oxygen -->humans, animals--> wastes, carbon dioxide, waste water wastes---> biological or physiological waste treatement--> carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic salts carbon dioxide, waste water, inorganic salts, [LIGHT], ---> photosynthetic organism [plant,algae]---> biomass [ie food], water, oxygen This is simplified of course but basically true. The various countries activities are as below: 1-USSR - definite leader in the field. At the last COSPAR meeting in Toulouse NO Soviets attended the CELSS session. The Soviets only attend sessions where they are behind, or equal in advancement. I estimate from the literature that they have at least 50 active projects going on including an Earth based test bed and who knows what on Salyut 7 and Mir. 2- USA- low key effort mainly funded by NASA and done on Universities. NASA Ames has a small in house effort. Some Earth based test bed work planned. NASA Ames has been instrumental in keeping international CELSS alive by planning and holding meetings. US projects - about 20. 3- Japan- low key effort- mainly aimed at physiochemical CELSS compponents. Japanese projects- about 20. 4- ESA members- very low key effort- about 2-4 projects. 5- Canada- very low key effort- about 2-4 projects. If anyone is interested in CELSS the following people are coordinating efforts in their respective nations: USSR- Ye. Ya. Shepelev, Institute of Biomedical Problems, Ministry of Health, USSR, Moscow, USSR USA- R.D. MacElroy, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California Japan- K. Nitta, Space Technology Research Group, National Aerospace Laboratory Chofu, Tokyo, Japan ESA- I. Skoog, Dornier Systems Gmbh, Postfach 1360, D-7990 FRiederichshoffen, FRG Canada- B.G. Thompson, Biotechology Department, Alberta Research Council, PO Box 8330, Postal Station F, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6H 5X2 I must emphasize that we [the west] are way behind the Soviets on this stuff and that it will be as essential for deep space missions as efficient propulsionsystems. Any help in the form of lobbying, letter writing, large financial donations, or moral support in your country would be a big help. Thanks Brad Thompson ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #24 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13985; Sun, 26 Oct 86 03:02:12 PST id AA13985; Sun, 26 Oct 86 03:02:12 PST Date: Sun, 26 Oct 86 03:02:12 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610261102.AA13985@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #25 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 26 Oct 86 03:02:12 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #25 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 25 Today's Topics: 6th Space Development Conference Symposium on the National Commission on Space Report Re: Space Telescope RE: Space Telescope Re: Space Telescope Re: Space Telescope Pointing ST at Earth Re: JEP on Mars mission CFC coming up... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Oct 1986 00:40-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: 6th Space Development Conference 6TH SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE "RETURN TO THE VISION: What will it take?" Pittsburgh L5 invites you to participate in a major event on March 27-29, 1987 at the Pittsburgh Hilton: The 6th Space Development Conference, sponsored by the L5 Society, the National Space Society, Students for the Exploration and Development of Space, Spacepac, American Space Foundation, AMSAT, Spaceweek, Space Studies Institute, and the United States Space Foundation. We will examine where we should be going in space over the next fifty years and how we will reach our stated goals. Our focus will be on the long range, elements of which will be addressed in small workshops on computer networking, space science, space technology, politics, chapter organization, nanotechnology, arts and commerce. The three day conference also includes: - A technical technical session on Innovative Space Systems with an emphasis on Closed Ecological Life Support Systems. Chaired by Dr. David Webb, member National Commission on Space and Dr. Richard Parker of the University of North Dakota Center for Aerospace Science. - A course on Basic Spaceflight. Captain Ed Daley will team teach the course with Greg Maryniak, SSI Vice President. Attendees will learn orbital mechanics, proximity operations and aspects of space propulsion. Captain Daley has trained NASA employees on this topic. - An Educators Seminar. The importance of education will be stressed in programming for educators and students. Programming for teachers will make them aware of the past, present and future of the space program and the ways in which space education may be incorporated in every subject area from art to social sciences and every grade level from Kindergarten to high school senior. - Student programming for K-12. Students will be given an opportunity to go through a professional conference in which they can both learn and have fun. Young Astronaut exchange student Amy Grubb will discuss her visit to Soviet space facilities, and a 'shuttle' bus of students from the Philadelphia public schools will rendezvous with Pittsburgh students. - A Space Defense Seminar. General Daniel O. Graham and other experts will discuss defense issues. - Funding and governing of space settlements via a free market approach. - Professional workshops on space themes in performing arts, painting, writing and photography. If you wish to apply for an invitation to participate, checkmark the session on your registration form. A sample of your work will be requested. - An evening of filk music by Julia Ecklar, dance, and electronic music by Don Slepian and other performers. There will be exhibits by space organizations and space related businesses; a film room; an extensive art show with works by Alan Bean, Jack Olsen, Robert Rauschenberg, Kim Poor, Kelly Freas and many other reknowned artists of the space age; a tour of Allegheny Observatory, site of some of the world's most advanced work on the search for extrasolar planets; and tours of the widely acclaimed CMU Robotics Institute. For further information write to PO Box 8391, Pittsburgh, PA 15218-0391 or call 412-351-4973. (Or send EMAIL to amon@h.cs.cmu.edu for an electronic copy of the registration form. Feel free to copy and pass this around.) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 86 06:08:20 GMT From: rubin@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mike Rubin) Subject: Symposium on the National Commission on Space Report Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa SYMPOSIUM on the NATIONAL COMMISSION ON SPACE REPORT "Space: the Last or the Lost Frontier?" Saturday, November 6, 1986, 1:00 to 4:00 PM Sheraton City Squire Motor Inn, Broadway and 52nd Street, New York City Moderator: Hugh Downs, Chairman, National Space Society Featured Gerard K. O'Neill, President, Space Studies Institute Speakers: Isaac Asimov, noted author and futurist Phillip Culbertson, high NASA official, Grumman Aerospace officer Question and answer period, and wine and cheese reception, will follow. Admission is free but limited to 350. Register in advance through New York City L5, c/o Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, Pier 86, New York, NY 10036; telephone (212) 757-7780. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 86 02:35:55 GMT From: klinner@sun.com Subject: Re: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > In article <180@ka9q.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes: > >It has been remarked (I don't remember where) that the Space > >Telescope is basically an unclassified, civilian version of the KH-11 > >spysat. Of course, the instrumentation is probably quite different, > >and I suspect that it would fry instantly if pointed at the earth. When I was working on the Science Operations Ground Station proposal at TRW we too asked what would happen if the telescope was pointed at the ground. You're right, most of the instruments would be damaged. And since most of the instrumentation was designed by researchers from various universities, the space telescope is definitely NOT a version of any kind of spysat. Kent Klinner Sun Microsystems ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 86 10:27:00 PST From: Subject: RE: Space Telescope To: "space" Reply-To: I don't have any answers, but I have the following recollections (a bit rusty) from working on a comm project for the Space Telescope Science Institute. Data from Hubble Telescope (LEO) sent to TDRS (GEO). TDRS relays data to White Sands (New Mexico). White Sands sends data via commercial satellite to NASA Goddard (Maryland). Goddard sends data via terrestrial T1 circuit to Science Institute (Johns Hopkins). I don't believe that the TDRS traffic would be accessable, but possibly the relay to Goddard would. The data will be digital at very high bit rates. The data volume will be huge (I seem to remember something like up to 10**10 bits/day). Remember that the data will be things like multi- spectral, high resolution images. As a hypothethical example, a single 3 color 1024X1024 image with 8 bit pixel resolution would be over 3 megabytes of data. It will take some sophisticated image processing equiptment to turn the data into photographs or video images. I would suspect that the data will be handled somewhat like the LANDSAT info, tapes of specific data could be bought and somebody (NASA maybe) will probably sell finished photographs. Also, remember that a small amount of observing time is being given to qualified amateurs. I would be very interested if someone has any current information about all of this and if the Telescope has been assigned a new shuttle launch date. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 86 00:25:01 GMT From: jwp@unix.macc.wisc.edu (Jeffrey W Percival) Subject: Re: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <4270002@hpfcla.HP.COM> ajs@hpfcla.HP.COM (Alan Silverstein) writes: >> Will the ST ever be pointed at the Earth? >Certainly possible, but it would constitute a gross defeat of free >scientific endeavor. It would mean stealing precious time from the >astronomers lined up to use the scope. ST will look at the earth for calibration purposes. Some of the instruments need a diffuse, uniform source of illumination so they can map out their aperture locations, and the earth or moon would suffice for this. There is an earth/moon flag available to the flight software on board, that indicates when the ST is within some small angle of these objects; the instruments can take action or not, depending on the situation. You can bet there's a sun flag, too. Jeff Percival ...!uwvax!uwmacc!sal70!jwp or ...!uwmacc!jwp ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 86 06:13:26 GMT From: karn@petrus.arpa (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ... And since most of the instrumentation was designed by > researchers from various universities, the space telescope is definitely > NOT a version of any kind of spysat. I'm sorry, people seemed to take my quote too literally. By "unclassified version of a spysat", I understood the original author to mean that the two spacecraft were of roughly the same physical size, mass, pointing capability and resolution, not that a surplus KH-11 was actually converted into the ST. (I'm still trying to dig up the source of this quote; I'm quite sure that I didn't invent it.) The ST and the KH-11 are OBVIOUSLY designed for entirely different missions. The KH-11 operates in an elliptical orbit and probably has orbit-changing rockets designed to optimize low-altitude coverage of interesting ground sites; the ST will operate in a circular orbit and doesn't need an orbit-changing capability. The ST is designed to optimize both image resolution and light-gathering power; obviously the KH-11 doesn't need much of the latter. Still, if the instrumentation could withstand it (e.g., through use of a neutral density filter) the ST would probably make very nice high-resolution pictures of the earth. Since it's resolution and not light-gathering power that the spooks are after, I wonder if they've tried optical aperture synthesis yet. If they could figure out a way to coherently combine the photons from two or more widely separated sets of optics (separated by, say, more than the diameter of a Titan III payload fairing or the Shuttle cargo bay which would be the ultimate limit on the diameter of a single-piece objective) then this might result in much better ground resolution than we've given them credit for. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 86 11:07:25 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: Pointing ST at Earth In an article about verification (ie., spy satellite) technologies I read recently, the space telescope was discussed briefly as an example. It was mentioned that the sensors would not be able to look at the earth; they are designed for faint sources and can't handle it. I believe that the space telescope has a much larger mirror than a KH-11 (but since the details on KH-11 spysats aren't public, I can't verify that). --Geoff Landis ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 86 20:28:06 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!philabs!nyit!tmg@ll-xn.arpa (Tom Genereaux) Subject: Re: JEP on Mars mission Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > The following is an approximate quote from Jerry Pournelle, discussing > the manned-Mars-mission notion on a panel at the Worldcon: > > "It's interesting that this is the first manned spaceflight that > Carl Sagan has ever supported. The Mars mission would eat up > all manned-spaceflight funding for 30 years. At the end of it, > we would have no infrastructure, no ongoing program, *nothing*. > Sometimes I think the Mars mission is a hoax put together by > people who don't really want men in space." > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry In a current issue of Newsweek, an opinion writer expressed support for the Mars mission in exactly the same terms that were used to support Apollo - It's us vs. them. In the current political atmosphere that seems to prevail in this country, that is probably the only way the Mars Mission is going to get funded. Clearly short-sighted, I would have hoped that the Apollo program would have served as an object lesson in how not to have a man in space program. (Single goal, cost is no object, no thought as to what we do next) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 1986 17:00-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: CFC coming up... Attn: Federal Workers and Military Personnel As many of you may know, the Annual Combined Federal Campaign is now underway. Those of you who are interested in promoting the American space program may not know that you are permitted to designate all or part of your CFC contribution to go to the L5 Society, an organization that provides opportunities for people to participate in opening the space frontier. You may do so by listing the name of the L5 Society and giving the address: L5 Society 1060 East Elm St Tucson, AZ 85719 in the space provided on the CFC pledge card. We encourage all Federal employees to participate in the CFC in some fashion, whether it is for space or for other good causes. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #25 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16774; Mon, 27 Oct 86 03:02:21 PST id AA16774; Mon, 27 Oct 86 03:02:21 PST Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 03:02:21 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610271102.AA16774@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #26 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 03:02:21 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #26 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 26 Today's Topics: NASA budget Nuclear Fusion Pulse Propulsion Systems -- available literature More on the BIS & how to join Another reason for Martian colonization questions about Challenger commission report new mag - "Commercial Space" Re: Pop-top SRB's Chariots for Apollo #5 - Scrape & SWIP Comsat fuel saving maneuver invented ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 86 19:00 EDT From: Mark Purtill Subject: NASA budget To: space@s1-b.arpa Does anyone know how NASA did in the current budget? Mark Purtill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 86 14:22:57 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Nuclear Fusion Pulse Propulsion Systems -- available literature Someone asked about source material on Nuclear Fusion Pulse rockets for interstellar travel. The best source is the Project Daedalus final report produced by the British Interplanetary society. To acquire a copy write: The British Interplanetary Society 27/29 South Lambeth Road Lonon SW8 1SZ, England Also the Journal of the British Interplanetarey Society (JBIS), Interstellar Studies (red cover series) often describes this style of propulsion along with Bussard ram scoop and antimatter propulsion schemes. The JBIS is hands down, the best source of information about the engineering on interstellar travel. There is also a paper floating around entitled: "A Laser Fusion Rocket for Interplanetary Propulsion" by Roderick A. Hyde, 27 Set. 1983 from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Larry Labs), preprint number UCRL-88857. Roderick Hyde is a nuclear weapons designer who designs starships when he isn't designing a bigger and better thermonuclear warhead. Supposably, most of his major innovations on starship design are classified (Q-Clearance). Also "Astronautica ACTA" will on occasion produce something on interstellar travel. The most exciting stuff with respect to interstellar travel is being done by Sandia National Labs. Sandia is working on an inertial confinement scheme based on high energy neutral particle beams rather than lasers. This sort of system could easily be adapted into a one million sec. specific impulse propulsion system. Word has it that the Nova, Novette inertial confinement scheme at Larry Labs is a loser and only good for bomb work. It'll never be useful for producing electrical power or propelling a spacecraft. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22-OCT-1986 09:43 CDT From: To: Subject: More on the BIS & how to join Gary Allen has already put in a plug for my favorite pro-space group: the British Interplanetary Society. Founded in 1933 (Arthur C. Clarke was an early officer), the BIS has always been a forward-looking outfit. They published a design for a Moonship in 1939, and a starship (Project Daedalus) in 1978. I thought I'd give a little more information about them here. The BIS promotes interest in space among both amateurs and professionals. They publish a crackerjack general-interest magazine, *Spaceflight*, and the more technical *Journal of the British Interplanetary Society*. The latter attempts to serve a rather fractured constituency of interests by devoting a few issues a year to near-term space projects and proposals, a few to "Interstellar Studies" (such as SETI and interstellar flight), at least one to the history of astronautics, and at least one to studies of Soviet spaceflight. There are also special one-topic issues; recent ones have included IRAS and Halley's Comet. With membership, you can get either magazine. The other will cost you thirty-four bucks extra. If you're only interested in one of its topics, say interstellar flight, most of the issues of *JBIS* will seem like wastepaper to you. I subscribe because I have a broad spectrum of interests, and I want to know both about extrasolar planets and about the nutsandbolts of the Giotto probe. By the way, the *Journal* tends to give considerable detail about important satellites and planetary missions long before they're launched. *Spaceflight* is very good at covering astronautics in general, I would say better than *Space World*, its nearest American equivalent. Unfortunately these magazines are hard to find in libraries in this country-- if you want a look at them, try the technical libraries of a college with a decent astronomy or engineering department. Gary Allen made a remark about the BIS being the best of the "activist groups." In what sense do you mean "activist," Gary? Certainly they work vigorously to create public interest in space, but on the other hand I'm not aware that they try to influence legislation, as L5 does. But there are no groups that will keep you as well-informed as the BIS, and mighty few that have been at it for more than fifty years! (The space ancestor of the AIAA is three years older.) The British Interplanetary Society 27/29 South Lambeth Road London, SW8 1SZ, England Dues were $36.00 last year; they fluctuate with inflation and the exchange rate. There are discounts for members younger than 21 and younger than 18. (There may also be a premium for joining this year: one of the books the Society publishes, such as the Daedalus design report or Bob Parkinson's book of great old R.A. Smith paintings of space travel, from the 1940's. I'm not sure whether this offer is still in effect.) Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALCDF.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 86 14:51:49 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Another reason for Martian colonization Another amusing point about Martian industrialization is that on Mars "pollution is your friend". On Earth you want to avoid having factories spewing out vast volumes of smoke due to problems with the green house effect, acid rain, etc. Nuclear energy is generally incompatible with a living planet because of the ionizing radiation. However this is not true with Mars. Anything that adds pressure to the atmosphere is good towards terraforming the planet. With used up nuclear fuel rods, rather than burying them deep into the earth, one should cut them up into small hunks and scatter the pieces over the Martian ice caps. If one could get enough CO2 into the atmosphere of Mars one could in principle get the atmospheric pressure above the partial pressure of water. Once it was possible to have liquid water on the surface of Mars, one could then introduce geneticly engineered microorganisms to modify the atmosphere into something breathable. This is just one more reason why Mars is ideal for industrialization. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 86 06:35:19 GMT From: karn@petrus.arpa (Phil R. Karn) Subject: questions about Challenger commission report Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I finally got a copy of the Challenger Commission report and have read most of it. I was most impressed with the overall thoroughness of the Commission's work and the care with which they avoided jumping to conclusions. I do have one question, though. On page 55, the possibility that a "case membrane failure" was to blame is discussed: "Fracture mechanics analysis indicates that a hole in the case larger than one inch would cause the entire case to rupture in a few milliseconds. This would give rise to the appearance of a large longitudinal flame, an event that is contrary to the flight films." Elsewhere, pictures of the recovered right-hand SRB show that the burn-through in the aft field joint had grown quite large (several feet in diameter, judging from the photos on pages 78-81) before the booster was blown up by the range safety officer. My question is, once the joint burned through, why didn't the entire case quickly rupture, given the comment on page 55? Is there something different about the behavior of a hole in the joint versus one between the joints? I remember that there was considerable skepticism in the first few days after the accident about whether the SRBs could be at fault, considering that they flew away from the explosion more or less intact. Was this just a fluke? By the way, note what appears to be a grounding strap attached to the recovered SRB pieces shown in page 80. Was this a safety precaution to avoid the possibility of igniting any remaining propellant? Having never actually seen SRB propellant, I don't know if the brown stuff on the inside of the piece is propellant or case liner. I thought the propellant was supposed to be "battleship gray" in color, though. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 17 Oct 1986 14:01:26-PDT From: redford%seamos.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (John Redford) To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: new mag - "Commercial Space" I came upon an interesting new magazine in the drugstore the other day: "Commercial Space - the Magazine of Business in Space". It's put out quarterly by McGraw-Hill, and this is already Volume 2, Number 2. It had a Special Introductory Newstand Price of $2.95, so it looks like they're going to promote it. It's full of advertising from various aerospace firms, and has articles on: - Japan's space program - Promoting cooperation with the Russians on a Mars project - Finding new fishing grounds with satellites - Joint efforts between 3M and NASA - An MIT teleoperator project - Where to find info on space research - Globesat's efforts to build small, standard satellites as well as many others. I find it all very encouraging. These are not blue-sky, let's-get-pig-iron-from-the-asteroids type projects, but things of economic value TODAY. There is a lot happening in this field, and a lot more can be done without mythical advances in technology. I intend to subscribe. John Redford DEC-Hudson PS The subscription address is: Commercial Space PO Box 1523 Neptune, NJ 07754-1523 (appropriate!) They want $24.95 for one year, and also want a title, company, and nature of job for the sake of their advertisers. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 86 23:32:30 GMT From: ihnp4!chinet!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Mundt) Subject: Re: Pop-top SRB's Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa One of the biggest problems early in flight is having enough of a velocity to make it back to the runway. If I understand you correctly, the reverse thrusters would slow things down before the orbiter detached. No profit in that. If the SRB's could be "pop-topped" the orbiter could then shut down the main engines and release from the ET while still maintaining as much velocity as possible. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 86 13:21:53 GMT From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Chariots for Apollo #5 - Scrape & SWIP Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa The lander had gained even more weight during the early months of the year [1965] than the command and service modules. In May, Shea pursuaded Mueller to approve an increase in lander weight to 14,850 kilograms, including crew and equipment. In June, Harry L. Reynolds warned Owen Maynard that it would be difficult to keep the spacecraft below even that figure. ... Really worried now, Grumman launched a two-pronged attack known as "Scrape" and "SWIP". Scrape meant just what the word implies, searching the structure for every chance to shave bulk off structural members. But SWIP (Super Weight Improvement Program) was Grumman's real war against weight. ... By the end of 1965, Scrape and SWIP had pruned away 1100 kilograms, providing a comfortable margin below the control weight limit. One of the more striking changes to come from this drive for a lighter spacecraft was the substitution of aluminum-mylar foil thermal blankets for rigid heatshields. The gold wrapping characteristic of the lander's exterior saved 50 kilograms. Many of these weight-reducing changes made the lander so difficult to fabricate, so fragile and vulnerable to damage, that it demanded great care and skill by assembly and checkout technicians. Structural compo- nents took on strange and complex shapes, requiring careful machining to remove any excess metal - a costly and time-comsuming process even after vendors had been found who would make these odd looking parts.* * Arnold Whittaker described how the fabrication group was caught in the squeeze between manufacturing requirements and schedule pressures. At a program management meeting he said that "one of the fellows in manufacturing came in [with] a light cardboard box. . . He said `I'll show you why everything's late.` And he dumped out a whole box of machined parts . . , very complex fittings [too thin to be even] reasonably heavy sheet metal - but it wasn't any sheet metal, it was a complex machined fitting. And he said `Man, we never built parts like this before in any quantity like this and every fitting on the LEM looks like this.`" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 86 17:48 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Comsat fuel saving maneuver invented The NY Times reported today (10/16) that engineers at Comsat Corp. have developed a technique for reducing the fuel consumption of comsats by up to 90%. The technique can be applied remotely to satellite already in orbit. Currently, on-board thrusters on comsats in GSO are used to counter perturbations induced by the moon. These perturbations cause the orbit to become nonequatorial, moving the satellite's footprint north or south. The new technique uses the thrusters to tilt the satellite so the footprint remains fixed. The new technique will require changing the pointing hardware on some ground dishes, since a satellite in a geosynchronous but nonequatorial orbit will bob up and down once a day. This technique has not been used before because electronic failure had been thought to limit satellite lifetime. Experience has shown, however, that the electronics is more reliable than was first thought. It is estimated that this change will double satellite lifetime. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #26 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02649; Tue, 28 Oct 86 03:02:14 PST id AA02649; Tue, 28 Oct 86 03:02:14 PST Date: Tue, 28 Oct 86 03:02:14 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610281102.AA02649@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #27 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 28 Oct 86 03:02:14 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #27 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 27 Today's Topics: space news from 15 Sept AW&ST space news from 22 Sept AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: mordor!lll-crg!seismo!mnetor!utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from 15 Sept AW&ST Date: 19 Oct 86 01:31:57 GMT Spacelab cutbacks result in several hundred layoffs and reassignments; more are likely to follow. Former White House science advisor George Keyworth slams National Commission on Space report as unfocussed and lacking a clear agenda. He charges that the commission put too much emphasis on consensus proposals to do everything, forfeiting its possible impact by asking for too much. [Personal opinion: I fear he is right. -- HS] SDI in-space experiment of Sept 5 was a fairly complete success. Sensors on the modified Delta second stage (including the first laser radar flown in space) observed the satellite during deployment and after some orbit changes. They also saw the launch of an Aries (which is a Minuteman second stage) from White Sands. Finally, the satellite, using the radar system from a Phoenix long-range air-to-air missile, homed on and destroyed the second stage; apparently it hit within a foot of the intended impact point. Details are classified, but apparently the sensors generally worked better than expected. The next SDI launch will be a Delta from KSC scheduled for Nov 1987, although the schedule depends on SDI's uncertain budget. This one is expected to include a relay-mirror experiment to assess the use of ground-based lasers aimed via orbiting mirrors. There will be two more SDI Deltas following that. Later, larger SDI payloads will be launched by the Shuttle. These will include a neutral-particle-beam satellite for experiments in tracking and discrimination (prime contractor choice next year, launch maybe 1990), the Space Surveillance and Tracking Satellite carrying new-technology sensors for in-space tracking and ICBM detection (launch maybe 1990), and the Boost Surveillance and Tracking Satellite for experimental tracking of missile plumes lower in the atmosphere (launch maybe 1991). All of the dates are subject to change depending on SDI's near-term budgets. [Note to those violently opposed to SDI: these items are legitimate space news, even though they happen to relate to a program you dislike. -- HS] As you might expect from the above, the Delta launch on Sept 5 was a success. Great care was taken, including referring a doubtful decision on some missed test procedures all the way up to Fletcher. On the same day, NASA decided to buy three more Deltas to supplement the two already in inventory, and may buy yet another. Current assignments are: Delta 179 GOES-H weather satellite, 20 Nov 1986. Delta 182 Palapa comsat for Indonesia, 19 March 1987. Delta 181 SDI. 1987. Delta 183 SDI. 1988. Delta 184 Either SDI or the Cosmic Background Explorer, 1989. Explorer launch would be from Vandenberg and would require buying Delta 185 for another SDI payload. NASA is considering buying an Atlas-Centaur to launch the German Rosat X-ray sky-survey satellite in late 1989. Rosat was originally scheduled to launch last month on shuttle 71O. Existing Atlas-Centaur schedule calls for launches Nov 1986, Feb 1987, and May 1987 carrying Navy comsats. NASA plans to change Delta storage procedures to keep the first stage in a controlled temperature/humidity environment. Second stages are already stored that way. Aerojet TechSystems gets a small USAF contract for a low-thrust rocket system intended for moving large, fragile structures from low orbit to Clarke orbit. NASA task force reviewing Space Station design proposes five redesign options to address problems of cost, excessive EVA requirements for assembly, and launch constraints. They are: (1) enlarge the tunnels and nodes connecting the pressurized modules, using the extra volume to hold equipment that would otherwise be outside; (2) changes in assembly sequence; (3) move equipment from the manned station to the unmanned platforms (this would reduce external equipment on the station and help with Congressional demands for early science return, but is likely to be rejected because it doesn't help the transport problems); (4) use of expendables for assembly and resupply; (5) changes to the polar-orbiting platform [details unspecified]. This is the preliminary list, with a definitive list going up to Phillips and Fletcher in mid-Sept. A quick decision is expected due to the desire to get things on track again before Congress recesses. Texas congressmen happy over a settlement of the Johnson/Marshall dispute over responsibility for the habitability module. Johnson manages, Marshall contractor builds. If this sounds awfully similar to what NASA intended to do anyway, and the Texan happiness seems odd to you, you're right. DoD is unhappy about vulnerability of its comsats to jamming, with the "Captain Midnight" commercial-comsat case as an unhappy example. It would need better equipment, though. DSCS and other SHF-band satellites have antennas capable of nulling out jammers, providing some protection. The EHF Milstar system scheduled for the 1990s will be quite difficult (not impossible) to jam. The military is also unhappy about the increasing use of satellite imagery, notably from Spot, by the news media. They don't like civilians looking over their shoulders, especially when the opposition might be watching the news too. They don't have much choice, though. They expect China and Japan to join France in launching high-resolution satellites, and also expect a Spot successor with 1-m resolution. DoD annual launch schedule in the 1990s will probably be four Titan 2s, five or six Medium Launch Vehicles, and five or six Titan 4s. NASA Office of Space Science and Applications fingers 8 science satellites that should be moved to expendables. Prominently, the Cosmic Background Explorer should launch in 1989; a NASA official claims that $45-50M is in the FY1988 budget for a Delta for it (the FY1988 budget went to the Office of Mismanagement and Bean-counting in September, but won't be public until January). The names of the other seven will be released shortly. Eight NOAA satellites are also recommended for transfer to expendables in the report by Burton Edelson, NASA assoc. admin. for space science. He says Fletcher supports launching the Explorer on an expendable, but wants the money to come out of the science budget. Edelson says he would do this on a one-time basis to get a mixed-fleet strategy started, but would need more money to do it on a continuing basis; historically the science budget buys the spacecraft, mission operations, and data analysis, while the spaceflight budget buys the launch. The report looked at 146 missions and determined that 126 needed the shuttle. 12 of the remainder should remain on the shuttle for various reasons, leaving the 8. Two of the 12 are Galileo and Ulysses; Edelson says that the plan for launching these with Shuttle/IUS is uncertain, because the shuttle will have to meet very narrow launch windows [Brief editorial: my, it sure is knock- the-shuttle time, isn't it? Shuttle missions have met narrow windows in the past, and expendables have missed them. -- HS], new shuttle safety standards may be incompatible with the isotope generators, and the IUS may not be ready in time. The 8 NOAA satellites include polar weather satellites and next-generation GOES satellites. NOAA has asked the USAF for two Titan 4s for the new GOESs; apparently the USAF sees no problem provided NOAA can fork over the cash, about $250M each. [Ah, those cheap expendables! -- HS] The mixed-fleet study isn't yet finished; yet to come are cost comparisons, including the cost of mission delays. "Delay is not free. It's costing us $7M a month to delay the Hubble Space Telescope." Continuing difficulties with scientific access to space are likely for the next few years. The plan now is for 63 shuttle flights between now and 1992, which is 80 fewer than the old plan. Space science and applications was expecting 50, and now will have 19 at most. 11 Spacelab missions are being canned, as are many smaller missions like 8-10 Materials Science Labs and a dozen Spartans. Average delay for free-flyers is 30 months, for attached payloads 40 or more. Edelson is urging new starts despite the 51L mess and tight budgets, to keep the science program alive. Top priorities are the Global Geospace Science satellite (part of the International Solar Terrestrial Physics program) and the High Resolution Solar Observatory (a scaled-down version of the Solar Optical Telescope), and Edelson wants starts on both in FY88. The space-science office has offered to slip the launch dates of Mars Observer, the Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite, and the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite in order to get funding to cover new starts for GGS and HRSO and to pay launch-delay bills. Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee proposes to put $3G in the FY87 defence budget to replace Challenger. Despite the DoD funding, NASA would operate the new orbiter. NASA could sign next year to get contractors going on the replacement, although actual spending would be delayed. NASA awards short-term contracts to five firms to study major revisions to the shuttle SRBs. Martin Marietta is renovating Cape Canaveral Pad 41 for the Titan 4. The pad was last used to launch the Voyagers in 1977. Fletcher says White House needs a permanent space advisory staff, to make major planning decisions without bureaucratic bickering. He says the Senior Interagency Group for Space's decision-making process tends to focus on interagency turf battles rather than policymaking. SIG-Space does not have any full-time staff of its own. In the 60s and 70s, space policy was set by NASA, DoD, and the White House. Now Commerce, Transportation, OMB, White House economic-advisory groups, Reagan's own staff, and yet other peripherally-involved agencies all make proposals, often without much understanding of the implications. Fletcher is also unhappy about micro- management by Congress. Ron McNair's widow has filed suit against Morton Thiokol, charging negligence resulting in her husband's death. Specifically, it charges that the SRB joint design was basically defective, that MT failed to warn the astronauts about it, and that MT also failed to warn them about the cold-weather hazard debate the night before the launch. NASA was not named in the suit, although McNair and her lawyers have not ruled out action against NASA. More suits against MT are expected. If the suits reach court, MT is virtually certain to adopt the "government contractor" defense, citing laws that forbid suing manufacturers over equipment that was accepted by the government as meeting specs. Fletcher is starting some internal planning efforts, notably looking at goals after the Space Station. Sally Ride will coordinate the results as an assistant to Fletcher. Some output is expected by spring. One reason to think hard about the next step is that the Soviets may already have it well underway by the time the Space Station is up. Fletcher: "The important thing about Mir is not its size but its multiple docking ports. They can put together a space station now not too different from what we are going to have in 1994. It is quite clear that by the time we get through with our space station, they may be on their way to the next step..." [Note that Skylab had multiple docking ports, never used. Sigh. -- HS] Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Path: mordor!sri-spam!rutgers!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from 22 Sept AW&ST Date: 26 Oct 86 00:54:21 GMT Federal Express, which has both Ariane and Titan launch reservations already, will issue a public request for proposals for launch services in October. Bidding will be open to all; interest from the Chinese is expected, also possibly other new suppliers. NASA is preparing to release new transcripts of prelaunch conversations among the Challenger crew. The tape is about an hour long, starting at the time the crew entered the orbiter. There are some references to cold weather, but nothing relevant to the launch decision. The recording was not transcribed and released before because it provided no accident-relevant information, and such conversations are normally confidential in deference to crew privacy. NASA space-station management recommends a redesigned station for launch starting in 1993, focussing initially on a single crossbeam with manned modules at the center and solar panels on the ends. Many systems planned for external mounting on the "dual keel" station will now be inside enlarged "resource nodes" connecting the manned modules, to reduce EVA requirements. Extensive external structure resembling that of the "dual keel" station might eventually evolve out of the initial configuration. The redesign will probably delay attachment of the ESA lab module, and possibly the Japanese module. The Canadian servicing facility might also be affected. There are few assembly sequences that *don't* delay arrival of the international components. The international partners might get increased privileges in the US module group in compensation, although doing this could make US users unhappy. Europe and Japan are pushing to get their modules up as early as possible. The redesign endorsed a crew escape module as desirable, but didn't make it a formal part of the configuration. The intent here is probably an attempt to separate the expensive escape module from the already-tight budget. The redesign will have a useful man-tended capability by the fifth assembly flight (early 1994?) and will be permanently manned by the seventh or eighth (mid 1994?). Full assembly of the previous configuration could have taken 31 launches over eight years. The key changes that Fletcher might adopt are: - Revision of assembly sequence to defer EVA until later missions. - Change from the dual-keel configuration to the single-boom configuration, at least for the first three years of operations. Automatic deployment of the trusswork by robots is suggested as preferable to astronaut assembly. The transverse boom may have disadvantages, such as pointing constraints for instruments. - Shortening of the pressurized modules to fit them better to reduced shuttle lift limits. - Emphasis on deployed rather than assembled utilities, again to reduce EVA. - Use of expendables during assembly. This would probably require an automated rendezvous and docking system, such as the Soviets have. The polar platform may also need redesign to fly on the Titan 4, if there won't be any polar Shuttle launches for a while. - Basing the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle in space during assembly, to give more payload on shuttle flights. The OMV could also provide stationkeeping and reboost during early assembly, before the station can do these for itself. The review group found that shuttle launch rates will be a problem, given that there will still be a backlog of missions from the launch hiatus. A four-orbiter fleet is considered marginal in the circumstances. Atlas E successfully launches NOAA weather satellite from Vandenberg Sept 17, first successful US civilian satellite launch since shuttle 61C on Jan 12. The satellite, NOAA-10, replaces the aging NOAA-6, which was called back into service after NOAA-8 failed in orbit late last year. It also restores Sarsat capability that was lost when NOAA-8 failed; NOAA-6 was too old to have the search-and-rescue package. Launch was trouble-free when it finally went off. It had been delayed a total of about a year due to scheduling conflicts and problems with both satellite and booster. 12 Atlas E's remain in inventory, assigned to military and civilian weather satellites through about 1990. NOAA is concerned, however, that the USAF may stop using the Atlas E, putting all the overhead costs in NOAA's lap. NOAA is studying the cost of launching its satellites on Titan 2, just in case. New report on problems of radioactive space debris calls it a serious problem. There are about 50 reactors and isotope generators now in orbit, mostly from the Soviet military radar satellites. The Teledyne Brown report also says there is cause to worry about the possibility of one of those satellites being fragmented by a debris collision; most of them are in high-traffic orbital regions. The Soviets did speculate that the Cosmos 954 incident might have involved a debris collision. Another ominous item is that the only US reactor in orbit, the experimental SNAP-10A launched in 1965, has spawned pieces of debris on at least six occasions in the last seven years; nobody knows what the debris is or why it's being released. Launch failures are also a concern. The US has had two isotope generators go into the ocean after launch failures, one later recovered intact and the other believed to have survived intact. The Soviets have dropped two radar- satellite reactors into the Pacific from launch failures, also a Lunokhod with an isotope heat source. NASA delays rollout of Atlantis for weather-protection tests two weeks to Oct 7. This will be the first time a shuttle has been rolled out since 51L, and probably the last until launches resume. The main purpose is to check new weather-protection shields on Pad 39B. NASA also is taking advantage of the only time it will have a shuttle on the pad any time soon to run assorted other tests of pad procedures and facilities. The delay is because a jammed payload-changeout-room door must be repaired if some of the auxiliary tests are to be run, and because wind instrumentation for a hydrogen-trapping test must be in place before Atlantis returns to the VAB if that test is to be run. The door repair is taking longer than expected, and the wind-measuring gear won't be ready until mid-November. Among the auxiliary tests are a crew-escape simulation, to evaluate the escape procedures and train support crews on them. Doubts are being expressed that the shuttle will be ready to go in the first quarter of 1988. Testing and verification of the booster redesign is a problem area, although Truly says that the worst part of clearing the shuttle to fly again is the huge task of reviewing all the flight- critical items from scratch. One thing that would necessarily involve a major delay would be a vertical test firing of a full SRB. At the moment all full tests are to be horizontal, although there has been a strong recommendation for a new test stand at Morton Thiokol to permit testing under dynamic loads that the current stand can't provide. [Editorial for the week: I support the recommendation in "America: A Spacefaring Nation Again" that military shuttle launches using volunteer military crews should resume *immediately*, to meet immediate needs and keep the launch crews in practice. -- HS] House adopted and sent to the Senate an Administration-backed bill which extends US patent law to cover space activities about US space vehicles; essentially it makes a US space vehicle part of the US for patent purposes. Senate action this year is unlikely due to lack of time. Intelsat buys another Ariane for the third Intelsat 6, formerly contracted for the Shuttle. The first and second Intelsat 6's have already made the switch. Intelsat plans to self-insure launch of the first two Intelsat 6 comsats, and has cancelled partial launch insurance already obtained. Full coverage for $200M satellites was unobtainable, and the premiums for partial coverage were approaching the value of the coverage itself. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #27 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05851; Wed, 29 Oct 86 03:02:19 PST id AA05851; Wed, 29 Oct 86 03:02:19 PST Date: Wed, 29 Oct 86 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610291102.AA05851@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #28 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 29 Oct 86 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #28 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 28 Today's Topics: Re: Comsat fuel saving maneuver invented Re: Comsat fuel saving maneuver invented How dense is the interstellar gas near the sun? Welcome policy changes for STS Re: Another reason for Martian colonization Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars Pollution in space (was Re: Response to Globus ...) Re: Moon Treaty ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Oct 86 23:53:43 GMT From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: Comsat fuel saving maneuver invented Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > The NY Times reported today (10/16) that engineers at Comsat Corp. > have developed a technique for reducing the fuel consumption > of comsats by up to 90%. The technique can be applied remotely to > satellite already in orbit. I'm puzzled by this move on the part of Comsat. It has been well known for many, many years that North/South stationkeeping is much more expensive in terms of fuel consumption than East/West stationkeeping, and that a satellite that foregoes N/S thrusting will describe a "figure 8" orbit whose inclination varies cyclically with time due to lunar and solar perturbations. However, they're claiming that this is a new, novel and PATENTABLE idea. I hope there's something more to it than I've heard so far, since AMSAT has been saying (in print) for several years now that we would only do E/W stationkeeping on our Phase 4 amateur birds in order to minimize hydrazine requirements. The only problem I can see with this technique is how they are going to keep the antenna footprint in a fixed position given a spinning spacecraft. I guess they could reorient the spin axis so that it's always normal to the orbit plane. This would cause a 24-hour cycle in which the footprint would "rotate" at the equator crossings. With a three-axis stabilized (i.e., non-rotating) spacecraft, however, this could be avoided. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 86 04:42:22 GMT From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Burch) Subject: Re: Comsat fuel saving maneuver invented Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa This is also good for HBO et. al., since home dishes are too simple to modify for the figure 8 tracking that would be required... All that could be hoped for is that the focus might be made sloppy enough to keep the satellite in view, at the expense of gain. -David B. (Ben) Burch Analysts International Corp. Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Oct 86 14:24 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa, ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: How dense is the interstellar gas near the sun? Additional comments on "bootstrap starship"... For all of those who asked "Where does the energy come from?", the answer is: from the reaction mass. Initially the reaction mass and spaceship are comoving, but when one dumps the reaction mass so it is stationary. Its kinetic energy stays with the ship. The background gas is not an energy source, it's a momentum sink. It was commented that, even at .1 c, the power density of the interstellar gas is low. Quite right; I said that in the first message. A very large, thin collector is needed; one also needs a long acceleration path (light years long). The biggest problem with my first scheme was the need to ionize the gas by impact with a foil. Sputtering could destroy the foil too quickly for it to be useful. Is this necessary? It has recently been suggested (Bertaux et. al., Astron. Astrophys. 150(1), 1985; Reynolds, Astron. J. 92(3), 1986) that the local interstellar gas is substantially ionized. Estimates of density based on Lyman backscattering by neutral hydrogen may therefore be too low. Bertaux et. al. conclude that in the immediate solar neighbor interstellar neutral hydrogen and helium concentrations are .03 - .06 cm**-3 and .015 - .020 cm**-3, respectively. The ratio of neutral hydrogen to helium is substantially below the "cosmic" ratio, suggesting that substantial amounts of the hydrogen have been ionized. These figures imply that from 60 to 85% of interstellar hydrogen in the solar neighborhood is ionized (perhaps more if helium is also substantially ionized). In this model, the local hydrogen density is 0.2 cm**-3. Ionized gas is a *lot* easier to couple to than neutral gas. The heavy foil I suggested for the first version could be replaced by some scheme using very sparse charged grids, or perhaps by superconducting cables coupling to magnetic fields embedded in the interstellar plasma. Such collectors would be mostly empty space. ------------------------------ Date: 1986 October 19 17:41:15 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Subject: Welcome policy changes for STS HS> Date: 7 Oct 86 22:21:41 GMT HS> From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) HS> Subject: space news from Sept 1 AW&ST HS> ... and a general policy of trying to maintain both the Shuttle and HS> expendables, and trying to make critical payloads compatible with HS> both. My personal opinion is they should have done that all along and I applaud the change in policy at this time. HS> First test of SRB joints using a new test rig at Morton Thiokol. HS> The test setup is essentially a shortened SRB built out of fewer HS> segments. Initial tests will use the old joint design for HS> calibration, then new features will be tested. Testing vertically but with fewer segments sounds like a reasonable compromise. Calibrating on old design first then comparing with new design sounds like good procedure and I applaud the decision. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 86 21:03:59 GMT From: ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Another reason for Martian colonization Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <8610171353.AA05955@s1-b.arpa> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >Another amusing point about Martian industrialization is that on Mars >"pollution is your friend". ... > Gary Allen Hmm. By the time all this industrial pollution has created a breathable atmosphere, I guess the plutonium would have decayed to safe levels! :-) 1. If you want to terraform Mars, it is easier to just throw a few large pieces of rock or ice at the polar caps. That will vaporize the CO2 faster than just about anything else. 2. If noone in net.space has yet come up with a good reason to industrialize LEO or the Moon, what makes you think that putting industry on Mars will be make any more economic sense, especially given the vastly greater distance? Personal opinion time : I can't see any valid reason to go to Mars other than as another Apollo-type 'publicity stunt'. Hold off on the flame-throwers, for a minute : I think the Apollo program was great, but I can see a lot more reasons for investing the money in Earth-Moon space than in a one-shot mission to Mars, even though it may be much more glamorous. Andrew Folkins ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 86 22:00:09 GMT From: ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <211@apple.uucp> Michael Smith writes : >>> 3. From what we know of the history and geology of the Moon, we >>> can expect rich ore bodies to be much less common there than on >>> Earth. >>Sure, but so what? The energy to smelt the stuff is free, and the >>supply of raw materials is basically limitless. Who cares if your >>efficiency is only 10%? >Sorry, but nothin's for free. Sunlight on the earth surface is 'free' >too, but the structure to recover it costs. The energy density per >square metre may be greater in space, but the recovery devices cost >plenty. I guess the point here is : do the recovery devices cost more than shipping the stuff from Earth would? Once you reach a certain capacity, the answer is no. Given current costs to even *orbit* material, it will probably be economic to send a simple manufacturing facility quite early in any serious industrialization attempt, rather than shipping construction materials from Earth. >As to limitless supplies... ever hear of transportation costs? We >have lots of ore on earth that is 'basically limitless'. One small >problem, you have to dig it up and move it some where. Both operations >take capital. Yes, you have to dig it out of ore veins and ship it to a smelter. But on the Moon there probably *aren't* any ore veins like we find on Earth, any refining activities will just use lunar regolith. You can put the smelters and whatever anyplace you like : you basically don't have transportation costs for raw materials because they're right in your backyard. The result is that *you don't have any mining or transportation costs* other than the cost of a few vacuum-operable front-end loaders. This is about the same if you do your processing in space and launch the raw materials using a mass driver. Once that thing is built, you just dig up a convenient area of the lunar surface. Remember : on the moon and in space you don't have to worry about land rights, access to transportation or water, pollution requirements, and all the constraints that on Earth determine where the most profitable place for a factory is going to be, or if that facility is going to be built at all, or if some ore body is worth mining. >The real question is: Given the greater energy available in space and >the particular transportation costs on the lunar surface; is it >cheaper/better to make products there rather than here? I guess it depends on the product. Simple construction materials, yes. Jet engines, no. >E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems What's really needed is a lunar Landsat to survey the geological and chemical properties of the Moon and answer some of these questions. I remember reading that the Russians have one on the drawing boards for launch in the mid 1990's, and that NASA has (had?) plans for one, unfortunatly about number 35 on their list of "Missions We Would Like To Do If We Had The Money". Andrew Folkins ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 86 13:34:04 GMT From: decvax!wanginst!infinet!barnes@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jim Barnes) Subject: Pollution in space (was Re: Response to Globus ...) Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa This comment about "land rights, ..., pollution requirements, ..." sounds suspiciously similar to the strategy used in the late 1800s as industry was expanding in the western United States. No one minded if the forests were cut down, the rivers polluted, etc. because no one lived there (forgetting the Indians for a minute). Lots of damage was done to the environment that will take a long time to repair. I would hate to see us doing the same thing to the environments on other worlds as we expand out into space. {harvard,decvax}!wanginst!infinet!barnes Jim Barnes ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 1986 20:19-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Moon Treaty Approximately correct. The US State Department wrote the thing I believe, as a bone to throw to 3rd world countries. In their short sighted minds they weren't giving away anything useful. There was little or no support one way or the other in congress as I understand. The L5 Society put everything it had into hiring Leigh Retiener (Spelling of name is very approximate: it's been quite a few years) and practically put itself in the poor house for years afterwards fighting it. DC has a short memory, but we were the ones to kill it. Considering our resources at the time, we succeeded mainly because nobody was backing it except State, and State doesn't elect people. Most congressmen hadn't even thought about it until the implications were pointed out to them. Considering where we were at back then, it is really amazing what can happen when a gnat lands on one side or the other of a precariously balanced rock... The treaty is not ENTIRELY bad. But there are clauses which could lead to an international agency with regulatory and taxing powers over space industry, taxing power and a decidely non-capitalist outlook. Even with the existing treaties, property rights can't really exist as we know them on any existing bodies. There can be no national soveriegnity over territory although there is required to be national responsibility anb liability over any territory being used. Property rights can only exist in a rather unacceptably weak sense that many other countries have: the ruling body OWNS everything, and deeds and such are more a tenantship than an ownership document, even though they can be sold and otherwise transferred, within heavily regulated bounds. Remember that under US law, the government does not pretend to own nor does it have much control over the land within our borders, although our lowlife judges have interpreted away a great deal of the absolutist property right intentions of the nations founders. I think if such a treaty came around that had protections for individual property on the lines of what we are used to having in a free country, L5 would probably not complain so heartily. We want to go out in space to be free peoples, NOT to be slaves to an absentee landlord. Particularly a landlord who happens to be under the control of a conglomeration of third world dictators. Such a set up would eventually (100,200, 300 years?) lead to a bloody revolt and (depending on the response of the ruling agency) lead to an ugly schism in humanity. And before you pooh pooh the idea, consider what such a UN agency would be like after 300 years of building an international, diplomatically 'balanced' bureaucracy. One that has taxed all space development for 300 years. Think of the vested interests it would have in keeping the colonists under control. Probably as bad or worse in effects than the Navigation laws of England, and existing for pretty much the same reason: soak the colonists to make the homeland rich. There are more people and there is more money there, so the existing interests will control what the colonists could mine, grow, build, sell, what they can sell it for, who they can sell it to, how much they can sell it for. After all, we don't want some small Platinum exporting nation to have to compete with a cheaper source, now do we? If we truly want a future of peace, we should be ready to let people go and live their lives as they see fit. If you enslave them, they will eventually learn to hate you. Then they will kill you. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #28 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11134; Thu, 30 Oct 86 03:02:15 PST id AA11134; Thu, 30 Oct 86 03:02:15 PST Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 03:02:15 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610301102.AA11134@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #29 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 29 Today's Topics: HOTOL request Finding a good Lagrange-points derivation Are powersats impractical? Re: Space colonies... Ganymede also crazy-quilt that has settled more? down a drain, or investment in future? Space is latter. Dumb Question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20-OCT-1986 23:16 EDT From: MICHAEL R. WADE( GIPSY MANAGER ) To: Subject: HOTOL request I would like to find out more information about the HOTOL concept and the various designs that are being considered. If someone could direct me to the proper sources it would be greatly appreciated. Replies through normal mail would probably be appreciated by the space digest readers. Thanks, Michael Wade Spatial Data Analysis Lab Replies to : WADE@VTSDA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21-OCT-1986 10:29 CDT From: To: Subject: Finding a good Lagrange-points derivation A couple of requests recently have dealt with understanding the nature of Lagrange's equilibrium points. The most lucid mathematical derivation I've found is in: Jerry B. Marion, *Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems*, second edition, Academic Press, New York, 1970, pages 278-285. Section 8.12, "The Problem of Three Bodies." This is an undergraduate mechanics text, and no math fancier than basic calculus and vector algebra is used in the derivation. Marion gives references on page 285 so you can explore further if you like. Symon's *Mechanics* goes into more detail on stability, but uses daunting math. Dave Newkirk published some references the other day, but they didn't look like they were intended for the beginner. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALCDF.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 86 19:31 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Are powersats impractical? Gary Allen recently disparaged the powersat idea. Taking Gary's word that microwave power-beaming powersats are infeasible, I wondered if other schemes for orbital solar power are possible. If so, Gary's objections to microwave powersats are not arguments against space settlements. There's an obvious solar power scheme that is, in many ways, superior to conventional powersats. It's the Soletta idea: place large numbers of mirrors in orbit to focus light onto ground based collectors. The drawback to the scheme is that the finite angular size of the sun makes the reflected footprint on the Earth rather large. The sun is about .5 degrees across, as seen from Earth. A mirror at an altitude of 5000 kilometers will reflect a spot 43 kilometers across. The spot will in fact be somewhat larger, since the slant range will often be higher as the mirrors move, and the ground will be tilted relative to the beam, causing the spot to be elliptical. Let's say the spot is 60 km across. To get 1 sun of intensity in the spot will require 2800 km**2 of mirrors in space. If those mirrors are made of 1 micron aluminum foil the total mass (of the reflecting foil) is about 8000 tons. Since the mirrors will often be below the horizon from the receiver, this figure should be divided by some duty factor (say .05); however, mirrors can be timeshared between geographically dispersed receivers. (Interesting problem: how best to space the receivers, given that they should be far apart, yet should also be in dry areas?) I said 1 micron aluminum; it may be possible to build even thinner foil. Aluminum remains fairly reflective down to a few tens of nanometers. Some coating may be needed to protect against the solar wind, though. Also, considerable mass will be needed for a supporting framework, control electronics, attitude control flywheels and communications gear. How much energy can we get from these mirrors? Over three terawatts of light passes through a 60 km circle at Earth. If I assume 10% efficiency for converting this to electricity, we get 300 gigawatts of electricity. Often the mirrors will not be head-on to the sun, so some energy is lost, but the collectors will also get direct sunlight during the day, which should help compensate. At midnight mirrors directly overhead will be eclipsed, but at that time power load should be reduced anyway. The scheme has some big advantages: inefficiency and complexity of microwave transmission goes away, mass that must be placed in orbit per unit power output is much lower (perhaps 10 to 100x times less mass per unit power than conventional powersats, assuming many receivng sites), solar cells are on the ground where they're cheaper and safer. Disadvantages: does not scale down well, light pressure must be compensated for, *lots* of mirrors are needed, atmospheric absorption (build in deserts), astronomy is ruined, local heating. Also, I assume solar cells are cheap enough to make this fly; they currently are not (quite). One may want to focus more than 1 sun of light on the collector; perhaps mirrors that reflect in only some wavelength bands could reduce local heating. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 86 18:01:34 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space colonies... Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ... The main problem with totally contructed colonies in space is > radiation shielding... The shielding required for a libration point > colony is on the order of 30 megatons of lunar stone. When I read > that number I knew it was all over for this approach... Why? Nobody is proposing launching that much lunar rock with rockets! Given an operational lunar mass-driver, or access to asteroidal rock, sheer mass is just an annoying handling problem. > The second order difficulty is that human beings require gravity for > their bodies to stay healthy. No problem, you just spin the colony... > However then the spinning section has to be mounted on bearings that > will pass all colony life support... Why is this a problem? If the life support is from external greenhouses, they can spin too. There is no need to have a rotating joint in the pressure seal. Only part of the spinning section is within the shield. > The bearings would have to be able to withstand megatons of force and > be 100% reliable for a design life of a century. As an engineer, I > find this approach utterly absurd. If you assume those are the specs, of course they are absurd. What you haven't justified is your specs. Why do the bearings have to withstand megatons of force? This is free fall -- where are those forces coming from? There are forces involved, but they don't reach that order of magnitude that I'm aware of. And note that there is no requirement for bearings to be 100% reliable *without maintenance*. The requirement is that (a) the bearings not be subject to catastrophic failure, so that any problems which do arise can be fixed, and that (b) the bearings be repairable without need for stopping the spin. While this is not a trivial design problem, it is not a priori impossible. For machinery to run unmaintained for a century is remarkable; for it to run for a century given regular maintenance is not at all unprecedented. > In contrast, here is how you make a life support cavity on the moon. > ... You blow a big cavity in the lunar or martian crust. There would > be a certain amount of cave in that would cover the stone that was > activated by the explosion... My understanding is that the cavities from underground nuclear explosions usually collapse completely. Remember, we probably are talking about cavities in regolith, not solid rock. > ... This approach would use old, tried and true technology already > developed for testing nuclear weapons... I would hardly call construction within a nuclear-bomb cavity "tried and true" technology. Making a (usually temporary) cavity is tried and true; the rest is speculative. > It could be used not only on the > moon and Mars but also for hollowing out asteroids... Personally, I would worry about the tensile strength of the asteroid. > I should also mention that Mars is more appropriate for colonization > than the moon. The moon is almost devoid of nitrogen... Mars has > **all** of the elements necessary for life and is rich in metals... Unproven. We have much more knowledge of surface geology of the Moon than of Mars, and we don't really know very much about the availability of materials even on the moon. Personally, I tend to agree that if you must colonize something at the bottom of a deep gravity well, and if you ignore the problems of the much longer supply line from Earth, then Mars is a better choice. The availability of nitrogen is certainly much better, ditto hydrogen (at least near the North polar cap), but the place does have some disadvantages too. > ... The Powersat idea has repeatedly been shot down in various energy > studies... Not the ones that have taken them seriously, especially with use of non- terrestrial materials in mind. As I recall, the infamous DOE study that pretty much ended official interest in powersats is now openly admitted to have made no attempt to properly study extraterrestrial materials. > ... Besides Powersats are very hostile to the environment. The > microwaves would do injury to the ozone layer and side lobes from the > main beam would play havoc with communications and health... Can you cite a reference for the ozone-layer problem? This is the first I've heard of that one. There was some concern, still present to some degree, about possible effects on the ionosphere, but the ozone layer has never been an issue that I know of. Explain or cite references, please. The main beam from a powersat damn near wouldn't have side lobes, given the sheer size of the transmitting antenna. In any case, this issue has not been ignored. Microwave exposure outside the rectenna area would be far below *all* existing exposure standards (including the Soviet ones), last I heard. Some attention to communications systems would be needed, but the matter was looked at and does not appear too troublesome. Again, can you cite references (technical, not propaganda) for your assertions? Personally, I agree that the economics of powersats are unproven, but the word is "unproven", not "ridiculous". Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1986 October 22 22:45:45 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Subject: Ganymede also crazy-quilt that has settled more? From recent Nova episode on Voyager/Uranus, I believe that the prevaling theory of Miranda is that it was blown apart by some large collision and then the pieces recollected and partly melted. Where heavy pieces ended up in the center before the planet solidified, nothing subsequent happened because it was at equilibrium, but where heavy pieces remained near the surface during solidification those pieces later miagrated towards the center, displacing lighter material which flowed to the surface but cooled too quickly to damp out ripples (groves) and other evidence of the geologic activity. Thus we see radically different surface features depending on whether recent activity occurred or didn't occur. Based on that, I have a theory as to the surface terrain of Ganymede. Perhaps Ganymede suffered a similar fate, except Ganymede is larger and warmer so its more intense gravity pulled things toward equilibrium faster and its higher temperature kept it liquid longer relative to the resettling time of the chunks of rock and ice. When Ganymede finally froze, virtually all of the settling back to equilibrium was finished, leaving only some minor resettling to create the grooved terrain we observed. Callisto was lucky, not suffering such a disaster, although some of its large craters may have been caused by pieces from Ganymede that strayed too far out from Ganymede's orbit at the wrong time. Europa and Io of course have been so throughally melted recently to hide any evidence of their early fate. P.s. except for Titan and Miranda, the moons of Saturn and Uranus look remarkably similar. All (except those two) are super-cold very-frozen white-ice bodies which have frozen into them varying amounts of (1) craters, (2) geologic faults, and (3) colored/bright/dark material strewed across the surface. I predict the moons of Neptune will be similar except Triton and perhaps one of the mid-size moons that may be like Miranda. (Somebody, please archive this prediction and pull it out just before Voyager/Neptune in 1989?) By contrast, the moons of Jupiter are much warmer, ranging from green slightly-frozen ice, or ice over green water, to even warmer stuff. ------------------------------ Date: 1986 October 23 23:50:53 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!nrh@caip.rutgers.edu Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Subject: down a drain, or investment in future? Space is latter. nrh> Date: 6 Oct 86 05:06:00 GMT nrh> From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!nrh@caip.rutgers.edu nrh> ... What is important is that each shuttle flight represents a loss nrh> to the taxpayers of something like $100 million. I have two rebuttals, one already stated by somebody else and one new: (1) Most of the money goes to employees within our own nation, recirculating into the tax base, only a small part for exotic materials or foreign employees leaves our economy. -- What really happens is that money is diverted from other employees to these aerospace employees. If these aerospace employees would otherwise be wasting their college education and years of expertise working at a hamburger stand, hiring them to run the shuttle would be beneficial even if the shuttle were virtually worthless, which it isn't. If these aerospace employees would otherwise be building a private launch facility, then we have a major decision to resolve, is the diversion worth it?? (2) We aren't throwing the money away into a business that is failing. We are conducting basic research in operations in space. We are investing in the future, not blowing it on a poor choice of the present. Every company must invest in unproven methods in order to have something new, better then the competitors, in the future to turn into a profit-making activity. The question is what fraction of profit to pay to stockholders and what fraction to invest in the future of the company. Our nation must do the same, and in addition being a major nation in the world must consider investments which help the human race at large rather than the United States alone. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 86 00:15:40 GMT From: shawn@mit-eddie.arpa (Shawn F. Mckay) Subject: Dumb Question Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I know I'm letting myself in for it with this question, but here goes... "Where would one find a forum on UFO sightings, speculation, and more speculation."? I'm looking for a group with a serious interest in these events, and would love a pointer if there is such a group, somehow I doubt I'm the only nut roaming around with a serious curiosity in them. Thanks for the help, -- Shawn ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #29 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15673; Fri, 31 Oct 86 03:02:24 PST id AA15673; Fri, 31 Oct 86 03:02:24 PST Date: Fri, 31 Oct 86 03:02:24 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8610311102.AA15673@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #30 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 31 Oct 86 03:02:24 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #30 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 30 Today's Topics: Chariots for Apollo #6 - Stalked by the Spectre Another (quick) satellite launch capability Re: Pollution in space (was Re: Response to Globus ...) An analysis of vacuum filled lighter-than-air metal structures Fusion Rockets Space Telescope Stars program Re: Re: Space Telescope ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Oct 86 22:20:46 GMT From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Chariots for Apollo #6 - Stalked by the Spectre Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa At 6:31 a cry came over the radio circuit from inside the capsule: "There is a fire in here." Stunned, pad leader Babbitt looked up from his desk and shouted to Gleaves: "Get them out of there!" As Babbitt spun to reach a squawk box to notify the blockhouse, a sheet of flame flashed from the spacecraft. Then he was hurtled toward the door by a concussion. In an instant of terror, Babbitt, Gleaves, Reece and Clemmons fled. In seconds they rushed back, and Reece and Clemmons seached the area for gas masks and fire extinguishers to fight little patches of flame. All four men, choking and gasping in dense smoke, ran in and out of the enclosure, attempting to remove the spacecraft's hatches. Meanwhile, Propst' television picture showed a bright glow inside the spacecraft, followed by flames flaring around the window. For about three minutes, he recalled, the flames increased steadily. Before the room housing the spacecraft filled with smoke, Propst watched with horror as silver-clad arms behind the window fumbled for the hatch. "Blow the hatch, why don't they blow the hatch?" he cried. He did not know until later that the hatch could not be opened explosively. Elsewhere, Slayton and Roosa watched a television monitor, aghast, as smoke and fire billowed up. Roosa tried and tried to break the communications barrier with the spacecraft, and Slayton shouted furiously for the two physicians in the blockhouse to hurry to the pad. In the clean room, despite the intense heat, Babbit, Gleaves, Reece, Hawkins and Clemmons, now joined by Rogers, continued to fight the flames. From time to time, one or another would have to leave to gasp for air. One by one, they removed the booster cover cap and the outer and inner hatches - prying out the last one five and a half minutes after the alarm first sounded. By now, several more workers had joined the rescue attempt. At first, no one could see the astronauts through the smoke, only feel them. There were no signs of life. By the time the firemen arrived five minutes later, the air had cleared enough to disclose the bodies. Chaffe was still strapped in his couch, but Grissom and White were so intertwined below the hatch sill it was hard to tell which was which. ... After the autopsies were finished, the coroner reported that the deaths were accidental, resulting from asphyxiation caused by the inhalation of toxic gases. The crew did have second and third degree burns, but these were not severe enough to have caused the deaths. ... NASA had always feared that, in manned space flight, danger to pilots could increase with each succeeding program. ... Man was fallible; and a host of editorial cartoons reiterated this axiom for several months after the fire. One, by Paul Conrad in the Los Angeles Times, showed the spectre of death clothed in a spacesuit holding a Mercury spacecraft in one hand, a Gemini in the other, and with the smouldering Apollo in the background. It was captioned, "I thought you knew, I've been aboard on every flight." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0. -- Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 24 Oct 86 03:06:45 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!alliant!gottlieb@ll-xn.arpa (Bob Gottlieb) Subject: Another (quick) satellite launch capability Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa With all this talk about no expendable boosters around to put satellites into orbit, I was thinking: what about the (remaining) Titan II missiles used by the USAF as ICBMS in silos in Arkansas? They are being decommissioned - there have been several failures due to leaks causing fires, explosions, etc. So why not use the ones remaining? Pros: o The missiles take 1/2 hour to fuel, so their military usefulness is limited at best (first strike, anyone?) o They don't have to be moved; just remove the warhead bus and replace with a satellite & shroud & ... (I didn't say this was free or even cheap; just available soon) Cons: o Are they reliable enough to use as satellite launchers? o Would the Soviets be nervious if they saw a (single) launch of a Titan II into circum-polar orbit? [i.e., would they think it's a pin-down strike?] o Military: We can't spare a single missile. Unknowns: o Cargo weight of a Titan II to LEO? to GSO? o Time to build a housing for a satellite for the Titan II? Anyway, if anyone knows more about this than I (That is to say, any real facts), I would be curious about this. -- Bob Gottlieb ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 86 00:22:57 GMT From: ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Pollution in space (was Re: Response to Globus ...) Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <410@infinet.UUCP> barnes@infinet.UUCP (Jim Barnes) writes: [ responding to a comment of mine about lunar industrialization . . . ] > >This comment about "land rights, ..., pollution requirements, ..." >sounds suspiciously similar to the strategy used in the late 1800s as >industry was expanding in the western United States. No one minded if >the forests were cut down, the rivers polluted, etc. because no one >lived there (forgetting the Indians for a minute). Lots of damage was >done to the environment that will take a long time to repair. I would >hate to see us doing the same thing to the environments on other worlds >as we expand out into space. Yes, maybe it does sound the same, but, last I heard, there *are* no *ecological* environments on any other planets for us to damage. I really don't see how you can get upset about strip mining the Moon, which has been dead in just about every sense of the word for the last two billion years. I understand your point of view, and I agree with it here on Earth, but the Moon? Where's my "Save the Craters" button when I really need it? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 86 12:30:43 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: An analysis of vacuum filled lighter-than-air metal structures I have been observing the debate between Robert Maas and John Hogg with growing irritation. Maas proposed the idea of lighter-than-air vacuum filled metal structures while John has been trying to argue against this odd notion. One is reminded of the old saying that, "one should never argue with a fool because others might be unable to tell the difference". However I believe that pseudo-scientific arguments should be slapped down forcefully. The notion of lighter-than-air metals based on a vacuum containing structure can be rigorously disproven. The geometry that can best withstand compression is a sphere. If a hollow sphere will collapse under pressure then all other hollow geometries will also fail. The equation for the classical buckling pressure of a sphere can be found in the "Handbook of Engineering Mechanics" by W. Fluegge. The equation is pcr=2.0*E*((t/r)**2)/((3.0*(1.0-(nu**2)))**0.5) with the assumption of t< Subject: Fusion Rockets bouldin@ceee-sed: > Many years ago (1976) I seem to remember seeing some articles on the >idea of fusion 'pulse-rockets' based on small (very small) laser >inititated fusion explosion. Sort of a pure fusion version of Orion. >Anyone have any refs. to this? Hopefully, more recent than my distant >memories?? You are probably thinking of the British Interplanetary Society's "Project Daedalus" study, which was a design study of a laser-fusion propulsion probe to Barnard's star. I believe you can get this report from the BIS; it was also discussed and critiqued some in the _Journal of the British Interplanetary Society_ (which is the only journal which regularly discusses interstellar travel concepts; highly recommended) and in popular periodicals (I think it was on the cover of _Sky and Telescope_, for example). Alternatively, consider a report: R.A. Hyde, "A Laser Fusion Rocket For Interplanetary Propulsion", UCRL 88857, Lawrence Livermore National laboratory, September 27, 1983. also, R.A. Hyde, "Earthbreak: a Review of Earth to Space Transportation, UCRL 89252, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, May 24 1983. Personal Opinions (skip this section if uninterested): There seems to be a lot of belief in fusion among the people who post to SPACE. For example, in the last few digests >[for a technology more cost effective than SSPS] "we could >go to ... nuclear fusion..." and >"In less than thirty years we will probably be playing with some sort >of fusion drive." just to pull a few quotes at random. I won't say that fusion *won't* work, but from what I get from trying to keep at least minimally current with what's happening, it seems to be a long shot. I have great doubts that it will ever produce economical power. Ever since the early 1950's, the estimates of the people working on the problem have been that we will have practical fusion reactors "in twenty years". That's what they *still* say. There was an article in _Technology Review_ about two years ago discussion fusion. The main problem they pointed out is that everybody in the field is still trying to just get ignition. In terms of power generation, this is only the tip of the iceberg; what is needed is economical power (electricity or propulsion, depending on application). It is not clear that this will ever happen, or that it will be cheap if it does. Although the energy per unit fuel is large, actual power densities considered will be very low. Fusion reactors will be much bigger than fission reactors, and will produce less power. Refining fuel may not be cheap either, and for ICF schemes, making the fuel pellets alone will contribute significant amounts to the cost. For space travel, it sounds very unlikely. Fusion reactors are almost certainly going to be very heavy; not what you want for a space ship. In short, fusion is certainly worth doing research on, and *might* someday be practical, but probably not soon, and quite possibly not ever. Don't count on it. --Geoff Landis ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Oct 86 10:38 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Space Telescope Not only will pointing the ST at earth damage some of its sensors, but there's a possibility that looking at bright debris in earth orbit could damage one of the more sensitive detectors. The article I read that in points out that in the 17 year lifespan of the telescope there's a good chance it will be hit by a millimeter sized chunk of orbital debris or meteor (and about a 1% chance of a collision with a large chunk that would nearly certainly destroy the satellite). Much larger scopes will have to be built in high orbit. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 02:27:53 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Stars program To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Last year someone posted requesting information on positions of nearest stars, saying they were developing a program that would display them, and that the program would be published in Byte. I would like a copy of the program, so is the author still on the net or does anybody know who he was and what his current net address is? I don't know anything about this person or this program, but I have written a Pascal program that displays the nearest stars as seen from the solar system or from any nearby star. It uses the Yale Catalog of Bright Stars, which is available on the ARPAnet and which I have a copy of on my PC. I will be glad to send this program to anyone who is interested. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 86 01:54:32 GMT From: al@ames-aurora.arpa (Al Globus) Subject: Re: Re: Space Telescope Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa >> Will the ST ever be pointed at the Earth? I'm not absolutely sure, but while I was reviewing some of the ST software I remember that the cover closed automatically when viewing a bright object (such as the Sun or even the Earth) to protect telescope electronics. If my memory is correct, then the ST cannot be pointed at Earth without ruining it. Al Globus Sterling Software ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #30 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19956; Sat, 1 Nov 86 03:02:12 PST id AA19956; Sat, 1 Nov 86 03:02:12 PST Date: Sat, 1 Nov 86 03:02:12 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611011102.AA19956@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #31 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 1 Nov 86 03:02:12 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #31 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 31 Today's Topics: Challenger disaster responsibility Mirrors is space The vestibular system in rotating structures why Mercury (liquid metal) used for ion rocket? Re: Are powersats impractical? Re: The vestibular system in rotating structures ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 86 22:36 EST From: William M. York Subject: Challenger disaster responsibility To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu This message includes a transcription of an article by William V. Shannon, entitled "The questions linger after Challenger disaster -- and need answers". The article appears on the editorial page of October 29th's Boston Globe. It is long, but I thought that it would be of interest. ================ Beginning of article ================ President Reagan several days ago swore in William Graham as his science adviser. The theme for the occasion should have been, "Nothing succeeds like failure." Graham was acting administrator of NASA when the space shuttle Challenger ended in disaster on Jan. 28. According to a powerful new article by Richard C. Cook, formerly on the NASA staff, Graham made the critical decisions on scheduling on the weekend of Jan. 25-26 that led to Challenger's fatal flight. Cook is the man who wrote a memorandum to higher officials in NASA in July 1985 reporting how deeply concerned the agency's engineers were by the unreliability of the shuttle's O-rings. he was an early witness before the commission of inquiry headed by former Secretary of State William P. Rogers. In an article for the November issue of The Washington Monthly, Cook again blows the whistle, this time on the Rogers Commission and its elaborate avoidance of the question of responsibility, particularly with regard to acting administrator Graham. The commission's report correctly cited the O-ring failure as the cause of the disaster but it stated an outright falsehood in assessing responsibility. It declared that top-level officials who made the decision to launch on that January day "were unaware of the recent history of problems concerning the O-rings and the joint." The truth is the exact opposite. Testimony before the commission -- and NASA's own records -- proved that knowledge of the O-ring erosion danger was widespread in NASA and known at every administrative level. There was not, as the commission report suggests, a failure of communication. The commission's second major failure was not finding out why the launch was ordered over the strong protests of the engineers at Morton Thiokol, the contractor in charge of the solid rocket booster. The commission's report falls back on the assertion that these protests never came to the attention of top officials. The sequence of meetings in the 24 hours preceding the launch makes this explanation totally implausible. For the first time in the history of the shuttle, Thiokol had to prove why NASA should not launch, rather that why it should. Thiokol engineer Allan McDonald testified: "I've been in many flight-readiness reviews, and I've had a very critical audience...justifying why our hardware was ready to fly. I was surprised that the tone of the [pre-launch] meeting was just the opposite of that. I didn't have to prove I was ready to fly... We had to prove it wasn't ready, and that's a big difference." Why the pressure to launch? The question comes back to the timing of President Reagan's State of the Union address, which was scheduled for Jan. 28. The teacher-in-space flight featuring Christa McAuliffe was originally scheduled to end on that day. A series of delays for technical reasons pushed the tentative date for launching to Sunday, Jan. 26. Vice President George Bush was scheduled to attend the launch. (It was no accident that the school teacher chosen was from New Hampshire, where Bush will be running in the first primary of 1988.) In his article, Cook points out that on Saturday evening the 25th, Graham "followed a procedure unprecedented in [NASA] history." Because the weather at Cape Canaveral is unpredictable, astronauts normally board the shuttle even though bad weather is predicted because the weather might suddenly change. But Graham canceled the Sunday flight on Saturday evening because bad weather was predicted. Cook hypothesizes that Graham did so because of a safety rule that forbids loading and unloading the shuttle more than twice in a 48-hour period. If it had been fueled up Sunday morning and canceled, it could be tried again on Monday, but if that failed, the next attempt could not be until Wednesday -- too late for the president's speech. By canceling Saturday night, Graham made it possible to try either Monday or Tuesday. A Monday flight proved impossible because of icy conditions. A Tuesday flight was definitely hazardous, but NASA sent the astronauts up -- to their deaths. Did the flight go off because Donald Regan, the White House chief of staff, gave the order. {sic} There are rumors that they command was, "Tell them to get that thing up." Is that why the protests of the Thiokol engineers were overruled? Did Graham, who has no visible qualifications to be the government's top scientist, get his new job as a payoff for keeping his mouth shut and protecting his bosses in the White House? A thoroughgoing Senate investigation is required. ================ end of article ================ The author clearly has a stong political position and would probably like to see the Challenger disaster damage the Reagan administration (I can't deny having some similar feelings). However, political rhetoric aside, some interesting issues are raised. Anyone care to transcribe Cook's article from The Washington Monthly? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 11:24:54 EST From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty) To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Mirrors is space >...The >drawback to the scheme is that the finite angular size of the sun makes >the reflected footprint on the Earth rather large. Couldn't you just make the mirrors slightly concave? -Chris ------------------------------ Date: Thu 30 Oct 86 16:11:14-PST From: John Sotos Subject: The vestibular system in rotating structures To: space@s1-b.arpa There has been some discussion about rotating space colonies lately, mostly concerned with the reliability of bearings. My recollection was that the idea of rotating structures to produce pseudogravity was out because of problems with Coriolis forces and the human vestibular system. I have not seen this point made in print, the only time I heard it mentioned was at the 1977 Princeton Conference by somebody from NASA-Ames. The theoretical anatomic/physical basis for the problem is given later in this note; evidence to justify concern that the problem really will happen comes from experiments made at the Navy's Pensacola Research Center in the 1960s. These guys built a room on a motorized lazy susan (known as "the rotating room") and put subjects in there to live for some amount of time. Basically, people with intact vestibular systems got motion sick because every time they turned their head, effects of Coriolis forces in their inner ear produced the illusion that they were rotating in a completely different plane. (You can do this at home! Twirl around as fast as you can for 30-40 seconds with your eyes/head looking straight ahead. Then quickly look down at the floor and you will feel like your feet are trying to swing above your head. Do this 15 or 20 times and you might find it disagreeable.) I have forgottent the details of their research (those interested can check the Archives of Neurology in the mid-60s for articles by Ashton Graybiel), but I seem to recall that adaptation either did not occur or was only partial, and that even very slow rpm (on the order of 3) was enough to produce symptoms. So, if you allow a maximum rpm of 3 and try to produce earth gravity in your space colony, you have to have a structure with a very large radius (it's an easy calculation, if you remember how to do it!). Clearly, pseudo-gravity will not be possible for a Mars trip in a reasonably sized spacecraft. The physiological benefit of less than earth gravity over extended times has, of course, not been investigated. (The Coriolis problem stems from the anatomy of the vestibular system. Each ear has three orthogonal "semicircular canals" (that are functionally closer to being circular) filled with fluid. The movement of the fluid in each canal tells the brain whether the head is rotating in the same plane that the semicircular canal occupies. If rotation in a plane is prolonged, the fluid in the corresponding canal equilibrates (that is, the fluid and the canal bone eventually will rotate at the same speed). This is the basis for the phenomenon that if you spin in a chair long enough, you no longer feel like you are moving. So in a slow-rotating-room or a space station, the fluid in the canal that is in the same plane as the room's rotation is equilibrated. But moving your head cancels all bets: a new canal is now in the plane of rotation of the room, and the still-moving fluid in the old canal is now in a plane that was formerly stationary. Your brain integrates all this and tells you what it thinks; sadly, your other balance senses (vision, proprioception) tell you otherwise, and you have a sensory conflict that soon results in nausea. Of interest is that Guinea pigs may be immune from this problem. Their canals are nowhere near orthogonal (presumably since their ancestors were not arboreal and didn't need high performance balance systems), so the cross-coupling forces would be much smaller. I guess it proves that man was not to fly after all!) John Sotos Stanford University SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 1986 October 30 09:34:34 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: "ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Subject: why Mercury (liquid metal) used for ion rocket? B> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 10:22:46 EDT B> From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu B> To: space digest B> Subject: Specific Impulse B> Yes, but with an ion drive, one is typically more concerned about B> getting the most performance out of the ENERGY source, which is B> usually the limiting factor instead of the reaction mass. A fixed B> voltage ion drive will give a fixed energy per unit charge, E. E=1/2 B> mv**2, so momentum transfer (mv) is SQRT (2mE). To optimize this per B> unit reaction mass, we want the smallest molecular weight possible. B> To optimize this per unit ENERGY, we want the HIGHEST molecular B> weight possible. That's why mercury or cesium is typically used. I don't believe this. In deep space, you have months to reach your target. During that time, your solar collector or atomic pile can generate more energy than you need for your delta-vee, but the only fuel you can carry with you is what you could launch, which is limited by your launch booster. (Assuming you don't have a space station with re-fueling center, which would allow a different strategy of accumulating fuel from lots of launches to power a single deep-space probe.) Therefore if there were no engineering problems you would pick the lightest ion so you could pack the largest number of molecules in your ion-fuel tank for a given Earth-launch mass. But there are indeed engineering problems: Hydrogen requires pressure containers whereas mercury is a compact liquid at normal temperature and pressure. Other atomic materials are like Hydrogen, or solid. Mercury is the only atomic liquid available. Compounds would have to be broken into parts (they'd break apart anyway if you tried to use them as ion fuel) and you'd have to get rid of the parts you're not using or else have equipment to handle all the parts with their different particle masses and different ionization characteristics, a big hassle equipmentwise. I have no experience in this area, this is just brainstorming, would like to hear from an expert to judge our difference of opinion. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 86 15:43:41 PST (Thursday) From: Cate3.PA@xerox.com Subject: Re: Are powersats impractical? To: space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: , Cate3.PA@Xerox.COM Paul Dietz writes: >There's an obvious solar power scheme that is, in many ways, superior to >conventional powersats. It's the Soletta idea: place large numbers of >mirrors in orbit to focus light onto ground based collectors. . . >Disadvantages: does not scale down well, light pressure must be >compensated for, *lots* of mirrors are needed, atmospheric absorption >(build in deserts), astronomy is ruined, local heating. Another option might be to build up in mountains, or on the plains in Wyoming or South Dakota. This would help make the winters lots more reasonable. It may even be possible to grow crops year round on land near the ground based collectors. Henry III cate3.pa@xerox.com ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 86 03:52:42 GMT From: news@csvax.caltech.edu (Usenet netnews) Subject: Re: The vestibular system in rotating structures Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Organization : California Institute of Technology Keywords: From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) Path: oddhack!jon In article <12251039742.21.SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA> SOTOS@sumex-aim.arpa (John Sotos) writes: >... So, if you allow a maximum rpm of 3 >and try to produce earth gravity in your space colony, you have to >have a structure with a very large radius (it's an easy calculation, >if you remember how to do it!). Clearly, pseudo-gravity will not be >possible for a Mars trip in a reasonably sized spacecraft. We can obtain arbitrarily large radii by connecting two modules with a cable. It should be straightforward to see if a combination of 1g and low enough RPMs can be obtained with reasonable materials (Kevlar cable, perhaps?). I hate to think of the cable breaking, though... -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #31 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA23692; Sun, 2 Nov 86 03:02:00 PST id AA23692; Sun, 2 Nov 86 03:02:00 PST Date: Sun, 2 Nov 86 03:02:00 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611021102.AA23692@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #32 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 32 Today's Topics: Sorry Henry, There **is** proof on Martian surface chemical SPACE Digest V7 #30 Re: Martian surface chemical composition. Re: Powersats, DOE study Re: Vacuum balloons Reaction mass for ion drives Fusion? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 16:54:13 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Sorry Henry, There **is** proof on Martian surface chemical composition. In Vol. 7, Nr. 29 of Space Digest, Henry Spencer claimed that the existence of **all** the elements on Mars necessary for life and the industrial developement of Mars is unproven. A conclusive proof of this would be possible only through a detailed survey conducted on the surface of the planet (an idea I heartily endorse). However we already have two excellent data points from the two Viking landers. While it is possible that the Vikings landed on some unrepresentative spots, I'm inclined to doubt it. Here is a summary of their results: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Composition of the Martian Lower Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide 95.32 % Nitrogen 2.7 % Argon 1.6 % Carbon Monoxide 0.13 % Water 0.03 % Composition of the Martian Soil "Oxygen" 50.1 % Silicon 20.0 % Iron 12.7 % Magnesium 5.0 % Calcium 4.0 % Sulfur 3.1 % Aluminum 3.0 % Chlorine 0.7 % Titanium 0.51 % Potassium 0.25 % (less than) nondetected elements 8.4 % The concentration of "oxygen" is based on the assumption that all of the other elements are oxides. The Viking instruments lacked the capability of detecting elements of atomic weight less than magnesium. The values observed by the two Vikings closely agreed. The above percentages don't add up to 100%, this reflects measurement error. -- For Comparison -- Average Composition of the Earth's Soil Oxygen 46.6 % Silicon 27.2 % Aluminum 8.1 % Iron 5.0 % Calcium 3.6 % Sodium 2.8 % Potassium 2.6 % Magnesium 2.1 % -traces- 2.0 % References: T. Owen, et. al. "The Composition of the Atmosphere at the Surface of Mars", J. Geophys. Res., 82, 4635-4639 (1977) P. Toulmin, et al. "Inorganic Chemical Investigations by X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis: The Viking Mars Lander", Icarus, 20, 153-178 (1973) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- All of the elements necessary to support life exist on Mars. However based on this evidence, Mars does lack some elements necessary for human health and those are: Iodine and Phosphorus. Most likely these elements do exist on Mars but were simply below Viking's detection threshold. Even on Earth, Iodine is relatively rare. The extreme richness in iron is particularly exciting from the standpoint of industrialization. Viking performed a simple experiment of passing Martian soil over a magnet and the iron filings were clearly visible in the subsequent photos. Therefore extraction of iron from the soil should be quite straight forward. So there you have it. Mars is a rich planet for industrialization. All that needs to be worked out is the economics. However, as I've said before, that's the big problem for all of these space industrialization dreams. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1986 14:18 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa, minsky%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #30 In-Reply-To: Msg of 31 Oct 1986 06:23-EST from Ted Anderson Gary Allen's buckling-sphere argument seems convincing at first, but can one really prove that a shpere is indeed the best geometry? Gary says, "The geometry that can best withstand compression is a sphere." However, I suspect that this is only "locally" true for homgenous materials, and the theorem does not apply to inhomogeneous - let alone, fractile - materials. For example, if you made a pressure-bearing container of solid polystyrene, I don't doubt that the best you could do would be to form it into a sphere. But wouldn't it be vastly more resistant to buckling if you made it into a much thicker spherical shell composed of styrofoam? ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 86 17:38:00 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Martian surface chemical composition. Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <8610310817.AA15131@s1-b.arpa> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > My question is, how hard is it to extract useful stuff from the surface material? Taking oxygen out of the various iron oxides and the like it's locked up in sounds very energy-consuming. Also, it would be interesting to compare the composition of exposed surface material and areas further down which haven't been radiated for billions of years. Of course I refer to molecular composition, not atomic abundance which should be much the same as the exposed surface. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 1986 16:49-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Powersats, DOE study In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Thu, 30 Oct 86 03:13:47 PST I find Gary Allen's attack on power sats rather interesting. I should pass it on to Dr. Glaser; I'm sure he'd get a kick out of it. A CMU professor was involved with the DOE study on powersats (I'm not sure he was with the university at that time) and has told me that he had a very strong dissenting opinion on the report findings. He felt that the study baselines chosen were chosen with the INTENT to kill official interest in powersats because DOE had a strong protective interest in fusion and MHD, and an even stronger bias towards 'soft-tech' wind power, solar cells, solar passive, cogeneration. They weren't interested in using any baseline scenarios that might make it look feasible. Remember, this was in the Carter era... Interestingly enough, powersats were panned by "Mother Jones" at about the same time in an article that used blantantly falsified information. I know of one person whose father was misquoted to a point which can only be called INTENTIONAL. >From the mumblings I pick up a conferences, it would appear that the soviets are quite interested in the powersat idea to supply cheap power for third world client states: a real diplomatic coup for them, regardless of the front end costs. And of course, once you've built #1, #2 is a breeze and a hell of a lot cheaper. There is also strong interest at Astrotech Corporation for building small powersats for orbital power augmentation. They have some agreements with Dr. Glaser (Arthur D. Little Corp), who holds US patents on the powersat idea. The idea is that you start small, make a buck supplying power for NASA, DOD or whoever, and gradually (over 30-50 years) bootstrap yourself to larger operations, culminating in GSO stations. I might add that laser transmission has also been considered as an alternative means of transmitting power to the surface. The laser technique is not as well known a quantity. Microwave energy transmission has been done experimentally over reasonably long distances with high efficiencies. Actually better than power transmission lines, and the cost effectiveness gap widens with distance. Even without GSO powersats, the beaming technology is useful. There have been proposals to transmit energy from sites where it is cheap (ie a solar power station in the Sahara) to places where cheap power is needed (Japan, Western Europe, US) by 'bouncing' it from passive reflectors in GSO. This might even beat superconducting power lines, because you don't have to build the infrastructure to get lots of power to where it is needed. You just tilt the reflector. This is particularly good for undeveloped countries. The Soletta is an interesting idea, but I have some misgivings about the environmental effects of it. Microwaves don't couple directly with the atmosphere, unless you transmit in the 'waterhole' like your home microwave ovens. High Power laser transmission could likewise largely avoid such coupling. But the Soletta will transmit a broad energy band into an extended region of the atmosphere. The lit oval would create a warm air mass. I would expect it to set up an elliptically symmetrical flow with strong updrafts in the center, cool surface winds sweeping from the surrounding dark areas and a warm high altitude outflow. If the effects are mild, it'll be great for hang gliders. I suspect the winds would be quite strong though. Desert areas would be preferred for such stations because of the dry air. But dry air also has less heat capacitance and high transmissibility. IE, as soon as it gets dark in the desert, the air gets cool and the ground radiates it's heat quickly. Thus we have a boundary temperature differential of perhaps 40 degrees or more across a boundary of only a few miles. That strikes me as enough to drive a damn good storm. At the very least, I would not be the first to fly a 172 anywhere CLOSE to it. Also due to the desert climate, one would expect such winds to pick up considerable dust, which as we know from Mars, improves the coupling if the heating occurs in the updraft rather than the down draft. (Science 10/24/86, "Interannual Variability of Global Dust Storms on Mars") By the way, I am NOT trying to say that this would cause global dust storms, only suggesting a possible positive feedback connection that would cause wider effects than one might at first suppose. It might continue after daylight, and in fact drift with prevailing weather systems since it would not be 'locked' in position by an external energy source. Needless to say, power generation would not be terribly efficient under such a scenario... My knowledge of weather dynamics is not that strong, but I wonder about the impact of coriolis affects. Would such a 60km cell spawn cylconic storms or other weather anomolies? Could the effects be used to rob energy from existing cylonic storms? Have we got any atmosphere modelers out there? ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 1986 18:02-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Vacuum balloons Mr. Allen: The injection of a mathematical reality into a discussion is useful. The injection of ad hominum attacks is not. REM: I would suggest trying Mr. Allen's equations with different types of materials. Steel is very very far from optimum in strength. First, look into glasses, since they tend to get stronger under symmetric compressive loads. Just for interest, one might want to see if pure diamond, or if some exotic materials might be useful. Things like glassy metals, single crystal metals, and such. I haven't the time to research it, but I'd love to see the results. After all, with a material as primitive as steel, the equation ONLY fails by two orders of magnitude... Other than glass, this would make it useless in the manner discussed, but it is still a fascinating idea. I, for one, am happy to see a few creative minds on this digest. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 23:57:22 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: Reaction mass for ion drives [Re a statement that metal ions are used for ion drives because heavier ions give higher performance (ie., impulse) per unit energy consumed, although lower performance per unit reaction mass]: REM> In deep space, you have months to reach your REM>target. During that time, your solar collector or atomic pile can REM>generate more energy than you need for your delta-vee, If your power source generates more energy than you can use, it is too big: use a smaller, lighter one. You gain more by downsizing your power source than you lose. Power sources are heavy. Once you move to the smallest size power source, you will find it pays to optimize for impulse per unit power. REM>I have no experience in this area, this is just brainstorming, would REM>like to hear from an expert to judge our difference of opinion. Likewise. --Geoffrey Landis, Brown University ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Oct 86 17:15 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa, ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Fusion? Geoff, In regards to that Technology Review article about fusion: it was a critique of *magnetic confinement* fusion; specifically, tokamaks and magnetic mirrors. Inertial confinement fusion does not suffer from the same problems, since the first wall can be a liquid lithium alloy or ceramic pebble blanket, and the reaction vessel need not contain a high vacuum. Also, it's not clear if Lidsky's complaints apply to D-He3 reactors, since these can use direct conversion and avoid the major costs of steam turbines and generators. There's a form of fusion power that is possible today. It's possible to excavate large cavities in salt domes by circulating water. Fill the cavity with high pressure steam, add some impurities to make the steam cloudy, and detonate about 100 kilotons of bombs per day. That's about 5 gigawatts of heat, not counting heat from radioactive decay products. Fissile material for the bombs can be bred separately or in-situ by surrounding the bombs with breeding blankets. This scheme has obvious safety problems, but requires no new science. Small scale inertial fusion may be closer many think. Light ion beam fusion is close to the power levels needed for ignition (although delivering the beam to the target is more problematical). There's been a report that "hohlraum" targets (in which driver energy is converted to thermal x-rays which then drive the fuel element) have been tested by using thermal x-rays from underground bomb explosions. These two schemes can be combined by using multi-stage fuel elements. A small pellet with about a gigajoule of energy output is used to generate x-rays to detonate a 300 gigajoule (say) pellet. Detonate one every 5 minutes in a cavity to generate a gigawatt of heat. This scheme might make it practical to deliver the initial driver energy by means of disposable conductors. It might also make a reasonably low-tech "mini-Orion" engine for moving asteroids, if detonated behind a pusher plate. Where one draws the line between large fuel pellets and small hydrogen bombs is unclear; would such a rocket violate the Outer Space Treaty? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #32 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA27898; Mon, 3 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST id AA27898; Mon, 3 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST Date: Mon, 3 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611031102.AA27898@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #33 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 33 Today's Topics: Powersats Space infrastructure is achievable through one-shot boondoggles SPACE Digest V7 #30 fusion energy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Nov 86 04:44:50 GMT From: jade!tart23!c60a-2jm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Adam J. Richter;260E;;) Subject: Powersats Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <531179395.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: In re: powersats... >I might add that laser transmission has also been considered as an >alternative means of transmitting power to the surface. The laser >technique is not as well known a quantity. Microwave energy >transmission has been done experimentally over reasonably long distances >with high efficiencies. Actually better than power transmission lines, >and the cost effectiveness gap widens with distance. Does anyone remember the Scientific American ("Scientific Democrat") articles on "Phase Conjugate Mirrors," or something like that. These little buggers are supposed to reflect back light, by reversing the direction of every beam that hits it. They also can amplify light, to the point where some researchers were able to make lasers just by waving a metal cooking spatula near them. Anyhow, one of their neat applications, is that if you aim a beam through a scattering medium and it hits a phase conjugate mirror, the "mirror" will exactly reverse the scattered light so it goes back through the scattering medium and becomes perfrectly "unscattered." So here's the idea: Small guide beam --> LEO powersat. LEO powersat --> LOTS OF ENERGY focused almost perfectly back down the "guide beam." Comments? + + + Adam + + + Adam J. Richter ...ucbvax!miro!richter 2504 College Avenue \ richter@miro.berkeley.edu Berkeley, CA 94704 >= May change soon (415)459-9672 / ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Oct 86 15:34:31 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Space infrastructure is achievable through one-shot boondoggles There has been a fair bit of flamage against the idea of a Mars mission. I agree with the position that space industrialization is **not** directly served by one shot space missions for purposes of demagoguery. However the sad truth is that space travel is expensive. I believe it is possible to establish a profitable industrial base on Lunar and Martian resources. However, everyone will agree that to do this one must first have an infrastructure. Building this infrastructure will cost billions of dollars and take decades to set up. Is it likely that a congressman will support an enormously expensive project that won't become operational until long after he's out of office? The trick is to build up this infrastructure in small, politically acceptable pieces. Our politicians probably would not support the NASP if it was billed as a scientific project. However if you can convince them that the NASP is essential to get SDI battle stations into orbit, then they'll fund the thing. I think getting out of LEO (from a political standpoint) will be very difficult unless one can provide some sort of advantage that a politician can understand. Having an astronaut plant a flag on Mars is absolutely useless in terms of space industrialization. However to get him to Mars, one could justify building a really big space station in LEO or even one in lunar orbit. One could present arguments that it would be easier to build the Mars vehicle from lunar materials and thereby provide the basis for establishing a lunar base. I fully agree it is assinine that one can't simply argue directly for going into space because it's the right and profitable thing to do. However if politicians will only accept the argument that we should go to Mars because the Russians will beat us, then we should go for it and then milk the deal for all its worth in establishing an infrastructure. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1986 20:45 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa, MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #30 In-Reply-To: Msg of 31 Oct 1986 14:18-EST from MINSKY (Addition to previous note.) I did not mean to suggest that Gary Allen's argument is incorrect, but only to wonder whether the classical derivation considers every possibility. Presumably, it uses a variational method that finds the extremum for variations in the mass distribution of deviations from a spherical form and (correctly) finds the shell to be optimal. Very likely, this is correct, but I wonder if the variational method extends to distributed variations in density/porosity. Eric Drexler showed me a draft calculation that showed that it is feasible to make a lighter-than-air object with perfect carbon fibres. However, this is entirely in accord with Gary's argument since (1) those ideal fibres are indeed a couple of orders of magnitude better than steel and (2) Drexler's calculation did not suggest any large margin beyond that. Drexler's construction involved a dense tetrahedral lattice that supports a spherical, airtight shell. As I recall, Drexler was not maintaining that the hollow lattice was superior to the uniform shell in regard to preventing buckling. What he did argue was that the lattice could be constructed with so fine a grain that the fibres would be smaller than wavelengths of light. The resulting floating object, then, might also be invisible! Very cute, if true, but I don't know enough wave theory to know whether it would end up with a substantial refractive index, in any case. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Nov 86 16:11:03 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: fusion energy PFD> Inertial confinement fusion does not suffer from the same problems... No, it suffers from other problems. PFD> It's not clear Lidsky's complaints [about the problems still facing PFD> fusion] apply to D-He3 reactors, since these can use direct PFD>conversion and avoid the major costs of steam turbines and generators. Maybe. Can this be ignited? I thought it took much higher pressure/temperatures to ignite that reaction. Isn't He3 expensive? Is there enough around to use for fuel? What's this about turbines and generators--don't *all* magnetic fusion schemes assume MHD power conversion? PFD> There's a form of fusion power that is possible today.... PFD> Fill [a] cavity with high pressure steam... PFD> and detonate about 100 kilotons of bombs per day. Yes, that's an old idea of Teller's, abandoned about the middle of the sixties when it seemed that *nobody* would take it seriously. Bombs have too bad a rep. Sounds like a good idea for what to do with old H-bombs after they become "impotent and obsolete" (by disarmament, star-wars, antimatter bombs and biochemical warfare, whatever). PFD> Small scale inertial fusion may be closer many think. Then again, it may be farther away than many think, too. PFD> Light ion beam fusion is close to the power levels needed for PFD> ignition. Power density is only one element of many needed to make it work. And "ignition" is a long way from scientific break-even, which is far away from engineering break-even, not even considering scale-up and economic break-even. And, if you're considering fusion rockets, how heavy is the accellerator needed? PFD> A small pellet with about a gigajoule of energy output is used to PFD> generate x-rays to detonate a 300 gigajoule (say) pellet. PFD>Detonate one every 5 minutes in a cavity to generate a gigawatt of PFD> heat. I can't quite picture the geometry here, how the x-rays from the first pellet are coupled to the second. Are you assuming an x-ray reflector? Keep in mind that symmetry of compression is critical. How big are the pellets? They sound awfully large to me. What are the cost estimates for this? A gigawatt-hr of heat has to go for under about $50,000 to be competitive. Again, I'd say that *maybe* fusion technology will pan out. But I certainly wouldn't count on it. We're still trying to prove that controlled fusion can be done at any cost. That's a long, long, LONG way from practical power (or propulsion). --Geoffrey A. Landis ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #33 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02970; Tue, 4 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST id AA02970; Tue, 4 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611041102.AA02970@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #34 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #34 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 34 Today's Topics: Fusion is Far Out Powersats restriction on visual degrading of natural landforms (on Moon??) NASA summer positions and other NASA news ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 86 11:21:18 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: Fusion is Far Out PFD>>> D-He3 reactors ... can use direct conversion and avoid the PFD>>> major costs of steam turbines and generators. GL>> I thought that took much higher pressure/temperatures to ignite. PFD> He3 does require higher temperatures to ignite... The biggest PFD> problem is that the high plasma temperature increases losses PFD> due to synchrotron radiation. But if we currently can't even get the lower temperature reaction to ignite, I'd be really hesitant to place my bets on a reaction that even HARDER to get going. PFD> At 30% efficiency, 300 gigajoules is the energy output of about PFD> three grams of deuterium. By inertial confinement fusion standards, 3 grams is a gargantuan fuel pellet. I don't think anybody is talking about igniting objects that large. GL>> Isn't He3 expensive? Is there enough around to use for fuel? PFD> You can get He3 on the moon, or by breeding it from lithium--> PFD> Tritium -->He3 in underground explosions. Very little He3 PFD> is needed. I said that fusion is not a technology to count on as a sure thing; you are saying that the current concepts won't work, that we need a technology that's even harder to ignite (and thus that we are even farther away from making work) and that requires fuel produced by mining the moon to extract He3 present in parts-per-billion levels, or by making it in underground bomb blasts. I think you are supporting my point. --Geoffrey A. Landis ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 86 15:35 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: Powersats To: space@s1-b.arpa Does anyone know the proposed power densities of powersat receivers? Also, how flexible do the focusing mechanism have to be to compensate for thermal warpage of the transmission antenna, atmospheric changes, et cetera. The reason I'm asking this is to get a feel for how good a weapon a powersat would be. Personally, I think I'm most likely to stay at the bottom of the gravity well, and I don't particularly want anyone sitting in the relative security of geo-sync orbit ( it takes hours to get there ) deciding to write his name on a glacier with a laser, or boil Lake Placid with a microwave. Just call me paranoid, but where people are concerned, these types of things happen. This whole infrastructure-in-space discussion ignores the tactical superiority of a position at the top of a gravity well, relative to us poor taxpayers at the bottom. Remember that anything that deliver energy to a target is a weapon. And it is one of the major tenants of the infrastructure supporters that delivering anything to the top of a well starting at the bottom is very very difficult. ------------------------------ Date: 1986 November 03 13:52:26 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Subject: restriction on visual degrading of natural landforms (on Moon??) In regard to the "Moon Treaty" and related issues of preserving astronomical bodies in their native condition rather than "pollute" them with human activities... Although most comparisons between Earth (early pioneers destroying bison and native americans) and Moon show that we really don't have to worry about the Moon because there's no native life to destroy, the following election measure may be of interest, on the ballot this November 4 in San Mateo County, California: It is supposed to be for preserving coastal and other agricultural lands from urban encrochment, but observe the following passages: 8.7 Ridgelines and Hilltops a. Prohibit the location of new development on ridgelines and hilltops unless there is no other buildable area on the parcel. c. Restrict the height of structures to prevent their projction above ridgeline or hilltop silhouettes. 8.17 Alterations of Landforms Minimize the visual degration of natural landforms caused by cutting, filling, or grading for building sites, access roads, or public utilities by: a. Concentrating development so that steep hillsides may be left undisturbed. b. Requiring structures to be designed to fit hillsides rather than altering the landform to accommodate buildings designed for lval sites. c. Prohibiting new development which requires grading, cutting, or filling that would substantially alter or destroy the appearance of natural landforms. Imagine if a similar measure were law for building habitat and manufacturing facilities on and mining the Moon and asteroids? Wouldn't it put a bit of a cramp on activities? Question: Is natural topography so valuable to preserve that such a cramp is desirable? Or is this sheer folly which precludes industrial progress? If such measures are enacted on Earth, will similar measures follow on other planets moons and asteroids where they could as easily apply? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Nov 86 17:46:38 pst From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya) To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: NASA summer positions and other NASA news I will be posting my yearly "Announcement of Opportunity" in about a month to people who read net.space for people interested in taking summer positions with NASA. My contacts are primed and ready to act as inside sources to those people interested in things other than great wages, excellent working conditions, etc. The target opening date will be January 1 and closing on January 31, so if you are an undergrad just starting school again: get your resumes ready. And as a piece of advice for any summer position next year, anywhere: START YOUR RESUME NOW! Companies prefer to look early in the year, not later. Other news: I was told that the amount of trash on the net has not diminished, but on a quick check, it appears it has. Re: space telescope pointing to earth. They thought about it in the late 1970s. It can point to earth without damaging optics (they have those things designed for nuclear blast observation, forgot what they are called). NASA just commissioned a study to consider follow-ons to the ST using an external fuel tank as the base. I have also talked to people at GSFC about the possibility of distributing satellite elements on the network: they can't do this due to BITNET restrictions against file transfer: complain to BITNET. Yes, we are working on Mars missions (not at Ames), and I don't know if you saw the request by Mike Malin (pixar!malin) looking for people to build a Mars camera. I can vouch for Mike, his is a worthy project, I highly endorse it: little pay, small recognition, but helpful to mankind. I have more but that will wait. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #34 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06481; Wed, 5 Nov 86 03:02:09 PST id AA06481; Wed, 5 Nov 86 03:02:09 PST Date: Wed, 5 Nov 86 03:02:09 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611051102.AA06481@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #35 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 5 Nov 86 03:02:09 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #35 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 35 Today's Topics: Nuclear Fusion is the Key to Space Industrialization Fusion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 86 14:20:26 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Nuclear Fusion is the Key to Space Industrialization In Vol.7 Nr. 30 of Space Digest, Geoff Landis quite correctly expressed scepticism about the prospects of the near term success for nuclear fusion as an electrical power source but then carried this same scepticism over to fusion's potential for spacecraft propulsion. Later in Nr. 32, Paul Dietz responded by pointing out that while things look grim for magnetic fusion based on magnetic mirrors or Tokomaks, this is **not** the case for inertial confinement schemes which happen to be the basis for the various propulsion schemes. I find myself often being very impressed with Paul Dietz's postings, which strike me as among the most well thought out in Space Digest (not that this says a whole lot). The inertial confinement scheme to watch in terms of spacecraft propulsion applications is the one being developed by Sandia National Labs. This approach uses neutral particle beams to compress the pellet into nuclear fusion. I have toured the Novette facility at Lawerence Livermore and was impressed with just how enormous the device was. Novette uses lasers to compress the pellet and **can** make atoms undergo fusion. However it isn't close to achieving break-even and wasn't even designed for that purpose. The engineer who showed me the facility privately told me that the only thing Novette was good for, was doing materials studies related to weapon's work. This however is not the case with the Sandia device. I have a friend who works for Sandia who has also privately informed me that the Sandia approach has tremendous promise because the coupling between neutral particles and the target pellet is much better than between a laser and the target. I should add that the Sandia approach is extremely well suited to spacecraft application. I remember thinking to myself when viewing the Novette and seeing these enormous pieces of glass optics mounted on micrometers, that this system would be totally unrobust in a vibrating environment. However since the Sandia approach is nonoptical, its ignition system is much more compact. The problem of energy extraction is of paramount importance in terrestrial fusion application but is quite secondary with a Daedalus propulsion scheme. With a spacecraft the expanding fusion plasma pushes against a magnetic filed via a mirror effect (where lots of leakage is quite acceptable). This not only provides a thrust but also delivers an EMF to the magnetic field that in turn can recharge the ships capacitors for refiring the beam guns. The original Daedalus idea used lasers for ignition, and He3 as fuel. Both ideas I believe to be mistakes. However if the Daedalus idea was revised to use the Sandia ignition system with deuterium as fuel, I think one would have a practical propulsion system that could be realized within 20 years. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 08:46 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa, ST401385%NROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Fusion Geoff, In the future, please do NOT send replies to private mail messages to a public bulletin board, especially if you include selective quotes from my message. About He3: I was not saying that magnetically confined D-He3 reactors are a near-term prospect (much less hydrogen-boron reactors some fellow was flaming about). Rather, D-He3 reactors might get around some of the problems Lidsky had noted with D-T reactors. Three gram pellets: yes 3 grams is a lot, but, if you read my messages, you'lll see it's being driven by 1000 MJ's of x-rays from the primary pellet. This is a lot of driver energy by ICF standards. Large pellets actually may be somewhat easier to ignite, since they don't have to be compressed as much. Paul DIetz ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #35 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11151; Thu, 6 Nov 86 03:02:15 PST id AA11151; Thu, 6 Nov 86 03:02:15 PST Date: Thu, 6 Nov 86 03:02:15 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611061102.AA11151@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #36 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 6 Nov 86 03:02:15 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #36 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 36 Today's Topics: Overcrowding of space NASA Joint Test Astronomy Technique A recommended book Chariots for Apollo #7 - Around the Moon in Six Days X29 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: space Date: Mon, 3 Nov 86 11:26:31-1000 From: Jimmy Y. Cheng Sender: ota Subject: Overcrowding of space I am interested in the availability of space for satellites in the geosynchronous (and other) orbits. Since data networks are becoming more widely distributed, the electromagnetic interferences between orbiting satllites are increasing. Does anyone know of the technical and political issues in this problem? I would really appreciate if you can e-mail any references for me. All this will form the basis for my research project in satellite communication class. I will post a summary if there are enough responds. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ Path: mordor!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!hao!nbires!isis!scicom!markf From: markf@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Mark Felton) Subject: NASA Joint Test Date: 26 Oct 86 17:50:40 GMT NASA NEWS -> October 2 NASA SELECTS HORIZONTAL CONFIGURATION FOR JOINT TEST After an intensive study, NASA has determined that the redesigned Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) will be test fired in a horizontal attitude. This test attitude best simulates the critical conditions on the field joint which failed during the STS 51-L mission. NASA also will conduct extensive component tests, full-segment joint environmental simulation tests (with loads applied) and full scale motor static tests to verify and certify the redesigned motor for flight. Also being considered at this time is the construction of a second horizontal test stand with the capability of simulating launch and flight loads on the motor during static test. This second horizontal test facility, which should be ready for use in about 12 months at a location still to be determined, would provide additional test capability and redundancy in case of the loss of the only test facility now available to NASA. The Presidential Commission investigating the STS 51-L accident recommended that NASA consider the vertical attitude for the motor firing s and duplicate the actual flight conditions as closely as possible. It is NASA's belief that testing in the horizontal attitude is the most demanding test of the redesigned joint for the pressure and flight-induced loads and thus best satisfies the Commission's intent. These findings were reviewed within NASA's technical community, with the Shuttle management's formal review system, and SRM design overview committee composed of NASA and industry experts, and the U.S. Air Force team which is responsible for returning the Titan launch vehicle to flight status. They also were presented to the independent SRM design review panel of experts established under the auspices of the National Research Council. NASA believes that the test plan being implemented will provide the correct basis for flight verification of the redesigned SRM. ____________________________________________________________________________ NASA News Release 86-139 Sarah Keegan Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution ------------------------------ Path: mordor!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!hao!nbires!isis!scicom!markf From: markf@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Mark Felton) Subject: Astronomy Technique Date: 26 Oct 86 17:33:41 GMT NASA NEWS -> Oct 3, 1986 NEW SPACE ASTRONOMY TECHNIQUE DEVELOPED TO STUDY CELESTIAL BODIES A new space radio-astronomy technique, using an orbiting satellite to study celestial objects, has been successfully tested by scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. An international team of scientists conducted experiments during July and August employing a new space technique called very long baseline interferometry (VLBI). They combined data from radio telescopes on the ground with data from an antenna on NASA's Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) spacecraft, managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Investigators obtained better resolution of three quasars than is possible in ground based radio studies at the same wavelength. Quasars, or quasi-stellar objects, are among the most distant objects known. The resolution obtained from the orbiting VLBI experiment was equivallent to that of a radio telescope with size of 1.4 Earth diameters. The quasars studied are designated 1730-130, 1741-038 and 1510-089. For the first time, a VLBI experiment used an orbiting satellite as one of its radio telescopes. Previously, scientists linked widely separated antennae on the ground with VLBI techniques to produce high-resolution radio astronomy studies of celestial objects. Primary ground observatories in the experiment were NASA's Deep Space Network 210-foot antenna in Australia and the Institute of Space and Astronautical Sciences' 64 meter antenna at Usuda, Japan. An 80 foot antenna at the Radio Research Laboratory in Kashima, Japan, also was used to check performance of the larger ground antenna. Researchers believe the experiment's success demonstrates the feasibility of a proposed orbiting VLBI mission. That mission would use a satellite dedicated to radio-astronomy observations and would yield new data on many celestial phenomena, including the nature of galactic nuclei, the overall phenomena, including the nature of galactic nuclei, the overall distance scale of the Universe and the formation of new stars. The research team led by Gerald S. Levy and other JPL scientists included investigators from M.I.T.; the Haystack Observatory, Westford, Mass.; Bendix Field Engineering Corp., Columbia, Md.; the Spacecom/TRW/ Bendix team White Sands, N.M. and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Australian participants were from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and Australian National University's Mount Stromlo Observatory. Japanese experimenters were from the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, the Nobeyama Radio Observatory and the Radio Research OLaboratory. NASA's portion of the VLBI experiment was jointly sponsored by the Office of Space Tracking and Data Systems and Office of Space Science and Applications. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NASA News Release 86-140 Leon Perry Headquarters, Washington, D.C and Franklin O'Donnell Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution ------------------------------ Path: mordor!sri-spam!rutgers!husc6!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!stsci!jay From: jay@stsci.uucp (Jay Travisano) Subject: A recommended book Date: 24 Oct 86 15:38:04 GMT THE MARS PROJECT: JOURNEYS BEYOND THE COLD WAR Spark M. Matsunaga (Senator, Democrat - Hawaii) 1986 Hill & Wang New York A short and highly readable book about some of the work being done in Congress on promoting international cooperation in space. A number of the senator's personal "visions" are presented along with discussions of actual legislation in the last few years. A bit superficial, especially for the more technically enlightened readers of this newsgroup, but nonetheless, I found a number of interesting tidbits of information and thought-provoking ideas. Now appearing at a public library near you. Jay Travisano CSC/Space Telescope Science Institute Baltimore, Maryland ARPA: jay@stsci.arpa UUCP: {astrovax,brl-smoke,cfa,charm,jhunix,noao,nrao1,osiris}!stsci!jay ------------------------------ Path: mordor!sri-spam!rutgers!seismo!gatech!cuae2!ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn From: dcn@ihuxl.UUCP (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Chariots for Apollo #7 - Around the Moon in Six Days Date: 4 Nov 86 14:20:20 GMT ------------------------------------------------------------- | | | You are cordially invited to attend | | the departure of the | | United States Spaceship Apollo VIII | | on its voyage around the moon, | | departing from Launch Complex 39A, Kennedy Space Center, | | with the launch window commencing at | | seven a.m. on December 21, 1968 | | | | r.s.v.p. The Apollo VIII Crew | ------------------------------------------------------------- Riding the huge Saturn V, propelled by more power than man had ever felt pushing him before, the crew had varied impressions. Borman thought it was a lot like riding the Gemini Titan II. Lovell agreed but added that is seemed to slow down after it left the pad. Rookie astronaut Anders likened it to "an old freight train going down a bad track." The S-IC stage shook the crew up, but not intolerably. Despite all the power, the acceleration reached only four g. ... At 10:17, former crew member Collins - back from his bout with the bone spur and now at the capcom's console rather than in the center couch of Apollo 8 - opened a new era in space flight when he said, "All right, you are go for TLI [TransLunar Injection]." Many watchers in Hawaii, who had seen a launch on live television for the first time, raced outside and looked for the fireworks high above them. ... Lovell said: Okay, Houston, the moon is essentially gray, no color; looks like plaster of Paris or sort of a grayish deep sand. We can see quite a bit of detail. The Sea of Fertility doesn't stand out as well as it does back on earth. There's not much contrast between that and the surround- ing craters. The craters are all rounded off. There's quite a few of them; some of them are newer. Many of them - especially the round ones - look like hits by meteorites or projectiles of some sort. ... After looking at the back of the moon on several orbits, Anders was moved to comment: It certainly looks like we're picking the more inter- esting places on the moon to land in. The backside looks like a sand pile my kids have been playing in for along time. It's all beat up, no definition. Just a lot of bumps and holes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0, $12.00. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 86 21:13:46 EST From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty) To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: X29 Cc: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa The new technology represented in the advanced forward swept wing aircraft (X-29) seems very interesting. Does anyone know exactly what the advantages of the forward swept wing are and how the technology may be applied to the next generation space plane? -Chris ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #36 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15023; Fri, 7 Nov 86 03:02:25 PST id AA15023; Fri, 7 Nov 86 03:02:25 PST Date: Fri, 7 Nov 86 03:02:25 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611071102.AA15023@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #37 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 7 Nov 86 03:02:25 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #37 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 37 Today's Topics: Cabled Space Habitats A final word on fusion Fusion propulsion and a parting shot at SPS Summary of a talk by A. Scott Crossfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 86 18:52:08 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: Cabled Space Habitats For quite a while I've considered that putting a space habitat on the end of a cable and spinning it (with either a big rock, or another habitat on the other end) would be the easiest way to provide gravity for a space colony. The calculation is similar to that for tethers and skyhooks. A cable material has an ultimate tensile strength, "UTS" for short, and a density "RHO". The figure of merit is the strength per unit weight, which is the characteristic length Lc=UTS/g*Rho. For steel, Lc is about 50 km; for graphite or kevlar, Lc is about 1000 km, depending on what type of material, how it is woven, etc. Assume the mass of the cable is small compared to the mass of the habitat; for a specific example, let Mcable=0.1*Mhaitat, and that the colony has a centrifugal gravity of 1/3 g, and that the safety margin is a factor of three. Then the maximum length of a habitat cable (from the center of gravity) is Lc/3. Minimum RPM comes at the maximum cable length. From physics, we know that F=mv**2/r, or a=m*omega**2 (omega the angular frequency); thus the frequency of revolution of a colony with gravity g and a cable length r is (1/2pi)*SQRT(g/r). Putting in r=Lc/2, Maximum cable lengths and minimum RPMs are: Steel cable: 0.04 RPM cable=5 km tip speed=0.4 km/sec Graphite : 0.01 RPM cable=100 km tip speed=1.8 km/sec (unless I made an arithmetic error, which is entirely possible). These rotation rates sound to me like they will be slow enough that people won't get dizzy. --Geoffrey A. Landis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 86 18:59:14 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: A final word on fusion (1) Public Apology to Paul Dietz: PFD> please do NOT send replies to private mail messages to public PFD> bulletin board, especially if you include selective quotes from my PFD> message. Sorry; somehow I thought that you sent a copy of your reply to my posting to SPACE as well. I will try be careful to read the headers of messages more carefully. "Selective" quoting was done on the assumption that the reader had already seen your message, and that quoting in full would only bore them. I apologize for the fact that, since people *hadn't* already seen the full text, this had the effect of distorting your meaning. That was not my intention. I, personally, don't like people who reprint the entire text of some posting I've already read in order to reply to some minor point. PFD> About He3: I was not saying that magnetically confined D-He3 PFD> reactors are a near-term prospect (much less hydrogen-boron PFD> reactors some fellow was flaming about). Rather, D-He3 reactors PFD> might get around some of the problems Lidsky had noted with D-T PFD> reactors. I think that we are essentially in agreement. I'm *not* trying to say that fusion won't work ever. I'm only trying to point out that it's not a sure thing, nor necessarily near term. (2) Comment on Gary Allen (ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET)'s comments: GA> ...Paul Dietz responded by pointing out that while things look grim GA> for magnetic fusion based on magnetic mirrors or Tokomaks, this is GA> *not** the case for inertial confinement schemes which happen to the GA> the basis for the various propulsion schemes. Right, but keep in mind that propulsion systems are weight critical. I have no way to guess what an accelerator for a neutral beam fusion reactor would weigh. This is not a parameter that they're currently optimizing for (and rightly so: first make it work, then make it light). At, say, a thousand tons per engine, fusion will work for moving asteroids, but not for ships. GA> the Novette [laser fusion experimental device]... would be totally GA> unrobust in a vibrating environment. However since the Sandia GA> [neutral beam] approach is nonoptical, its ignition system is much GA> more compact. But is it any better against vibrations? Seems to me that the limiting factor is the pellet size, typically microns if I remember right. If this is the case, vibrations > 1 micron will kill any such system. Active control (ie., real time beam retargetting) might be necessary to get around this problem. This might be hard to do with a neutral beam. GA> The problem of energy extraction is of paramount importance in GA> terrestrial fusion application but is quite secondary with a GA> Daedalus propulsion scheme. With a spacecraft the expanding fusion GA> plasma pushes against a magnetic filed via a mirror effect. This won't work in a system where the energy is mainly deposited in the form of hot neutrons, which aren't reflected by a magnetic mirror. If you want to do this, you need the He3 reaction (or another one which generates the energy in the form of charged particles). (2) Re the query about whether powersat microwave beams could be used as a weapon: The original proposals were for power densities of about a kilowatt per square meter, which is about one sun. This is not high enough to use as a weapon. Whether such a phased array can be easily focussed down to get higher power densities, I don't know. This depends on the phasing electronics and the antenna size. The original concepts also had a feedback loop involving the ground receptors to focus the beam, and if the beam missed the rectenna, it would defocus to trivial energy densities (thus guarding against some types of accidents). --Geoffrey A. Landis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 86 13:39:28 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Fusion propulsion and a parting shot at SPS In a recent posting Geoffrey A. Landis correctly pointed out that some of the energy in the deuterium-deuterium fuel cycle would be useless in a fusion propulsion system because it would be in the form of fast neutrons which wouldn't reflect against the engines magnetic mirrors. The deuterium-deuterium fuel cycle has four reaction components: D + D >> T + p D + T >> He4 + n D + D >> He3 + n D + He3 >> He4 + p According to the Project Daedalus report about 35% of the energy is in the form of fast neutrons, compared to 5% for a pure D-He3 reaction. This 30% energy loss is annoying. Even more annoying is the lost energy is in the form of fast neutrons which require the spacecraft's command/payload module be shielded and separated from the propulsion module on a long mast, (adding considerable extra weight to the vehicle). However in my view these shortcomings are more than compensated for by the fact that deuterium is relatively cheap ($60 a liter at 1970 prices for heavy water), and relatively easy to ignite. This compares favorably against the 1960 price for He3 of $27000 per Kg. As mentioned early, a boron fuel cycle is the way to go, but it's a long way off because of ignition problems. Since this propulsion system has an Isp of one million seconds, it could be reduced to 10% of its design specification and still be better off than any other propulsion design. Eariler I claimed incorrectly that Daedalus used lasers for ignition. This approach is used in the Novette and in other fusion propulsion concepts. However the Daedalus design used relativistic electrons, (which is probably inferior to neutral particle beams). On another subject, Geoffrey correctly pointed out that the proposed Solar Power Satellite (SPS) could not be used as a weapon because the energy density of its microwave beam was too low. However this is a specious argument. All the SPS would require to become a weapon, is a docking port with a power coupling. You simply dock a free electron laser to your SPS and presto-chango your SPS is now a space battle station. The free electron laser could easily be disguised as some nonmilitary satellite and the docking could occur in a matter of minutes. However I consider this to be only a third order argument against the SPS. Economics is the first order problem, with environmental problems being second order. These are the main reasons why the SPS was assigned to the trash can in the early 1980s. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 86 00:18:16 pst From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya) To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Summary of a talk by A. Scott Crossfield Today's Ames Director's Colloquia was given by Scott Crossfield. This was a presentation only open to the Ames community so I did not post it to the Bay Area message systems. Note: I read Crossfield's book "Always Another Dawn" about 6 months ago. He published his autobiography around 1962 and many of the photos in that book were presented today. Note this was also a reference in Tom Wolfe's book, the Right Stuff. The subject of today's talk was about the development of high performance aeronautics craft. Crossfield was noted in the motion picture was the first man to fly at Mach 2. Crossfield wants it noted he is the first man to fly faster than Mach 2 and survive. He noted the name of another man (sorry, I forgot) who broke Mach 2 before him, but died in the later stages of flight. Crossfield was portrayed as Yeager's nemisis. He was also the delivery pilot for the X-15. Most impressive were the sets of tables giving pilot names and numbers of flights in each of many experimental aircraft. Crossfield (not covered in the talk in great detail) grew up near Willington in the "South Bay" of Los Angeles (near the Great Pumpkin for those of you familiar with that refinery area). His family moved to Washington state during the depression and he entered the Navy and was a flight instructor during the war. He went to school receiving his masters from the U. of Washington. The last I heard he was living in Westchester, CA, but I did not get a chance to ask him if he was still living off Lincoln Blvd after the talk. Crossfield is has a fairly light sense of humor, and he nearly took a job at Ames in 1946. He has many old friends here. Crossfield is a firm believer in the man in the flight loop. He is not impressed by unmanned space (admittedly, this author's bias). He is not impressed by fancy electronics in planes (the X-15 was given as one example). Crossfield noted that the engines designed for the original X-1 were in use from 1945 to 1975 (in modes of the X-24 lifting body). Such a 30 year span has no peers in computing. Photos, tables, stories covered planes from the X-1 to X-24B. Also noted were the XF-92A and the century series F-100s thru F-107 (the latter he described as he watched it burn) [note Crossfield is the only person to have a street named after him at Edwards AFB who is alive and or survived his crash: "XF-92A." This is all in his book BTW]. What is impressive about his tables of flights is that hundreds of flights were made by people in planes like the X-1 and the D-558 -1 and -2. Mentioned by name was the father of a friend who was killed testing planes at Edwards, so Dave Drake at DEC (AIWest), if you are reading this, your dad was mentioned. Crossfield made a couple of jabs at the life sciences people both present and absent (in particular Dr. Lovelace of the noted clinic). Crossfield had photos of the original pressure suit he and others made and noted the olive drab color (suit sewn by Mrs. Crossfield while living in Palmdale). He said he would explain why suits were silver, but I guess he forgot. It was covered in his book: basically he and others thought, hey, aren't astronauts supposed to have silver colored suits? Sure, let's make them that way..... He did note the suit they made was the grand-daddy to Armstrong's lunar suit. There was a photo of the Crossfield rubber dummy used for the X-15 pressure suits. Crossfield also had photos of centrifuge tests for the X-15, what -3 Gs does to deform your face (he noted he underwent 150 Gs when the X-15 exploded on a test stand and his portion of the plane flew forward 20 feet, this permanently damaged his eyes, but he got away with it by wearing dark glasses). "Yes, nothing more comforting when all the guys around you retreat to the block house and then you get into your plane (on test stand). [laughter]" He was critical of the formation of NASA as spliting space and aeronautics into two distinct camps and that aeronautics was the logical way into space. He was critical of the German rocket scientists, and he felt that American aeronautics RESEARCH would have gotten men into space. He had photos of the X-20 mock up (I wonder if James Abahamson was one of those standing in front...). He also had photos of two Orient express designs. He had a photo fo the X-15A (not in the autobiography) (this model had external tanks). He also had a photo of the proposed X-15B orbital system with Beryllium tipped surfaces, for reentry, which he had a hand in designing. He felt that using existing obsolete air defense rockets (can't remember, maybe Bomarcs) strapped together, they could have had a single staged space plane in the mid 1960s. He had a photo of his X-15 in the National Air and Space Museum and he noted it is still airworthy and would be useful if they wanted to recommision it. Crossfield also had some photos of his avocational interests: small planes, race cars, and high speed boats. Afterward, a group of people congrigated. I only wanted to ask him if he still lived in Westchester (no chance), but it was interesting to watch. Old friends came to greet him. Several photos of the old group at Pancho's were produced (this was neat seeing these). Crossfield is now a consultant to the House. He frequently speaks at aeronautics departments at universities and colleges. This talk was a canned talk, but a very nice one. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" {hplabs,hao,dual,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene note: several people have tried sending me mail, but I can't reply. please put path or address info on a trailing signature as above. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #37 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA18776; Sat, 8 Nov 86 03:01:58 PST id AA18776; Sat, 8 Nov 86 03:01:58 PST Date: Sat, 8 Nov 86 03:01:58 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611081101.AA18776@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #38 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 38 Today's Topics: Powersat as weapons, an expansion Re: Powersats (con)fusion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Nov 86 15:09 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: Powersat as weapons, an expansion To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Date: 7-NOV-1986 14:57 From: Dennis O'Connor Sender: OCONNORDM Subject: Powersat as weapons, an expansion To: SPACE@ANGBAND@smtp -------- In SPACE Digest Volume 7, Issue 37, Geoffrey A. Landis states : >(2) Re the query about whether powersat microwave beams could be >used as a weapon: > >The original proposals were for power densities of about a kilowatt per >square meter, which is about one sun. This is not high enough to use as >a weapon. Whether such a phased array can be easily focussed down to >get higher power densities, I don't know. This depends on the phasing >electronics and the antenna size. The original concepts also had a >feedback loop involving the ground receptors to focus the beam, and if >the beam missed the rectenna, it would defocus to trivial energy >densities (thus guarding against some types of accidents). and "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu" then says > ... All the SPS would require to become a weapon, is a >docking port with a power coupling. You simply dock a free electron >laser to your SPS and presto-chango your SPS is now a space battle >station. The free electron laser could easily be disguised as some >nonmilitary satellite and the docking could occur in a matter of >minutes. However I consider this to be only a third order argument >against the SPS. Economics is the first order problem, with >environmental problems being second order. ... Taking a few points in order, 1. One sun of light is not a problem for biological systems, but one sun of microwave energy is different story. How much higher than the safe limit for long ( hours ) human exposure is a kilowatt per square meter? OF course, if you aimed such a beam at a city, the reflective structures would produce areas of much higher exposure. 2. Feedback loops were made to be broken. I am not talking about accidental strastraying of the beam, I'm talking deliberate targetting for terrorism / blackmail / warfare . 3. BIG free-electron lasers are not just wished up. Direct use of an already installed system that delivers energy to a target ( which pretty much defines "weapon" ) is much better. And if all you have to do is bypass a few safety features ... The larger point I'd like to make is this : A space-based culture needs transportation, energy generation and energy distribution systems. The nature of space-resident versions of these systems ( powersats, mass-drivers, orbital-manuvering-vehicles ) combined with their advantageous positioning allow them to easily be converted to weapons, especially against large unmoving targets at the bottom of a gravity well. A space-based culture, as long as it was self-sufficient ( no need for H,N,C, or O2 shipments from earth ) would be in an excellent position to terrorize / threaten / wage war the planet it orbitted. All such a course requires is creative application of existing "non-military" hardware. The culture at the bottom of the well is not so lucky. To fight the space culture they'd have to build speciallized anti-space weapons systems. I'm not real happy with the above scenario. If we are going to establish self-sufficient cultures off-planet, let's do it either FAR away ( orbitting Mars, say ), or at the bottom of another gravity well ( on the moon, say ), or preferably both ( on Mars ). I'd sleep better, the USSR would sleep better. I'm ignoring the other questions about space culture establishment for now ( like, can it pay for itself ) in order to add a new dimension to the argument. Dennis O'Connor -------- ------------------------------ Date: 7 Nov 1986 22:54-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Powersats For those interested in accurate information on the status of powersat research in the 80's, I would recommend the refereed journal "Space Power" published by the Sunsat Energy Council. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 86 21:40 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: (con)fusion There have been several untrue statements made about fusion rockets lately, so I'll try to correct them. (The following "quotes" are not quotes.) (1) "Pure deuterium is a bad fusion rocket fuel because it makes neutrons". One of the big howlers of the Daedalus study was the choice of D-He3 fuel. There are three reasons why this fuel is not better. First: D-He3 pellets produce about 15% of their energy by D-D side reactions, which either make neutrons directly or produce tritium that immediately burns to make a neutron. So, neutron output in D-He3 pellets is not less than about an order of magnitude less than pure deuterium pellets. Second, D-He3 and D-D burn at about 100 KeV, so a good fraction of the energy will come off as hard x-rays which are as bad as neutrons when it comes to vehicle heating. (Hydrogen-boron burns at much higher temperatures, and is therefore ruled out as a fusion rocket fuel, even if it could be ignited.) Third, fuel in a compressed pellet is several neutron scattering lengths deep, so even if DD and DT reactions put most of their energy into neutrons much of that energy gets redeposited in the plasma, negating D-He3's potential thrust advantage. (2) "Sandia's particle beam fusion reactor would be good for rockets." Not really, because Sandia produces ion beams, not beams of neutral particles. These beams diverge unless propagated through a plasma channel in a background gas, which is not practical in a rocket operating in space. (This situation might change if they can inject a comoving electron could.) Hyde in UCRL-8857 surveys possible drivers and settles on excimer lasers as the best bet. (3) "Fusion pellets are a micron across." No, fusion pellets are large hollow spheres about a centimeter across. (Details are unfortunately classified.) Consider: Hyde's pellets contain 15 milligrams of deuterium, which is about 0.1 cm**3 in liquid form. I'll add that many problems with vibration and aiming can potentially be solved with phase conjugating mirrors, as outlined in a recent Scientific American article. (4) "A fusion engine with a mass of 1000 tons is only good for moving asteroids." The mass of the engine is less important than the power/mass ratio. Hyde's concept from UCRL-88857, for example, has a unloaded mass of about 500 tons, an average fusion energy output of 200 gigawatts, and a maximum thrust of 3 meganewtons. An asteroid mover could operate economically with a power/mass ratio perhaps 100 to 1000 times lower. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #38 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA21928; Sun, 9 Nov 86 03:02:01 PST id AA21928; Sun, 9 Nov 86 03:02:01 PST Date: Sun, 9 Nov 86 03:02:01 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611091102.AA21928@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #39 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 39 Today's Topics: Unmanned shuttle Re: Power Sat's as weapons fusion energy Re: Powersats, DOE study ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Nov 86 19:19:35 EST From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu Subject: Unmanned shuttle To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu [from AP - posted without permission] a039 0235 08 Nov 86 PM-UTC-Shuttle,0486 Unmanned Shuttle-Like Space Vehicle Proposed HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - An unmanned space vehicle using the launch, propulsion and guidance systems of NASA's space shuttle could carry larger payloads at lower cost, say officials of a company proposing to build the ship. United Technologies Corp. has submitted an unsolicited proposal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for a system dubbed the Unmanned Payload Carrier. The vehicle could fly more often with heavier payloads for less money than the manned shuttle, said J. Donald Mirth, vice president of Space Flight Systems, part of United Technologies' Defense and Space Systems group. It would ''help reduce the backlog of Department of Defense, scientific and commercial payloads more rapidly'' and accelerate the development of a space station by reducing the number of fights now planned, he said Friday. The proposal, submitted Aug. 28, is being reviewed at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., according to Mirth. David Drachlis, a spokesman for the space flight center, said it ''would not be appropriate ... to comment'' until a standard review process ''has been completed and the company has been notified of the results.'' Mirth said plans call for development and operation of the new vehicle about three years after approval from NASA. He said he did not know when the space agency might respond. No estimate of the project's cost was given. The proposed vehicle could carry 115,000-pound payloads of more than 22 feet in width and 72 feet in length, or more than 45,000 cubic feet of cargo. The manned shuttle, whose flights were halted after the explosion of the Challenger killed its crew in January, can carry only 11,000 cubic feet of cargo in a bay measuring 14 feet by 52 feet of usable space. The proposed system would be able to launch payloads into polar orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The company also said the unmanned system could be used with existing liquid fuel upper-stage propulsion systems such as the Centaur to lift payloads of up to 35,000 pounds into geosynchronous orbits - high-level orbits that keep a satellite over a fixed point on the rotating Earth. Because of the danger posed to shuttle crews, NASA has not used the powerful but volatile liquid fuel systems to push shuttle-bay cargoes into higher orbit. Safer but less powerful solid fuel systems can put only about 6,000 pounds into geosynchronous orbit. Like the shuttle, the unmanned vehicle would ride piggy-back on an external liquid-fuel tank flanked by two solid-fuel booster rockets, which would parachute into the ocean for recovery after launch. The external tank would disintegrate on re-entry into the atmosphere. The payload would automatically deploy in orbit and a part of the payload carrier containing the three main engines and control systems would return to Earth for recovery on land. AP-NY-11-08-86 0533EST *************** ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 1986 20:59-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Power Sat's as weapons First, I suspect we're talking about a bit more than a few safety interlocks. One must also keep in mind that a powersat is an EXTREMELY vulnerable target to a military attack, which makes it a not terribly good weapon. Unless it has a damn good SDI around it, and I'm sure someone would notice the million ton lunar rock covered battlestations moving into position... To Mr. O'Connors worries, I reply that I'm much more worried about what will happen if earthbased mentalities try to handcuff the creativity, advancement and dispersion of the space based portion and causes them to fight for their freedom. Such would probably lead to far worse than you imagine. Worse, at least, for the would-be Imperial earth. The truth is, I expect there will be very little that I space based culture will WANT from Earth, once it has become self sufficient. Possibly tourism: an occassional visit to legendary primitive lands like the USA. Of course that might not be very popular because of all the uncontrolled weather, disease, roving tribes of fanatic Baptists, etc. The portion of humanity that stays on the ground will become a genetic backwater equivalent to that of the fish that DIDN'T grow lungs. They will have ceased to place their mark on history. As the song "Hope Eyrie" says (approximately): "The crown of life passes to younger lands..." ------------------------------ To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: fusion energy Date: Sat, 08 Nov 86 23:35:57 EST From: James R. Van Zandt Paul F. Dietz writes... >> It's not clear Lidsky's complaints [about the problems still facing >> fusion] apply to D-He3 reactors, since these can use direct >>conversion and avoid the major costs of steam turbines and generators. Geoffrey A. Landis replies... > Maybe. Can this be ignited? I thought it took >much higher pressure/temperatures to ignite that reaction. >Isn't He3 expensive? Is there enough around to use for fuel? You should read an article mentioned last summer in this newsgroup. I just found a copy. Here's the abstract: "An analysis of astrophysical information indicates that the solar wind has deposited an abundant, easily extractable source of He3 onto the surface of the moodn. Apollo lunar samples indicate that the moon's surface soil contains ~10**9 kg of He3. If this amount of He3 were to be used in a 50% efficient D-He3 fusion reactor, it would provide 10**7 GW (electric)-yr of electrical power. The energy required to extract He3 from the lunar regolith and transport it to earth is calculated to be ~2400 GJ/kg. Since the D-He3 reaction produces 6x10**5 GJ of energy per kilogram of He3, the energy payback ratio is ~250. Implications for the commercialization of D-He3 fusion reactors and for the development of fusion power are discussed." - L. J. Wittenberg, J. F. Santarius, and G. L. Kulcinski, "Lunar Source of He3 for Commercial Fusion Power", _Fusion_Technology_, vol 10, Sept 1986 (pp 167-178). In fact, ALL readers of this newsgroup should read it. This just could be the industrial application of space we've been waiting for. To answer the immediate questions: Terrestrial He3 presently costs about $700/g. By the year 2000 we can collect maybe 600 kg and be producing 18 kg/yr. The article also indicates that magnetically confined D-He3 reactors appear to operate at about 4 times higher temperature and 1/50 the normalized power density of D-T reactors. For building fusion reactors, the advantages of the D-He3 reaction are: 1. The small fraction of fusion power produced in the form of neutrons, which leads to lower cost and mass for the blanket, reflector, and shield system. 2. The potential for converting much of the fusion power at high efficiency by electrostatic direct conversion of chaged particles, thus allowing fucion reactors that have very high net plant efficiencies, 3. The removal of the requirement for breeding tritium [not available naturally because it decays], 4. The inherent safety due to a low afterheat density and a low inventory of radioactive isotopes, 5. The increased plant lifetime and availability due to the low neutron flux. The disadvantages are: 1. The low power density imposed by a lower fusion cross section than D-T and by a higher operating temperature [mentioned above], 2. The problem of obtaining a sufficient supply of He3, 3. The difficulty of fueling, since He3 is not easily incorporated into pellets. The article proposes mining the rigolith, releasing the helium by heating, and separating the isotopes by cryogenic distillation. It suggests that we use the 600 kg or so of terrestrial He3 between 1990 and 2010 to develop the reactors, the 10**9 kg of lunar He3 from then to 2100, then start on the 7x10**22 kg of He3 in the atmosphere of Jupiter! All in all, a very thought-provoking article. - Jim Van Zandt (jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa) ------------------------------ To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Powersats, DOE study Date: Sat, 08 Nov 86 23:36:26 EST From: James R. Van Zandt Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu writes... > From the mumblings I pick up a conferences, it would appear that the > soviets are quite interested in the powersat idea to supply cheap power > for third world client states: a real diplomatic coup for them, > regardless of the front end costs. And of course, once you've built #1, > #2 is a breeze and a hell of a lot cheaper. > ... > ...There > have been proposals to transmit energy ... by 'bouncing' it from passive > reflectors in GSO. This might even beat superconducting power lines, > because you don't have to build the infrastructure to get lots of power > to where it is needed. You just tilt the reflector. This is > particularly good for undeveloped countries. However, look at it from the undeveloped countries' point of view. Allowing either kind of installation in your country gives the fellow at the other end a mighty powerful lever - anger him and he can pull the plug on you, and supply cheap energy to your unfriendly neighbor instead. - Jim Van Zandt (jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #39 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA26079; Mon, 10 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST id AA26079; Mon, 10 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST Date: Mon, 10 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611101102.AA26079@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #40 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 40 Today's Topics: Impressions of the NCOS Symposium Re: Powersats and 3rd world welfare Powersats as weapons, battlestations, genetics, etc. Re: Seed the Stars ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 86 11:33 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Impressions of the NCOS Symposium I just attended the "National Commission on Space Symposium" in New York City, 11/8/86. Here's a report on what happened. It is incomplete and reflects my personal bias (as well as the migraine headache I had after the first hour). The symposium crammed 350+ people into a rather small room (that by fire codes was supposed to house no more than 250). This was preferable, though, to standing in the hallway for 45 minutes as we had to do while they set up seats. Gerard O'Neill gave a slide show on the NCOS report and plugged SSI and Geostar. Little new there. He gave a slide on the Lunar Polar orbiter, which he said could be built for $20 - 50 million (plus launch costs), and would do a gamma ray spectroscopic survey of the lunar polar regions looking for hydrogen. Phillip Culbertson, NASA General Manager, gave what I thought was a pretty weak presentation about what NASA was doing in space, more of a wistful look at past achievements and then some bush-wa about the space station (he showed a slide of the June 86 baseline design, now obsolete, and mentioned that the space station will have attached some kind of telescope for looking for extrasolar planets [astrometric?], which I would think would be far better placed on a free-flyer). Alexander Alexandrovitch of Grumman described a GaAs growing experiment that Grumman wants to put on the shuttle. He said they know that GaAs crystals with fewer defects can be grown in space, but it has not been shown that it is worth it given the cost. He made some comments about too much delay could kill the project (apparently directed at Culbertson). (Side question: does it seem reasonable that NASA will allow large quantities of arsenic into the space station? If not, wouldn't a free-flyer do just as well for growing GaAs crystals?) Finally, Isaac Asimov talked about why the Challenger tragedy had such an impact. He said it was because we saw it on TV. I disagree -- the real impact was because of the cognitive dissonance between our previous perception of NASA and the revelations after 51-L. The questions afterwards were more interesting. Dr. O'Neill continues to be realistic about space industrialization. In a question about communications satellites, he said they will be largely replaced by fiber optics for such things as telephone calls. Afterwards I asked Dr. O'Neill if he still thinks microgravity manufacturing in low earth orbit can be "hardly more than a publicity stunt", he said yes. Dr. O'Neill also stated (during the Q/A period) that he was concerned that the space station is going to take 10 years to go up, and that NASA is ignoring quick and cheap opportunities that will arise in the meantime. He's afraid someone will zap the station just like Ariane zapped the shuttle. I haven't looked at L5 literature in a while, so I looked at some they were distributing in the hallway. It's still high on "inspirational" material (paintings of ET scenes, "the stars belong to everyone", etc.) and short on anything I'd want to pay for. Space World (from NSS) was a lot better. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1986 12:19-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Powersats and 3rd world welfare In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sun, 9 Nov 86 03:12:38 PST Jim Van Zandt: More likely scenario is that if the USSR supplies energy, so will we within a few years to a decade. The client nation will just do what third world nations have always done: play one superpower off against the other and get as good and long a free lunch as possible out of our mutual paranoia. And don't kid yourself that even with only one supplier that there wouldn't be any takers. It never stopped anyone from accepting MIGS or PHANTOMS, so I doubt it would make any difference with energy either. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 86 23:31 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: Powersats as weapons, battlestations, genetics, etc. To: space@s1-b.arpa In SPACE Digest V7 #39, "Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu" writes : > ... One must also keep in mind that a powersat is an EXTREMELY >vulnerable target to a military attack, which makes it a not terribly >good weapon. Unless it has a damn good SDI around it, and I'm sure >someone would notice the million ton lunar rock covered battlestations >moving into position... First, why is a powersat vulnerable, and to what? Second, SDI is easy to make "damn good" if the target(s) you're defending are smaller than cities and relatively few in number. Third, "million-ton lunar-rock-covered" space colonies abound in most plans for an autonomous space culture. Some of them even serve as power distribution centers. Sounds like a potential battlestation to me. But then, I'm diabolical. After a brief flame, "Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu" then continues : >The truth is, I expect there will be very little that I space based >culture will WANT from Earth, once it has become self sufficient. >Possibly tourism: an occassional visit to legendary primitive lands >like the USA. Of course that might not be very popular because of all >the uncontrolled weather, disease, roving tribes of fanatic Baptists, >etc. Gee, and I thought they might just want raw power. But, such nasty, ambitous, charismatic and ( yes, say it ) EVIL people surely will not exist in a space-base culture !! ( note sarcasm ). Also remember, its always cheaper to get something from somebody else ( rather than make it or get it yourself ) if you can avoid paying for it (i.e. blackmail/tribute/et cetera ). "Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu" then concludes : >The portion of humanity that stays on the ground will become a genetic >backwater equivalent to that of the fish that DIDN'T grow lungs. They >will have ceased to place their mark on history. As the song "Hope >Eyrie" says (approximately): "The crown of life passes to younger >lands..." I don't oppose anyone going anywhere they please ( with a few exceptions : No condos in the Galapogos, please ). But I don't support making people who aren't going pay for the trip. And I don't oppose space colonies, just not over MY planet, if you don't mind. And not with MY tax money. Your genetic arguments are "fishy" at best : changing your location doesn't cause evolution, only selection pressure and a diverse gene pool ( with maybe a lucky mutation ) can do that. The controlled enviroments of space colonies will probably have less selection pressure and a less diverse gene pool than Earth, so I guess your counting on the mutations. Good Luck. You Need It. The reason "younger lands" were usually more prosperous than older ones ( e.g. North America, 1600s..1900s ) is because their ecosystems hadn't been raped by humanity yet. But that's a long and rather depressing story ( but true, unfortunately ). Where are you going to find virgin ecosystems ( to pillage ) in space ? And as for 4 billion plus people suddenly ceasing to place their mark on history, lets go back to the fish : They are still in the ocean, causing fishing rights disputes and red tides, and only occasionally eating people, or haveing III movies made about their "mandibles" ( pun alert ). BTW, they're still evolving, too. Dennis O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 86 00:05:47 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Seed the Stars ? To: Space@s1-b.arpa We must be very careful not to destroy information or preclude future possibilities. We should not seed Mars or Venus, for instance, until we are certain there is no native life there, or if there IS native life there, until we are sure that it is not intelligent AND that we completely understand it and have gained everything we possibly can from it. Similarly, introduction of life is likely to alter the geology (planetology?) of the world in question. We should learn all we possibly can about the geology before doing anything that is likely to radically alter it. Also, introducing life will most likely preclude introducing a different sort of life later. We should be certain that we aren't preventing future generations from terraforming or biomining or otherwise using the planet in a more productive way. It is doubtful that we will have the knowledge or the wisdom to be able to satisfy these question for a long time. So I think that for the forseeable future we should not release uncontrolled life on other worlds. Please understand that I do not think that plants and animals have any rights. And dead matter certainly has none. I think we should hold off for our own future benefit, not for the benefit of any alien life (excluding intelligent aliens, of course). I see nothing wrong with tearing down most of Earth's rain forests, IF enough are left to be enjoyed, AND we are sure we have discovered every species, analyzed their genetic code and any other information needed to totally recreate their ecosystem, AND we have safely stored it in multiple places on CD-rom or other very long term storage media, AND this information is available to everyone and is not the property of some elite. Similarly, if we wish to completely replace an alien ecosystem with one of our own design, I see nothing wrong with that if we first completely analyze and store the alien ecosystem. ...Keith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #40 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA29683; Tue, 11 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST id AA29683; Tue, 11 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST Date: Tue, 11 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611111102.AA29683@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #41 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 11 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #41 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 41 Today's Topics: Re: X-29 Lunar He3 LA Area: Space Talk Space colony paranoia NY NCOS Symposium ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 09 Nov 86 17:39:25 EST From: H. Thomas Sharp To: Cc: Subject: Re: X-29 >From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty) > > The new technology represented in the advanced forward swept >wing aircraft (X-29) seems very interesting. Does anyone know exactly >what the advantages of the forward swept wing are and how the >technology may be applied to the next generation space plane? > > -Chris There are several advantages of a forward swept wing (FSW) over an aft swept wing (ASW). Among these are o Improved performance at high angles of attack. For the ASW flow separation occurs at the wing tip and degrades the responsiveness of the control surfaces. Flow separation on a FSW occurs inboard and generally never reaches the tip. This allows for higher roll rates than would be possible with an ASW. o While wing sweep, either fore or aft, postpones the drag rise near Mach 1, a FSW has a lower wing profile drag than a ASW. Therefore, one can obtain higher lift coefficients under transonic conditions. This translates into a greater payload capacity for a given aspect ratio. Of course the major disadvantage of a FSW is it's desire to bend. The major contribution of the X-29 is the knowledge which has been gained on the manufacturing and use of composites which can be tailored to the aeroelastic bending. H. Thomas Sharp (TSHARP@BROWNVM.ARPA) Division of Applied Mathematics Brown University ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 86 11:34:49 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: Lunar He3 James R. Van Zandt [Quoting Wittenberg, Santarius, and Kulcinski, _Fusion_Technology_, vol 10, Sept. 1986 (pp 167-178).] > "Apollo lunar samples indicate that the moon's surface soil contains > ~10**9 kg of He3. If this amount of He3 were to be used in a 50% > efficient D-He3 fusion reactor, it would provide 10**7 GW > (electric)-yr of electrical power. Hmmm. The moon has a surface of about 40 million square kilometers. 1E9 kg of He3 works out to 25 kg/km2, or 25 mg/m2. If we assume that the He3 is homogenized into the top 1m depth, this is .025 micrograms per cc. If the lunar rock has a density of 5, that's 0.5 parts per billion. This is low grade ore with a vengence! However, if extraction is really as simple as just heating it, it may still be practical. (Given that we can make the D-He3 reaction work, that is.) > The energy required to extract He3 from the lunar regolith and >transport it to earth is calculated to be ~2400 GJ/kg. Since the > D-He3 reaction produces 6x10**5 GJ of energy per kilogram of He3, the >energy payback ratio is ~250. Given the low concentrations, I would expect, however, that other costs than merely the cost of the energy to extract it will dominate the costs of mining. > Terrestrial He3 presently costs about $700/g. By the year 2000 we can > collect maybe 600 kg [from the moon] and be producing 18 kg/yr. 600kg = 24 km2 mined by the year 2000. 18 kg/yr = .75 km2/yr At an 18kg/yr rate, it takes 33 yrs to mine 600 kg. --Geoffrey A. Landis DISCLAIMER: "WHAT is right is more important than WHO is right." ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1986 15:23:20 PST Sender: ROGERS@b.isi.edu Subject: LA Area: Space Talk From: Craig Milo Rogers To: Space@s1-b.arpa Cc: BBoard@venera.isi.edu, BBoard@usc-ecl.arpa Reply-To: Rogers@VENERA.ISI.EDU Never before has the United States faced such a challenge to its civilian space program. Find out what YOU can do to put America back on the High Road to Space by attending a special free symposium. This event will feature speakers and discussions highlighting the findings of the National Commission on Space's report and program for civilian space development through the year 2035. The symposium will be held at the California Museum of Science and Industry in Exposition Park on Saturday, November 22, 1986, from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM. Admission is free, but space is limited. Call (213) 419-0561 to make a reservation. The following organizations are participating in the symposium: The National Space Society Rockwell International TRW The California Museum of Science and Industry The Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and Settlement, a chapter of the L5 Society (OASIS/L5) The L5 Society The Planetary Society The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics The American Astronautical Society The panel of speakers at the symposium will include: Dr. Thomas Paine, Chairman of the National Commission on Space Louis L'Amour, western writer Seymour Z. Rubenstein, President, Space Station Systems Division, Rockwell International Dr. Albert Hibbs, formerly JPL Technical Staff Portions of this symposium will be taped for rebroadcast by the Discovery cable TV channel. OASIS/L5 is a non-profit educational group which promotes space development. For more information about this event or other OASIS/L5 activities call Craig Rogers at (213) 419 - 0561, or send a message to . [Portions of this message were copied, with permission, from the National Space Society's press release for the symposium.] ------- ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1986 23:22-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Space colony paranoia OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa: A useful power sat is a fragile structure of very thin girders and solar cells and/or large solar concentrators for Rankine cycle or other type generators. They are literally huge and very flimsy by the very nature of what they do: maximize collecting area and minimize mass. Nobody interested in making a profit is going to build them any other way. I'm really amazed at your level of paranoia. Did the USA turn around and conquer Britain? No. It wanted left alone to go it's own direction. The same will happen at a space settlement, which is very vulnerable to outside attack*. Protection by rock would be limited to that necessary to stop particles from the direction of the sun. None of the various designs would hold up long against concerted attack, if the attackers didn't care if they killed most everyone. A takeover could be quite difficult if you wanted to take live prisoners. * Note: except for a lunar settlement, which could be near invulnerable to even a concerted NUCLEAR attack. You might have to take out each building seperately. But then, it has a gravity well, so it's not really the high ground you speak of. A battle station is a VERY different proposition. A non rotating structure buried in a sphere of rock and slag, with passages to bring replacement weapons and sensors to the surface after they get blasted off. Think of the difference between the hardness (and price) of a cadillac versus that of a battle tank with Chobham armor. The caddy might eat a Volkswagen strike, but it won't handle anything SERIOUS. And even if you do harden everything, fight the war and get someone to surrender (without having an army that can stand up when it lands, or knows how to deal with mosquitos, killer bees, thunderstorms, mud, etc), you then have to keep 7 billion people under thumb somehow. How? The Russians can't even keep an empire together (they've got some 7-8 revolts against them around the world) and they are here, they have an army HERE, they have an army that knows how to live HERE, and they aren't afraid to use any amount of force or deadly gas that comes to hand. How do you propose that a bunch of colonists are going to pull off this coup? I find it an utterly ridiculous concept. I think you've been reading too much Starship Troopers. There is really no chance they would attempt an attack on the other OTHER THAN TO REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM ITS GRIP OR THREATS. People on frontiers look outwards, not backwards. The ones you have to worry about are the patriotic military forces from Earth wanting to hold Earth-Moon space for mother (pick your favorite super power) ______ in order to make the Earth safe for (pick your favorite ideology) ________. All things considered, you are probably safer if they ARE independant. If you want to hypothesize some far future time (500 years or so) when the population density out there is such that there are aged cultures spread around the system, ones whose energies are not entirely taken up by building and surviving and expanding, then there might be some credence to your worries. However, at that late a date, it won't really matter WHERE they are based, because with a fusion drive, you can move the whole damn thing. But why would you move a city closer when all you really want to do is send your weapons to dominate the high ground? And I'm still not sure that I see any gain worth the cost. It just doesn't seem feasible to conquer 7 Billion individuals. Easy to kill a lot of them off, but not so easy to leave anything intact that will make the attempt worth the cost. And as to selective forces, I strongly suspect people will adapt to low or zero gravity, possibly in only a few generations. Most people, after having been up long enough to stop tossing their cookies have preferred it. The choice may be one way: once you adapt you can't EVER go back. Children born in low gravity (the moon for exasmple) may likewise never be able to visit a high gravity planet, or would simply not be interested in the huge effort required to get in that kind of physical condition. Simple power has very rarely been the only, or even a major driving factor behind war. Most wars are caused by religion, scarce resources, fear or rebellion against an oppresor. I'm hard pressed to think of any major confrontations in the last 2000 years that was mainly for power, other than Kenghis Kahn and Adolf Hitler. And if a power crazed maniac comes along, it probably doesn't matter where he starts out. The result will be the same. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 1986 00:03-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: NY NCOS Symposium DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET: 350 when they planned on 250!!!!!!! Glad to hear it was a rousing success. It's always a good feeling when you get swamped with people. It shows there are people out there who really care. I've had some experience with half full (and less) rooms for events that had a great deal of hard work and planning put into them. You just never know until the doors open; all you can do is cross your fingers, hold your breath and dive into the PR campaign. Guess I should give NYC L5 (they organized and ran the whole thing on the NYC end) a call and congratulate them on doing a great job. I only hope the one coming up here in Pgh next week can have them standing in the aisles. Can't let them New Yorkers get TOO swell headed... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #41 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02717; Wed, 12 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST id AA02717; Wed, 12 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST Date: Wed, 12 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611121102.AA02717@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #42 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 12 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #42 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 42 Today's Topics: Chariots for Apollo #8 - Snoopy at the moon space news from Sept 29 AW&ST Powersats, Orbital Bummers, Causes of War, Etc. Lunar He-3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: mordor!sri-spam!rutgers!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn From: dcn@ihuxl.UUCP (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Chariots for Apollo #8 - Snoopy at the moon Date: 7 Nov 86 23:58:29 GMT Young caught sight of the lunar module at a distance of 120 kilometers; Snoopy appeared to be running across the lunar surface like a spider. At other times, using a sextant, he spotted the craft as far away as 550 kilometers. An hour after the first descent burn, Stafford and Cernan fired the engine again to shape the trajectory for their return to the command module. ... After Stafford's camera failed, he and Cernan had little to do except look at the scenery until [it was] time to dump the descent stage. Stafford had the vehicle in the right attitude 10 minutes early. Cernan asked, "You ready?" Then he suddenly exclaimed, "Son of a bitch!" Snoopy seemed to be throwing a fit, lurching wildly about. He later said it was like flying an Immelmann turn in an aircraft, a combination of pitch and yaw. Stafford yelled that they were in gimbal lock - that the engine had swiveled over to a stop and stuck - and they almost were. He called for Cernan to thrust forward. Stafford then hit the switch to get rid of the descent stage and realized that they were thirty degrees off from their previous attitude. The lunar module continued its crazy gyrations across the lunar sky, and a warning light indicated that the inertial measuring unit was about to reach its limits and go into gimbal lock. Stafford then took over in manual control, made a big pitch maneuver, and started working the attitude control switches. Snoopy finally calmed down. For this first lunar module flight to the vicinity of the moon, the pilots were supposed to use the abort guidance system instead of the primary guidance system, to test performance in the lunar environment. The abort system had two basic modes: "attitude hold" and "automatic." In automatic mode, the computer would take over the guidance and start looking for the command module, which was certainly not what the crew wanted to do just then. In correcting for a minor yaw-rate-gyro distur- bance, the pilots had accidentally switched the spacecraft to the automatic mode, and the frantic gyrations resulted. From Cernan's startled ejaculation to Stafford's report that everything was under control took only three minutes. Flight control told the crewmen that they had made an error in switching, but the system was fine. They could fire the ascent engine. After the firing, the lander flew what Stafford called a "Dutch roll," yawing and pitching and snaking along. When the engine shut down, however, to the crew's surprise the attitude and flight path to the command module were correct. From a maximum distance of 630 kilometers, the thrust from the ascent engine moved the lunar module to within 78 kilometers of the mother ship. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0, $12. -- Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn ------------------------------ Path: mordor!lll-crg!seismo!mnetor!utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Sept 29 AW&ST Date: 9 Nov 86 02:42:51 GMT [This issue is a bit late for various reasons. In case new readers are wondering, these summaries usually run about a month behind the cover date on Aviation Week because (a) AW&ST takes a while to reach my PO box, (b) I only empty the box about every 10 days, (c) it takes a while for me to get around to typing this stuff in.] 10-member team of senior US space people (NASA, White House, DoD, State Dept) visited Soviet Union secretly in mid-Sept to discuss resuming US-Soviet space cooperation. Team head was JPL director Lew Allen. Space Industries Inc and Westinghouse have agreed to form a partnership to continue design and development of SII's Industrial Space Facility. This will be a free-flying man-tended materials-processing facility. Current role of Westinghouse is financial backer and possible customer. NASA is looking at renting a substantial fraction of ISF. When NASA asked about getting a Titan 34D to launch a TDRS, the USAF, which would act as purchasing agent for dealings with Martin Marietta, informally quoted over $150M. This is raising a lot of doubt about whether MM can make commercial Titan competitive with Ariane -- Ariane 4 is currently going for about $84M. One of the two tape recorders aboard Spot 1 has failed, and attempts to get it going again have been unsuccessful. This recorder was giving trouble earlier. [Tape recorders are generally a problem area in such satellites.] Small commercial space companies are facing major financial difficulties as a result of the Shuttle stand-down and the resulting policy changes. They are being largely ignored in the policy debates, and often cannot afford to wait endlessly for formation and clarification of the rules. Orbital Sciences Corp is most unhappy about NASA's proposal to delay the launch of the Mars Observer by two years. OSC is supplying the TOS upper stage for it; the slip would mean that NASA would either delay purchase of the TOS, or buy on schedule and store it for a while. Scott Webster of OSC: "It would be devastating if they slip the contract for two years. I don't know how we'd survive. If they decide to buy later, I don't know who they'd be buying it from..." He does say that OSC will survive if this problem is resolved, unlike other firms. He attributes much of the trouble to the ineptitude of the officials enacting policy: "It's not so much the Challenger disaster, as the fact that Reagan's policies on commercial space development have been ignored and distorted to apply to others who are not commercial innovators." He is specifically referring to the current commercial expendable-booster suppliers. "I've almost given up on the government's doing anything that is of real practical help to those working with real outside capital to do new things in space." Some companies that had been hoping for space access are renewing attention to ground-based processes as an interim measure. Microgravity Research Associates, which plans to make high-grade semiconductor crystals in space, recently came up with a process for making small high-grade GaAs crystals on the ground. This will defer their need for spaceflight by making it possible to satisfy some of their customers without it. They still want to move into space. The ground-based process is good only to about 1 inch in diameter, which is good enough for development but too small for production use. Space-based production should permit 3-5 inches, which is the right sort of size for the much larger production market. Management shakeup expected in DoT's Office of Commercial Space Transportation. Lack of technical expertise is seen as a major problem with the current setup. Officials of expendable-booster companies remain suspicious of the vague policies about who can fly on the shuttle. Not even NASA knows quite how to interpret some areas of the policies. L.J. Evans, former NASA deputy assistant administrator for commercial space, slams NASA and other federal agencies for failing to do much about the commercial-space policies unveiled in 1984. In particular, he says NASA is still incapable of making prompt decisions on cooperative agreements with industry, with the result that such agreements are very expensive and difficult to arrange. Robert Brumley, Commerce Dept deputy general counsel, disagrees with Evans about the desirability of pursuing the 1984 policies, but agrees that NASA is botching the commercial-space aspect of its duties. He says, essentially, that NASA wants to remain the boss and doesn't want independent commercial activity. American Rocket Co. unveils a new expendable design, intended for tests in early 1988. It will be a four-stage design using 19 nearly-identical hybrid rocket engines. The first stage is 12 engines in a ring around the common oxidizer tank, whose base is used as a plug nozzle. The remaining stages are seven cylindrical sections in a hexagonal layout; four of them are the second stage, the remaining outer two are the third, and the central one is the fourth. It will launch 4000 lbs into LEO, 3000 lbs to polar LEO. The payload fairing is 90 in. dia with a 9 ft cylindrical section and some taper fore and aft. Price will be $5-8M. General Dynamics approves purchase of long-lead items to restart Atlas- Centaur production. No firm orders yet. Hughes asks NASA for a cooperative agreement on using Shuttle external-tank tooling for building the Jarvis booster, and for prices on a couple of dozen Saturn engines in storage at Marshall. One problem is that the tank tooling belongs to NASA but the facility housing it belongs to Martin Marietta, which isn't likely to be happy about Hughes using it to build a competitor for MM's commercial Titan. Western Union signs letter of intent to launch Westar 6S on the Chinese Long March 3 booster in March 1988. Formal launch agreement by December. Westar 6S is the replacement for Westar 6, which was one of the victims of PAM malfunctions retrieved by Shuttle mission 51A. Western Union has not yet made a deposit to reserve a launch slot, and is still talking with the Chinese about things like reflight rights in the event of a launch failure. Terasat Inc, which had booked Long March 3 launches for the two satellites retrieved by 51A, has hit a snag. Palapa B2 was bought by Sattel Technologies before Terasat could complete financing, and Westar 6 has now been sold to Johnson Geneva (USA) Ltd. JG is a high-technology consultant to developing nations; it and Pan Am Commercial Services are putting together a joint venture to sell comsat services to Pacific-rim island nations. NASA agrees to a new division of work between Johnson and Marshall to appease Congress. It actually doesn't change things much, but the wording is different. The relationships between the two centers and their contractors remain complicated and potentially troublesome. [Editorial of the week: The only reason the Johnson/Marshall business is causing so much fuss is that Marshall -- historically NASA's launch-vehicle development team -- is at loose ends now. Clearly the Space Station should be 100% Johnson, and Marshall should be doing launch-vehicle development instead. An obvious job for Marshall would be replacing the SRBs with liquid-fuel boosters, a desirable change for many reasons. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to be funded, though. -- HS] Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 86 16:28 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: Powersats, Orbital Bummers, Causes of War, Etc. To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa In SPACE Digest V7 #41 "Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu" engages in a long combination of comclusion-jumping, flaming and ad hominum attacks. Such behavior is NOT what I had hoped for as a response to my original line of inquiry. The length and low information density of "Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu"'s message prohibits quoting it, but I'd like to challenge some of his statements. 1. You can design a powersat as a collection of independant modules, each containing a reflector, power converter, and a microwave transmitter. The transmitters on the units are coordinated by a redundant central control system into a large phased-array transmitter. Advantages of such a powersat : you use a lot of small, cheap components instead of a few big, expensive ones; you can start small and expand it easily; you can take portions down for service without shutting down everything; and it is very robust ( loosing subunits doesn't cost you the whole thing ). If you think about it, this makes it a survivable weapon also. 2. The USA did not ( hasn't yet ? ) conquered England because North America is rich in natural resources and England is ( generally ) poor in them. The same CAN NOT be said of space. 3. A space-based installation is only vulnerable to attack by a weapon if: a. It allows the groundhogs to build it. b. It allows the groundhogs a launch facility for it. c. It allows it to survive the LONG trip from Earth. You can do A or B by blackmail or pre-emptive strike, and C using existing machine-cannon or air-to-air technology. Given all this, if you come up with a list of attacks that space colonies are "very vulnerable" to, I'll come up with cheap, easy countermeasures. ( Countermeasure 1 : " You build a launch pad, we fry New York " ). 4. If the inside of the colonie rotates and the outside doesn't, then put all the weapons on the outside and don't let any of them get blasted off ( see 3, above ). If the whole thing rotates do the same but get better targetting systems. Really BIG weapons mount inside along the axis of rotation, with a targetting mirror at the end. 5. in re the difference between tanks and cadillacs, more to the point is the difference between pillboxes and underground parking garages (pillboxes are cheaper the garages, actually). 6. If I win the war, I will MAKE YOU send me ANYTHING I WANT ( only to low orbit, I'll take it from there, but YOU DO THE HARD PART ), and I WON'T PAY FOR IT, and IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT I WILL FRY YOU because I CAN HIT YOU BUT YOU CAN"T HIT ME. Beyond that, you can govern yourselves. This is called GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY. Yes, goverments do act ( have acted ) this childishly. 7. A thriving, expanding space culture doesn't hold any fear for me. Rather, a desparate, struggling, just-getting-started culture is the real threat. They NEED to get things cheap/free. 8. If people are going to adapt to low gravity in only a few generation, the ONLY way it will happen ( genetically ) is if you refuse to allow people who aren't well adapted to breed. Period. There is no other form of adaptation possible ( unless your going to splice genes yourself, but beleive me, that isn't a cheap thing with people. It's not even cheap with E. Coli ). And what about bone-mass loss ? 9. If one of the MAJOR causes of war is scarce resources, then Space Colonies will have a lot of cause for war. The list of important resources that ARE NOT AT ALL AVAILABLE ( much less "scarce" ) in space runs like a CRC Handbook. And if an ambitous politician can exploit these multitudinous shortages ... I think everyone on the net would appreciate if entries to it were well thought out, not just knee-jerk reactions. I am trying ( I'll admit I may not be suceeding ) to adher to this rule. Dennis O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Nov 86 17:58 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Lunar He-3 About concentrations of He-3 in lunar soil... The concentration of helium ranges from 1 to 35 ppm, with 15 ppm being the mean value for lunar maria soil. The ratio of He-4 to He-3 ranges from 2200 to 3000. Given those figures, the average concentration of He3 is around 5 ppb. One kilogram of He-3, currently worth $700,000 dollars, would require the processing of 200,000 metric tons of soil, at a cost of < $3.5/ton. Note that at 50% efficiency and $.05/KWH, one gram of helium-3 can generate $4100 worth of electricity. Higher efficiencies may be possible. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #42 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06507; Thu, 13 Nov 86 03:02:26 PST id AA06507; Thu, 13 Nov 86 03:02:26 PST Date: Thu, 13 Nov 86 03:02:26 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611131102.AA06507@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #43 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 13 Nov 86 03:02:26 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #43 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 43 Today's Topics: Three cheers for Dave Newkirk||| Computer responses to National Commission Re: Powersats Re: Powersats Re: Powersats Re: power sats Re: Phil Dietz X-29 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 86 13:49:37 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Three cheers for Dave Newkirk||| All praise to Dave Newkirk for his "Chariots for Apollo" articles. I am enjoying them immensely. Dave, after you are finished with "Chariots for Apollo", you might consider Michael Collin's book, "Carrying the Fire". Thanks Again. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12-NOV-1986 09:22 CST From: To: Subject: Computer responses to National Commission Look in the back of *Pioneering the Space Frontier*, in the Acknowledgements section, where the National Commisssion on Space lists in tiny tiny print the many people who contributed to their effort. There's a list called "Letters and Computer Responses." Among the hundreds of people listed there are an extrordinary number from around here, especially Naperville, Illinois, which is down the road. When I think of Naperville, I think of Bell Labs, which makes me think of UUCP. Does anybody in this newsgroup know where all those Naperville responses came from? If there's somebody in my neighborhood generating this much activity on space travel, I'd like to know about it. Did somebody collect opinions over the networks and forward them to the Commission? The text of the report mentions Compuserve, Astronet (the Young Astronauts' BBS system), something called Terra Nova Communications, and something called the Boulder Center for Science and Policy. No mention is made of Usenet or Arpanet. It has been suggested to me that a local teacher or two might have organized a letter-writing project, and certainly that would skew the distribution of responses toward a particular locality. This theory is supported by the presence of a lot of Jennifers, Jessicas, and Ryans in the list, who could well be the children of Eighties parents. Even if this is the explanation, I'd like to know who the teachers are. Any light that readers can shed on this question will be appreciated. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALCDF ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 86 19:38:25 GMT From: crowl@rochester.arpa Subject: Re: Powersats Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <1310@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >In article <7278@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >>(The reasons to use microwaves from powersats rather than just >>settling for normal sunlight are (a) much higher conversion >>efficiencies, and (b) the powersat beam is there day and night and >>largely ignores clouds.) > >There day and NIGHT? Where does it get its night power (I am presuming >a solar power source)? It would have to be in a pretty durn high orbit >( :-), and synchronous orbits are kinda low, aren't they? ) for the >earth not to block the sun from the powersat at night! The earth is inclined 23 degrees off the earth's orbital plane. So, any powersat in (geosynchronous) orbit around earth will be out of the earth's orbital plane almost all the time, so could not possibly be blocked from the sun. Even if the powersat were in the earth's orbital plane, it will probably be sufficiently far from the earth so that for most (95%?) of its orbit it will not be blocked from the sun. To see this, place a cup on your desk and draw a large circle around it. From how many points on the circle can you see your doorknob? Remember, how many lunar eclipses happen? Certainly no where near one a month, let alone one a month for half the month. Lawrence Crowl 716-275-5766 University of Rochester crowl@rochester.arpa Computer Science Department ...!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!crowl Rochester, New York, 14627 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 86 19:33:59 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Powersats Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Clarke (geosynchronous) orbit is 40000 km up; for much of the year, the tilt of the Earth's axis means that the Earth's shadow misses Clarke orbit completely. In spring and fall there will be a few weeks when there is a short interruption in the power feed at local midnight, as the satellite passes through the Earth's shadow. This will need to be planned for, but midnight is not a time of high power demand. Otherwise, no problem. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 86 01:54:06 GMT From: rutgers!clyde!cuae2!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy@lll-crg.arpa (Daniel R. Levy) Subject: Re: Powersats Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Oh, boy. Matt Crawford pointed out the fallacy of that one to me right quick. I'm chowing down on the ol' crow here, people. Synchronous-orbit satellites ARE high enough to get the sun most of the time. Dan Levy ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 1986 18:17-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: power sats OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa: Out of fear you would apply draconian controls. You are applying the same paranoia that pollutes the world we already live on. Paranoia and fear breed deeper paranoia and fear. And once they reach a certain point, the reality of hatreds and weapons no longer allows other paths to be taken. Can't we ever consider stopping the cycle? Let others alone and they will leave you alone too. Prior to this discussion, I had thought that arming a space colony was a foolish idea, and I had told friends so. If the mentality of jealousy and fear already exists a hundred years before the fact, I may have to eat my words. You may be right: we should indeed consider moving colonies far from nuthouse Earth, as soon as it is feasible to do so. I do wonder if such an escape will require a bloody revolt, since you suggest that the earliest colonists will be held under oppressive control by fearful ground based authorities. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 1986 18:44-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Phil Dietz I wished to comment on your statement about the nature of L5 literature. What you say is to a great extent true, and for very good reasons. We are not targeting highly trained engineers. We are aiming for the general public. All of us (Space Digest) know that these things can be done. We might argue about the particulars, but most of us agree that our civilization will move into space over some disputed time frame. The average housewife, insurance salesperson, officeworker, doctor, nurse, or mill worker doesn't know any of this. They are not educated to understand the technical arguments even if we made them. And yet these are the people who really control where the government side of the space program will go, and at the very least will decide whether the government will allow private enterprise to even try. Regardless of what DC wildlife thinks, they only run things so long as the grass roots don't get too terribly annoyed by them. If we gave out the info that would excite you, we would not reach this audience. You, Paul, already know the importance of the issues. You know even enough about the details and the problems to have valid disagreements with my stands. So we don't need to target you with our literature. I'm sure that if you think about it, you'll see that we are taking the right approach for our market. You have to make it exciting enough at a gut level and splashy enough to make uninformed nontechnically trained people WANT to learn more. Given that they start the learning process, they will eventually understand the deeper issues. NOBODY does this better than we do. It is our (L5's) ability to get the average Joe where he lives that is one of the major reasons NSS is interested in a merger. I'm sorry you don't like our materials, but I'm sure you will do active things toward a strong space program whether you are one of us or not. Just the fact of your taking the time to HAVE positions on the issues we argue about makes you more like one of us than you probably think. Our job is to get a few million people to the same level as you. It's a hard job, and nobody else is doing it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Nov 86 01:30:48 EST From: weltyc%cieunix@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: X-29 I appreciate the comments H Thomas Sharp has on the X-29, but I have one question about something he said: > o While wing sweep, either fore or aft, postpones the drag rise near > Mach 1, a FSW has a lower wing profile drag than a ASW. Therefore, > one can obtain higher lift coefficients under transonic conditions. > This translates into a greater payload capacity for a given aspect > ratio. I'm by no means an expert, but isn't profile drag simply the sum of the skin friction and form drag of an object? How could the wing being forward or backward swept have anything to do with it, do you mean the FSWs are generally of a different shape? -Chris ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #43 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02040; Fri, 14 Nov 86 03:02:10 PST id AA02040; Fri, 14 Nov 86 03:02:10 PST Date: Fri, 14 Nov 86 03:02:10 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611141102.AA02040@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #44 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 14 Nov 86 03:02:10 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #44 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 44 Today's Topics: Courtesy, Arguments, and Powersats Electromagnetic launchers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Nov 86 15:03 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: Courtesy, Arguments, and Powersats To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa When I originally put forth the question of Powersats as Weapons, which evolved into Space Installations as Military Oportunities, I ( in my naivete about network newsgroups ) was looking forward to speculation on the practicality or impracticality of using "commercial" space resources as "military" ones, much as is already the case in communications satelites. Instead, I've mainly gotten flames and ad-hominum attacks from "Dale.Amon", whoever he is. This person doesn't realy respond to what anyone says, he just flames. And if his flaming doesn't succeed, he starts insulting people. He has claimed I am paranoid, but gee, "Dale.Amon", WHEN THE HELL DID YOU EVER EVEN MEET ME? "Dale.Amon" ( is that your real name? ) has about as much cause to call me paranoid as I have of calling him an evangelical dogmatic knee-jerk fanatical idealogue. He has also essentially stated that people who prefer to live on Earth ( when they could go to space ) are inferior in some way. This is essentially the "IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU MUST BE A MORON" view of life, which is generally only held by morons. "Dale.Amon", from now on please try to respond in kind to people on the net. When a message is trying to conduct a dispassionate technical argument, DO NOT respond with FLAMES, PERSONAL ATTACKS and FALLACIOUS INACURATE INCOMPLETE ANALOGIES. ( And yes, I know your not doing this to me personally, since you seem to do it to everyone. See, I'm not paranoid. ) If someone wants to flame and counterflame with you, fine. BUT I DON'T WANT TO. Yes, this message is a flame, and contains ad-hominum attacks. But hopefully it will act as a "vacine", generating mental "anti-bodies" through-out the SPACE net, to help stop this "plague" of discourteous, counterproductive and annoying flames before the net deteriorates. With apologies, Dennis O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Nov 86 15:28:02 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Electromagnetic launchers Thought SPACE readers might find this item of interest: From DEFENSE ELECTRONICS, Nov. '86, p. 18, "Focus" column: KAMAN'S COIL GUNS PORTEND HEAVY-LOAD LAUNCH ROLE Kaman Corp. of Bloomfield, Conn., plans to build and demonstrate an electromagnetic coil gun under an $8.5-million Army/DARPA anti-armor contract. Using coils instead of rails, Kaman expects to achieve muzzle velocities of 13,000 feet per second and rates of fire of three projectiles per minute. Dr. Henry Kolm, president of Kaman's Electromagnetic Launch Research subsidiary, believes that the coil, not the rail, has the greatest technological potential. He predicts that electromagnetic coils will someday launch aircraft from carriers and spacecraft from launch pads. Aboard cariers, the coils would save space and weight by replacing steam catapults. At the launch pad, according to Kaman's Kolm, electromagnetic coils would initially eliminate first-stage boosters and eventually permit the direct launching of payloads into space. *** End of article *** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #44 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05127; Sun, 16 Nov 86 03:01:56 PST id AA05127; Sun, 16 Nov 86 03:01:56 PST Date: Sun, 16 Nov 86 03:01:56 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611161101.AA05127@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #45 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 16 Nov 86 03:01:56 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #45 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 45 Today's Topics: Re: The vestibular system in rotati Re: Electromagnetic launchers space news from AW&ST 6 Oct 1986 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Nov 86 01:55:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: The vestibular system in rotati Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa /* Written 11:12 am Oct 31, 1986 by henry@utzoo.UUCP in uiucdcsp:sci.space */ /* ---------- "Re: The vestibular system in rotati" ---------- */ >> There has been some discussion about rotating space colonies lately, >> mostly concerned with the reliability of bearings. My recollection >> was that the idea of rotating structures to produce pseudogravity was >> out because of problems with Coriolis forces and the human vestibular >> system. I have not seen this point made in print... > >If you check out Gerry O'Neill's original book "The High Frontier" >(1978?), you will see it in print. The problem has been known since >quite early in the history of the space-colony concept. This is why >O'Neill's definitive large-colony designs spin at 1 RPM or less. This >does make for troublingly large structures; he suggested that a small >first colony, with crew selected for resistance to such problems, might >be able to spin at 2-3 RPM. -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry /* End of text from uiucdcsp:sci.space */ How about a small colony at the end of a l-o-n-g tether? Put your labs at the other end, and a micro gravity environment in the middle. This would provide the necessary radius for "artificial gravity" without the huge structure. -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp VAXing Poetic At Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 86 06:11:42 GMT From: hplabsc!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Re: Electromagnetic launchers Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Re: offbeat launching schemes, sometime back I saw an article in a technical rocketry journal about using a space based laser to lift a vehicle using an electromagnetic field and MHD forces. Does anyone know what happened to this idea? Jim Kempf hplabs!kempf ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 86 02:04:54 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from AW&ST 6 Oct 1986 Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Space station operations task force formed within NASA to plan how to operate the station. One particular issue needing attention is how the existence of a permanently manned space facility will affect the design of other projects. Brazilian National Institute of Space Research (INPE) building prototype for a series of four experimental weather/Earth-sensing satellites, to be launched on Brazilian-made boosters starting perhaps 1989. NASA begins full-scale SRB assembly tests using rounding tools to prevent some of the assembly problems discovered during the Challenger investigation. Looks like the new tools work. First shuttle payload manifest since 51L emphasizes military payloads heavily for first two years, partly to bolster USAF early-warning-satellite capability. SDI Spacelab also expected early in second year. Two TDRSs and two DoD payloads expected to precede Space Telescope. Only one semi- commercial satellite is present in the first two years: the British/NATO Skynet comsat. [I believe the full manifest is in the next issue of AW&ST, and will thus appear in the next summary. -- HS] Brookings Institution forum on US space program directions concludes that the outlook for space commercialization is dim for the next little while. The Challenger accident and the confused state of federal policy have messed up a lot of plans. Plan to validate Shuttle handling equipment at Vandenberg with a full-dress assembly exercise has been cancelled, mostly because of cost. Orbiter Columbia was to have moved to Vandenberg this month, after several delays. Justifications for cancellation are that much of the support equipment will have to be replaced anyway before the earliest date when Shuttle launches from Vandenberg could start, and that it is too risky to fly one of only three surviving orbiters across the country twice (!!). Support building in White House and Kremlin to revive cooperative space activities, notably exploration of Mars and space-adaptation studies, but there is debate within the US government about this. NASA supports it, as do intelligence agencies, but DoD and parts of the State Dept. are alarmed about technology transfer. Significantly, it looks like the Soviets are interested enough that they will not make US abandonment of SDI a precondition (!) for such cooperation. Next official step is to negotiate a new general agreement on space cooperation, replacing the old one that the US allowed to lapse in 1982 in the middle of the Poland uproar. Preliminary work on this is in progress. Plans for joint US-USSR work are emphasizing cooperative planning and operations, plus data exchange, rather than joint hardware construction, partly to placate the DoD paranoids. High on the agenda is simultaneous operations by the 1988 Soviet Mars/Phobos mission and the 1990 US Mars Observer orbiter. With any luck, the Soviet probe will still be active when Mars Observer arrives -- *if* Mars Observer launches in 1990. NASA is now under pressure to scrap its early suggestion to save money by slipping Mars Observer launch to 1992. US scientists already have informal invitations to participate in the Mars/Phobos mission. The Soviets appear to have shifted attention from Venus to Mars; their earlier Vesta Venus/asteroid mission is now a Mars/asteroid mission. Tentatively, once on the surface the Soviet landers would deploy balloons carrying imaging systems. With the aid of solar heat, the balloons would drift at an altitude of a few thousand feet. US scientists attach high priority to US participation in Vesta planning, since Vesta is still in its formative stages where changes could be made easily, and data from it would be important to rover or sample-return missions. Various other cooperative activities have been proposed, including use of US tracking and communication facilities for the Mars/Phobos and Vesta missions, data exchange on space adaptation, use of US CAT scanners to look at calcium loss in Soviet astronauts, coordinated study of data from Venera 15 and 16 for planning the Magellan mission, and assorted general exchanges of people and information. One area the Soviets are interested in is joint work on closed-cycle life support, but technology transfer paranoia rears its ugly head here. DoD, as usual, believes the Soviets would not know the sky was blue if they hadn't stolen the information from the US, and they are upset about technology leakage from the US Shuttle to the Soviet one. NASA says this is nonsense, that the important technologies (e.g. main engine design) have been protected and that the rest aren't worth protecting. US analysts [probably DoD] expect launch of the Soviet Saturn 5-class booster with an unmanned cargo pod within a year, and first launch carrying the Soviet shuttle in maybe 1988. Arabsat to decide this month [Oct] whether to allow Geostar Corp. to use Arabsat 1C temporarily. If this is approved, the satellite would be launched by Ariane 4 in May 1989, and positioned over the US for Geostar use until Arabsat needs it. Arabsat is expected to drive a hard bargain, and approval is not assured. Use of Arabsat 1C would permit Geostar to begin position-fixing operations, and allow limited data traffic to and from mobile terminals. Hughes and Boeing have rethought the Jarvis booster to reduce cost and schedule risks by greater use of Shuttle components. Use of Saturn 5 engines has been abandoned due to major uncertainties about manufacturing processes and tooling. The new design uses a pair of Shuttle SRBs flanking a modified External Tank with a single SSME on its base. The top of the tank is replaced by a payload platform and shroud. Hughes is studying various possibilities for the payload platform, including the Centaur variants developed for the cancelled Shuttle/Centaur. One significant asset of the new Jarvis is that it can use Shuttle launch sites and test facilities; Hughes is talking to NASA about this. An early- 1987 decision to develop Jarvis would yield first launch early in 1990. This is about the same schedule as before. Hughes is considering private financing if Jarvis is not picked as the USAF Medium Launch Vehicle. The first phase of MLV studies ends in February with a design review. Hughes is obviously concerned about the price tag for SSMEs, and is looking at the possibilities of recovering them or building a cheaper variant by accepting short engine lifetimes (since Jarvis wouldn't re-use them). Hughes is studying the possibility of igniting the SSME after launch, to avoid the possible problem with hydrogen trapping in the exhaust duct of the Vandenberg shuttle pad. Jarvis capacity would be about 80,000 lbs into low orbit, down slightly from the Saturn-based design. Since this is about double the Shuttle's actual payload record to date, and further shuttle payload increases are not likely soon due to safety concerns, Jarvis could be a useful thing to have. [If Jarvis is picked as the Medium Launch Vehicle, the USAF will be in the slightly ludicrous situation of having a "medium" launcher with twice the payload of its "heavy" launcher, the Titan 4. -- HS] [Editorial of the Week: It's too early to say whether Hughes has done the right thing with the redesign. It is probably a smart move in terms of reducing development and production uncertainties, and of increasing the probability of winning the MLV competition. It is probably a bad move in terms of long-term costs, where the all-liquid design with older and simpler engines would win handily. We'll see. Either way, Jarvis is clearly just the thing to launch major Space Station subassemblies. -- HS] Space Industries Inc has signed a partnership agreement with Westinghouse for detailed design and marketing of SII's man-tended Industrial Space Facility. Westinghouse will be prime contractor. Both companies will invest in its cost, estimated to be $250-300M through construction of the first operational unit (not including launch). SII will remain separate and privately-held, and will be responsible for overall program management and marketing. The partnership will need outside funding, which will be a joint responsibility. Ex-astronaut Joe Allen, SII VP, says SII's highest priorities in the next two years are doing detailed design, sorting out the government's real intentions about commercial use of the Shuttle, and obtaining user commitments for the first ISFs. Then it's time to build the first ISF, for launch in late 1990 if shuttle space can be had. Maxime Faget, SII president and CEO, says Westinghouse is a logical choice because it has extensive experience with robotics in hostile environments, and ISF will rely heavily on robotics in between Shuttle visits. He also says that Westinghouse has the major advantage of not being a big government contractor, so "chances of keeping the costs under control are a lot better". [For those who don't know who Faget is, he can claim some experience in such matters. He sketched the basic design for the Mercury capsule, was chief engineer at Houston for the Apollo spacecraft, and did the first rough designs for the Shuttle orbiter. -- HS] Faget is optimistic about the market for ISF despite the recent setbacks to commercial space activities, but admits that marketing will be easier once the Shuttle flies again and customers can see the program as real. Federal Express is terminating its ZapMail electronic document-transmission service due to high costs and technical problems. It is evaluating future offerings in the area, and in particular feels that the satellite part of ZapMail performed extremely well. Comsat Corp [primary US international satellite-communications carrier] and Contel Corp [one of the fragments of Ma Bell] plan to merge, subject to approval from various people including the Justice Dept. The intent is to give Comsat the muscle to compete effectively with other carriers like AT&T. Although Contel is five times the size of Comsat, the merger is being set up as an acquisition of Contel shares by Comsat due to legal limits on ownership of Comsat by common carriers. Critics slam NASA 1988 budget on the grounds that NASA is abandoning US leadership in space research. Organized recovery efforts for the shuttle and expendable boosters have not been matched by a similar effort for space science. There is major debate about whether it is a good idea to slow important missions to keep smaller, less visible programs alive; proponents say it keeps key technologies alive, opponents say it delays internationally-important science results. NASA FY1988 space science budget changes just sent to OMB affect: - Planetary missions. Comet rendezvous/asteroid flyby (CRAF) will not be a new start in FY1988, despite its high priority. NASA continues to scheme a two-year delay for Mars Observer, claimed by critics to be the only major science project so far unaffected by 51L; see earlier for comments on the problems this creates for resumed US/Soviet cooperation. - Vitality package. This is a pool of money to support a variety of science needs, particularly Spacelab data analysis and Explorer work. - Cosmic Background Explorer. Goddard has begun a near-total redesign to convert the Explorer from a 10,500-lb shuttle payload to a 5,000-lb Delta payload. Redesign will cost $15M, the Delta will add another $50-60M. The major gain will be a polar-orbit launch in late 1989, not much later than the original schedule. Little science impact will result from the redesign; the weight loss is not as big as it sounds, since over a third of it will come from deleting a propulsion stage needed for Shuttle launch but not for Delta. The completed Shuttle-compatible structure will have to be abandoned, but the major experiments should not need redesign. - New start for the Global Geospace Science solar-terrestrial satellite. This is the major new science mission, $25M in FY1988, $102M in FY1989. Solar-terrestrial scientists think this is about right, scientists from other space-science disciplines say the mission lacks the leadership potential of more visible missions. - High Resolution Solar Observatory, a smaller version of the original Solar Optical Telescope proposal. NASA asks $12M to get it started. - Advanced X-ray Astronomical Facility to get $25M in technology-development money, with an eye on a new start in FY1989 or FY1990 (depending on the fate of CRAF). These changes give an overall increase from $1426M to $1531M in the space science budget for FY1988. NASA to measure loads on SRBs during rollout to pad 39B as part of the rollout and pad tests of Atlantis. There is some concern about possible stresses resulting from the relatively sharp turn that the mobile launch platform takes to reach 39B. Marshall and Morton Thiokol do not expect anything significant, but the instrumentation that has been placed on the right booster should settle the matter. Contraves (Swiss aerospace company) shows off inflatable space-rigidizing structure concept for use in large antennas etc. It cures by exposure to solar radiation after inflation. Contraves has built several models of a 3.2-m-dia reflector weighing less than 3 kg, under an ESA study contract. The company says that tests of geometrical accuracy and electrical performance look good. JPL is studying a mission dubbed TAU, Thousand Astronomical Units, for a nuclear-ion probe to travel well beyond the solar system. A megawatt nuclear reactor would power ion engines for about 10 years, giving a velocity of 225,000 mph at a distance of 6 billion miles. The 50,000-lb propulsion system would be shed after fuel exhaustion, leaving the 11,000-lb spacecraft to continue on for up to 40 more years. It would incorporate a 1.5-m telescope and a laser communications system; one major mission would be direct measurement of distances to stars. [Mini-editorial: a probe with a 50-year mission will be passed by newer probes with better engines long before the end of its mission. Planning for such long missions needs to consider in-flight obsolescence. -- HS] Western Union expects to complete negotiations for launch of Westar 6-S by the Chinese Long March 3 booster late this year. Launch would be in March 1988, probably. The US State Dept has to approve shipment of the satellite to China, but this doesn't look like a major problem. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #45 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09420; Mon, 17 Nov 86 03:02:18 PST id AA09420; Mon, 17 Nov 86 03:02:18 PST Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 03:02:18 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611171102.AA09420@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #46 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 03:02:18 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #46 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 46 Today's Topics: laws of optics, footprint of sun on Earth after reflection from orbit In-flight obsolescence Spinning cables Fusion power via exploding decommissioned H-bombs Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1986 November 16 04:43:48 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: "weltyc%cieunix"@csv.rpi.edu Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Subject: laws of optics, footprint of sun on Earth after reflection from orbit CAW> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 11:24:54 EST CAW> From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty) CAW> Subject: Mirrors is [SIC] space >...The drawback to the scheme is that the finite angular size of the >sun makes the reflected footprint on the Earth rather large. CAW> Couldn't you just make the mirrors slightly concave? Nope, you misunderstand how mirrors work. The angle of incidence equals the (negative of the) angle of reflection. So, considering the incoming rays converging on a infinitesimal piece of mirror, they come in over a range of angles determined by the Sun's angular diameter, which is half a degree from anywhere near Earth, and go out over an equal range of angles, i.e. half a degree again. With a flat mirror, the outgoing beams produced by reflection from all the parts of the mirror are mis-registered by the separation between mirror elements, so in worse case they mis-register by the diameter of the mirror. Over long distances, the mis-registering is a constant but the basic diameter of the images is linear with the distance, and from orbit the mis-registering is only a tiny fraction of the overall "footprint" (image). If you make the mirror concave just enough that all the images exactly match when they hit Earth, you have eliminated that little mis-registration (diameter of mirror, say a hundred feet), but have done nothing about the basic angular diameter of Sun causing half-degree fanout of the beam, which is SIN(half degree)*distance = 0.0087*distance. For satellite (mirror) 100 miles up that's 0.87 miles in diameter, while for satellite at geosynchronous position that's 20,000 miles up which gives a footprint diameter of 170 miles, and from L-4 or L-5 or Moon that's 200,000 miles which gives footprnt 1,700 miles across. (Hope you don't mind single significant digit, actually moon is 205,000 miles away or somesuch. But that doesn't affect my point.) With a mirror even a few miles across, making it concave to eliminate that few miles of footprint width while retaining the half-degree fanout doesn't help any significat amount at geosynchronous or beyond. To reduce fanout below half a degree, thus decrease footprint significantly, you need to actually absorb the sunlight, and re-radiate over a more narrow beam by microwave or laser etc. A simple mirror (of reasonable size; flat or concave), from anything other than Low Earth Orbit, can't possibly be used as a weapon against Earth targets except perhaps to slightly warm the tropical ocean to enhance a hurricane or some such subtle effect. (In case you next argue that you can put a mask between the Sun and the mirror to cut out all but a tiny portion of the Sun and thus reduce the angular diameter: Yes, but you merely decrease the total energy reflected, you don't change the density of energy at all. You still end up with a little bit of energy spread over a large area, or a teensy bit of energy over a small area. Only by an extremely large mirror could you reflect enough energy to burn something on Earth. It's cheaper to re-transmit using microwave or laser.) ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 86 00:37:19 GMT From: pixar!good@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Void where prohibited) Subject: In-flight obsolescence Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <7325@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >JPL is studying a mission dubbed TAU, Thousand Astronomical Units... >...propulsion system would be shed after fuel exhaustion, leaving the >11,000-lb spacecraft to continue on for up to 40 more years... > >[Mini-editorial: a probe with a 50-year mission will be passed by newer >probes with better engines long before the end of its mission. >Planning for such long missions needs to consider in-flight >obsolescence. -- HS] Good point. But better engines will result, at least in part, from experience gained by flying the current idea of "new" engines. I also wonder if the probe might not return some data significant for the planning of a follow-up mission during the first few years. Perhaps this probe could wind up as a long-term, deep space exposure experiment when it is found by one of the later craft. Think of how much fun it would be to check it for dings and graffiti. --Craig ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 00:05:59 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Spinning cables To: Space@s1-b.arpa From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu For quite a while I've considered that putting a space habitat on the end of a cable and spinning it (with either a big rock, or another habitat on the other end) would be the easiest way to provide gravity for a space colony. Right. Such spinning space stations are useful not just for habitation but also for momentum transfer. If a large number of these were placed in strategic orbits throughout the solar system, the need for rockets would be drastically reduced, as one could play a sort of celestial pinball and go bouncing from place to place. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 1986 November 16 05:05:05 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: "ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Subject: Fusion power via exploding decommissioned H-bombs NOTE: This topic is straying from SPACE into ARMS-D and I'd like to switch it there, except that last time I did that I got bitched at badly by the author of the message I was replying to, so for the moment I'll CC to SPACE. Feel free anyone to switch this conversation to ARMS-D if it continues. Date: Sun, 02 Nov 86 16:11:03 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: fusion energy PFD> There's a form of fusion power that is possible today.... PFD> Fill [a] cavity with high pressure steam... PFD> and detonate about 100 kilotons of bombs per day. Yes, that's an old idea of Teller's, abandoned about the middle of the sixties when it seemed that *nobody* would take it seriously. Bombs have too bad a rep. Sounds like a good idea for what to do with old H-bombs after they become "impotent and obsolete" Yes, I assume you're comparing Teller's idea to our stockpile of weapons, saying it'll be an improvement, using old H-bombs for mining or artificial geothermal energy etc. is better than using them to vaporize cities, thus it would seem the idea would now be acceptable. But realize that H-bombs for vaporizing cities is supposed to be merely a last resort in case of attack from the USSR, not something we do by choice, a deterrent we hope we will never use, not something we actually plan to use during normal times. Thus comparing deliberate artificial geothermal energy to deliberate thermonuclear attack is not relevant. The comparison is between deliberate artificial geothermal energy and deterrence, where it's not obvious which is more acceptable. Perhaps never using H-bombs for any reason (except when our world is ending anyway and we don't care any more) is more acceptable than using them for specific purposes which effectively tests them to see if they still work thus would be a violation of the proposed total test ban. Perhaps a more valid comparison would be between testing H-bombs in artificial geothermal facilities vs. testing H-bombs in Nevada for SDI research. In both cases we're actually detonating H-bombs rather than just holding them for emergency use, but one way we're getting some legitimate use out of them to help society whereas the other way we're just building more war machine. Eliminating conventional Nevada tests, replacing with actually using H-bombs for practical use such as energy, would be an improvement in our way of thinking, treating H-bombs as a tool that can be used for multiple purposes rather than as a weapon with no other use. Unlike the Orion spaceship, it wouldn't pollute the environment with detonation byproducts and direct radiation, thus might have a chance of being acceptable to the general population. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 09:52:33 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle? This note concerns Henry Spencer's posting in Vol. 7, No. 45 in Space Digest. I would like to begin by offering my thanks to Henry for his distillations from Aviation Week. I'm located in Goettingen, West Germany (AVA-DFVLR). The DFVLR library doesn't receive Aviation Week until fairly late, so Henry's efforts are greatly appreciated. Also it seems that Henry does a much better job of reading Aviation Week than I do, since he's always finding tidbits that I missed. Henry's last postings raised two questions in my mind. Why is it, that to remanufacture the old F-1 engines is more expensive than using SSMEs? It seems ludicrous to be throwing a reuseable SSME into the sea when a cheaper and higher performance F-1 (which is designed to be use-once-throw-away) is the obvious choice. Admittedly there is an initial tool up expense. However it is hard to believe that this expense couldn't be quickly offset by the lower launch cost for an F-1 based Jarvis. I've always thought that the F-1 engine was one of the more important technologies to come out of the Apollo program, and its premature obsolesence was a serious error. On another subject the TAU (Thousand Astronautical Unit) spacecraft smacks of being a boondoggle. Who in his right mind would want to fund a multimillion dollar spacecraft that literally goes nowhere? If you want to argue that it is a test bed for a high preformance nuclear-ion propulsion system, then my snappy comeback is the money could be better spent on a comet rendevous using the same technology. An even better mission would be a Pluto orbiter. I've always thought that Pluto might well be an example of a "rogue planet" which was created outside of the solar system. The theory is that Pluto approached the solar system on a hyperbolic trajectory, (which by definition means it would have escape velocity), but was captured because it had a near miss with the moon Triton orbiting Neptune. Both Triton and Pluto have very irregular orbits, and Pluto does intersect with Neptune's orbit. Therefore this theory isn't as nutty as it first sounds. When Voyager flies by Triton, we'll have more evidence to fuel or quench speculation. On any event this TAU mission strikes me as a misuse of limited planetary exploration funds. Gary Allen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #46 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12661; Tue, 18 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST id AA12661; Tue, 18 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611181102.AA12661@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #47 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #47 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 47 Today's Topics: thousand astronomical units via ten-years of ion rocket thrust Tethered space colonies -- The reason why it won't work. Space Industries, Inc. Re: Is TAU a boondoggle? Re: TAU is useful Australian bulk-payload delivery & spaceport nearby Re: Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1986 November 17 03:07:55 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Subject: thousand astronomical units via ten-years of ion rocket thrust Date: 16 Nov 86 02:04:54 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from AW&ST 6 Oct 1986 JPL is studying a mission dubbed TAU, Thousand Astronomical Units, for a nuclear-ion probe to travel well beyond the solar system. A megawatt nuclear reactor would power ion engines for about 10 years, ... This excites me! More info please if available. [Mini-editorial: a probe with a 50-year mission will be passed by newer probes with better engines long before the end of its mission. Planning for such long missions needs to consider in-flight obsolescence. -- HS] That's what I thought about Voyager 2. By the time it gets to Uranus, much less Neptune, it will have been passed by an ion rocket with improved telemetry, so the whole Uranus/Neptune mission is a waste. As it turns out, delays in the whole space program, especially the ion rocket, have turned Voyager 2 into a note in a bottle not likely to be exceeded by any new mission for many years. I say we should go ahead and put up our ion rocket, with state-of-art telemetry virtually guaranteed for 20 years, and note in the bottle for additional time if our space program falls on its face again. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 11:44:37 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Tethered space colonies -- The reason why it won't work. Both Geoffrey Landis in Vol. 7, No. 37 and Ken Jenks in Vol. 7, No. 45 suggested using tethered space habitats to avoid Coriolis effect problems. This idea is a good one (though not very original) for interplanetary spacecraft with mission duration times on the order of a year. However it doesn't work for space colonies. The problem (as mentioned in an earlier anti-L5 flame) is radiation shielding. Shielding mass for many of these space colony dreams is around 30 megatons. You are not going to be able to construct a tether that can support this sort of mass. If you don't shield your colony with fairly thick walls of stone it will eventually die from cosmic radiation poisoning. These dream colonies work by spinning **within** a stationary stone shield. Gary Allen P.S. Apologies again for the double spacing. It's a system bug in either the EARN or SMTPUSER software and beyond my control. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 11:48:07 EST From: weltyc%cieunix@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Space Industries, Inc. From A summary of AW+ST: >Space Industries Inc has signed a partnership agreement with >Westinghouse for detailed design and marketing of SII's man-tended >Industrial Space Facility. Is this as incredible as it sounds??? Does anyone know anything more about this? Or where this company is located? And incidently, three cheers should also go to Henry for the summaries from AW+ST!!! -Chris ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 86 18:40:23 GMT From: husc6!cfa!willner@mit-eddie.arpa (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Is TAU a boondoggle? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <8611171047.AA09235@s1-b.arpa>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > On another subject the TAU (Thousand Astronautical Unit) spacecraft > smacks of being a boondoggle. Who in his right mind would want to > fund a multimillion dollar spacecraft that literally goes nowhere? My understanding was that a prime objective of TAU would be to measure stellar parallaxes, thus directly determining the distance for any visible object in the Milky Way Galaxy (or at least a good fraction thereof). This seems to me to be a worthwhile objective. > An even better mission would be a Pluto orbiter. This would also be a good mission. Setting priorities is hard. I would want to see adequate studies to determine costs and benefits of these and any competitive missions. > I've always thought that Pluto might well be > an example of a "rogue planet" which was created outside of the solar > system. ... > Both Triton and Pluto have very irregular > orbits, and Pluto does intersect with Neptune's orbit. Actually, the current orbits do not intersect, because Pluto's orbit plane is inclined by about 16 degrees with respect to Neptune's. There has been speculation that the orbits might have intersected in the distant past, but the calculations are very difficult and in any event depend on knowledge of any massive bodies in the outer solar system. It seems unlikely that the orbits could ever have intersected, but I don't think it can be ruled out completely. > On any event this TAU mission strikes me as a misuse of limited > planetary exploration funds. If TAU is primarily an astrophysics mission, I assume it would be paid for out of very limited astrophysics research funds. Balancing research funding between these scientific areas is certainly a difficult job. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 1986 22:30-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: TAU is useful I think Gary Allen's point about Pluto might be a good one. It would be interesting to have such a long distance probe give it a quick pass. Shouldn't really matter that much, except for a bit of DV used for getting a bit off the ecliptic. However, I disagree that it is a boondoggle. There is a great deal to be learned by getting a longer astrometric baseline. We hardly know where things really are in our local neighborhood. I would also say that we will need a lot more accurate position information on the nearer stars if we are going to consider sending probes to them in the next century. The current errors are probably FAR too large to do an REAL orbit for even a star as close as Alpha Centauri. I've heard a great deal of discussion about star probes, but no one has ever brought up the difficulty of navigating to something whose x0,y0,z0 and dx,dy,dz are so poorly known. Pointing a telescope is a bit different from aiming a spacecraft for a close pass 40 or 50 years later. I would say this mission is an important pre-requisite for such a flight. Additionally, there are very interesting question to be answered about the plasma/particle environment of intersteller space. There have been recent suggestions that we are entering a small molecular cloud. It would be extrememly interesting to see if this is true, and if so, to learn more about the actual chemistry/composition/dynamics of such clouds. It would be the collection of 'ground truth' for astronomers. Corresponding to this there are questions about where the heliopause actually is, and what it's structure is like. If such a craft carries a radio antenna of any capacity, we would have the resolution of a TAU-LBI radio telescope system available to study and settle very basic questions about the central structure of the driving engine of quasars, Seyfert galaxies, peculiar galaxies, etc. Not to mention highly detailed pictures of our own galaxy core. I would also love to see a photograph that shows the solar system as a single entity. This would be possible if the mission did indeed have photographic equipment for Pluto was consequently was off ecliptic and still had enough power to take pictures when it got that far out. I realize it wouldn't necessarily show more than a number of bright dots, but let your imagination take hold of it. It's the closest any of us even has a shot at getting to the childhood dream's of starflight. Dreams do count. ------------------------------ Date: 1986 November 17 08:45:26 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Subject: Australian bulk-payload delivery & spaceport nearby Date: 14 Oct 86 18:46:27 GMT From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: recursive compressive members as alternative to filling with gas > ...Still, you have to transport from the Sahara, it would be nice to > be able to deliver to some point on Earth not near Libya, Actually, the Australian desert is probably better than the Sahara for a number of reasons, political stability among them. And wasn't there some recent article about Australia setting up a multinational spaceport, the first in the world, on their northern coast? Having the launch&return port and also a large desert landing area for payloads in the same general area (and under the same government) would seem to have economic advantages. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 86 22:43:49 GMT From: hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!adamsd@hplabs.hp.com (Adams Douglas) Subject: Re: Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <8611171047.AA09235@s1-b.arpa> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >...On any event this TAU mission strikes me as a misuse of limited >planetary exploration funds. > Gary Allen I attended the original lecture on the TAU proposal over a year ago, and I can assure you it would be neither a waste of funds nor a boondoggle. The primary mission of TAU is to permit very precise astrometry of nearby stars orders of magnitude better than any we can achieve now. With a 1000 AU baseline, we will be able to determine accurate stellar distances for stars all the way to the galactic center ('nearby stars' being a relative term here). Add to this the fact that TAU essentially involves putting a HST grade telescope outside our solar system, thus giving us the capability for a useful perspective on our own system form a very different vantage point. One should also not ignore the fact that this ion-powered bus gliding out of our system gives us the perfect opportunity to do good hard science in near-interstellar space (5 times the distance at which we will lose contact with Voyagers 1 and 2). Many intruments besides the telescope can be hung on the platform, which--unlike Voyager--is designed to be talked to at that distance. TAU 'goes nowhere' only in the same sense that the Voyagers or the Pioneers do. It's what it'll gather on the way that makes it so valuable. Oh, yes, I don't have any personal interest in the project here at JPL. My comments are strictly from my own interest in seeing the best use made of the limited planetary exploration budget. ======================================================= Adams Douglas ARPA:crash!adamsd@nosc.arpa AT&T:818-354-3076 JPL/NASA UUCP:{akgua | hplabs!hp-sdd | sdcsvax | noscvax}!crash!adamsd ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #47 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15548; Wed, 19 Nov 86 03:02:17 PST id AA15548; Wed, 19 Nov 86 03:02:17 PST Date: Wed, 19 Nov 86 03:02:17 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611191102.AA15548@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #48 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 19 Nov 86 03:02:17 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #48 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 48 Today's Topics: Rebuttal on TAU and further remarks on Pluto as a rogue planet picture of Solar System Upcoming convention Re: Industrial Spacce Facility Re: Electromagnetic launchers Re: In-flight obsolescence ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 16:40:33 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Rebuttal on TAU and further remarks on Pluto as a rogue planet My assertion that the TAU may be a boondoggle induced response from many readers. Steve Willner correctly states that the prime mission for the TAU is to measure stellar distances by parallax. Accuracy through this method can be achieved through either having a large and accurately known base leg with a telescope of modest resolution, or a short and even more accurately known base leg with a high resolution telescope. It seems to me that limited space and astrophysics funds are better served with a high resolution telescope which can do something other than astrometry. Also the comparison of TAU with Voyager is a specious argument. It is true that the Voyagers 1 & 2 and Pioneers 10 & 11 are going "nowhere". However in their endless journey they did pass some extremely interesting places, i.e. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and (hopefully) Neptune. It's my understanding that TAU goes directly into interstellar space. If the planetary program of JPL and NASA Ames were adequately funded I wouldn't raise a peep about TAU. However when the government won't even fund a lunar polar orbiter it seems ludicrous to study something with as bad of a science-vs-cost tradeoff as the TAU. Also on my admittedly crazy idea about Pluto being a rogue planet, Steve brought in some misconceptions. Pluto's orbit **does** intersect with Neptune's orbit along the line of nodes in Neptune's orbital plane. During this month Pluto has an inclination of 17.1362 degrees to the eciliptic while Neptune has the much more nomial inclination of 1.7696 degrees. Pluto's perihelion is within Neptune's orbit. One would expect Pluto to have a highly inclined orbit if it was a rogue planet that was captured through a near miss with Neptune's Triton. I should emphasize that this crazy theory of mine is **not** "respectable science". Main stream views on Pluto reject a Neptune connection because Pluto has a resonant orbit with Neptune. However the gravitational interactions between Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are very strong. Take a look at the longitude of perihelion for Neptune and you'll be amazed by how much it varies. Long term computer projections are impossible because round-off error will invalidate any result. We don't even have accurate mass values for Pluto, so this subject is wide open to speculation. However there is circumstantial evidence supporting my crazy idea. Pluto is a double planet. It has a large moon named Charon. One would expect Pluto to be broken up by tidal forces when it passed Triton. Triton is larger in size than Pluto. Therefore it could have provided the necessary kinetic energy sink to capture Pluto. Triton has an absolutely wacky orbit that is retrograde at 159.0 degrees to Neptune's equator and is remarkably close to the planet's surface. Neptune's second moon Nereid has the highest eccentricity of any moon tabulated in the 1986 Ephemeris and is also highly inclined. The crazy orbits of Pluto, Nereid and Triton are evidence that something strange has happened. If Pluto was a rogue planet its scientific impact would be incalculable. For this reason I think a Pluto orbiter is a mission worth considering. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 12:55:42 est From: anderson@nrl-csr.arpa (Paul Anderson) To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: picture of Solar System A statement in the last SPACE Digest made me think of something interesting: Has there been any effort to have either Voyager I or Voyager II take a picture of one or more planets, or of the solar system, as they are flying away from it, looking back at it? Of particular interest would be pictures of Pluto; even though these spacecraft may be a long way away from it, they still might be closer to it than we are here. Anybody know anything about this? Paul Anderson anderson@nrl-csr ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 86 12:59:03 GMT From: sundc!hadron!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (Rick Kolker) Subject: Upcoming convention Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Coming January 16-18, 1987..... C O N V A L E S C E N C E , T O O Place: Embassy Suites Hotel, Crystal City, VA (just across the river from Washington, DC) Suite (every room's one) $69/night Membership : $3 (that's no typo) Don't worry about missing the programming, there is none (well almost none) Convalescence is a relaxicon, just friends and fun and food. 1. Friends - sf fen, startrekkers, whoites, space program supporters (many all the same people) 2. Fun - well, outside of the city just over the river with all it has, we'll be showing the first episode of just about every show we can find (including a lot of 1960's stuff), a murder mystery where you're the detective, maybe a few informal discussions with interesting people (know any?) Also, see Hotel 3. Food - Saturday night's con suite is a real meal. Last year was deli, this year we're doing Chinese. Munchies the rest of the time. Also, see Hotel. Hotel - The Embassy suites is the best con hotel we've ever found, except for the fact there's no programming space. Every room's a suite, with either a king or double-double in the bedroom, and a fold out couch in the sitting room. Every suite has 2 tv's, a fridge, and many have microwaves. The hotel has an indoor pool and jacuzzi. The room rate includes a full breakfast in the morning and a happy hour in the afternoon. If you're interested, please send in your three bucks so we have some idea how many to expect. Make your reservation directly with the hotel, mention the convention to get in our block (and so we get credit for your room) The purpose of this series of cons is to use up the money the 10th Anniversary August Party made. Any questions, email me. See you there! Rich Kolker 8519 White Pine Dr. Manassas Park, VA 22111 (703)361-1290 ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 1986 14:41-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Industrial Spacce Facility The Westinghouse Corporation side is being run from their office in Gateway Plaza here in Pittsburgh. I have contact information, but I won't post it generally. Got to let the poor SOB get some work done... If someone is specifically interested, drop me a line. Space Industries side is being run from Houston Texas, by Maxime Faget as Henry noted previously. Read this week's Space Calendar for more info. Three of the units are going up on the Shuttle before about 1993, and are already manifested, according to that article. PS: I too like the AvLeak summaries. With the conference planning work driving me towards raving mania, I rarely have time to drop by the university library to catch up. Thanks Henry!!! ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 86 02:01:12 GMT From: jtk@s1-c.arpa (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: Electromagnetic launchers Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <869@hplabsc.UUCP> kempf@hplabsc.UUCP (Jim Kempf) writes: > >Re: offbeat launching schemes, sometime back I saw an article in >a technical rocketry journal about using a space based laser to >lift a vehicle using an electromagnetic field and MHD forces. >Does anyone know what happened to this idea? > Jim Kempf hplabs!kempf This may refer to Dr. Leik Myrabo's Apollo Lightcraft project. Myrabo has designed (under contract to the Air Force) a series of laser-propelled vehicles that use several different modes of thrust generation, all powered by a laser beam incident from above. One mode is an "MHD Fanjet", where the laser drives a hydrogen-fuelled "rocket" (laser light passes thru a window and is absorbed in hydrogen gas, which exits thru a nozzle), but the rocket exhaust is used to generate electricity via an MHD system (rather than providing direct thrust). The electricity drives an "electric fan" around the rim of the vehicle: arcs are established between the vehicle rim and an outer shroud ring; blades between rim and shroud contain coils to generate a magnetic field; j x B forces push the arc (and associated air) down and the vehicle up. The advantage is that one gets more thrust than a pure laser rocket per unit laser energy and per unit fuel mass, but can run at higher velocities than any chemical-fuelled jet. Myrabo's systems are ingenious, but complex and untested, with stiff requirements for the driving laser's properties. I recommend his book, "The Future of Flight" (with Dean Ing, Baen Books) for a good collection of exotic propulsion techniques. There are some even more extreme suggestions around (e.g. using the photon pressure of a laser beam in a resonant cavity formed between a vehicle and the ground), but there are also some very simple (though not necessarily straightforward) versions of laser propulsion which may be available quite soon. For instance, a ground-based laser system capable of launching a one ton payload into low earth orbit, at a maximum acceleration of six gees, EVERY 15 MINUTES (uh, lessee, four tons an hour, 96 tons a day, do maintenance on weekends, call it 30,000 tons a year)... System cost less than the Space Transportation System ... unit cost under $50/lb in orbit... When? Maybe before the end of the century. Stay tuned... Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.uucp jtk@s1-c.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 86 20:54:01 GMT From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) Subject: Re: In-flight obsolescence Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <260@pixar.UUCP> good@pixar.UUCP (Void where prohibited) writes: >In article <7325@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >>JPL is studying a mission dubbed TAU, Thousand Astronomical Units... >>...propulsion system would be shed after fuel exhaustion, leaving the >>11,000-lb spacecraft to continue on for up to 40 more years... >> >>[Mini-editorial: a probe with a 50-year mission will be passed by newer >>probes with better engines long before the end of its mission. Planning >>for such long missions needs to consider in-flight obsolescence. -- HS] > >Good point. But better engines will result, at least in part, from experience >gained by flying the current idea of "new" engines. I also wonder if the >probe might not return some data significant for the planning of a follow-up >mission during the first few years. > > > >-- > --Craig > ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good Furthermore, there is reasonably good science to be done at order of 100 AU -- nominal distance for the (presumed) shock front at which the solar wind slows down abruptly due to interaction with the interstellar medium. A mission would presumably study this region, as well as study the nature of the unperturbed interstellar medium not far beyond. It is probably worth developing an advanced engine just to get to there, and if it doesn't cost too much more to make the vehicle last longer, so much the better. Besides, direct measurement of stellar distances benefits in proportion to the distance traveled. At 100 AU one would be only 10% as well off as at 1000 AU, but 50 times better off than here (our baseline is 2 AU, the diameter of the Earth's orbit). One might indeed need some of those interim measurements as an aid to mission planning for the interstellar missions to be launched with the advanced engines developed during the next 40 years ... -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #48 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA18361; Thu, 20 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST id AA18361; Thu, 20 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST Date: Thu, 20 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611201102.AA18361@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #49 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 20 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #49 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 49 Today's Topics: The romantic view of the solar system from 1000 AU Re: space news from AW&ST 6 Oct 1986 Re: In-flight obsolescence Re: Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 86 14:16:43 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: The romantic view of the solar system from 1000 AU Once more I must play the role of "spoiler". If one had this romantic view of the solar system from 1000 AU, all he would see is the sun. A simple "back of the envelope" calculation reveals that the brightest planet from this vantage point would be Jupiter. However it would have an apparent magnitude of 9.13. For comparison the planet Uranus being viewed from the Earth has an apparent magnitude of 5.7 (the smaller the number the brighter it is). Uranus is in theory, just barely visible to the naked eye. I've tried to see it without a telescope and failed. Even with a telescope it's hard to find. Since Jupiter is much dimmer at 1000 AU, I don't think the view from that lonely outpost would be very interesting. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 86 18:31:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: space news from AW&ST 6 Oct 1986 Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <7325@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >[Mini-editorial: a probe with a 50-year mission will be passed by newer >probes with better engines long before the end of its mission. Planning >for such long missions needs to consider in-flight obsolescence. -- HS] Then good@pixar.UUCP replies: >Good point. But better engines will result, at least in part, from experience >gained by flying the current idea of "new" engines. I also wonder if the >probe might not return some data significant for the planning of a follow-up >mission during the first few years. More to the point, the fact that a probe is obsolescent doesn't mean that it's necessarily useless. A case in point are the early Pioneer spacecraft. As of two years ago (the last I heard from any of the Ames people on the project), all of the civilian Pioneers (the first four were built while JPL was still a military shop) were still functioning and returning useful plasma-physics data. The oldest is nearing 25 years of service. Kevin Kenny UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign CSNET: kenny@UIUC.CSNET NSA line eater food: ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA) Bomb, secret, terrorist, cryptography, DES, assassinate, decode, CIA, NRO. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 86 00:01:02 GMT From: eugene@ames-titan.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: In-flight obsolescence Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Various comments about technological obsolesence. Space craft > overtaking one another. Oh yeah? Reminds of Achilles and the Tortiose. Tell me this the next time I go to Washington DC and I sit on the steps of the Capitol. (December/January) From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA (aurora's back up) "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 86 19:14:15 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ... Why is it, that to > remanufacture the old F-1 engines is more expensive than using SSMEs? My guess would be that the problem is not so much cost as uncertainty. The F-1 production line shut down a long time ago, and it's not clear that the tooling and plans were preserved properly. (To say nothing of the analogous problem with subcontractors, e.g. the people who used to supply small quantities of very precisely formulated alloys -- they may not even be using the same production processes nowadays, which would make it very hard to be sure that the resulting alloys are exactly the same.) There's no doubt that production could be restarted; the hard part is restarting it accurately enough that you don't need to start engine testing all over again. Even small variations in materials could affect things enough to make it a gamble to fly new-production F-1s without a thorough test program. Hughes can't afford such a test program if it's going to make the deadline for the USAF MLV contract; as it is the Jarvis will be a bit late, although Hughes hopes that the large payload will make up for this. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #49 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01766; Fri, 21 Nov 86 03:02:11 PST id AA01766; Fri, 21 Nov 86 03:02:11 PST Date: Fri, 21 Nov 86 03:02:11 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611211102.AA01766@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #50 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 21 Nov 86 03:02:11 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #50 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 50 Today's Topics: Re: picture of Solar System TAU and exploring the heliopause TAU? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Nov 86 23:48:15 GMT From: ubc-vision!alberta!andrew@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: picture of Solar System Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <8611181755.AA25367@nrl-csr.ARPA> anderson@NRL-CSR.ARPA (Paul Anderson) writes: >Has there been any effort to have either Voyager I or Voyager II take a >picture of one or more planets, or of the solar system, as they are >flying away from it, looking back at it? Of particular interest would >be pictures of Pluto; even though these spacecraft may be a long way >away from it, they still might be closer to it than we are here. >Anybody know anything about this? >Paul Anderson >anderson@nrl-csr The Voyagers have taken departing shots of every planet they went by, including the Earth and Moon (in the same frame, a first!). Pluto is just a *bit* too far away for it to appear any larger than it does from Earth, remember the Voyager's cameras are < 8 (?) inches in diameter, and Pluto will still be some A.U.'s away at 'closest approach'. I still think the shots of a cresent Saturn were the most remarkable. Andrew Folkins ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Nov 86 08:29 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: TAU and exploring the heliopause It was mentioned that TAU will be able to explore the heliopause, the region where the solar wind gives way to interstellar gas. While I believe exploring the local interstellar medium is a great idea, you don't need a HST-class telescope to do it. Nor does one need nuclear powered ion engines. A recently proposed idea is to drop a vehicle in an aeroshell through Venus's upper atmosphere to put it onto a sun grazing orbit. At perihelion you fire a rocket and get a nice big boost. The probe could then sail to Neptune in 1.9 years, and could reach the heliopause not too long after. A spacecraft with plasma measuring instruments and low data rates would doubtlessly be much less expensive than a full blown astrometric scope. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Nov 86 17:35 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: TAU? Additional comments on TAU and astrometric scopes... There's an astrometric scope, Hipparchos, that will be able to get down to 1 to 2 milliarcseconds accuracy (as will the HST). That should be good enough to determine distances of stars out to perhaps a thousand light years. After that, the Astrometric Telescope Facility (New Scientist, 11/13/86) will have an accuracy approaching 1 microarcsecond (!), which should, for bright objects, be able to measure distances out to perhaps a million light years, detect "Jupiters" out to thousands of light years and "Earths" about nearby stars. [Short editorial: they plan to mount the ATF on the space station. This seems to me to be an incredibly stupid idea. Do they really expect microarcsecond pointing accuracy with astronauts banging around inside, shuttles docking, spacewalking astronauts firing nitrogen gas all over the place, etc., even with a (no doubt expensive) vibration isolation system? Once again, valid scientific projects are being perverted to help support needless human activity in space. I hope the ATF is being designed so it can fly free also.] It would seem that the ATF (or a larger version thereof) could perform the major task being touted for TAU: calibration of the distance scale used in computing the Hubble constant. This should not be suprising. The idea of fly-by interstellar probes has always struck me as pretty silly. The farther the probe has to go, the bigger the advantage of stay-at-home space telescopes. A solar-system-wide microwave interferometer, for example, has the entire universe in its near field, returns data almost immediately, is cheaper, and can be used on more than one target. Also, a comment was made that, even if TAU is passed by faster spacecraft, it will give valuable experience with its propulsion system. This is true only if nuclear ion engines are not a dead-end technology. I would think that radically different systems, such as nuclear pulse rockets, would be the long term choice (Hyde would say that long term = 30 years). ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #50 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04024; Sat, 22 Nov 86 03:02:02 PST id AA04024; Sat, 22 Nov 86 03:02:02 PST Date: Sat, 22 Nov 86 03:02:02 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611221102.AA04024@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #51 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 51 Today's Topics: Re: TAU? Comments on the Astrometric Telescope Facility (ATF) publications Probes vs Large scopes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 86 18:01 EST From: Mark Purtill Subject: Re: TAU? To: space@s1-b.arpa >Also, a comment was made that, even if TAU is passed by faster >spacecraft, it will give valuable experience with its propulsion system. >This is true only if nuclear ion engines are not a dead-end technology. >I would think that radically different systems, such as nuclear pulse >rockets, would be the long term choice (Hyde would say that long term = >30 years). Nuclear ion engines will certainly be a dead-end technology if we never try to build one. And if we always wait for the "better" thing that will be around in only a few decades, we'll never get anything done, 'cause there will always be something else on the horizon. Mark ^.-.^ Purtill at MIT-MULTICS.ARPA **Insert favorite disclaimer here** ((")) 2-229 MIT Cambrige MA 02139 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 86 16:09:11 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Comments on the Astrometric Telescope Facility (ATF) Paul Dietz is right (as usual) about the ATF being seriously compromised by mounting it on the Space Station. The thing is designed to be a free flyer and **not** man tended. Also its whole mission is based on high precision pointing which is completely compromised by mounting it on the Station. I see this as a classic example of engineering ethics being compromised for the sake of flakey, short term politics. This is the same sort of stupidity that NASA Headquarters was doing with the Shuttle and ELVs. If they can't find enough legitimate projects to justify the Space Station then they need to reevaluate why they're building the thing in the first place. Paul did have one minor glitch in his last posting (probably his source was faulty). Paul claimed that the ATF can detect earth-like worlds. However the AIAA 1986 report "Astrometric Telescope Facility: Status Report" written by the NASA Ames people running the project states: The ATF can "detect Uranus/Neptune-class planets (i.e. masses as small as 15 Earth masses) through astrometric measurement of the star's motion." ATF doesn't have the resolution for earth-like worlds. My own opinion is that the ATF may actually be redundant, since the HST could in principle be retrofitted with astrometry equipment after it has performed its primary mission as currently configured. Since the HST is designed to be recovered, returned to Earth and easily modified, this strikes me as a much more cost effective approach to the important work of astrometry. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 86 19:48:00 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: publications Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa A friend asked me for the addresses of interesting journals, and it occurred to me that other people might be interested in the answer. Here's what I sent her, edited slightly. L5 Society 1060 East Elm Tucson, AZ 85719 Much the most effective of the activist space groups. THE group to join if you want to see action, rather than pretty pictures or descriptions of dreams. Publications are unimpressive; if you want glossy color pictures, join the Planetary Society instead. $30/yr basic rate, lower for students. There is a life-membership rate, which was $200 a few years ago when I paid it. They take Mastercard, Visa, American Express. JOIN!! Aviation Week & Space Technology PO Box 1505 Neptune, NJ 07754 USA Write for qualification card; you get significantly better rates if you can convince them that you're a pro in aerospace or something related. Not cheap, say $75/yr maybe. Space news is only a modest fraction of the material, the rest is aviation and missile news and the detailed doings of the Pentagon. Ads for jet fighters and cruise missiles. Weekly. Flight International Business Press International Ltd. Quadrant House The Quadrant Sutton, Surrey SM2 5AS, UK The British counterpart of AW&ST. Fewer color photos, less coverage of Pentagon minutiae. Mostly aviation news, spaceflight coverage modest. Better coverage of European activities. Generally better in-depth coverage than AW&ST. Weekly. Expensive -- maybe $100/yr, even more if you get it airmail. Science AAAS 1333 H Street NW Washington DC 20005 Comes with AAAS membership only. Not bad reading, although a lot of the stuff is only for specialists in the particular areas. General emphasis on the biological sciences, but often the place where definitive papers from planetary missions are published. Membership is $65/yr in US. Weekly. World Spaceflight News; Planetary Encounter Box 98 Sewell NJ 08080 Two newsletters for people who want the nitty-gritty data. WSN focuses on Shuttle and such, and publishes things like complete Shuttle mission timelines and NASA after-mission final reports. Of late, naturally, 51L has been the major topic, including things like a complete copy of Joe Kerwin's medical report on the deaths of the Challenger crew; even AW&ST only published a summary. Planetary Encounter is the same thing but for planetary probes, e.g. a whole issue on the ICE encounter with comet Giacobini-Zinner: drawings of spacecraft, details on experiments, drawings and descriptions of findings, interview with the top technical man for ICE, etc. No glossy color pictures (line drawings only, in fact), but a great place to find all the little details that the glossy media never publish. WSN and PE are $30/yr each, and are nominally monthly. The same people also put out a large number of special reports, at extra cost, covering things like details of Shuttle subsystems or the complete mission plan for Apollo 11. British Interplanetary Society 27/29 South Lambeth Road London SW8 1SZ, UK Two journals, Spaceflight and JBIS (Journal of the BIS). The BIS is the only one of the three original rocket societies that has survived as a group of enthusiasts (the American Rocket Society eventually turned into a professional group, the AIAA; the German Rocket Society, the VfR, died out in the 30s after getting people like Willy Ley and Wernher von Braun interested in rockets and doing the basic engineering development of the modern liquid-fuelled rocket [Freeman Dyson has pointed to the formation of the VfR as the specific event that began the Space Age]). The BIS was unable to do actual rocket experimenting because of strict British laws on such matters, and so they turned their eyes further ahead. They're still doing it; JBIS is the single best source of technical information on interstellar flight, for example. Spaceflight is general-interest, JBIS is formal and technical (although still largely readable to a knowledgeable layman). Both monthly. Write for membership rates (the journals are members-only) (I see the rates only when I renew my own membership, so I don't have them on hand). Expensive (maybe $100/yr to get both journals) but worth it. I would also highly recommend Scientific American and Astronomy, which any good newsstand should have. Sky & Telescope is a more technical version of Astronomy, aimed at the real telescope hackers. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 1986 22:30-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Probes vs Large scopes I find myself in disagreement with Paul on the value of an interstellar flyby, but he does bring up an interesting point. Let us assume there exists an earth like planet around another star with interesting structures on it's surface, be they water, mountains, cities, or what have you. What are the theoretical limits to the distance at which they can be seen by an optical scope? Are there quantum effects that will limit resolution? How much effect does intersteller dust and gas between us and the object have on theoretical resolution? What is the relationship between the scope size and the distance to the interesting surface feature? Given that a scope could be built that could detect a city or town at a distance of Alpha Centauri, what are the cost comparisons? I don't expect to find a city anywhere nearby, but I expect that things such as cratering and surface history of objects around other stars, particularly of varied spectral class, would tell us very interesting general things about planetary evolution, and would no doubt give us some surprises. Is plate tectonics common? Is it truly dependent on the presence of oceans? Is a large moon(s) helpful in driving it? My gut feel is that it might be easier to build the probe. Not to mention, it is as good a test bed for really advanced engines as just about anything, and will probably grab the 21st century imagination because it will prove that IT CAN BE DONE. Once a probe proves it, it is only a matter of time (within 50-100 years of the probe pictures coming back) before people do it. But then, the people might well pass it up, as someone noted about obsolete propulsion systems. Gary: Too bad about the solar system picture. Maybe we need a high inclination shot to get the inner solar system from 10 AU's or so over the solar pole. Maybe ISPM could get an interesting shot, if it had cameras. (Although it is not going to be all that high above the ecliptic) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #51 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07944; Sun, 23 Nov 86 03:01:55 PST id AA07944; Sun, 23 Nov 86 03:01:55 PST Date: Sun, 23 Nov 86 03:01:55 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611231101.AA07944@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #52 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 52 Today's Topics: TAU avoids granularity in Oort mascons, Pluto may have collided Will ATF Detect Earths? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1986 November 22 02:53:22 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Subject: TAU avoids granularity in Oort mascons, Pluto may have collided Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 16:40:33 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Gary Allen) Subject: Rebuttal on TAU and further remarks on Pluto as a rogue planet My assertion that the TAU may be a boondoggle induced response from many readers. Steve Willner correctly states that the prime mission for the TAU is to measure stellar distances by parallax. Accuracy through this method can be achieved through either having a large and accurately known base leg with a telescope of modest resolution, or a short and even more accurately known base leg with a high resolution telescope. On the other hand, even with a "perfect" telescope located near Earth, curvature of space in this vicinity may invalidite the results beyond a certain accuracy. This curvature may be systematic due to the Earth and Sun etc., or a uniform granularity below a certain resolution caused by the Oort cloud. Having some telescopes way out there in flat space, where we have a large baseline hence don't need such high angular accuracy, may be useful as a check against our near-Earth observations. Therefore the TAU seems intrinsically valuable and irreplacable, thus worthy of consideration. As you say, we must weigh the relative merits and costs with finite monetarily and manpower resources. But I dismiss your claim that TAU is a boondoggle from the outset. Also on my admittedly crazy idea about Pluto being a rogue planet, ... If as somebody said Pluto and Neptune are currently in stable resonance, that means before they fell into this potential well they could have been just about anywhere in the vicinity. Thus the fact they are currently in such a well strengthens rather than makes impossible the possibility that they could have been in a completely different orbit, namely colliding, in the distant past. What it DOES rule out is that they may collide in the future, since things fall into wells but don't spontaneously rise back out of them. (This paragraph rebuts somebody whose identity I forgot who used the resonance to claim collision in the past is thereby ruled out.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Nov 86 08:51 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Will ATF Detect Earths? According to what I've read, the ATF will be able to detect earth-like worlds out to about 30 light years, and gas giants out to about 1000 light years or so. Maybe Gary meant that ATF will not be able to get a statistically significant sample of earth-like worlds? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #52 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12469; Mon, 24 Nov 86 03:02:22 PST id AA12469; Mon, 24 Nov 86 03:02:22 PST Date: Mon, 24 Nov 86 03:02:22 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611241102.AA12469@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #53 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 24 Nov 86 03:02:22 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #53 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 53 Today's Topics: Re: AU Re: How about using liquid ozone as an oxidizer? space news from 13 Oct AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Nov 86 20:17:02 GMT From: rutgers!husc6!cfa!wyatt@lll-crg.arpa (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Re: AU Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > > Could some one tell me how far an AU > is? > AU stands for Astronomical Unit, which is the mean distance from the earth to the sun, about 93 million miles. -- Bill UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 86 03:47:27 GMT From: rutgers!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@lll-crg.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: How about using liquid ozone as an oxidizer? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Has anyone ever thought about using liquified ozone (O[3]) as an > oxidizer for rockets? ... It's been looked at a bit, I believe. It's not that hard to make. It is toxic, but nitrogen tetroxide -- already in large-scale use as a rocket oxidizer -- is much worse, comparable to most WW1 poison gases. The performance improvement from using ozone rather than oxygen is modest, but it might be worthwhile, were it not that liquid ozone is dangerously explosive. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 86 03:35:58 GMT From: rutgers!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@lll-crg.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from 13 Oct AW&ST Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa MITI asks Japanese government to reduce corporate taxes on space-related investments to help accelerate commercial space development. Circa 30% of processor time on the Cray 2 at Ames is now going to hypersonic research for the Aerospace Plane, aerobraking, etc. Delta launch of GOES-H (Clarke-orbit weather satellite) delayed from Nov to Dec to replace imaging device in satellite; similar system failed in testing. Nov 6 Atlas-Centaur launch of Navy FleetSatCom may be delayed due to questionable electronic components. There was some thought that software problems might force a delay, but they have been cleared up. Launch is still officially on schedule, payload test on Oct 23 will settle the issue. Soviet manned spaceflight activity is on hold briefly to prepare for full- scale operations aboard Mir. Soviets say no more cosmonauts will visit Mir until early 1987, at which point a crew will go up and the first big add-on module will follow. They plan to continue extending the stay time of their long-stay crews; the next step is 10 months, with still longer times to follow. The first specialized module to be added to Mir will be an astro- physics facility, including the multinational Complex X-Ray Observatory which has major European participation. More multinational projects are to fly on Mir in the next few years, and the Soviets are open to proposals for yet more. US delegate to the International Astronautical Federation meeting (at which these plans were discussed) comments: "I think the message is clear: Soviets are prepared to fire the starting gun for a new period of intensive manned space flights... More and more people are starting to beat down the Soviets' doors to get in on the action on board Mir, while we in the West find ourselves literally grounded and arguing over details on how we are going to develop our own international space station facility." Glavkosmos, formed last year in a reorganization of the Soviet space program, is basically in charge of coordinating between hardware builders and customers (Soviet space users, international cooperative missions, and commercial activities). Essentially Glavkosmos is in charge of engineering while Intercosmos (part of the Academy of Sciences) is in charge of science. France is evaluating an uprated Ariane 4 to keep Ariane competitive if US expendables get serious, and as a backup in case Ariane 5 development is slow. Nothing very special, just adding more small solid strap-ons to the normal Ariane 4. China is looking at multi-payload launches for the Long March 2, carrying 2-4 small satellites into low orbit. One concept puts a 300-1000 kg satellite on top of a cylindrical housing containing three 50-300 kg satellites. The bigger satellite would be deployed forward by a spring system, while the three smaller ones would deploy sideways using the "frisbee" launch scheme already demonstrated by the US. Orbits for such missions would be either 63.4 degrees (geophysics research) or 98.9 degrees (Sun-synchronous orbits for remote sensing) with perigee 175-300 km and apogee 800-1000 km. The transfer orbit module being developed jointly by Beijing Wanyuan Industries and the Swedish Space Corp. could be used to boost the small satellites to higher orbits if necessary. One of the first TOM applications will be SSC's Mailstar satellite, which will ride piggyback on a Long March 2 launch carrying a larger Chinese satellite. Japan is studying a three-stage solid rocket as a launch vehicle for a very small custom-designed satellite. It would basically be built out of sounding- rocket stages (like the larger US Scout booster) and would launch a 17-kg satellite into a 200x1000 km orbit. (The orbit is chosen to provide several days in space even with fairly large guidance errors.) The 17-kg satellite would have an instrument payload of about 5 kg. It would be box-shaped and spin-stabilized, with power from solar-panel paddles. Body 28x28x25 cm. China has defined a series of Long March 2 versions suitable for various missions. The high end is a souped-up version with stretched tanks and 4-8 liquid strap-on boosters; it could launch 9000 kg into a 200-km 28.5- degree parking orbit with 4 boosters, 13000 kg with 8. New Space Shuttle payload manifest is making a lot of payload sponsors unhappy, and it's not clear that even it can be met. Comsat operators are threatening to sue and foreign governments are applying diplomatic pressure. Major science payloads go up early, because by 1993 DoD and the Space Station will tie up most of the capacity. First launch is set for 18 Feb 1988. Program managers and astronauts say that there isn't enough momentum to make this, citing mid-88 or early 89 as more realistic. Truly agrees that there are problems, and says that the target date will not be met unless some changes are made in the recovery effort. There are coordination problems, the effort is not focussed well enough on the specific objective of getting the Shuttle flying again, and there are too many committees (both inside and outside NASA) making decisions. [Editorial of the Week: The possibility of Shuttle flights not starting again until 1989 is not just bad, it is an outrage. This is criminal. If an aircraft company had a fatal crash during tests and announced that the result would be a three-year delay before test flights resumed, we would unquestionably think that the company was: (a) grossly underfunded, (b) grossly short of management support for the project, or (c) grossly incompetent (as a whole, notwithstanding the probable presence of competent people in some subordinate positions). Or (d), all of the above. -- HS ] The manifest assumes flight rate starting at 5/yr, going to 10/yr in the second year and gradually building to 16/yr. NRC report to House Appro- priations Committee, however, says that even with a fourth orbiter the maximum sustainable rate is 11-13/yr except for short surge periods. 11 of the 30 missions through mid-1991 are DoD dedicated, 7 others have major DoD presence. Several will be spysats in fairly high-inclination orbits for KSC, affecting the outlook for Vandenberg Shuttle launches. Belief is widespread that the combination of high-inclination launches from KSC and the availability of Titan 4 will make the USAF give up on the Vandenberg Shuttle facility. West Germany and Japan are irked about the long delay in launch of their Spacelab missions, which will interfere with preparation for Space Station participation. Both are complaining to NASA and the State Dept.; this has already resulting in the German Spacelab D2 being moved up some. ESA is also unhappy about Ulysses delays. NASA will ask DoD to carry some smaller civilian middeck, Getaway Special, and Hitchhiker payloads on dedicated military missions. The manifest was ready for release in July, but there were long delays because the White House Economic Policy Council insisted on getting into the act on comsat-related issues, about which it knows little. Okay, okay, you're all waiting for it, here it is (well, AW&ST's summary of it, anyway). 1988 Feb 18 TDRS May DoD launch to Clarke orbit [early-warning satellite? -- HS] July DoD, probably large spysat Sept TDRS Nov Hubble Space Telescope 1989 Jan Astro-1 (UV telescope attached payload) March DoD to Clarke orbit late April Magellan early June SDI Spacelab late June two USAF Navstars and NASA materials-science pallet July DoD early Sept DoD late Sept again, two Navstars and materials pallet Nov Galileo or Ulysses Dec Spacelab Life Sciences 1990 Jan Gamma Ray Observatory Feb DoD April International Materials Science Spacelab May USAF Navstar, McDonnell-Douglas electrophoresis, Space Station heat-pipe test late May DoD early July DoD late July British Skynet-4 (military comsat, commercially booked) late Aug DoD Oct Galileo or Ulysses Oct tethered satellite, Insat (Indian comsat), another Navstar Nov-Dec Syncom-4, recovery of Long Duration Exposure Facility (at last; majority of LDEF's payloads will be ruined by spending nearly 5 years longer in space than intended) 1991 Jan Spacelab pallets: atmospheric data, large structures control Feb Navstar and materials again March DoD April Eureca (European unmanned platform) At this point detailed flight assignments stop, although general scheduling continues by naming high-priority payloads and which quarter they fly. 1991 cont. 2Q Japanese Spacelab 3Q German Spacelab D2 3Q Space Telescope refurbishment visit 4Q retrieve Eureca Commercial missions (Intelsat, Inmarsat, etc.) start showing up in 1992. Space Station construction starts with five flights in 1993. 1994 is almost entirely DoD and Space Station. Reagan overruled Shuttle program managers' desire to honor 31 of 44 launch contracts held by commercial and foreign users, approving only 20. The 20-payload option includes only shuttle-unique payloads and those with national-security or foreign-policy implications. Sources have it that this option was supported by NSC, DoD, DoC, DoT. NASA, OSTP, State, and Treasury supported the 31-payload option, which added satellites that would be costly to refit for expendables. The 24 rejected payloads must now fly on expendables. This might give one or more US expendable companies a foothold in the commercial market. However, the small percentage of near-term shuttle capacity budgeted for commercial use (12% over next 7 years goes to commercial and foreign customers and misc. civil government agencies, vs pre-51L 33% commercial) will hurt commercial space activity. Joe Allen (ex-astronaut, now VP of Space Industries Inc.): "We are delighted to be on the manifest three times... We would be more pleased if more of our commercial brethren were there." SII's Industrial Space Facility modules are shuttle-unique, so they're in, although they had hoped for 1990 and are now looking at 1992. They hope to be moved up. Hughes also has shuttle- unique payloads [presumably the large-diameter Syncom-4s] on the manifest. The other two commercial customers on the manifest are Geostar and RCA, included on national-security grounds without further explanation. The big winners for non-US-government launch slots clearly are the foreign customers, largely because of influence by the State Dept. Some of these foreign slots may get used for other things, since some of those payloads are double-booked, holding Ariane slots as well. Ariane already has contracts for 6 of the 44 original Shuttle payloads and reservations for 8 more. Commercial expendable suppliers are happy. Customers pushed off the shuttle are not; they are skeptical that this will create a thriving US expendable market. VP satellite progrmas for GTE Spacenet says he expects only one US expendable maker to survive, and that only with government business too. [Long odds he's thinking of Martin Marietta with Titan. -- HS] VP space resources for MCI Communications says the shuttle policy is a long-term plan for a US debacle in space, since the peak demand for US expendables will be brief and the realities of European and Japanese competition will then strike home. Fletcher orders halt to signing of further Joint Endeavor Experiments, which provide free shuttle flights for commercial space experiments, until the large backlog of small payloads can be sorted out. The hiatus will last at least several weeks, until the secondary-payload manifest is set. Active search for JEA partners stopped a little while after 51L, but negotiations with already-interested companies continued. The primary- payload manifest does not set priorities for the hundreds of smaller payloads intended for the middeck and cargo bay: 60-70 Getaway Specials, several Hitchhiker payload-bay experiments, and 200 middeck-locker experiments (60 NASA experiments = 100 lockers, 70 DoD = 50 lockers, at least 10 JEA = 30 lockers, 35 Shuttle Student Involvement Program payloads = 20 lockers). NASA has stopped taking new GAS and student- experiment applications for the moment. NASA will be able to take about 500 lb of secondary payloads on each TDRS launch, about 10 lockers per flight. Most of the other early missions are weight-limited dedicated missions. Mixed-cargo flights offer the best opportunities for secondary payloads, but most of them use Columbia, which is heavier than Atlantis or Discovery and will limit the possibilities. Fletcher has ordered allocation of middeck space, which was in short supply even before 51L, as: 40% DoD, 30% NASA science, 30% NASA commercial. Companies with JEAs are finding the manifesting problems very discouraging. US comsat operators forced off the shuttle are talking to their lawyers about filing suit for the extra costs involved. Many of them had already put money down in partial payment for launches. They like Ariane a lot as an alternative; Troy D. Ellington, VP satellites for GTE Spacenet: "We know how to do business with them. They are good for their word." Pan Am Pacific Satellite Corp and Sattel Technologies, owners of Westar 6 and Palapa B2, are in a particularly strong position to take legal action against NASA: the recovery agreement that covered retrieval of the two satellites from space guarantees Shuttle space for them and forbids use of other launchers. Neither is on the manifest! Lockheed Space Ops will lay off 1000 workers at Vandenberg, due to the cancellation of the Vandenberg Shuttle-complex tests and its accelerated mothballing. 200 military personnel will go elsewhere. The USAF is looking at alternate uses for some of the facilities. NASA plans to end negotiations with Transpace Carriers, which has been seeking rights to operate private Delta launches. Fletcher says that NASA is not in the business of regulating commercial launch vehicles, and has told the expendable manufacturers that launch facilities are available if they have customers, so there is no longer any reason for Transpace to be talking to NASA. Transpace wanted exclusive commercial marketing rights for Delta. NASA says that this is something for them to take up with McDonnell Douglas (which makes Delta), not NASA. Geostar Corp will provide satellite position-fixing for classified military missions under DoD contracts. This may constitute 25% of Geostar's sales when the company gets its own satellites up. Orbiter Atlantis rolled out to pad 39B on Oct 9 for seven weeks of tests. USAF Titan managers are studying launching up to eight Titan 4s a year from the Cape, double the initial projections. Current plans are to start with 2/yr and build up to 4, but studies are being done in case more are needed. This could happen if Shuttle recovery is further delayed, if more DoD satellites fail in orbit, or if Shuttle weight limits interfere with future payloads. These studies do not include possible commercial launches or planetary missions. 8/yr, or even the 6/yr that some DoD people think is quite likely, could interfere with commercial Titan plans because of competition for facilities and workforce. (The two would use different pads, but many support facilities are in common.) A fully-stacked Titan 34D has been removed from Pad 40 at the Cape, after being there nearly a year in preparation for launch of a Clarke-orbit DoD payload, so that its boosters can be destacked for thorough checkout. Other booster segments in storage are also being tested, and some have been sent back to the manufacturer for further testing. The insulation problem suspected to have caused the booster failure in April is a major headache, since nobody is sure just what it was or how to detect a recurrence. Brig. Gen. Kenneth E. Staten, program manager for the National Aerospace Plane, says that a decision on building and flight-testing the X-30 experimental aerospace plane is expected in 1989. Technology development contracts totalling $450M were awarded in April by NASA and USAF. The flight-vehicle phase would produce two demonstrators, which might be anywhere from F-15 size to 747 size. Staten says that an operational military aerospace plane might be available by the year 2000, with a commercial derivative possible by 2010. Commercial hypersonic transports will need special treatment in various areas, he says: they will have limited maneuverability and will need traffic clearance well in advance. For example, a trans-Pacific flight bound for LA might need clearances sorted out 15 minutes in advance, which would put it in the vicinity of Hawaii. Ground operations will also be affected. Staten says that storage and handling of liquid hydrogen should not be a serious problem; "The H2 fuel is probably safer than Jet A, and is more environmentally acceptable." Spilled hydrogen vaporizes and dissipates more quickly, needs much higher temperatures to ignite it, and burns more quickly while affecting a smaller area. He says that NASA studies of crash hazards show less danger with hydrogen than with ordinary hydrocarbon fuels. [As I recall, "Stages to Saturn" said that Apollo experience was that liquid hydrogen could be treated as unusually volatile gasoline; it was liquid oxygen that really needed elaborate safety precautions. -- HS] [Persons advocating spending the Challenger-replacement money on the aerospace plane instead should note the expected operational dates in the above. -- HS] Finland will become an associate member of ESA. Two existing associate members, Austria and Norway, become full members next year. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #53 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15918; Tue, 25 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST id AA15918; Tue, 25 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST Date: Tue, 25 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611251102.AA15918@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #54 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 25 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #54 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 54 Today's Topics: Re: Probes vs Large scopes New space-shuttle Chariots for Apollo #9 - The landing TAU, Pluto, and This Solar System Two approaches for building ultra huge telescopes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Nov 86 16:59:53 PST (Sunday) From: Lynn.ES@xerox.com Subject: Re: Probes vs Large scopes In-Reply-To: Dale.Amon's message of 21 Nov 1986 22:30-EST To: Space@s1-b.arpa Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.com, Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu In reply to Dale Amon's questions "What are the theoretical limits to the distance at which they [planetary details] can be seen by an optical scope? What is the relationship between the scope size and the distance to the interesting surface feature?" The theoretical limits for optical telescopes: resolution size = distance/(diam * 46000) where telescope diam is in inches, and the distance and size are in any units, so long as they are the same units. A single object has to be at least the resolution size to detect that it has any size at all. A smaller object that is bright is easily seen (otherwise the night sky would be blank except for the moon), but is seen as a dot that appears the size of the theoretical resolution. An object would have to be twice the resolution size to see the grossest detail (for example that the left side is black and the right white). Two objects of equal brightness have to be separated by the resolution size to even see that they are not a single object. If one object is much brighter (as in a star with an orbiting planet), then the separation may have to be tens or hundreds of times greater, else the brighter one swamps the dim one with a spread-out overexposed image. Putting real numbers in, say the largest optical telescope on earth and the nearest star, we get resolution of 2.4 million miles. But no telescope of substantial size on the ground achieves its theoretical resolution (because the atmosphere messes it up), and we haven't launched anything of substantial size above the atmosphere. The space telescope will be 2.5 times worse than these numbers (because its size is 2.5 times smaller than the big Russian telescope), but will achieve essentially the theoretical resolution, much better than the achieved resolution of bigger telescopes on earth. So what we are talking about with the space telescope is possibly seeing very bright planets hundreds of millions of miles from the very nearest few dozen stars. To be in the ballpark of seeing continents on planets of only the nearest star requires a telescope mirror of tens of miles diameter, something not likely in our lifetimes (historically, since Galileo, we have taken roughly 40 years for each doubling of the size of the largest telescope, and there is no indication yet that this rate is changing even with our present technology explosion). Remember that a mirror has to be VERY stiff; no point on it can move more than a few millionths of an inch from the correct curve, or you lose the resolution. The only outside hope I see is some form of interferometry, in which you use two or more mirrors, and use their separation in place of the diameter in the above formula. Or we could take a reasonable sized telescope and send it closer to the star in question; but it would require thousands of times closer, which is essentially a visit to that star. A visit to a star is energy-wise roughly 100,000 times harder than the TAU mission, the latter being barely within our technology soon. Other questions: "Are there quantum effects that will limit resolution?" No, the above formula is an effect of the wavelength and wave properties of visibile light. "How much effect does intersteller dust and gas between us and the object have on theoretical resolution?" Essentially no effect at the distance of planets of the nearby stars, which are already beyond our observing limits. These nearby stars are in a neighborhood that comprises less than 1/1000 the size of our galaxy. At a substantial fraction of the way across our galaxy, in the dirtiest directions, dust and gas become a problem. Also, there are a few small pockets of stuff at distances of hundreds of light years, but these are still beyond the nearby stars. Dust and gas do not degrade resolution, just contrast, and eventually completely block any view. In conclusion, optical detection of planetary detail is MANY orders of magnitude beyond what we can do. So don't hold your breath. I would guess rocket probes to stars will happen first, and I don't think we are close to doing that. Then we could always try finding the radio signals of some civilization that might be happy to describe their planets to us. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 86 11:57 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: New space-shuttle To: space@s1-b.arpa What's the general reaction to Reagan's pocket veto of the funds needed to build a new Space Shuttle, and his reasons? My understanding is that he vetoed the funds because the bill did not give him enough personal control of NASA. But wasn't it the presure to get Challenger up before his press conference the same evening that led to Challenger being unsafely launched in the first place? Does he want more personal control so he can use NASA as a public circus for his own political purposes? Dennis O'Connor ------------------------------ Path: mordor!styx!lll-crg!rutgers!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn From: dcn@ihuxl.UUCP (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Chariots for Apollo #9 - The landing Date: 15 Nov 86 00:21:51 GMT ... The lander was much more fun to fly than the simulator. Then, five minutes into the maneuver, the crewmen began hearing alarms. On one occasion, the computer told them a switch was in the wrong position, and they corrected it. Another time, they could find no reason for the alarm, but they juggled the switches and the clanging stopped. Coping with these alarms, some of which were caused by computer overloads, lasted four minutes. ... But these nerve-wracking interruptions had come at a time when the crewmen should have been looking for a suitable spot to sit down, rather than watching cabin displays. They had reached `high gate' in the trajectory - in old aircraft-pilot parlance the beginning of the approach to an airport in a landing path - where the Eagle tilted slightly downward to give them a view of the moon. When they reached `low gate' - the point of making a visual assessment of the landing site to select either automatic or manual control - they were still clearing alarms and watching instruments. By the time they had a chance to look outside, only 600 meters and three minutes time separated them from the lunar surface. Armstrong saw the landing site immediately. He also saw that the touchdown would be just short of a large rocky crater with boulders, some as large as five meters in diameter, scattered over a wide area. If he could land just in front of that spot, he thought, they might find the area of dome scientific interest. But the thought was fleeting; such a landing would be impossible. So he pitched the lander over and fired the engine with the flight path rather than against it. Flying over the boulder field, Armstrong soon found a relatively smooth area, lying between some sizable craters and another field of boulders. How was the descent fuel supply? Armstrong asked Aldrin. But the lunar module pilot was too busy watching the computer to answer. Then lunar dust was a problem. Thirty meters above the surface, a semitransparent sheet was kicked up that nearly obscured the surface. The lower they dropped, the worse it was. Armstrong had no trouble telling altitude, as Aldrin was calling out the figures almost meter by meter, but he found judging lateral and downrange speeds difficult. He gauged these measurements as well as he could by picking out large rocks and watching them closely though the lunar dust sheet. Ten meters above the surface, the lander started slipping to the left and rear. Armstrong, working with the controls, had apparently tilted the lander so the engine was firing against the flight path. With the velocity as low as it was at the time, the lander began to move backward. With no rear window to help him avoid obstacles behind the lander, he could not set the vehicle down and risk landing on the rim of a crater. He was able to shift the angle of the lunar module and stop the backward movement, but he could not eliminate the drift to the left. He was reluctant to slow the descent rate any further, but the figures Aldrin kept ticking off told him they were almost out of fuel. Armstrong was concentrating so hard on flying the lunar module that he was unable to perceive the first touch on the moon nor did he hear Aldrin call out "contact light," when the probes below the footpads brushed the surface. The lander settled gently down, like a helicopter, and Armstrong cut off the engine. 4 days, 6 hours, 45 minutes, 57 seconds. Capcom: We copy you down Eagle. Armstrong: Houston, Tranquility Base here. THE EAGLE HAS LANDED. Capcom: Roger, Tranquility. We copy you on the ground. You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue. We're breathing again. Thanks a lot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0, $12. This is the last in this series of excerpts. If anyone has missed an installment, send mail to ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn for a copy. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn ------------------------------ Path: mordor!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!yaron From: yaron@utastro.UUCP (Yaron P Sheffer) Subject: TAU, Pluto, and This Solar System Date: 19 Nov 86 05:24:33 GMT ***** Instead of favoring one mission or another (Pluto orbiter vs. TAU), how about sending that TAU spacecraft equipped with a small probe which would be deployed a few AU before Pluto's orbit, and then it will go into orbit around that "planet"? I like having the cake and eating it too. ***** You have noticed my wording "planet". I always have found the non-standard origin of Pluto very satisfying in explaining its peculiar orbit, i.e., Pluto is not a major planet to Sun, but a body which has suffered a close encounter with the Neptunian system. The fact that there is a current commensurability with Neptune is not a proof against such an encounter: Otherwise, a pendulum at rest is a proof that it has never been swinging! And as already been mentioned, having a moon orbiting Pluto doesn't make it a standard major planet either: it could well be a tidally induced breakup. Remember that no other REAL major planet in this solar system is even close to Pluto regarding the moon/planet mass ratio. And now for something (completely) different.... shooting the solar system. Of course any spacebuff would love to have a postcard from Voyager showing this SS from afar. But: 1) As it stands now, no Voyager has ever ventured outside of the SS. Many years will pass before this will happen (even with Pluto's orbit as a definition here of the solar system's "edge"). Hence, while still being inside some planetary orbits, any such picture is a technical headache, because of the need to cover so many steradians. Also, planets will be seen as points of light at the best resolution --- and a major problem in figuring out the required exposure times for each. It could also happen that some are already too faint to shoot. And of course: one thing JPL engineers would be happy to avoid, is directing their craft's cameras towards Sun itself. Maybe after many years, when it becomes apparently fainter.... 2) Same with Pluto, resolution-wise: Since the Voyagers' resolution element is 4 seconds of arc, and that planet substends 0.1 arcsecond at Earth, these craft must come at least as close as 1 AU to Pluto before anything is resolved. I am convinced that no Voyager is planned to pass that close to Pluto. However, from 10 AU or less, it would be possible to resolve that "planet" into two points of light: Pluto and Charon. But, indeed, we are doing it already from here, using speckle interferometry. And if major mistakes are detected in my remarks, I will be more than happy to learn about them! Y. Sheffer Astronomy Dept, U. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 86 16:12:42 cet To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Two approaches for building ultra huge telescopes I'm going to reduce my already tarnished credibility by describing how one could construct a telescope for resolving an earth-like planet orbiting Tau Ceti. Tau Ceti is a sun-like star that is 11.95 light years from Earth. By Rayleigh's criterion (based on diffraction considerations), one can resolve an earth-like world orbiting Tau Ceti for light of 5500 Angstroms if the telescope mirror's diameter is 11.89 kilometers. One can construct such an enormous telescope in space only if there are no gravity gradiants, and if the telescope is shielded from the suns light. I propose building such a telescope by blowing bubbles. In theory one could construct such a telescope by blowing a bubble with a radius of 120 km. One could sliver a small section within the bubble and place optics at the center to receive the incoming light. The image would have to be corrected for spherical aberration. The silvered section would have a radius of 11.89 km and have an f-number of f/10. There are several problems with this approach: Most of the material for the bubble would be useless. Manipulating the bubble would be difficult. Also, maintaining the receiving station at the center of the bubble without distorting the bubble's shape would be difficult. A better approach would be to have a thin plastic hose with a length of 37 km. Form this hose into a ring and pressurize it with gas or a liquid like silicon oil. You now have a rigid ring. Now blow a bubble with a 12 km diameter and touch this bubble onto the ring such that the bubble collapses into a disc membrane supported by the ring. Construct a second identical membrane disc using the same process. On one disc, spray material onto the membrane to build up its thickness and to stiffen it. Spray a thin layer of metal on one side of this stiffened disc. With the other disc, the membrane is allowed to be flexible. Spray a uniform, highly reflective surface on one side and on the other side spray a honeycomb pattern of hexagons of conductive metal which are separated by the noconductive plastic of the membrane. Now attach the two membranes with struts that are 700 meters long. The telescope is now a cylinder that looks like a Tom-Tom drum that is 12 km in diameter and 700 meters long. Have the conductive surface of the stiff membrane face the honeycomb surface of the flexible membrane. Apply a uniform positive charge on the stiff membrane's surface while providing selective negative charges on the different hexagons of the flexible membrane. Now distort the flexible membrane into a parabolic shape. At the focus, 120 km away place the receiving station and position it with ion thrusters whose beams do not intersect with the mirror. Raster scan the mirror with a laser using a light wavelength which doesn't effect the telescope's astronomy. Count fringe shifts of the laser beam as it scans the mirror and use this information for positioning the receiving station and adjusting the level of charge on the hexagonals of the flexible membrane. Charge can be added or subtracted to the heagonals by using electron guns mounted on the sides. Between the mirror and the sun construct a larger third membrane and render this membrane opaque using it as a sun screen. Have the whole affair in heliocentric space with an orbital radius far enough away from the sun that its orbital motion isn't a factor. I admit that this idea is crazy but at first glance it seems workable. Gary Allen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #54 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19456; Wed, 26 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST id AA19456; Wed, 26 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST Date: Wed, 26 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611261102.AA19456@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #55 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 26 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #55 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 55 Today's Topics: Tethered Space Colonies Re: TAU and exploring the heliopause Re: Powersats, Orbital Bummers, Causes of War, Etc. flying inside Chariots for Apollo Re: Two approaches for building ultra huge telescopes Huge mirrors Re: TAU, Pluto, and This Solar System Re: Huge mirrors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 86 15:33:21 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: Tethered Space Colonies Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this; I've been busy. > ...Geoffrey Landis in Vol. 7, No. 37... >suggested using tethered space habitats to avoid Coriolis effect >problems. This idea is a good one (though not very original) for >interplanetary spacecraft with mission duration times on the order of a >year. However it doesn't work for space colonies. The problem ... >is radiation shielding. Shielding mass for many of these space colony >dreams is around 30 megatons. You are not going to be able to >construct a tether that can support this sort of mass. >If you don't shield your colony with fairly thick walls of stone >it will eventually die from cosmic radiation poisoning. These dream >colonies work by spinning **within** a stationary stone shield. Radiation shielding is indeed the critical design issue of space colonies, unless you are satisfied with a "storm cellar" for solar proton events, and a high cancer rate for the population (which I do NOT find acceptable for long-term--generations--colonies, although it may be acceptable for short term "construction shack" habitats.) It is not at all clear, however, that this rules out tether type colonies. The "Stanford Torus" design spun within a stationary shield, but most other designs (including O'Neill's "Island One Habitat") don't. O'Neill colonies are not very efficient in terms of habitible area to shield area (ratios < 1). A Multi-level colony would be much better. Let's assume you need about 100 m2 per person, and a roof height of 3m, for a total of 300 m3/person. A ten thousand person colony needs 3 million m3. In a tether type colony this is a cube about 150 meters on an edge. (Do the plants need radiation shielding? I presume not, or this means greenhouses with leaded glass. Or else totally artificial lighting.) How much shield mass do we need? Don't have figures, and am too busy at the moment to look them up, but let's assume 100 kg/m2, which I'm sure is a conservative figure. 6x150**2x100= 15 thousand metric tons of shielding. Now, let's assume a human can accept a rotation rate of .5 RPM (half the upper limit quoted in the posting the tether posting was a response to), and again assume 1/3 G pseudo-gravity If f is the rotational frequency, g the pseudo-gravity (in m/sec2), and r the radius (from cg to colony center), then g=(2*pi*f)**2*r. Plugging in numbers and solving for r, r=(9.8/3)/(2*3.1*(0.5/60))**2= 1200 m = 1.2 km. Characteristic length for steel is about 50 km; graphite fiber about 1000 km, therefore the mass of cable dedicated to supporting shielding is (1.2/50), or 2.4% of the shielding mass = 350 metric tons for steel cable, and (1.2/1000), or .12% of shield mass = 18 metric tons for carbon cable. Even for 30 megatons of shielding quoted above, if the tether is only ..12% of the shielding mass, this just is *not* going to be the critical .12% of the shielding mass, this just is *not* going to be the critical design issue. Even 7.5% of the shield mass (steel cable with factor of three engineering margin) is not unacceptable if we get the steel from asteroids--2.2 megatons of steel barely makes a scratch in a reasonably sized asteroid. (as always, I disclaim possible arithmetic errors....) Another way to aproach the shielding problem is magentic shielding, a concept advocated by Arthur Kantrowitz of Avco Everett. Basically, a strong magnetic field is established, presumably by use of a superconducting loop, which deflects charged particles, which do the worst of the damage. A problem is that extremely strong fields are needed, although I've never seen a complete calculation for how strong. Shielding from solar proton storms is easy; it's the high energy cosmics that are tough. Alternatively, the shield can be electrostatic; either by simply charging the colony up to a high (positive) voltage and deflecting the particles away, or using a dipole field which both repels particles from the colony and attracts them to some beam dump location. For this to work, though, the charging has to be in the millions of volts. (I don't know how the plasma situation is at L5, but electrostatic shields certainly won't work in most Earth orbits! Talk about your basic lightning storms in outer space! Still, maybe you could use a lightning rod...) --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU: ucbvax!jade!BROWNVM.ST401385@jade.Berkeley.Edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 86 00:30:21 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!lew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lew Mammel, Jr.) Subject: Re: TAU and exploring the heliopause Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > [ ... ] A recently proposed idea is to drop > a vehicle in an aeroshell through Venus's upper atmosphere to > put it onto a sun grazing orbit. At perihelion you fire a rocket > and get a nice big boost. The probe could then sail to Neptune > in 1.9 years, and could reach the heliopause not too long after. At first I thought this was a fallacious extension of the gravitational boost concept used by various planetary probes; the fallacy being that the sun isn't moving in the solar system frame of reference, so there's no boost to be had. However, I saw in the nick of time that this boost is based on a different principle. Here's my analysis: Starting from the earth's circular orbit, we send the craft into a sun grazing orbit with an assumed net energy gain of zero. Note that without a boost the craft would attain a distance of one AU from the sun. This is because its semimajor axis must remain at 1 AU if the total energy is unchanged, but now the sun is near one focus of its elongated orbit. Now we ask, how big a boost does the craft need to achieve escape velocity? The principle here is that the gain in kinetic energy is approximately v * Dv, so for a fixed Dv (determined by our booster capability) we can gain larger boosts in kinetic (and hence total) energy by blasting near the sun, where v will be large. This apparent freebie is due to the use of the kinetic energy gained by the rocket fuel in dropping to lower potential. To continue, in circular orbit near 1 AU we started with: E = K + U = U - 1/2 U = - K so to achieve solar escape we need to add kinetic energy equal to our orginal kinetic energy. If we let v1 be our speed at perihelion and v0 be our speed at circular orbit near 1AU. I get: v1 = v0 * ( 2AU/r1 - 1 ) ^ 1/2 based on the assumption of equal total energy. Then since we require Dv * v1 = 1/2 * v0 ^ 2 We have the requirement: Dv/v0 = ( 2AU/r1 - 1 ) ^ -1/2 So if we think we can stand to come within, say, .1 AU of the sun we need Dv = .23 * v0 or about 15000 mph. I think this equation is nice for a feasibility analysis of the concept. ( Assuming I got it right !) By the way, I would think that you'd be able to achieve a sun grazing orbit with increased kinetic energy by using a venusian gravity boost. Lew Mammel, Jr. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 86 20:01:08 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Powersats, Orbital Bummers, Causes of War, Etc. Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ... The list of important > resources that ARE NOT AT ALL AVAILABLE ( much less "scarce" ) in > space runs like a CRC Handbook... Name a handful, please. Bear in mind that "in space" includes asteroids (both nickel-iron and carbonaceous-chondrite), comet nuclei, and the smaller moons of the outer planets. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 86 11:28:02 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: flying inside >>>This is a far cry from idylic visions of landscaped O'Neill cylinders >> Yeah, I never really believed in *them*, either. All that wasted >> space,* constructed at who knows how many billion dollars? (*read: "pressurized volume") [extra space is useful to buffer the atmosphere and other things such as] > ...and to provide volume for birds to fly or trees to grow etc. or even > for people to fly between workstations instead of having to follow > congested narrow pathways. The sales pitch for space colonies envisions them as like forests and farms, or at minimum, like suburbs. My opinion is that they'd be much more like cities. [Cities get a lot of bad press, but keep in mind that millions of people live in them by choice, (at least the better cities. Newark doesn't count.), and I know a LOT of people who would *like* to live in Manhattan, but don't because it's too expensive.] Actually, I picture a typical small space colony as feeling a lot like the inside of a modern, high-tech indoor shopping mall (the type with trees and bushes and stuff) or perhaps a Hyatt Regency. "Volume for birds to fly in" "Birds" to a city dweller means pigeons. City dwellers hate pigeons. "for people to fly between workstations" In a zero-gee colony, OK. In a rotating colony, at the ground level, I doubt it. Calculate wing areas and power levels needed at, say, 1/3 G. [hint: power required scales as g**3/2 * (A*rho)**-1/2] You're talking hobby flying, not practical transportation. "congested narrow pathways" congested and narrow, say, as the corridors of a typical corporate headquarters in New York. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU: ucbvax!jade!BROWNVM.ST401385@jade.Berkeley.Edu ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 1986 17:12-EST From: Mike.Blackwell@rover.ri.cmu.edu To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Chariots for Apollo Many thanks to Dave Newkirk for posting the excerpts from "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Space Flight." Just a warning to those trying to obtain this book: There is a $18 hardback that can be found at many book stores entitled "Chariots for Apollo: The Making of the Lunar Module" which is NOT the same book... The book Dave excerpted is $12, from your local US Government Bookstore (if you have one), or you can order it from the Superintendent of Documents in Washington (no tax or shipping fees, in either case). ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 86 23:49:22 GMT From: cartan!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: Two approaches for building ultra huge telescopes Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <8611250200.AA15268@s1-b.arpa> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >I'm going to reduce my already tarnished credibility by describing how >one could construct a telescope for resolving an earth-like planet >orbiting Tau Ceti. The ideas in this article are about the best that I have seen in this group. There are obviously lots of problems; tidal forces, wave motion in the large membranes, coating the membrane uniformly, etc., etc. Obviously it is not something that can be attempted tomorrow. But the fundamental notion of taking advantage of weightlessness to contruct large uniform structures seems quite possible. -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 1986 18:02:34-EST From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu Subject: Huge mirrors Apparently-To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc There is a story in Analog magazine within the past few months describing the construction of an 8 km telescope (a la the Grey Lensman) with an 80km focal length. The mirror is made up of millions of optical flats about a meter in diameter, which at that focal length, sufficiently approximate a parabolic mirror. The mirrors are adjusted by bimetallic actuators. The obvious problem in such a structure is obtaining sufficient stiffness. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 86 03:57:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: TAU, Pluto, and This Solar System Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Could some one tell me how far an AU is? I was just going to mail off a glib reply that an AU is one Astronomical Unit, or the mean distance from Earth's orbit to the Sun, approximately equal to 90,000,000 miles. Then I thought about it a bit: Earth's orbit is slowly spiralling in toward the Sun (due to friction, tidal forces, etc.) The Sun's position is constantly changing (to to perturbations from Jupiter, mostly). So that "unit" isn't really a constant. Is there a more exact definition for an AU? -- Ken Jenks jenks@a.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 86 04:51:15 GMT From: jtk@s1-c.arpa (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: Huge mirrors Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <8611252302.AA04374@gauss.ECE.CMU.EDU> Hank.Walker@GAUSS.ECE.CMU.EDU writes: >There is a story in Analog magazine within the past few months describing >the construction of an 8 km telescope (a la the Grey Lensman) with an 80km >focal length. The mirror is made up of millions of optical flats about >a meter in diameter, which at that focal length, sufficiently approximate >a parabolic mirror. The mirrors are adjusted by bimetallic actuators. >The obvious problem in such a structure is obtaining sufficient stiffness. The story in question unfortunately contains a prize collection of physics and engineering blunders. One of the more glaring ones is that the giant telescope is rendered much cheaper than the NASA design (for a smaller telescope) because optical flats are so much cheaper than concave mirrors (at one point the optics company rep says something like, "sure, we could make you 8 million optical flats, but who would want such junk?"). In reality, it is at least as hard to make a flat as to make a spherical mirror -- harder, in that there isn't a convenient focal point for doing optical tests. Incidentally, the proposals for giant telescopes made from bubbles, etc. are very nice. Do keep in mind, though, that inflating such a bubble takes an enormous amount of gas. An interesting possibility is using a (clear) bubble as a refracting lens, which has the advantage of needing much lower tolerances on surface accuracy. Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.UUCP jtk@s1-c.arpa ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #55 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA22100; Thu, 27 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST id AA22100; Thu, 27 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST Date: Thu, 27 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611271102.AA22100@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #56 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 27 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #56 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 56 Today's Topics: correction to my TAU followup Re: Probes vs Large scopes More space publications Re: TAU, Pluto, and This Solar System Image reconstruction Flat mirrors and Analog story ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Nov 86 00:43:01 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!lew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lew Mammel, Jr.) Subject: correction to my TAU followup Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Starting from the earth's circular orbit, we send the craft into a sun > grazing orbit with an assumed net energy gain of zero. Note that > without a boost the craft would attain a distance of one AU from the > sun. This is because its semimajor axis must remain at 1 AU if the > total energy is unchanged, but now the sun is near one focus of its > elongated orbit. This should read: Starting from the earth's circular orbit, we send the craft into a sun grazing orbit with an assumed net energy gain of zero. Note that without a boost the craft would attain a distance of *two AU's* from the sun. This is because its semimajor axis must remain at 1 AU if the total energy is unchanged, but now the sun is near one focus of its elongated orbit. A little mental lapse there. I was confusing the diameter of the earth's orbit with its semimajor axis. I think the rest of my article uses the AU correctly as the semimajor axis of the earth's orbit, that is its radius in the approximation that the orbit is circular. Lew Mammel, Jr. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 86 02:12:38 GMT From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: Probes vs Large scopes Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > In reply to Dale Amon's questions "What are the theoretical limits to > the distance at which they [planetary details] can be seen by an > optical scope? What is the relationship between the scope size and the > distance to the interesting surface feature?" .. [fairly detailed > response] > In conclusion, optical detection of planetary detail is MANY orders of > magnitude beyond what we can do. .. > /Don Lynn Don Lynn's reply is correct, but deserves some qualification. As a technical point, it's worth noting that the limits he describes refer to what the human eye can resolve when looking through a telescope, or at a photographic image made with the telescope. They do not strictly apply to what can be resolved when digital image processing gets into the act. You can take what is to the eye just a vague blob of light, make detailed measurements of the intensity distribution of light within the blob, and compute details about the structure of the source that surpass the "theoretical limits" of resolution. The limits of the reconstruction are set by the accuracy with which the intensity distribution can be measured, which in turn is limited by statistical noise in the counting of photons within individual parts of the image. The accuracy is proportional to the square root of the number of photons counted in each pixel. Don's conclusion, while technically correct, is somewhat misleading. It's true that to form images in which details of a planetary surfaces are visible at distances of tens of light years you need telescopes that are orders of magnitude larger than anything we will see until well after the turn of the century. On the other hand, if you design it right and use tricks, you can detect and gather a great deal of information about planets around the nearer stars with only a 10 meter aperture telescope!! If I recall correctly from computations I made several years ago, a ten meter aperture will recieve something on the order of 10 to 100 photons of visible light per second from an earth-like planet at 20 light years. If the aperture is clean, and performance is diffraction limited, and you use special techniques to control the far field diffraction pattern of the parent star, then the planetary photons will be detectable against the diffraction background. The image processing software will be able to "see" the planet and record the spectral characteristics of the light it reflects from its star. From the amount of light recieved, you can deduce the approximate size of the planet; from its spectral characteristics, you can tell quite a lot about its atmosphere. By accumulating data over time, you can determine the planet's period of rotation, and even deduce something about surface features. Neat, huh? But to get the level of performance you need from the optics, you'd better make the telescope a refractor. - Roger Arnold ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26-NOV-1986 09:31 CST From: To: Subject: More space publications Henry Spencer reviewed space publications the other day, but left out a few I think are important. I'd also like to put in a more enthusiastic plug for *Sky and Telescope*: I think it is a splendid place to get an overview of professional astronomy, and its space coverage is quite good too, even though it is aimed at the amateur astronomer. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALCDF.BITNET +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ESA Journal ESA Bulletin both from: ESTEC Postbus 299 2200 AG Noordwijk The Netherlands These magazines cover the European Space Agency's activities. *ESA Bulletin* features articles aimed at a general readership, and they are fairly readable (if a little dry). Each issue also carries a section called "Programmes under development and Operations," which provides a brief status report on each ESA project (in English and French!). The *Journal* is more technical, and its articles are more specific. Subscriptions are available free upon request. Space World Amherst, WI 54406 A pretty good buy for your space-enthusiast buck. Articles cover past, present, and future space activities on a general-readership level, and there are lots of short news squibs giving the latest poop. Might be suitable if you can't afford *Aviation Week*, don't need a lot of techinical detail, or refuse to pay for all that airliner news between weapons ads. ("If Napoleon had only had one of our color-graphics tactical displays, he might have won at Waterloo...") *Space World* is sent to members of the National Space Society, $30/year I think, from NSS Membership Department, P.O. Box 7535, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044. (Anybody know what will happen to their magazines when NSS and L5 merge?) Aerospace America 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 This is the AIAA's official organ, and it features good, if short, articles aimed at the non-specialist engineer. Upcoming spacecraft and aircraft, and new design principles, are discussed regularly. I find its Washington coverage particularly interesting. I hate the chauvinistic title, though-- it used to be called *Astronautics and Aeronautics*. Free to AIAA members, non-member subscriptions are $56/year. But rumor has it that they've started controlled-circulation subscriptions recently. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 86 18:16:14 GMT From: rutgers!husc6!cfa!mink@spam.istc.sri.com (Doug Mink) Subject: Re: TAU, Pluto, and This Solar System Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <74700003@uiucdcsp>, jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > ... Earth's orbit is slowly > spiralling in toward the Sun (due to friction, tidal forces, etc.) The Sun's > position is constantly changing (to to perturbations from Jupiter, mostly). > So that "unit" isn't really a constant. Is there a more exact definition for > an AU? Since I dabble in celestial mechanics and deal with planetary orbits frequently, this unit is of some interest to me. I pulled the value in the Summary line from the JPL DE-96 ephemeris; some of the digits to the right of the decimal point might be model-dependent; Allen's "Astrophysical Quantities" gives a value of 1.495979 x 10^13 cm. The point is that the AU is not a basic unit; it is defined as the semi-major axis of the Earth's orbit which will vary with time. -Doug Mink, aging hippy astrometer Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Cambridge, Mass. {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink mink@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 86 18:15:52 GMT From: rutgers!husc6!cfa!willner@lll-crg.arpa (Steve Willner) Subject: Image reconstruction Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Don Lynn writes > In conclusion, optical detection of planetary detail is MANY orders of > magnitude beyond what we can do. .. > Then in article <364@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) replies: > Don Lynn's reply is correct, but deserves some qualification. > [The limits] do not strictly > apply to what can be resolved when digital image processing gets into > the act. [One can] compute details about the structure of the source > that surpass the "theoretical limits" of resolution. The limits of > the reconstruction are set by the accuracy with which the intensity > distribution can be measured, which in turn is limited by statistical > noise in the counting of photons within individual parts of the image. The process is known generically as "image enhancement" or "image reconstruction" and is indeed very exciting. But it does _not_ allow one to achieve resolution better than the true theoretical limit (obviously). The process works by trading signal-to-noise ratio for resolution. You need to start with fairly high signal-to-noise (say 20 to 30) before it is even worth trying to enhance resolution. Improving resolution by more than a factor of 2 or so compared to the naive theoretical limit begins to exact an extreme penalty in signal- to-noise and is not generally practical. By the way, the noise has many contributions in addition to photon noise. For real astronomical measurements even of bright objects, it is very hard to achieve signal-to-noise ratios greater than a few hundred. (This is a practical limit set by calibration uncertainties and is not limited by fundamental physics. Space observations may be much better, though most currently planned space instruments will not in fact be able to give better signal-to-noise than this.) -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 86 22:51:48 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Flat mirrors and Analog story To: jtk@s1-c.arpa Cc: KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa From: jtk@s1-c.arpa (Jordan Kare) ... In reality, it is at least as hard to make a flat as to make a spherical mirror -- harder, in that there isn't a convenient focal point for doing optical tests. Are you sure of that? Seems to me one could make a a flat mirror by grinding it against a flat surface. In any case, they were competing against parabolic mirror sections, not spherical mirror sections. A much more glaring error, one that spoiled the whole story for me, was the idea that one could get an image smaller than the area of one of the flat mirrors. You obviously can't. Also, you can't eliminate vibrations at one frequency by adding vibrations at any other frequency. The scope described would have a resolution lower than a good pair of binoculars. ...Keith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #56 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA23961; Fri, 28 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST id AA23961; Fri, 28 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST Date: Fri, 28 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611281102.AA23961@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #57 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 28 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #57 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 57 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V7 #56 Re: New space-shuttle ion rocket should be developed even if not "ultimate" Re: Probes vs Large scopes Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 86 13:18:25 pst From: king@kestrel.arpa (Dick King) To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #56 From: Ted Anderson Newsgroups: kestrel.space Date: 27 Nov 86 11:17:42 GMT Sender: daemon@kestrel.ARPA SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 56 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 86 22:51:48 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Flat mirrors and Analog story To: jtk@s1-c.arpa Cc: KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa From: jtk@s1-c.arpa (Jordan Kare) ... In reality, it is at least as hard to make a flat as to make a spherical mirror -- harder, in that there isn't a convenient focal point for doing optical tests. Are you sure of that? Seems to me one could make a a flat mirror by grinding it against a flat surface. In any case, they were competing against parabolic mirror sections, not spherical mirror sections. A much more glaring error, one that spoiled the whole story for me, was the idea that one could get an image smaller than the area of one of the flat mirrors. You obviously can't. Things that are obvious are not always true. You can get an image smaller than the size of a single blank, due to interference phenomena. The basic idea is that while any single flat would "focus" a point to an area the size of the blank, in the image from two blanks there would be a striped image the size of the blank, so the area of the image is 1/2 the size of the blank; with three triangularly placed blanks there would be a hexagonal area the size of the blank but only 1/3 filled in, ..., and in fact with a solid array of N blanks, properly aimed, the area of the image would be 1/N times the area of a single blank; in this case it would be a circle (/ blank-diameter (sqrt N)) in diameter. Also, you can't eliminate vibrations at one frequency by adding vibrations at any other frequency. The scope described would have a resolution lower than a good pair of binoculars. While I doubt the offered solution would solve the described problem of the story, I suspect nonlinear effects can occur. Note that audio casettes are biased, improving fidelity because of nonlinearities. ...Keith -dick ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 86 06:57:05 GMT From: tektronix!reed!omen!caf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) Subject: Re: New space-shuttle Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <8611241658.AA14545@s1-b.arpa> OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes: :wasn't it the presure to get Challenger up before his :press conference the same evening that led to Challenger :being unsafely launched in the first place ? I have heard one bit of evidence (Sen Holling's politically motivated suspicions don't count as evidence) to suggest there was particular pressure from the White House to get Challenger off the gound in time for the State of the Union address: A reference to the Challenger flight in a draft of the State of the Union address. Since several suspicious concidences between Soviet intelligence activity and the Challenger accident have been pointed out, one must, on the basis of evidence, mostly suspect the Soviets for causing the accident rather than the White House. There are those that suspect the Soviets/Cubans of engineering JFK's death. There are those that suspect the Soviets of engineering Challenger's death. There are those that suspect the White House's current occupants of causing Challenger's death. Considering the length of the shuttle grounding, I suspect NASA was riding for a fall. If the only problem in the shuttle was low launch temperature, they would have been launching in a few months, when it was warmer. By comparision, a Soviet launch failed recently. Instead of grounding their whole program for years, they just sent up another rocket not too long afterwards. ------------------------------ Date: 1986 November 26 02:03:37 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: Purtill@mit-multics.arpa Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Subject: ion rocket should be developed even if not "ultimate" Date: Fri, 21 Nov 86 18:01 EST From: Mark Purtill Subject: Re: TAU? >Also, a comment was made that, even if TAU is passed by faster >spacecraft, it will give valuable experience with its propulsion system. >This is true only if nuclear ion engines are not a dead-end technology. >I would think that radically different systems, such as nuclear pulse >rockets, would be the long term choice (Hyde would say that long term = >30 years). Nuclear ion engines will certainly be a dead-end technology if we never try to build one. And if we always wait for the "better" thing that will be around in only a few decades, we'll never get anything done, 'cause there will always be something else on the horizon. If ion rockets and nuclear pulsed rockets were about equally well developed and had equal chance of success, I'd say go with the one that looked best in the long run. But ion rockets are presently on the testbed whereas pulsed rockets are far in the future, so let's go with ion rockets for a while and see how they develop. There's a difference between making a few test craft & sending them on a few tryout missions, and making a major fleet; like the difference between the V-1 and the 727. We should go ahead and build the ion rocket on research funds, to see if it can be built, to test how it performs, and to then deterine whether it'll be a dead-end for technology that nevertheless was a good learning experience, or it and its successors of better and better ion rockets will be major work-horses of the space age for decades like the jet aircraft engine has been. Remember the old use-once rocket engines haven't been totally replaced by the shuttle, as we had nievely thought it would be. Maybe even after we get the pulse rocket working there'll still be uses for the ion rocket, such as small space missions with delecate equipment that can afford neither a large shock absorber nor the jarring you get without one. Ion rockets are nice and gentle and maybe can be built really teensy for small spacecraft like we build model airplane engines. Maybe an advanced lightweight ion rocket can send a small payload at relativistic speeds to nearby stars? We won't know until we build some ion rockets and see what they can and what they cannot do easily. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 86 07:30:28 GMT From: rutgers!dayton!viper!dave@lll-crg.arpa (David Messer) Subject: Re: Probes vs Large scopes Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <364@telesoft.UUCP> roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: >Neat, huh? But to get the level of performance you need from the >optics, you'd better make the telescope a refractor. Huh? Why would a refractor be better than a reflector? It is certainly easier to make a large mirror than a lens. -- Disclaimer: | David Messer I'm always right and I never lie. | Software Consultant My company knows this and agrees | UUCP: ihnp4!quest!viper!dave with everything I say. | ihnp4!meccts!viper!dave ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 86 18:06:34 GMT From: rutgers!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@lll-crg.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > ... In reality, it is at least as hard to make a flat as to make > a spherical mirror -- harder, in that there isn't a convenient > focal point for doing optical tests. > > Are you sure of that? Seems to me one could make a a flat mirror by > grinding it against a flat surface... Trouble is, you are grinding away the flat surface as well! The result will not in general be flat. As I recall -- the more experienced types may want to correct me on details -- the way you get a *spherical* mirror is to simply grind two identical mirror blanks against each other. In general, one ends up convex and the other concave, both more or less spherical. The way you get flat mirrors is to grind *three* identical blanks against each other (obviously grinding two at a time, but switching them around frequently); this makes the spherical tendencies cancel out. For the sort of mass production envisioned in the story, though, it would be worthwhile to look at unorthodox manufacturing techniques. Perhaps one could saw a double-thickness blank into two flats using something like laser-excited chemical etching or electric-discharge machining as a "saw" that would produce inherently flat surfaces. Such methods might not get you the necessary surface finish, though, which would put you back with conventional methods for polishing and testing. Just to keep the pot boiling, a couple more botches in the Analog story: crew quarters and such were going to be attached to the telescope (!), and the telescope has no stray-light shields. For that matter, although various details in the story clearly indicate that the telescope is in darkness at all times, there is no mention of how that is achieved. And while I'm at it, why bother building an immense telescope tube, with all the structural problems and stray-light reflections, when the prime-focus observing platform can be kept at the focus by computer-controlled maneuvering? (Of either the platform or the focus! The focus is under dynamic control anyway!) -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #57 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA27104; Sat, 29 Nov 86 03:01:59 PST id AA27104; Sat, 29 Nov 86 03:01:59 PST Date: Sat, 29 Nov 86 03:01:59 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8611291101.AA27104@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #58 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 58 Today's Topics: Pluto's Mass Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story Re: refractor vs reflector Re: New space-shuttle Re: refractor vs reflector ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Nov 86 21:49:20 GMT From: rutgers!husc6!cfa!willner@lll-crg.arpa (Steve Willner) Subject: Pluto's Mass Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa This is in response to some earlier discussion of the characteristics of Pluto in the newsgroup sci.space. Information on the mass and density of Pluto can be derived from observations of its satellite. A recent article by David J. Tholen (Astron. J. vol. 90, p. 2353, 1985) has the following information in the Abstract: "The orbital radius and period imply a total mass for the system of (6.8+/-0.5)E-9 solar masses. Density constraints place an upper limit of 3615+/-90 km on the diameter of Pluto, while observations of the first mutual events establish a crude lower limit of about 2800 km." The mass estimate is about .0023 times the mass of the Earth. The "density constraints" are the requirement that the density be at least as great as for solid methane, 0.53 g/cm**3. A series of occultations and eclipses of Pluto by its satellite and vice versa began last year and will continue for the next few years. Observations of these "mutual events" should produce much better diameters (and hence densities) for the planet and its satellite. The albedos will be measured, and even crude surface maps should be possible. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 86 15:55:07 PST (Friday) From: Lynn.ES@xerox.com Subject: Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story In-Reply-To: Keith F. Lynch's message of Wed, 26 Nov 86 22:51:48 EST To: Space@s1-b.arpa Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.com, jtk@s1-c.arpa, KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu jtk> "In reality, it is at least as hard to make a flat as to make a spherical mirror" KFL> "Are you sure of that?" Yes, flats are harder than spherical. The way you make a spherical mirror is to grind one glass blank against another (the one you don't want to keep can be non-glass, but presents some difficulties [not insurmountable] if non-glass). The one on top, pressed down at the center and allowed to flex, becomes concave, and the bottom one, being supported fully from underneath but forced to match the top, becomes convex. So no, you can't get a flat by grinding against a flat object, because it becomes non-flat too fast, even if extremely hard. The grinding compound, carborundum or similar stuff, is extremely hard itself, in order to wear away the glass at a reasonable rate. The two blanks tend to become spherical if they are of absolutely uniform consistency, the pressure is applied correctly, the stroke is not too long or short, they are rotated in a manner that is not commensurable with the stroke rate or each other, and the gods of glass like you. A really quality mirror ALWAYS needs correction in some areas anyway, even if you wanted spherical, and not parabolic (parabolic is the perfect shape for focussing images of objects infinitely far away, but a spherical mirror can be compensated for with a corrector lens, which may be small and easier to build than parabolizing the primary; but I digress). Note that such correction of problem areas can take longer than making the mirror up to that point. Flats are made by reversing the positions of the two blanks often enough that the concaveness cancels the convexness. It is very tricky to hit it exactly. Sometimes three blanks are used, rotating the pairing of them, to try to cancel out non-uniformities. Then you test the flats and correct the problem areas. KFL> "the idea that one could get an image smaller than the area of one of the flat mirrors. You obviously can't." This bothers me, because theory (and practice) says that if all points of a mirror are at the correct position within a small fraction of a wavelength of light (1/8 wavelength is often quoted, but really good mirrors are better. HST is something like 1/160), then the image will reach the theoretical limit. And flats of diameter 0.4 meter diverge from the surface of an 8 km f10 mirror by less than 1/8 wavelength. So it ought to work. But as KFL points out, each approximately-meter mirror should produce a meter size image of a point, which is roughly 100,000 times what you want in the image. But the sum of the individuals should by interference result in the finer image, though I'm worried that the extra edges of all the meter mirrors (millions of them) would diffract your image to death. Does anyone out there know of some results, practical or theoretical, for resolution of multiple mirrors? /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 86 17:17:18 PST (Friday) From: Lynn.ES@xerox.com Subject: Re: refractor vs reflector In-Reply-To: David Messer's message of 28 Nov 86 07:30:28 GMT To: Space@s1-b.arpa Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.com, rutgers!dayton!viper!dave@lll-crg.arpa "Why would a refractor be better than a reflector?" Refractors are notoriously better at reaching theoretical resolution because the secondary mirror or light detector hanging out in front of a mirror diffracts up the image. However, an extremely small detector or secondary has negligible effects, so a reflector can work essentially at the limit of resolution under this limitation. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 86 19:26:26 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: New space-shuttle Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Considering the length of the shuttle grounding, I suspect NASA was riding > for a fall. If the only problem in the shuttle was low launch temperature, > they would have been launching in a few months, when it was warmer. Well, yes and no. The aftermath of 51L has exposed a number of problems that badly need correcting, and this partially accounts for the long delay. The other side of it, though, is that NASA has also been put into utterly- paranoid mode about safety, and almost certainly would *not* have been launching in only a few months even if no other major problems *had* surfaced. Everybody is being very timid, and pretending that enough work and effort (and delay) will eliminate all further hazards. For that matter, you are assuming that NASA would react in an organized and systematic way, and the reality is anything but. If you want to see an organized and systematic reaction to a disaster that uncovered some nasty underlying problems, check out the recovery after the Apollo fire. Manned Apollos were flying 18 months after the fire; the Shuttle delay will be *at least* two years and probably more. > By comparision, a Soviet launch failed recently. Instead of grounding their > whole program for years, they just sent up another rocket not too long > afterwards. The Soviet space program is organized, systematic, and determined, and is not hampered by timidity or the illusion that perfect safety is possible. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 86 06:36:27 GMT From: jtk@s1-c.arpa (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: refractor vs reflector Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <861128-171715-5212@Xerox> Lynn.ES@XEROX.COM writes: >>"Why would a refractor be better than a reflector?" > >Refractors are notoriously better at reaching theoretical resolution >because the secondary mirror or light detector hanging out in front of a >mirror diffracts up the image. However, an extremely small detector or >secondary has negligible effects, so a reflector can work essentially at >the limit of resolution under this limitation. > >/Don Lynn Another factor, particularly interesting for LARGE space telescopes, is that the required surface (figure) accuracy for a long focal-length refractor can be very low. For a mirror, essentially independent of f/number, the entire surface must be within < Message-Id: <8611301101.AA02192@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #59 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 59 Today's Topics: Optical flats Sunlight reflected to Earth ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Nov 86 15:56:11 EST From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu Subject: Optical flats To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu Couldn't you form flats without grinding by a very careful version of the floating glass process used to make plate glass windows? Molten glass floats on molten metal, and gradually hardens. If the cooling and external disturbances were carefully controlled, I see no reason most of the surface couldn't be as flat as desired. I'd try to make large sheets, then slice them up with a diamond or a laser, and expect a certain percentage of rejects. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Nov 86 16:46:22 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Sunlight reflected to Earth To: weltyc@cieunix.rpi.edu Cc: KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty) Couldn't you just make the mirrors slightly concave? No. Regardless of the shape of the mirrors or lenses or the distance from the sun, reflected sunlight will never be brighter per angular area in the sky than the sun's disk. To get light as intense as sunlight the mirror would have to be at least half a degree wide in the sky. This would require an extremely large orbitting mirror. Large enough that tidal stresses would probably tear it apart, unless it was far from Earth. And if it was far from Earth it would have to be even larger. Reflected sunlight is not useful as a weapon. ...Keith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #59 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06757; Mon, 1 Dec 86 03:02:13 PST id AA06757; Mon, 1 Dec 86 03:02:13 PST Date: Mon, 1 Dec 86 03:02:13 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612011102.AA06757@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #60 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 60 Today's Topics: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes) Re: Re: Huge mirrors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Nov 86 01:47:51 GMT From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes) Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > .. But to get the level of performance you need from the > optics, you'd better make the telescope a refractor. > Huh? Why would a refractor be better than a reflector? It is certainly easier to make a large mirror than a lens. I was waiting to see who'd nibble at that bait. Sorry, a private peeve of mine: everyone just takes it for granted that large space telescopes will be reflectors, and they proceed to base all designs around that assumption. But it's not an examined assumption (in my opinion)--just a reflex extrapolation from earth-based experience. There are good reasons to consider building large refracting telescopes in space, especially when it comes to circumstellar imaging. It's not possible to build large refracting telescopes for use on earth, because there's no way to keep a lens much larger than twenty inches from sagging under its own weight. But in space, there is no such limitation. Nor is there any particular limitation on focal length. At f/1000, a 10 meter lens would have to be only about one tenth of an inch thicker at its center than at its periphery, and would be dramatically lighter than a 10 meter mirror. A lens gives an unobscured aperture, which is mandatory for circumstellar imaging, and can much more easily be ground to give true diffraction limited performance. That last statement may be controversial, but there are a couple of reasons that I think it's valid. For a mirror, any error, d, in the surface finish introduces an error, 2*d, in the optical path length. For a lens, the same error, d, will introduce an error of only .5*d into the optical path. So the mirror must be finsihed with four times the precision of the lens to achieve the same optical performance. But even more to the point, any warping of the mirror produces first order effects in the image. Warping of a thin lens, by contrast, produces only third order effects in the image. Only the thickness of the lens as a function of distance from the optical axis really matters, and that can be controlled through automated grinding far more easily than the shape of a mirror surface can be. Operating a telescope with a 10 km focal length does present an interesting set of problems, even in space. The best way to do it is to launch the main objective lens and the focal plane optics as separate spacecraft, on deep space trajectories. One or both of the craft would require ion thrusters for sustained relative maneuvering. The telescope would be "pointed" by orienting the objective lens in the general direction of interest, and flying the focal plane optics to the appropriate position in the focal plane. When the maneuvering fuel was used up, the telescope would die. But in deep space, away from significant gravitational gradients, it could operate for many years. Two alternatives to deep space operation are operation at L4 or L5 in the earth/moon system, and operation in low earth orbit. Operation at L4 or L5 would allow peridic resupply of reaction mass for the ion thrusters. Operation in low earth orbit would require use of the Shuttle to carry the focal plane optics, presumably mounted on the end of the remote manipulator arm. Viewing times for any one object would be limited--probably too limited to allow optical detection of earth-like stellar planets. But it would be a cheap way to obtain ultra high resolution images of objects of special interest. Operation near the space station, using the OMV to carry the focal plane optics, is also a possibility, but extended use in that mode would eat up a lot of OMV reation mass. I don't think NASA's current plans allow for the levels of OMV fuel resupply that would be needed. - Roger Arnold ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 86 19:51:52 GMT From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Burch) Subject: Re: Re: Huge mirrors Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <17159@mordor.ARPA> jtk@mordor.UUCP (Jordan Kare) writes: > In reality, it is at least as >hard to make a flat as to make a spherical mirror -- harder, in that >there isn't a convenient focal point for doing optical tests. > Well... In fact a flat is MUCH harder to do than even a parabolic telescope mirror. If you want details, go and look at the three volume series by the Scientific American Press called "Amateur Telescope Making". However, let me address the problems of a multi mirror telescope made with optical flats. First, a flat can, by itself, generate an image. In doing so, it acts as though it were the pinhole in a pinhole camera. This is a method commonly used to view eclipses. The image size is propartional to the size of the abject, and the ratio of the distances from the object to the flat, and from the flat to the screen. No feature smaller in the image than the size of the flat may be completely resolved. One would need a very long baseline indeed to resolve even Mars using a flat. Second, if the flats are used in a pseudo paraboloid, as though they were a large mirror, then the mirror will have very bad characteristics. In order to work properly, the mirror (in a single surface system) ought to have no mean surface defects in excess of 1/2 wavelength of the central color of light in which the telescope is to be used. A system made of small flats has congruence to a paraboloid only at a single point or ring of points on the surface of each flat. The contrast in such a system would be so poor that even a computer could not ressurrect the image. A much better way to make a big mirror is to spin a plate of mercury evenly, and under a constant accelleration (Like gravity). It will form a nice paraboloid section. The problems are; 1. How to freeze it in place. 2. How to afford that much mercury. And, 3. How to use it assuming you cannot find a way to freeze it... -- -David B. (Ben) Burch Analysts International Corp. Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb) "Argue for your limitations, and they are yours" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #60 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10090; Tue, 2 Dec 86 03:02:25 PST id AA10090; Tue, 2 Dec 86 03:02:25 PST Date: Tue, 2 Dec 86 03:02:25 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612021102.AA10090@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #61 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 2 Dec 86 03:02:25 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #61 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 61 Today's Topics: Sunlight Reflected to Earth What's available in space Re: Pluto's Mass refracters Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth Re: New space-shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Dec 86 11:50 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: Sunlight Reflected to Earth To: space@s1-b.arpa Keith Lynch claims you can't concentrate sunlight with mirrors in space. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always though optics was essentially a question of shape, not size. If so I can disprove Keith's claim quickly: 1. A 12" fresnel lens can concentrate sunlight at point 12" away enough to ignite wood. ( I've done this. You can too ) 2. You can build a 12" fresnel mirror that will do essentially the same thing as a 12" fresnel lens. 3. If you make the fresnel mirror "N" times as large, but leave the shape the same, it will generate the same intensity of light (because it has the same "f" number) as the original, but in an area N-squared larger. Therefor, if you made a 300 mile across fresnel mirror, and put it in orbit 300 miles above the surface of the earth, you could ignite a VERY large peice of wood ( like Hoboken ). You can get the same effect from four 150-mile-across mirrors with 300-mile focal lengths, or nine 100-mile-across mirrors with 300-mile focal lengths, et cetera. Matter of fact, a bunch of infinite-focal-length mirrors ( e.g flat ) would do almost as well if aimed correctly ( which is not too hard. ). This is a simple impractical example. BUT, I could easily draw a ray-tracing diagram with sun, earth, and, say, 12 flat mirrors WORKING TOGETHER in HIGH earth orbit to make a system that could produce 10 suns or better at a target the same size as the mirrors themselves. Easy. So, Keith, you're wrong. You CAN concentrate sunlight using multiple mirrors, and not only that, you CAN use it as a weapon. Dennis O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 86 12:03 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: What's available in space To: space@s1-b.arpa Henry Spencer writes : >> ... The list of important resources that ARE NOT AT ALL AVAILABLE >> ( much less "scarce" ) in space runs like a CRC Handbook... > >Name a handful, please. Bear in mind that "in space" includes >asteroids (both nickel-iron and carbonaceous-chondrite), comet nuclei, >and the smaller moons of the outer planets. My original discussion referenced space around the Earth. It is a LONG way to the asteroids and outer planet, and quite a feat to catch a comet. It might be better to get materials from earth. To get a payload to geo-sync orbit from the surface you give it about a 7km/sec velocity increase. So I looked up the Hohmann Ellipse Transfer data for Earth to Mars and Earth to Jupiter. This data gives the minimum amount of delta-vee ( and therefor energy change ) neccesary to make the trip. However, it makes for very slow trips. To get from Earth to Mars ( orbit of Earth to orbit of Mars, not surface-to-surface ) takes a change in velocity of about 3km/sec, and the trip back takes a delta-v of about 2.6km/sec. This is a total change of 5.6km/sec round trip ( and the round trip takes about 72 weeks ) To get from Earth to Jupiter ( orbit to orbit ) takes a delta-v of about 8.7km/sec, and the trip back takes a delta-v of about 5.6km/sec. This is a total change of 14.3km/sec round trip ( and the round trip takes about 284 weeks ). Admittedly, you only ship your mined "ores" one-way ( towards Earth ). But you need to get your "miners" and equipment and supplies out there first. You could build an almost self-sufficient mining station out at Jupiter, but this takes a LOT of mass given a lot of delt-vee, and most of this mining-station mass would come from Earth ( or at best the Moon, after you set up a mining station there, but THAT mining station would come from Earth ). The point is that mining the Outer Solar System is a lot of work (physics definitions of work ). It also takes a lot of time to ship the materials ( 30 months one-way ) which means you in effect have a huge amount of stock in transit which makes it economically very expensive. To me it looks like it is almost as cheap from an energy standpoint to ship from Earth, and definately cheaper from an economics standpoint. On comet mining : first you have to catch the comet, then either mine it in place ( which means sending the equipment ) and then changing the velocity of the products, or changing the velocity of the entire comet. Comets in the inner solar system are FAST, and in the Outer, well, see the previous paragraph. So again, it's probably cheaper and faster to get the stuff from Earth. But it still is not AT ALL cheap. Finally, what's not available EXCEPT down a deep gravity well? How about Nitrogen? And Flourine and Chlorine and Sodium and Magnesium and Helium and Phosphorous? I'm not sure, but it seems likely to me that the elements in the lowest end of the Periodic Table would be rare ouside of restraining gravity wells. And wouldn't you know it, these are the ones life and plastics and chloroflouro- carbons and a lot of other neat things are based on. (Oxygen seems to be the oddball here, because it bonds to heavier stuff so well. And Hydrogen, because it so very common. ) Nitrogen especially seems lacking, but, what is life without protien? As a disclaimer, my knowledge of space chemistry, especially outside of what's on the planets, is sparse. What's the latest data on the composition of Saturn's rings ( delta-vee 10 km/s to, 5.4 km/s back ) ? Dennis O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 86 17:04:40 GMT From: yale!husc6!cfa!mink@nyu.arpa (Doug Mink) Subject: Re: Pluto's Mass Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <283@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>, willner@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Willner) wrote in response to some earlier discussion of the characteristics of Pluto in the newsgroup sci.space of Dave Tholen's 1985 results. Last month at the AAS Division of Planetary Sciences meeting in Paris, he presented his 1986 improvements (actually Tholen, Buie, Storrs, and Lark (1986), Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 18, 821.) The new best guess for Pluto's radius is now 1145 km (Charon 640 km) and for the mean density of the Pluto- Charon system, 1.84 gm/cc (Tedesco and Dunbar at JPL get 1.6 +- 0.2 gm/cc). This gives a Pluto mass of 1.157 x 10^25 gm or .00194 Earth mass, continuing its pattern of shrinking over the years. Note that this density requires that Pluto contain a significant proportion of rock (well over half by mass). > A series of occultations and eclipses of Pluto by its satellite and > vice versa began last year and will continue for the next few years. > Observations of these "mutual events" should produce much better > diameters (and hence densities) for the planet and its satellite. > The albedos will be measured, and even crude surface maps should be > possible. Marc Buie at the University of Hawaii has already done some surface mapping. Next year's Pluto-Charon mutual events will include total eclipses of Charon, so for the first time ever we will be able to look at Pluto by itself. For further information, look up Volume 18, Number 3 of the Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, pages 820 and 821. Doug Mink Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink mink@cfa.harvard.edu 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 86 17:01:32 pst From: king@kestrel.arpa (Dick King) To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: refracters There is one important problem with a large refracter: chromatic abberation. Also, the lens might have absorption lines. I believe the Hubble Telescope will have infrared and UV gear as well as visible light. I don't know of any material that would have as broad a range in a lens. -dick ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 86 16:16:24 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A Andrews) Subject: Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > > From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty) > Reflected sunlight is not useful as a weapon. > ...Keith Gosh, then--my solar cigarette lighter must not work, nor the large solar array in California. --arlan ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 86 23:07:16 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: New space-shuttle Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > > > By comparision, a Soviet launch failed recently. Instead of grounding their > > whole program for years, they just sent up another rocket not too long > > afterwards. > > The Soviet space program is organized, systematic, and determined, and is > not hampered by timidity or the illusion that perfect safety is possible. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry The Soviet space program also uses a launch vehicle with over 1000 flights to date. By now, they have sufficient experience with the vehicle to believe that one failure is most likely due to a random manufacturing flaw and not a design defect which must be corrected immediately. This will be the case with the Shuttle system eventually (if it makes it that far), when we have twenty Shuttles and several hundred flights behind us. Until that time, accidents will of necessity delay the program. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #61 ******************* 1,, Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13042; Wed, 3 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST id AA13042; Wed, 3 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST Date: Wed, 3 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612031102.AA13042@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #62 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 3 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #62 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 62 Today's Topics: Intense Sunlight from Space compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth Re: Crc handbook... Other Asteroid uses ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Dec 86 13:55 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: Intense Sunlight from Space To: space@s1-b.arpa I think I've come up with a way for SMALL mirrors to produce concentrated sunlight from space. To wit : 1. Build a 1km fresnal mirror in space, with a focal length of, say, 1.4km ( f1.4 ). This will produce at the focal plane an image of the sun 14m across. 2. Place a 14m optical element with a focal length of NEGATIVE 1.4km ( I think ) at the focal point. Now we have a nice image of the sun, colimated, at about 5000 suns intensity. However, this image is still diverging at the same angle the incoming sunlight was ( about .01 radians ). If the mirror where 1000km up ( 600 mile ) the image on the ground would be about 10km across, very difuse ( about .1 sun ). 3. After the colimating lens, place a disk 14 meters across, and say a 10 meters thick, of 1 millimeter diameter graded-index optical fibers aligned in parrallel. Graded-index fibers cause light entering them from slightly off-axis angles to line up with the axis. This big disk will reduce the divergence of the image to about .0001 radians or so, I think, with small power losses. Now we have an image only 100 meters across on the Earths surface, generated by a 1km mirror that's 1000km up. Pretty Neat, huh ? That's about 100 suns of intensity ( about, what, 100KW per square meter? ). Would someone who knows optics better than me check this ? Dennis O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: 1986 December 02 12:33:42 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: "ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa Subject: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall Date: Tue, 25 Nov 86 11:28:02 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: flying inside This is a far cry from idylic visions of landscaped O'Neill cylinders ... Actually, I picture a typical small space colony as feeling a lot like the inside of a modern, high-tech indoor shopping mall (the type with trees and bushes and stuff) or perhaps a Hyatt Regency. I sort of like that compromise. I have never really lived in either a city or a shopping mall, but when I was living in my car many years ago I usually parked it in a covered parking lot and found that to be nice and cozy, and once I visited Eastridge shopping mall which was beautiful inside and probably the kind of place you are referring to and it'd be neat to live in such a place. How would the cost of such a furnished place compare to a barebones space habitat, given that both would require radiation shielding, food&waste processing, etc. etc. If the extra furnishings and room to hold it would be only say 20% of the total cost I think it should be done to avoid depression among the inhabitants. It might be cheaper than frequent R&R on Earth. "for people to fly between workstations" In a zero-gee colony, OK. In a rotating colony, at the ground level, I doubt it. Calculate wing areas and power levels needed at, say, 1/3 G. [hint: power required scales as g**3/2 * (A*rho)**-1/2] You're talking hobby flying, not practical transportation. Just an idea: climb a staircase to closer to the center of revolution to decrease G force, then take flight. Or step onto elecronic person-launcher which tosses you into the air towards center of rev. At landing end, no problem since gravity is assisting you and at 1/3 G the landing should be graceful enough. Rebuttal/discussion anyone? ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 86 20:47:02 GMT From: jtk@s1-c.arpa (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <467@inuxm.UUCP> arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) writes: >> >> From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty) >> Reflected sunlight is not useful as a weapon. > >Gosh, then--my solar cigarette lighter must not work, nor the large solar ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >array in California. > >--arlan I suppose a cigarette lighter COULD be considered a lethal weapon :-( (Not to belabor the point, but cigarette lighters and solar power arrays have short focal lengths ("fast" optics with low f/no.s), while it is hard to imagine a useful weapon that has a range not much longer than its own dimensions... at least, not one much more useful than a club or a sword.) Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.UUCP jtk@s1-c.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 1986 18:41-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Crc handbook... In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Tue, 2 Dec 86 03:11:54 PST Henry Spencer is certainly correct that everything available on earth is available in free space, and in fact is available from earth crossing asteroids, of which there are quite a few. Eleanor Helin's work has already uncovered the orbits of several economically interesting objects. No need to go into great detail, but one need only look up the different meteorite types to see the variety. Nickel-Irons with heavy doses of Platinum group elements. Stony Irons chock full of minerals. Carbonaceous chondrites with Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrocarbons, etc. The outer moons mentioned are surfaced with clathrates, mixtures of water and ammonia ices with other good volatiles mixed in. For a discussion of a feasible scheme of tapping these immense resources, a barely cost-effective baseline model using current (1983) technology is discussed in: "Mining the Earth-Approaching Asteroids for Their Precious and Strategic Metals", Brian O'Leary, Space Manufacturing 1983, Volume 53, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, pg 375-387. (Published for the AAS by Univelt Inc, San Diego.) This article also contains some of his early work on the feasibility of mining Phobos and Diemos for volatiles. Due to their low densities, it is thought that they may be carbonaceous. There are other slightly more advanced proposals that bring the asteroids back into high orbit or into halo orbit using a mass driver that expends some percentage of the asteroidal mass over 2-5 years. The actual processing then occurs in a nearby convenient spot. There are many discussion of this subject available in the literature. A common approach to the problem is to send the mass driver, power supplies, consumables, etc via a hohman orbit, then launch the crew on a high energy trajectory some time later so that they arrive at roughly the same time. In the case of a nickel-iron, smelting mirrors are used to seperate out some of the platinum group elements which can be returned immediately with most of the crew. A skeleton crew (or a computer) then flies the asteroid into Earth orbit (a few years later). Note: Platinum group = Platinum, Palladium, Iridium, Rhodium, Ruthenium, Osmium. They market at btwn $5K and $10K/kg, and the quanitities discussed are not enough to cause a significant change in the market prices, at least not at a low rate of bringing back asteroids that would certainly prevail for many years. ============================================================================== Why Would Any Sane Person Want to Live on a Planet? QUICK! Mine them before they fall on your head! Dale Amon ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 1986 19:15-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Other Asteroid uses Another use for a small asteroid that has been suggested is spin it up, focus a mirror on it (you can use flats for all I care...) to melt and soften it and at just the right moment set off a small nuke in the center. Presto, chango: a giant rock balloon living space. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #62 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16554; Thu, 4 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST id AA16554; Thu, 4 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST Date: Thu, 4 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612041102.AA16554@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #63 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 63 Today's Topics: Re: Other Asteroid uses Re: Other Asteroid uses re: Intense Sunlight from Space Re: Other Asteroid uses Re: Other Asteroid uses Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Dec 86 14:30:22 GMT From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <533952902.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Another use for a small asteroid that has been suggested is spin it up, >focus a mirror on it (you can use flats for all I care...) to melt and >soften it and at just the right moment set off a small nuke in the >center. Presto, chango: a giant rock balloon living space. More likely SPLATTO! and gobs of molten rock flying off every which way. You'd surely have to inflate the thing slowly and evenly - the surface tension and cohesion of molten rock isn't that great. Hint: look at the size of the cavities in a lump of pumice. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 86 16:03:45 GMT From: jkw@lanl.arpa (Jay Wooten) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Another use for a small asteroid that has been suggested is spin it up, > focus a mirror on it (you can use flats for all I care...) to melt and > soften it and at just the right moment set off a small nuke in the > center. Presto, chango: a giant rock balloon living space. Yep, it's always been my dream to live in a cozy, warm cavity created by a nuclear device. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare ~ ~ The lone and level sands stretch far away................. ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jay Wooten Los Alamos National Lab ARPA:jkw@lanl.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 86 12:08:30 CST From: David Chase Subject: re: Intense Sunlight from Space To: space@s1-b.arpa Cc: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL I don't know terribly much about optics, but I do know that you will have a hard time aligning all those fibers in parallel to such a degree that *they* don't diverge by more than .0001 radians (20 arc seconds), and then you will have a hard time polishing the ends of the fibers to that degree of flatness, that perpendicular to the fiber. Heat the whole disk unevenly, and it probably flexes out of parallel. [btw, the proper spellings are "collimating", "diffuse", "fresnel", "parallel", and "were"] David ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 86 22:49:41 GMT From: hobiecat!myers@csvax.caltech.edu (Bob Myers) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <468@aw.sei.cmu.edu.sei.cmu.edu> firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >In article <533952902.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >>Another use for a small asteroid that has been suggested is spin it up, >>focus a mirror on it (you can use flats for all I care...) to melt and >>soften it and at just the right moment set off a small nuke in the >>center. Presto, chango: a giant rock balloon living space. > >More likely SPLATTO! and gobs of molten rock flying off every which way. >You'd surely have to inflate the thing slowly and evenly - the surface >tension and cohesion of molten rock isn't that great. Hint: look at the >size of the cavities in a lump of pumice. Yeah, but a bad example. Pumice gets formed under extreme rapid decompression, and the gases inside the melt, distributed through the melt, come out of solution. The size and distribution of the cavities is more due to the distribution of the expanding gases. (i.e., distributed throughout the material so that the entire substance explodes, instead of just one explosion at the middle. Big difference.) I still think you'd get gobs of molten rock flying off every which way. Bob Myers ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 86 01:25:13 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!ewiles@seismo.css.gov (Edwin Wiles) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <533952902.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Another use for a small asteroid that has been suggested is spin it up, >focus a mirror on it (you can use flats for all I care...) to melt and >soften it and at just the right moment set off a small nuke in the >center. Presto, chango: a giant rock balloon living space. Being basically paranoid about nuclear weapons (Ye' can't tell me it ain't!) And somewhat dubious of being able to calculate the precise yield needed to expand the asteroid into a balloon shape, without blowing it open: I'd like to suggest a modification of the old glass-blowers trick for creating a hollow inside of molten glass. Simply imbed a container of highly compressed gas within the asteroid. Either before heating or after. The volume of the heated gas should be a lot easier to calculate, and a whole whale of a lot gentler in expansion. The gas, being trapped inside the molten rock, will be heated by the rock, and will gradually expand, (hopefully) gently blowing your bubble up for you without blowing it apart. As a bonus, you don't have to put it through decontamination before you can inhabit it! :-) -- Edwin Wiles Net Express, Inc. 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 Vienna, VA 22180 ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 86 19:21:55 GMT From: ihnp4!fortune!lowry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Lowry) Subject: Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <861128-155507-5149@Xerox> Lynn.ES@XEROX.COM writes: >jtk> "In reality, it is at least as hard to make a flat as to make a >spherical mirror" >KFL> "Are you sure of that?" > >Yes, flats are harder than spherical. > >The way you make a spherical mirror is to grind one glass blank against >another (the one you don't want to keep can be non-glass, but presents >some difficulties [not insurmountable] if non-glass). The one on top, >pressed down at the center and allowed to flex, becomes concave, and the >bottom one, being supported fully from underneath but forced to match >the top, becomes convex. So no, you can't get a flat by grinding >against a flat object, because it becomes non-flat too fast, even if >extremely hard. The grinding compound, carborundum or similar stuff, is >extremely hard itself, in order to wear away the glass at a reasonable >rate. > >....... > >Flats are made by reversing the positions of the two blanks often enough >that the concaveness cancels the convexness. It is very tricky to hit >it exactly. Sometimes three blanks are used, rotating the pairing of >them, to try to cancel out non-uniformities. Then you test the flats >and correct the problem areas. > What if the blank destined not to become the mirror (aka, the tool) were much larger than the mirror blank, and the grinding process never resulted in an ovehang? Seems to me that the tool might become channeled, but the mirror would end up being flat. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #63 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19373; Fri, 5 Dec 86 03:02:14 PST id AA19373; Fri, 5 Dec 86 03:02:14 PST Date: Fri, 5 Dec 86 03:02:14 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612051102.AA19373@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #64 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 64 Today's Topics: Re: Other Asteroid uses Re: refractor vs reflector Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall "Flying" as transportation in a space colony ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Dec 86 05:54:19 GMT From: ames!rutgers!clyde!watmath!watnot!ccplumb@cad.berkeley.edu (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <533952902.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Another use for a small asteroid that has been suggested is spin it up, >focus a mirror on it (you can use flats for all I care...) to melt and >soften it and at just the right moment set off a small nuke in the >center. Presto, chango: a giant rock balloon living space. When I heard it, the idea was to put water in the middle of the asteroid (drill a hole, fill it up, and plug it - a smaller hole than that needed for a nuke), and boil it with the heat of the melting asteroid. This makes for a much gentler and cleaner explosion. A Nuke would, as others have pointed out, be like inflating a balloon with a fire hose. -Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP) Zippy says: Wait.. is this a FUN THING or the END of LIFE in Petticoat Junction?? ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 86 20:43:11 GMT From: trwrb!sdcrdcf!lwall@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Larry Wall) Subject: Re: refractor vs reflector Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I dunno. I suspect huge reflectors OR refractors will make better meteor detectors than telescopes. Somebody say something about leakage and vibration. Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 86 20:00:25 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Robert Elton Maas writes: > Just an idea: climb a staircase to closer to the center of revolution > to decrease G force, then take flight. Or step onto elecronic > person-launcher which tosses you into the air towards center of rev. > At landing end, no problem since gravity is assisting you and at 1/3 G > the landing should be graceful enough. Rebuttal/discussion anyone? Graceful - perhaps, lethal - probably. Unfortunately gravity isn't the problem here - momentum is. You would still have the same momentum under low-g conditions - and would break your legs, crush your spine and generally make a mess of the landscape in precicesly the same manner as if you had tried such a stunt in high-g. -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma Advanced Systems Group, San Diego ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 86 09:38:50 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space digest Subject: "Flying" as transportation in a space colony REM> Step onto electronic person-launcher which tosses you into the air REM> towards center of rev. At landing end, no problem since gravity is REM> assisting you and at 1/3 G the landing should be graceful enough. I haven't done a calculation, but .33 g sounds to me like it's a bit high for a safe ballistic landings. *But*, if you launch the people only in the counter-spin direction, their "weight" decreases. In fact, if you launch them in the counter- spin direction at the spin-speed, they have zero weight (or, what actually happens, they become stationary and the colony spins under them). Of course, they have to land running. This could be a nifty form of transportation. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #64 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA21586; Sat, 6 Dec 86 03:01:56 PST id AA21586; Sat, 6 Dec 86 03:01:56 PST Date: Sat, 6 Dec 86 03:01:56 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612061101.AA21586@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #65 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 65 Today's Topics: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes) Re: Two approaches for building ultra huge telescopes Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth Address Correction Re: Other uses for asteroids ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Dec 86 01:24:05 GMT From: cbatt!ukma!ukecc!vnend@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. W. James) Subject: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes) Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa Would the lenses on a large refracting space telescope need to be made of glass (or any other solid for that matter)? In zero G the surface tension of a clear liquid could be used to pull it into a lens shape. And if surface tension wouldn't be enough, how about just enclosing a clear liquid in a thin plastic membrane of known optical properties? Care would have to be taken against vibration, but then, that is esential for any space telescope. And this avoids some of the problems with engineering large solid lenses in space. Just a wild idea... -- ******************************************************************************* Later y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the Mother of Adventure. **UUCP:cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!vnend; CSNET:vnend@ecc.engr.uky.csnet** ************BITNET:cn0001dj@ukcc.BITNET (but only as a last resort)************ ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 86 16:36:52 GMT From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (James Symon) Subject: Re: Two approaches for building ultra huge telescopes Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > I'm going to reduce my already tarnished credibility by describing how > > one could construct a telescope for resolving an earth-like planet > > orbiting Tau Ceti . With regard to Gary Allen's fun article on big space telescopes from bubble membranes, I have a few comments. I assume that for the tomtom approach you would electrostatically distort the silvered membrane such that the parabola's axis of symmetry is at an angle to the axis of symmetry of the tomtom big enough to prevent any shadowing by the stiffened membrane end. That would mean an assymetric dish and the angle between the two axes must be less than that of the tangent at the shallow end of the dish but I suppose that would be feasible. (I'm visualizing this in my head and haven't worked it out). Wouldn't you have problems, though with charged particles distorting the shape? Would your shadow panel take care of this problem adequately? I'll now reveal my lack of understanding by suggesting another variation on the theme using Gary's stiff ring, silvered flexible membrane. Give your collecting station mass equal the the dish and connect them by a ring of cables essentially hanging them from each other in the gravity gradient. Wouldn't the weight of the membrane pull it into a parabolic shape? In any case you could presumably correct for the shape aberration. (This is what I thought he would get from the original bubble idea by suspending it in a gravity gradient but of course the other problems mentioned with a full bubble rule that out). I suppose you would run into a tensile strength problem with your cables but maybe the focal length will match the dish collector distance before your cables break. Of course this all depends on characteristics of the membrane. Any materials science people looking for a hobby project? You can select your orbit to get the gradient best suited for your purposes. No, wait. I guess that doesn't matter and the orbit variable could be used to take care of some other problem. Jim Symon UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 86 13:07:10 EST From: weltyc%cieunix@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) To: space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth > > From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty) > Reflected sunlight is not useful as a weapon. > ...Keith Ehhhhhh....did I miss something? Keith, you may have read that message out of context (especially since I posted it a long long time ago). I was asking if the size of the image of the sun reflecting to a ground collecting station could be reduced by making the orbiting mirror concave. Someone already pointed out to me (it was so long ago I forgot who) that I was forgetting that the Sun has an angular size so the concavity of the mirror wouldn't help much. I never mentioned weapons.... -Chris ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 86 13:26:36 EST From: John Shaver (STEEP-TMAC 879-7602) To: space@s1-b.arpa Cc: jshaver@apg-5.arpa, shaver@fth-1.arpa Subject: Address Correction Please stop sending the Space BBB to jshaver @apg-3. I also get it at apg-5 which is more convenient. Thanbks John ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 1986 22:34-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@s1-b.arpa Subject: Re: Other uses for asteroids In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Fri, 5 Dec 86 03:09:13 PST The use of water in the asteroid scenario is correct. I was remembering portions of two different papers/talks, one of which was by Dr. Kraft Ehricke on the use of nukes to hollow out lunar caverns, not asteroids. Dr. Ehricke's ideas are also worth noting. Due to the low atomic numbers of typical constituents, and the sealing of heavy materials under a layer of a solidified melt, such spaces are, according to the late Dr. Ehricke, inhabitable after a very short time, with a small amount of hot spot decontamination. His technique also discussed using the cracking and melting as a method of ore beneficiation. There is a certain amount of seperation due to the melting and solidification. There is also the ability to do efficient mineral leaching by pumping water into the hot cracked rock. Works just like black smokers at spreading centers. The explosion will free Oxygen immediately. The Oxygen can be pumped out. There are evidently no long lived radioisotopes, or if they are they are easily seperated. A furthur use was to use the trapped heat as an energy source ala geothermal. You just keep firing small nukes and withdrawing the heat. While you do it you are creating 'ores' in the cavern. At some time you mine it and then use it for living space. Unfortuneatly all I have are my own notes and a cryptic printed abstract of his talk from the Lunar Base Symposium, Washington, DC 11/84. I'm sure his material has been fully published else where, but I don't have it handy. If you have problems with any of this, please look up the paper and argue against it: I'm not prepared to do a peer defense of his work: I'm not sure I'm even prepared to move into one of his caverns... I had the good fortune to meet him (for a few short minutes) a few months before his death. He was everything you expect from an old German rocket scientist, soft spoken accent, viewgraphs and all. (You all must remember the last words of the ailing elderly rocket scientist: "Next viewgraph, please..") The man had more creative thoughts between his bed and his morning shower than the rest of NASA had all year long. Despite the fact that he was dying of leukemia, he had a light in his eye and gesticulated fervently when he spoke of colonizing the moon. He also had a great deal of contempt for most of the existing plans (or maybe lack of existing plans?): he felt it could be done in the mid 1990's, if anybody still had guts. It is unfortuneate that in his later years he allowed a number of his articles to be printed in Fusion Magazine. However, like many who published in it's pages, he was never really associated with them. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #65 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA24529; Sun, 7 Dec 86 03:02:04 PST id AA24529; Sun, 7 Dec 86 03:02:04 PST Date: Sun, 7 Dec 86 03:02:04 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612071102.AA24529@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #66 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 66 Today's Topics: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall Re: Other Asteroid uses no grind refractor Re: TAU and exploring the heliopause Re: Other Asteroid uses Re: Other Asteroid uses absence of AW&ST summaries Re: Other Asteroid uses ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Dec 86 14:21:00 GMT From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (James Symon) Subject: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Robert Elton Maas writes: > > Just an idea: climb a staircase to closer to the center of revolution > > to decrease G force, then take flight. Or step onto elecronic > > person-launcher which tosses you into the air towards center of rev. > > At landing end, no problem since gravity is assisting you and at 1/3 G > > the landing should be graceful enough. Rebuttal/discussion anyone? > > Graceful - perhaps, lethal - probably. Unfortunately gravity > isn't the problem here - momentum is. You would still have the same momentum > under low-g conditions - and would break your legs, crush your spine and > generally make a mess of the landscape in precicesly the same manner as if > you had tried such a stunt in high-g. I think actually you would feel the same acceleration (deceleration) on landing that you felt in the "person launcher". There was a nice exploration of the idea of flying down the zero G center (and elsewhere if you counteract the breeze) in a science fiction novel. I believe it is by A.C.Clarke and titled Rendezvous With Rama or some such. Jim Symon UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 86 21:20:20 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <207@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: ...omissions... > Being basically paranoid about nuclear weapons (Ye' can't tell me it ain't!) > And somewhat dubious of being able to calculate the precise yield needed > to expand the asteroid into a balloon shape, without blowing it open: ... extremely clever suggesstion re: glass blowing art as applied to blowing bubbles out of asteroids...omitted > As a bonus, you don't have to put it through decontamination before you > can inhabit it! :-) It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual radiation. I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word NUCLEAR. Biophysicists have had to re-name their most recent diagnostic tool from Nuclear Magnetic Resonnance Imaging to Magnetic Resonnance... (which makes less sense - the resonance is nuclear in origin) since the media was freaking on the use of NUCLEAR. A particularly ignorant reaction, since the effect is not radioactive in any way at all - not even a little. Your flashlight is more radioactive. -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma Advanced Systems Group, San Diego ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 86 14:26:18 GMT From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (James Symon) Subject: no grind refractor Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I don't understand all this talk about grinding big mirrors and refractor lenses. As somebody else put it, they'd only make good meteor detectors. A micro would render it junk, right? I still like Gary Allen's membrane stretched over a ring, silvered and distorted to dish shape by one means or another because micro- meteor holes should only be a problem after 'many' strikes. Now for those that like refractors,(is it true that a reflector would need to be kept within a few microns of its proper position?) how about stretching a transparent balloon around the 12 km diameter ring and pumping the cheapest available gas into it to provide a big lens? (or whatever diameter lens is required for resolution of planets at Tau Ceti) As meteor holes increase you would need to provide a continuous flow of gas and eventually replace the balloon. You might periodically pump in some gaseous leak-stop of transparent type. Jim Symon UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 86 06:46:51 GMT From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: TAU and exploring the heliopause Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I did some thinking about the gravity-well-boost maneuver a few months ago, and I believe I've found a good way to understand it intuitively. The force exerted on a spacecraft by a thruster is independent of the starting velocity of that spacecraft relative to some inertial coordinate system (e.g., the one with the Sun at its origin). However, the amount of kinetic energy imparted to the spacecraft by a given burn depends on the coordinate system you use. Doing the burn at a higher velocity (relative to the Sun) results in more energy being imparted to the spacecraft and less to the propellant. This is because energy is defined as force x distance, and the thrust "acts through" a longer distance when the spacecraft is travelling faster. Make sense? Phil ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 86 01:44:05 GMT From: rutgers!husc6!husc2!chiaraviglio@lll-crg.arpa (lucius) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <2111@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP>, jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) writes: > In article <207@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: > ...omissions... > > > Being basically paranoid about nuclear weapons (Ye' can't tell me it ain't!) > > And somewhat dubious of being able to calculate the precise yield needed > > to expand the asteroid into a balloon shape, without blowing it open: > > ... extremely clever suggesstion re: glass blowing art as applied to > blowing bubbles out of asteroids...omitted > > > As a bonus, you don't have to put it through decontamination before you > > can inhabit it! :-) > > It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual > radiation. I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word > NUCLEAR. How do you make a nuke which is clean (let alone make such a thing easily)? I would be very interested to know. Also, I think Edwin is right about problems calculating the precise explosive force needed to blow the asteroid apart without blowing it open. First of all, even if you can calculate exactly how much energy your device is going to produce, defects in the asteroid might cause it to have weak spots (even if it is semi-molten -- imagine a bubble that is already present, or a vein of material of radically different viscosity from the rest). Second, nuclear explosions tend to be extremely sudden, and thus would tend to shatter even a molten asteroid, because of the physical properties of molten rock (read enough volcanology books, and you will find accounts of even molten basalt (among the more fluid types of molten rock) shattering when it falls a couple of meters to the ground at the front of a lava flow, and then proving it is still molten by spreading out after shattering). Also, what do you do to keep the asteroid which has been inflated with a nuke from collapsing back into a blob as the gas (which is mostly vaporized rock) cools and condenses? Inflating an asteroid with water would not have as much of this problem, because the asteroid will solidify before the water condenses, although the steam will contract as it cools (but you can have a pipe already in place to pump in more water, since you don't have to worry about the excessive violence and heat of a nuclear explosion). In any case, cracking during cooling might be a serious problem. -- -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu seismo!husc4!chiaraviglio Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out of this system is unreliable). Please send only to the address given above, until tardis.harvard.edu is revived. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 86 01:38:35 GMT From: jkw@lanl.arpa (Jay Wooten) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > > It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual > radiation. I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word > NUCLEAR. > Hmmm. Please elaborate on this most intriguing assertion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare ~ ~ The lone and level sands stretch far away................. ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jay Wooten Los Alamos National Lab ARPA:jkw@lanl.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 86 01:17:53 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: absence of AW&ST summaries Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa People may have noticed a lack of Aviation Week space-news summaries of late. It's not permanent. My schedule has been unsettled of late and I haven't had a convenient opportunity to work on them. I expect to resume within a week, and will make an effort to catch up on the backlog. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 86 23:25:32 GMT From: ames!rutgers!clyde!watmath!watnot!ccplumb@cad.berkeley.edu (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <2111@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP> jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) writes: >It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual >radiation. I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word >NUCLEAR. I've no objection to the word "nuclear" (I'm full of nucleic acid, aren't I? :-) ), but I can't see how to force stable fission products. Can you be more specific? Thanks. -Colin Plumb (ccplmb@watnot.UUCP) Zippy says: The Korean War must have been fun. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #66 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA27218; Mon, 8 Dec 86 03:02:20 PST id AA27218; Mon, 8 Dec 86 03:02:20 PST Date: Mon, 8 Dec 86 03:02:20 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612081102.AA27218@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #67 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 8 Dec 86 03:02:20 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #67 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 67 Today's Topics: Flat mirrors and ... sandblasting? Large Telescope ideas SPACE Digest V7 #66 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Dec 86 18:37:49 GMT From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Flat mirrors and ... sandblasting? Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa As an irrelevant aside, there was the fellow at Reed College about 15 years ago who hooked a PDP-8 up to a numerically controlled table and a sandblaster. He would load coarse grit, grind out a rough parabola according to smoe arcane movement algorithm, measure the deviations, enter them into the computer, load fine grit, and finish the mirror. He claimed 1/10 wavelength on 12 inch mirrors, and it took only hours. I did not see the resultant mirrors - there must have been something wrong or this would be a commercial process now. The IDEA is fascinating, though. I guess you could finish cheap flats this way, though it would be just as easy to put a bit of curve on them. It shows that we could have quite different techniques by the time of the Analog story. I would postulate light-sensitive silica-excreting artificial bacteria, myself... but SF has gotten too tame for someone to throw in that many speculations! -- Keith Lofstrom MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 1986 11:21:25-EST From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu Subject: Large Telescope ideas Apparently-To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc I have a concern about the large telescope ideas where one element maneuvers to maintain the focus. If the telescope is a reflector, then the reaction engines are spewing junk into the field of view. This may obscure the view, or worse, may float around and deposit on optical surfaces. This may also be a problem with a reflector. The problem may not be too bad if the engines are just gas jets, but the problem can't be ignored. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Dec 86 14:13:34 PST From: <> Reply-To: @Forsythe.Stanford.Edu@lindy.STANFORD.EDU To: space@s1-b.arpa Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA24661; Sun, 7 Dec 86 03:10:42 PST id AA24661; Sun, 7 Dec 86 03:10:42 PST Date: Sun, 7 Dec 86 03:10:42 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612071110.AA24661@s1-b.arpa> To: Space@s1-b.arpa Reply-To: Space@Angband Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #66 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 66 Today's Topics: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall Re: Other Asteroid uses no grind refractor Re: TAU and exploring the heliopause Re: Other Asteroid uses Re: Other Asteroid uses absence of AW&ST summaries Re: Other Asteroid uses ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Dec 86 14:21:00 GMT From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (James Symon) Subject: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > Robert Elton Maas writes: > > Just an idea: climb a staircase to closer to the center of revolution > > to decrease G force, then take flight. Or step onto elecronic > > person-launcher which tosses you into the air towards center of rev. > > At landing end, no problem since gravity is assisting you and at 1/3 G > > the landing should be graceful enough. Rebuttal/discussion anyone? > > Graceful - perhaps, lethal - probably. Unfortunately gravity > isn't the problem here - momentum is. You would still have the same momentum > under low-g conditions - and would break your legs, crush your spine and > generally make a mess of the landscape in precicesly the same manner as if > you had tried such a stunt in high-g. I think actually you would feel the same acceleration (deceleration) on landing that you felt in the "person launcher". There was a nice exploration of the idea of flying down the zero G center (and elsewhere if you counteract the breeze) in a science fiction novel. I believe it is by A.C.Clarke and titled Rendezvous With Rama or some such. Jim Symon UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 86 21:20:20 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <207@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: ...omissions... > Being basically paranoid about nuclear weapons (Ye' can't tell me it ain't!) > And somewhat dubious of being able to calculate the precise yield needed > to expand the asteroid into a balloon shape, without blowing it open: ... extremely clever suggesstion re: glass blowing art as applied to blowing bubbles out of asteroids...omitted > As a bonus, you don't have to put it through decontamination before you > can inhabit it! :-) It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual radiation. I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word NUCLEAR. Biophysicists have had to re-name their most recent diagnostic tool from Nuclear Magnetic Resonnance Imaging to Magnetic Resonnance... (which makes less sense - the resonance is nuclear in origin) since the media was freaking on the use of NUCLEAR. A particularly ignorant reaction, since the effect is not radioactive in any way at all - not even a little. Your flashlight is more radioactive. -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma Advanced Systems Group, San Diego ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 86 14:26:18 GMT From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (James Symon) Subject: no grind refractor Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I don't understand all this talk about grinding big mirrors and refractor lenses. As somebody else put it, they'd only make good meteor detectors. A micro would render it junk, right? I still like Gary Allen's membrane stretched over a ring, silvered and distorted to dish shape by one means or another because micro- meteor holes should only be a problem after 'many' strikes. Now for those that like refractors,(is it true that a reflector would need to be kept within a few microns of its proper position?) how about stretching a transparent balloon around the 12 km diameter ring and pumping the cheapest available gas into it to provide a big lens? (or whatever diameter lens is required for resolution of planets at Tau Ceti) As meteor holes increase you would need to provide a continuous flow of gas and eventually replace the balloon. You might periodically pump in some gaseous leak-stop of transparent type. Jim Symon UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 86 06:46:51 GMT From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: TAU and exploring the heliopause Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa I did some thinking about the gravity-well-boost maneuver a few months ago, and I believe I've found a good way to understand it intuitively. The force exerted on a spacecraft by a thruster is independent of the starting velocity of that spacecraft relative to some inertial coordinate system (e.g., the one with the Sun at its origin). However, the amount of kinetic energy imparted to the spacecraft by a given burn depends on the coordinate system you use. Doing the burn at a higher velocity (relative to the Sun) results in more energy being imparted to the spacecraft and less to the propellant. This is because energy is defined as force x distance, and the thrust "acts through" a longer distance when the spacecraft is travelling faster. Make sense? Phil ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 86 01:44:05 GMT From: rutgers!husc6!husc2!chiaraviglio@lll-crg.arpa (lucius) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <2111@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP>, jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) writes: > In article <207@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: > ...omissions... > > > Being basically paranoid about nuclear weapons (Ye' can't tell me it ain't!) > > And somewhat dubious of being able to calculate the precise yield needed > > to expand the asteroid into a balloon shape, without blowing it open: > > ... extremely clever suggesstion re: glass blowing art as applied to > blowing bubbles out of asteroids...omitted > > > As a bonus, you don't have to put it through decontamination before you > > can inhabit it! :-) > > It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual > radiation. I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word > NUCLEAR. How do you make a nuke which is clean (let alone make such a thing easily)? I would be very interested to know. Also, I think Edwin is right about problems calculating the precise explosive force needed to blow the asteroid apart without blowing it open. First of all, even if you can calculate exactly how much energy your device is going to produce, defects in the asteroid might cause it to have weak spots (even if it is semi-molten -- imagine a bubble that is already present, or a vein of material of radically different viscosity from the rest). Second, nuclear explosions tend to be extremely sudden, and thus would tend to shatter even a molten asteroid, because of the physical properties of molten rock (read enough volcanology books, and you will find accounts of even molten basalt (among the more fluid types of molten rock) shattering when it falls a couple of meters to the ground at the front of a lava flow, and then proving it is still molten by spreading out after shattering). Also, what do you do to keep the asteroid which has been inflated with a nuke from collapsing back into a blob as the gas (which is mostly vaporized rock) cools and condenses? Inflating an asteroid with water would not have as much of this problem, because the asteroid will solidify before the water condenses, although the steam will contract as it cools (but you can have a pipe already in place to pump in more water, since you don't have to worry about the excessive violence and heat of a nuclear explosion). In any case, cracking during cooling might be a serious problem. -- -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu seismo!husc4!chiaraviglio Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out of this system is unreliable). Please send only to the address given above, until tardis.harvard.edu is revived. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 86 01:38:35 GMT From: jkw@lanl.arpa (Jay Wooten) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa > > It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual > radiation. I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word > NUCLEAR. > Hmmm. Please elaborate on this most intriguing assertion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare ~ ~ The lone and level sands stretch far away................. ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jay Wooten Los Alamos National Lab ARPA:jkw@lanl.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 86 01:17:53 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: absence of AW&ST summaries Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa People may have noticed a lack of Aviation Week space-news summaries of late. It's not permanent. My schedule has been unsettled of late and I haven't had a convenient opportunity to work on them. I expect to resume within a week, and will make an effort to catch up on the backlog. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 86 23:25:32 GMT From: ames!rutgers!clyde!watmath!watnot!ccplumb@cad.berkeley.edu (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <2111@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP> jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) writes: >It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual >radiation. I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word >NUCLEAR. I've no objection to the word "nuclear" (I'm full of nucleic acid, aren't I? :-) ), but I can't see how to force stable fission products. Can you be more specific? Thanks. -Colin Plumb (ccplmb@watnot.UUCP) Zippy says: The Korean War must have been fun. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #66 ******************* ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #67 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00242; Tue, 9 Dec 86 03:02:42 PST id AA00242; Tue, 9 Dec 86 03:02:42 PST Date: Tue, 9 Dec 86 03:02:42 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612091102.AA00242@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #68 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 9 Dec 86 03:02:42 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #68 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 68 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V7 #66 Re: Other Asteroid uses Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth Need Subsrciption Info mailer changes at S-1 Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes) Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cra ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 86 11:26:27 pst From: Scott Holladay To: Space@s1-b.arpa Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at RELAY.CS.NET In-Reply-To: Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #66 Return-Receipt-To: Scott Holladay Concerning the "inflation" of an asteroid: Has anyone worked out how long it would take to melt even a small (perhaps 1 km diameter) nickel-iron asteroid? Remember that the efficiency of radiation as a heat transfer mechanism increases as the fourth power of the temperature! Getting the temperature up from 1400 K to 1500 K (or whatever it takes to melt nickel-iron) might take far more effort than the first 1400 degrees... Then, of course, there is the heat of fusion--another big energy sink. I guess we're talking about really BIG mirrors! I have to agree with the suggestion that local inhomogeneities in even a molten asteroid would lead to unpredictable behavior during explosive "inflation" The constituents of even a very uniform asteroid will not be distributed evenly, and zones of weakness could easily form during heating. The comment about "shattering" of fluids by sudden stresses is also well-taken--remember the ball of "Silly Putty" (an extremely viscous silicone-based liquid) that you shattered with a hammer in days gone by? A nuclear explosion is a far sight more sudden than any hammer blow. No, it's better to do the inflation very slowly indeed, to allow "healing" of cracks to occur. If gas leakage after cooling of the bubble were found to be a problem, it would be easy to spray a coating of foam plastic (NOT urea-formaldehyde, please :-)) on the inside to seal it. What about spinning up the asteroid before beginning to heat it? The inflation could be handled by pumping a gas (water or ammonia would do nicely for this) down a refractory borehole casing from one of the poles of the spinning body into its center. The nicest thing to have would be a huge bag of some high-temperature material that would contain the gas completely: losses of gas might be excessive otherwise. The rotation of the asteroid would accomplish two things: it could be heated evenly by a single mirror, and centripetal acceleration combined with self-gravitation would tend to deform the originally irregular body to a flattened ellipsoid, which would be easier to work with later on. Scott Holladay Bitnet SCOTT@UTORPHYS Geophysics Laboratory University of Toronto ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 86 00:24:18 GMT From: cartan!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <2111@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP> jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) writes: >It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual >radiation. Where did you get this amazing notion? If you have some secret design which no one else knows about, perhaps you can share it with us? -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 86 00:44:22 GMT From: cartan!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa To: space@s1-b.arpa In article <361@unc.unc.UUCP> symon@unc.UUCP (James Symon) writes: >>Graceful - perhaps, lethal - probably. Unfortunately gravity isn't the >>problem here - momentum is. You would still have the same momentum >>under low-g conditions - and would break your legs, crush your spine and >>generally make a mess of the landscape in precisely the same manner as if >>you had tried such a stunt in high-g. > > I think actually you would feel the same acceleration (deceleration) >on landing that you felt in the "person launcher." The problem is that if you decelerate over a shorter distance than the distance in which you accelerated, you will feel a correspondingly greater force. Landing on your feet allows a deceleration distance of only about .5 meter. The greatest distance which a human can fall and land comfortably on his feet is about 2 meters. The kinetic energy that he must absorb is equal to 20 m^2/s^2 times his mass. If this is done in a deceleration interval of .5 m, he must apply a force of 40 m/s^2 times his mass, plus the force to counteract gravity during the landing. So it seems that the maximum landing acceleration is about 5 g. This gives a maximum rate of travel of about 7 m/s, or 15 mph. Not too bad at all, even if you include a safety margin. -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Dec 86 23:42:18 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth To: Space@angband.s1.gov From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A Andrews) >Reflected sunlight is not useful as a weapon. Gosh, then--my solar cigarette lighter must not work, nor the large solar array in California. I know all about the solar array in California, having helped design it. Neither it nor your lighter would make a useful weapon. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 86 00:28:04 GMT From: ritcv!cci632!walden!jjg@ROCHESTER.ARPA (John Grana) Subject: Need Subsrciption Info Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov ! ! ! H e l p ! ! ! In the past, I have noticed references to a magazine named AW&ST. I believe this stands for Aviation Weekly and Space Technologies (???). Anyways, if any kind soul could e-mail me information on how to get a subscription to AW&ST I would be in their debt! I plan on giving this as a Christmas present to a friend. thanks much ..!seismo!rochester!cci632!walden!jjg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 86 14:50:01 PST From: John Bruner To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: mailer changes at S-1 The name of the host formerly known as S1-B.ARPA has changed to ANGBAND.S1.GOV. This change has been accompanied by a new mailer which uses the resolver instead of a static host table. I have been trying to minimize the problems caused by this changeover, but some have slipped past me. I apologize for the inconvenience that this may cause to some SPACE digest readers. John Bruner (S-1 Project, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) MILNET: jdb@mordor.s1.gov (415) 422-0758 UUCP: ...!ucbvax!decwrl!mordor!jdb ...!seismo!mordor!jdb ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 86 23:00:03 GMT From: hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com (Bruce T. Lowerre) Subject: Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <163@fortune.UUCP>, lowry@fortune.UUCP (John Lowry) writes: > > What if the blank destined not to become the mirror (aka, the tool) > were much larger than the mirror blank, and the grinding process > never resulted in an ovehang? Seems to me that the tool might become > channeled, but the mirror would end up being flat. If the large tool is on the bottom and is ground evenly, then the tool will become concave and the mirror will become convex. Large telescope mirrors (like the Hale mirror) were ground with the mirror on the bottom and using a smaller diameter tool on top. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 86 23:06:28 GMT From: hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com (Bruce T. Lowerre) Subject: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <871@ukecc.UUCP>, vnend@ukecc.UUCP (D. W. James) writes: > > Would the lenses on a large refracting space telescope need to > be made of glass (or any other solid for that matter)? In zero G the > surface tension of a clear liquid could be used to pull it into a lens > shape. And if surface tension wouldn't be enough, how about just enclosing > a clear liquid in a thin plastic membrane of known optical properties? > Care would have to be taken against vibration, but then, that is esential > for any space telescope. And this avoids some of the problems with engineering > large solid lenses in space. > > Just a wild idea... How about a gas? It would have refractive properties in a vacuum. I suspect the problem would be with the corrector element (for chromatic aberration) which has at least one side which is concave. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 86 22:51:07 GMT From: hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com (Bruce T. Lowerre) Subject: Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <17284@mordor.ARPA>, jtk@mordor.ARPA (Jordan Kare) writes: > In article <467@inuxm.UUCP> arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) writes: > >> > >> From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty) > >> Reflected sunlight is not useful as a weapon. > >> ...Keith > > > >Gosh, then--my solar cigarette lighter must not work, nor the large solar > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >array in California. > > > >--arlan > > I suppose a cigarette lighter COULD be considered a lethal weapon :-( > > (Not to belabor the point, but cigarette lighters and solar power > arrays have short focal lengths ("fast" optics with low f/no.s), while > it is hard to imagine a useful weapon that has a range not much > longer than its own dimensions... at least, not one much more useful > than a club or a sword.) Reaching back into my vague memory, I remember reading about a light weapon which was first used in Biblical times! I believe I read this in "Sky and Telescope" many years ago. The reference was to a "burning glass" that was used to ignite invading ships in a harbor. Someone proved that such a weapon was feasible and demonstrated it. He rounded up several hundred volunteers and gave each a large mirror. On his signal, everyone focused the reflected sunlight of each mirror on a small boat. Within a few seconds, the boat caught fire. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 86 19:09:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov /* Written 7:24 pm Dec 4, 1986 by vnend@ukecc.UUCP in uiucdcsp:sci.space */ > Would the lenses on a large refracting space telescope need to >be made of glass (or any other solid for that matter)? In zero G the >surface tension of a clear liquid could be used to pull it into a lens >shape. [...] > > Just a wild idea... I don't want to pop your bubble (teh-heh-heh) but liquids like to boil away in the absense of atmosphere. Said atmosphere would undoubtedly wiggle your soap film (or whatever) all out of alignment as the air (or whatever) moves around due to thermal effects. > >-- >**************************************************************************** >Later y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the Mother of Adventure. >**UUCP:cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!vnend; CSNET:vnend@ecc.engr.uky.csnet** >**************************************************************************** /* End of text from uiucdcsp:sci.space */ -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp VAXing Poetic At Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 86 19:00:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cra Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov /* Written 8:21 am Dec 5, 1986 by symon@unc.UUCP in uiucdcsp:sci.space */ >> Robert Elton Maas writes: >> > Just an idea: climb a staircase to closer to the center of revolution >> > to decrease G force, then take flight. Or step onto elecronic >> > person-launcher which tosses you into the air towards center of rev. >> > At landing end, no problem since gravity is assisting you and at 1/3 G >> > the landing should be graceful enough. Rebuttal/discussion anyone? >> >> Graceful - perhaps, lethal - probably. Unfortunately gravity >> isn't the problem here - momentum is. You would still have the same momentum >> under low-g conditions - and would break your legs, crush your spine and >> generally make a mess of the landscape in precicesly the same manner as if >> you had tried such a stunt in high-g. Now wait a minute! Momentum is mass * (velocity^2). If your velocity doesn't get as high under low-G as it would under high-G, then your momentum wouldn't be as great. This applies to VERTICAL momentum & velocity. Momentum does not depend directly on gravity, but gravity does affect HORIZONTAL velocity because the lift needed to counter gravity is directly proportional to forward velocity. This means that the total momentum would be lower in a low-G area than a high-G area. > > > I think actually you would feel the same acceleration (deceleration) >on landing that you felt in the "person launcher". [...] That would only apply under frictionless conditions -- this is definitely not frictionless. You're confusing ideal, frictionless, text-book problems with the "real" world. > > Jim Symon >UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon >symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA /* End of text from uiucdcsp:sci.space */ -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp VAXing Poetic At Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #68 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02116; Wed, 10 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST id AA02116; Wed, 10 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST Date: Wed, 10 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612101102.AA02116@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #69 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 69 Today's Topics: Re: Other Asteroid uses (upset) space news from Oct 20 AW&ST Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cra Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Dec 86 23:28:26 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!ewiles@seismo.css.gov (Edwin Wiles) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses (upset) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In art. <2111@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP> jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) writes: >In article <207@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: >...edited... > >> Being basically paranoid about nuclear weapons (Ye' can't tell me it ain't!) >> And somewhat dubious of being able to calculate the precise yield needed >> to expand the asteroid into a balloon shape, without blowing it open: > >... extremely clever suggesstion re: glass blowing art as applied to >blowing bubbles out of asteroids...omitted > >> As a bonus, you don't have to put it through decontamination before you >> can inhabit it! :-) > >It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual >radiation. I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word >NUCLEAR. > >Biophysicists have had to re-name their most recent diagnostic tool >from Nuclear Magnetic Resonnance Imaging to Magnetic Resonnance... >(which makes less sense - the resonance is nuclear in origin) since >the media was freaking on the use of NUCLEAR. A particularly ignorant >reaction, since the effect is not radioactive in any way at all - not even >a little. Your flashlight is more radioactive. >-- >These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. >John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma Advanced Systems Group, San Diego >...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp Mr. Pantone, I have nothing against the word nuclear. I even still call NMR, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. I saw the 'freak out' you mentioned and felt the same way you appear to feel about it. I also thank you for the kind word about my suggested technique. However, You seem to imply that since I feel paranoid about nuclear WEAPONS, that I'm also paranoid about anything nuclear. This is NOT TRUE! Since the implication was made publicly, I ask you to publicly retract it. I also ask that you be a bit more circumspect in what you assume about another person, of whom you have no knowledge other than a single posting. Signed, Edwin Wiles Net Express, Inc. 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 Vienna, VA 22180 ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 86 02:37:24 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Oct 20 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov NASA is looking into using a split-S maneuver to get the Shuttle back to the KSC runway in the event of a multi-engine-failure abort. Keeping the orbiter close enough to the launch site to make this feasible would mean a steeper trajectory, costing maybe 5000 lbs of payload. NASA is talking privately to various Shuttle ex-customers bumped from the new Shuttle manifest, in an attempt to head off lawsuits over launch-delay costs. The launch-services agreements provide for immediate refunds of payments for launch services after cancellation, but NASA is balking at the idea of refunds for services already performed or for hardware already bought that cannot now be used. NASA is behind its summer schedule for Shuttle recovery. Badly. Virtually none of the things that were supposed to happen by Oct 1st did. They may be done by the end of October. Transpace is considering legal action against NASA over NASA's decision to terminate commercial-Delta negotiations with Transpace. NASA now says that McDonnell-Douglas, which makes Delta, is the only group that NASA has any reason to talk to. Transpace may still get involved, as McD-D's agent. They are angry at NASA's abrupt turnabout, after months of assuring Transpace that everything was fine. Congressional committee approves the latest version of the Space Station work reshuffle. Rep. Nelson slams NASA for proceeding with international negotiations on station operations while having no clear plan for said operations. Goddard starts procurement of an Explorer Platform satellite bus designed for in-space exchange of payloads by Shuttle visits. The original plan was that Solar Max was to become this bus after retrieval late this decade, but the 51L aftermath delayed that retrieval drastically. Some glossy pictures of Mir, exterior shots in orbit and some pre-launch interior photos. Soviets say typical Mir crew size will be 5-6. Atlantis rolled out to pad 39B on Oct 9th, for a variety of tests. No other rollouts are planned until flights resume. China launches and recovers a small photographic Earth-resources satellite. Astronauts slam NASA for not getting its act in gear on Shuttle recovery. Early-1988 launch date said unrealistic unless NASA makes changes to get things moving. There is also concern about the planned post-recovery flight rates, which they think too high for the fleet and too high for the current training and simulation resources. Report on crew-escape options has gone to Truly for review. Astronauts feel that the better escape systems cannot be ready for flight resumption, and there may have to be an interim system. The program is maintaining a 1000-lb reserve for escape systems. The long-term option most favored is an extraction system that would get about six crew out of the top of the orbiter, all roughly simultaneously to avoid queueing up in a crisis. Simple roof bailout hatches and parachutes might be a workable interim method. Astronauts claim that the number of things they would like to see fixed before first flight far outstrips available time and funding between now and Feb 1988. They say NASA needs to look hard at what it is trying to accomplish, and revise the schedule accordingly. SRB redesign is well underway, but astronauts are disappointed with general program recovery. After the Apollo fire in 1967, the command module was significantly redesigned and flown in 18 months. Unnamed astronaut: "Management has either got to cut back what they want to do before restarting flights, or get a 'tiger team' approach to pick up on momentum. We are going on nine months now [since 51L] and have some things being fixed, but a lot more things are still just being studied or talked about." NRC oversight panel endorses NASA's general approach to SRB fixes, but urges more testing and development of alternatives in case the selected design doesn't pan out. They say horizontal testing looks okay, given a new test stand that can reproduce dynamic loads properly. NASA names astronaut Frederick D. Gregory, a USAF colonel, to the new position of agency-wide safety boss. Soviet 1988 Mars/Phobos probe to use new modular interplanetary spacecraft, now entering final development. Design features include a liquid-fuel propulsion system adaptable to various missions, a separate terminal- maneuvering system for use after the main propulsion unit is jettisoned, provision for use in landing missions (given suitable legs), and modular design of upper section to allow mission-specific payloads. [Can you say "Mariner Mark 2"? Sure you can. Only the Soviets are *building* it instead of talking about it. -- HS] France will perform medical and industrial experiments during the long- duration flight of a French cosmonaut aboard Mir late in 1988. Final planning approval is imminent. Activities will include an EVA to deploy supports for a satellite-to-satellite-communication antenna, testing of a new solar-array mechanism aimed at the second-generation Spot, an eye/hand coordination experiment aimed at the Hermes spaceplane, and life-science work on adaptation to space. The French flight is expected to last about four weeks, with some possibility of an extension. [Can you say "Space Station"? etc etc as above. -- HS] France prepares to start development work on the Spot 4 and 5 second- generation Earth-resources satellites. Changes will include a new vegetation-humidity band in the high-resolution cameras, a new radiometer for large-scale work, a simpler solar-panel array, and general upgrades and improvements. Improvements to the ground-based systems are also planned. Spots 2 and 3, identical to Spot 1, are scheduled to launch in mid-1987 and mid-1989 resp., with Spot 4 production starting early in 1988 for launch in mid-1992. Approval for Spot 5 would permit it to launch about a year later. Spacehab, Inc. has begun accepting non-binding agreements for middeck locker volume in its Spacehab module, which will function as an annex to the orbiter middeck. Spacehab doesn't yet have a flight slot, but hopes to find enough high-priority experiments to get aboard in 1989. Payments from customers won't start until a launch-services agreement with NASA is signed. Preliminary agreement is expected late this year. Spacehab is close to picking a systems-engineering/integration contractor. Aeritalia is building the primary structure and control systems, using its Spacelab experience. A full-scale Spacehab mockup is now at NASA Ames, for use as a testbed for robotics development. Glavkosmos, the Soviet space-engineering agency, calls on US to end legal restrictions that prevent most Western satellites from using Soviet launches. Continuous customer surveillance of payloads against unauthorized technology transfer is possible, they say, and the lack of commercial infrastructure at Soviet launch sites can be remedied given demand. They are currently aiming their marketing efforts mostly at international organizations like Intelsat and Inmarsat, which they see as easier customers. Optical-fiber communications are beginning to present a serious threat to satellite links for fixed-point operators in populated areas. It is admitted that satellites will always have an edge in remote areas and will dominate long-range mobile communications. Intelsat is building first examples of a new Earth station design, smaller and cheaper than its current standard, to make satellite communications affordable for smaller countries. Letter from the Kettering Group questions the widespread assumption that high Soviet launch rates are due to unreliable satellites that need frequent replacement. Communications monitoring has shown that "retired" satellites can be, and are, reactivated when the need arises. [Editorial of the Week: The slow pace of Shuttle recovery continues to be an outrage. The Apollo fire is a good example of how it should be done. Another comes from the early 1950s: the early development history of the F-100 supersonic fighter. This was the first US supersonic fighter, and events were similar in certain ways to the Shuttle. Tests went pretty well, with the exception of some warnings from the senior test pilot about stability problems. After it was decided not to court-martial him [!] for this, the conclusion was that the problems were off in obscure corners of the flight envelope that had no relevance to normal service use. The F-100 was officially declared operational. There were a few ominous signs, notably some unexplained crashes, but things mostly seemed okay. Then a fairly routine high-speed- pullout test ended abruptly when the aircraft disintegrated, killing the pilot. Unlike the Shuttle, this was not the result of a relatively minor design flaw: the problem was a fundamental rule of aircraft dynamics that was not understood until this crash was investigated. That is, the problem was deeper and scarier. Determining the cause of the crash took about three months, roughly the same time it took the Rogers Commission to do the same thing. So far so good. The F-100s then *RESUMED FLYING* immediately, with restrictions on missions and maneuvers to avoid trouble. The final fixes to eliminate the problem took a while longer, since of course they required a deeper understanding, plus considerable design and development effort, plus the retrofitting of all existing F-100s. Elapsed time from crash to completion of retrofit program: nine whole months. -- HS] -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 86 09:20:52 GMT From: jade!tart11!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Adam J. Richter) Subject: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cra Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <74700005@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: [Re: low gravity person-launcer in an O'Niell colony.] >Now wait a minute! Momentum is mass * (velocity^2). If your velocity >doesn't get as high under low-G as it would under high-G, then your >momentum wouldn't be as great. This applies to VERTICAL momentum & >velocity. Momentum does not depend directly on gravity, but gravity >does affect HORIZONTAL velocity because the lift needed to counter >gravity is directly proportional to forward velocity. This means that >the total momentum would be lower in a low-G area than a high-G area. Bullshit! LEARN FRESHMAN PHYSICS. What on Earth do you mean by "horizontal" and "vertical" in regard to someone flying through the middle of an O'Niell colony? >> I think actually you would feel the same acceleration (deceleration) >>on landing that you felt in the "person launcher". >[...] >That would only apply under frictionless conditions -- this is >definitely not frictionless. You're confusing ideal, frictionless, >text-book problems with the "real" world. Actually, air resistance is pretty minimal. E.g., if I throw a tennis ball up in the air, it will come down fairly hard. When you move at slower speeds, air friction becomes even less noticible. Adam J. Richter adamj@lime.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 86 09:26:30 GMT From: jade!tart11!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Adam J. Richter) Subject: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov 1. To the best of my knowledge, there is no liquid that exists in a vacuum (they all boil at there "critical pressure" regardless of temperature). 2. A gas would dispurse. Indeed, space is just a *very* thin gas cloud. For example, there is no "surface" of a planetary atmosphere; it just gets thinner and thinner. -- Adam Adam J. Richter adamj@lime.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #69 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05576; Thu, 11 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST id AA05576; Thu, 11 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST Date: Thu, 11 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612111102.AA05576@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #70 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 11 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #70 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 70 Today's Topics: Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story Ancient use of mirrors as weapons Announcement of Opportunity (NASA Jargon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Dec 86 23:22:28 GMT From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Clayton Cramer) Subject: Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > From: jtk@s1-c.arpa (Jordan Kare) > > ... In reality, it is at least as hard to make a flat as to make > a spherical mirror -- harder, in that there isn't a convenient > focal point for doing optical tests. > > Are you sure of that? Seems to me one could make a a flat mirror by > grinding it against a flat surface. In any case, they were competing > against parabolic mirror sections, not spherical mirror sections. Optical flats can be validated by use of Newton's Rings, an interference fringe phenomenon that involves putting the optical flat into a shallow bath of water, with the surface of the water being presumed to be flat because of gravity squeezing everything to level. (Clearly there are some problems using Newton's Rings to determine the flatness of objects a few miles across because the surface of the water becomes non-flat.) Clayton E. Cramer ------------------------------ Date: Tue 9 Dec 86 18:40:04-CST From: Larry Van Sickle Subject: Ancient use of mirrors as weapons To: space@angband.s1.gov bl@hplabs.hp.com (Bruce T. Lowerre) writes: > Reaching back into my vague memory, I remember reading about a > light weapon which was first used in Biblical times! The > reference was to a "burning glass" that was used to ignite > invading ships in a harbor. Someone proved that such a weapon > was feasible and demonstrated it. He rounded up several hundred > volunteers and gave each a large mirror. On his signal, everyone > focused the reflected sunlight of each mirror on a small boat. > Within a few seconds, the boat caught fire. Bruce is quite right. The reference is to Archimedes and an incident which was reported to have occurred during the siege of Syracuse by the Roman consul Marcellus during the Second Punic War in 212 B.C. From the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, Volume I, London, 1844, page 270: [Archimedes] constructed for Hiero various engines of war . . . Tzetzes (about 1150) gives an account of the principal investigations of Archimedes, and amongst them of this burning machine, which, he says, set the Roman ships on fire when they came within a bow-shot of the walls . . . The subject has been a good deal discussed in modern times, particularly by . . . Buffon, who . . . actually succeeded in igniting wood at a distance of 150 feet, by means of a combination of 148 plane mirrors. . . . The most probable conclusion seems to be, that Archimedes had on some occasion set fire to a ship or ships by means of a burning mirror, and later writers falsely connected the circumstances with the siege of Syracuse. This does not contradict the points made by others that such a weapon would work only for very short focal lengths. However, I would commend Dennis O'Connor for bringing this subject up - ideas for any such structures should be examined for their potential as weapons. The idea that mankind is going to leave weapons behind when it moves into space is wishful thinking. Larry Van Sickle cs.vansickle@r20.utexas.edu.#Internet Computer Sciences Department U of Texas at Austin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 86 19:41:12 pst From: Eugene Miya N. To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Announcement of Opportunity (NASA Jargon) [leq: in a nearby by galaxy, close, closer, closest.....] It's time for university students to realize they MUST start preparing resumes if they want the best summer opportunities: outside of NASA as well as inside. --eugene If you are a student looking for employment next summer, now is the time to prepare a resume and fill out the application form for NASA summer employment. This message is being posted for those with dreams from youth. This is your chance. Do not delay. This is a crude posting, but time is running out. Unfortunately, each of the NASA Centers is recruiting summer students using different policies from the past due to budgetary contraints. NASA Ames and Lewis are using local Universities to hire summer students, other Centers are doing other things. The window for submitting SF 171s is January 1 to February 1. If you are interested, you should have your resume and forms filled out before January 1. Also, for mailing to other NASA centers: YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES to apply. We have received several resumes from non-US citizen, sorry, we cannot take you. Do not forget to state that you are seeking summer positions! Foreign nationals with a green card are okay for JPL. NASA and its contractors are equal opportunity employers. (usually) NASA is the US civilian space agency [we are not part of the DOD]. If you have ethical qualms about working for the DOD, but want to work in high tech, consider NASA. Technically for instance, all of Ames funding is from the civilian pot. Approximately 10% of our programs have some interest to the military and are reimbersed by them. This Center does NO SDI work. I learned this information for Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility [CPSR]. Note that several Centers (Ames, Johnson, Kennedy, Langley) share land with military bases. (Other Centers do not: Goddard with USDA, Lewis with Cleveland Airport, etc.) JPL is a contracted lab to Caltech. They have choosen limited military contracts, but in all cases, it is possible to positions away from joint or direct military work if you choose. As a reminder, we have projects which deal with manned and unmanned space, near Earth orbit as well as deep space, aeronautics, and many aspects of air research. NASA is in desparate need of young computer types [You're our only hope...]. The resources within NASA vary from supercomputers such as Crays to PCs. The problems and people are interesting; I have worked with varying problems: from Voyager (computer graphics and image processing with Carl Sagan) to most recently, nuclear winter with Tom Ackerman. What we are looking for: [not specific titles] > exposure to numerical methods > General operating systems background > Parallel processing > Computer graphics > Simulation > Expert systems and other forms of AI. > Computer aided design > General software engineering Additionally, there are non-computer openings, but I am unable to provide any special help, so you have to take pot luck. Standard Form 171. To apply (with the exception of JPL), please fill out a standard Form 171. This is the form used for all employment within the Federal Government. If you are uncertain about anything regarding summer hiring, you can mail me (preferred) or phone me before the end of December at (415)-694-6453. [Better to send me net mail as I need to take some vacation.] Problems working with NASA. Let's be truthful. Salary can be a problem, so if you would prefer working for a contractor, state that on your cover letter. We will try to forward resumes if possible. Another problem is locale. Sorry, we bought land where it was cheap (at the time). Some positions sound like they use obsolete equipment (in some cases this is true, but we recognize the problem and are buying state-of-the-art equipment, manpower is our biggest problem). The following descriptions are obviously biased to the Centers I have worked at and toward contacts I have. If you are not interested in a computing position, either the contact or myself should try to help you. [If you are mailing to specific people, mail ASAP, don't wait for Jan. 1.] E. N. Miya MS 233-14 NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035 Including the Dryden Flight Research Facility (Ames/Dryden) located at Edwards AFB where the Space Shuttle lands. We also have numerous contractors including the Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science. We can forward a resume if so indicated (171 for RIACS is not necessary). Ames has a Cyber 205, Cray XMP and a Cray 2, and numerous other machines. Located in the heart of Santa Clara Valley. Aerodynamics, chemistry, life sciences, SETI, space station work (AI). Our summer hires will become employees of San Jose State University. A SF 171 is unnecessary for applying to Ames, send a resume and we will mail you an additional application packet. Barry Cooper MS 125-123 Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology 4800 Oak Grove Dr. Pasadena, CA 91109 Work at JPL includes VLSI CAD, image processing, general purpose computing on IBMs, Univacs, and the normal complement of VAXen and PDPs. JPL is involved in deep space missions and communications. A form 171 is not necessary. Barry no longer has a net address. NASA's Deep space center, the DSN (Deep Space Network), the Mission Control and Computing Center (MC^3), various planetary and imageing facilities, robotics and other AI. {Note Barry is currently on vacation but will be back in January.} E. Flynn NASA Headquarters Washington DC 20546 Dr. Flinn is with the Office of Space Sciences. There is limited use of computers at NASA HQ, but I do know people who have summer jobbed in WDC. Dr. Flynn no longer has a net address. Joe Bredekamp Code 630.1 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD 20771 GSFC has a Cyber 205, Amdahls soon to be running UTS, and performs work on unmanned near Earth space missions. They are located just outside Washington DC. Landsat, massively parallel processor, and other sats. Joe has a BITNET address k3jhb%scfvm.bitnet@wiscvm.edu. Bob Steinberg NASA Lewis Research Center 21000 Brookpark Rd. Cleveland, OH 44135 LeRC does work on aerodynamics. They have a Cray-X-MP. Bob can be reached via our internal UUCP net. NASA Johnson Manned Space Center Houston, TX 77058 The heart of all manned space operations. One of the largest NASA centers. They run on IBMs and Univacs on the large-end to HP 9000s on the small end. Gearing up for the space station. They are reachable thru rice.edu. NASA Kennedy Space Flight Center Titusville, FL 32899 The Eastern launch complex for major flights. Many small minis and other computers such as IBMs. Gearing up for the space station. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL35812 The largest NASA Center. It does work on manned and unmanned space. They have a separate facility known as the McCloud Computer Center which houses large IBMs. Gearing up for the space station. Sue Voigt NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23665 LaRC has a Cyber 205 and VAXen. Those interested in numerical analysis should know that ICASE (Inst. for Comp. Appl. in Sci. and Eng.) is located at Langley. Send your resumes (if interested in ICASE) to Bob Voigt. They are doing lots of aerodynamics and space work. Gearing up for the space station. (suev%icase.csnet) If I did not indicate a point of contact, mail me your resume and a copy to the Office of Personnel at that site. I will try to help you out as best as possible. There are also several other NASA sites under the control of the above Centers. For instance: at the Ames Research Center, we have the Dryden Flight Research Facility 100 miles N of Los Angeles at Edwards AFB. If you are not interested in the above, perhaps there are other NASA offices nearer than you think. Ask me using the net. Some sites I can think about are near VAFB, White Sands, NM, the McCloud facility in LA, the Wallops Island facility, and the Goddard Space Institute near NY (uncertain about their summer policies). COOPerative work with a university or college is possible. If you have an interest in this, make this clear in your cover letter and check with your local work-study office. You must be a college student [I checked for a high school student earlier: no go.] --eugene miya NASA Ames Res. Ctr. {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,menlo70,icase}!ames!aurora!eugene eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA (note we are moving some machines and net may go down for a while) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #70 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01296; Fri, 12 Dec 86 03:02:21 PST id AA01296; Fri, 12 Dec 86 03:02:21 PST Date: Fri, 12 Dec 86 03:02:21 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612121102.AA01296@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #71 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 12 Dec 86 03:02:21 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #71 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 71 Today's Topics: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes) Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes) Re: Large Telescope ideas Mercurial Mirrors Re: Intense Sunlight from Space re: Dale and historic trivia Re: Flat mirrors ... Re: Sunlight as a weapon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Dec 86 04:03:00 GMT From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) Subject: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I seem to recall that what is responsible for both reflection and refraction is the interaction of light with electrons in the material in question. Perhaps anyone thinking about *large* space telescopes should consider using electromagnetic means of manipulating a cloud of plasma. No, I haven't any idea how, just thinking aloud. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 86 14:23:36 GMT From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (James Symon) Subject: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > How about a gas? It would have refractive properties in a vacuum. I > suspect the problem would be with the corrector element (for chromatic > aberration) which has at least one side which is concave. See articles 197 and 212 in sci.space newsgroup (are we all reading and writing in the same newsgroup, and are the numbers of the articles that I see the same numbers that everyone else sees?) For different shapes how about pushing one filled balloon (stretched over a ring) up against another with a different internal pressure? Put several in a series. Variables include ring size(lens diameter), gas pressure and filtering characteristics, balloon material flexibility, optics, and even some flexibility gradient across the lens, etc. I suppose one might conceive of one or two slight problems to be overcome. Jim Symon UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 86 21:51:01 GMT From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Burch) Subject: Re: Large Telescope ideas Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The current arguments point out why we will not build telescopes larger than about 100 meters along conventional lines. A much better approach is to think about methods of doing very long baseline imaging interferometry. It is possible to convert the optical signal to an modulated eximer laser signal, and transmit it long distances. The signals are recorded, and are processed offline. Another thought is to use a VERY long optical fiber to connect receptors to the recording instrument. True, you need both signal strength and baseline to image planets at a distance, but if you are willing to integrate over very long periods, you can reduce the need for signal strength. -David B. (Ben) Burch Analysts International Corp. Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb) ------------------------------ To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Mercurial Mirrors Date: Wed, 10 Dec 86 16:53:54 -0500 From: Sheri L. Smith The 15 Dec 86 issue of TIME magazine (Science, pg 94) has an interesting article about a prototype mirror made entirely of a puddle of liquid mercury in a shallow frame. The entire device spins slowly (1 revolution/6 seconds) to give the 40 inch diameter mirror the correct concavity. The builder Ermanno Borra, of Quebec's Laval University, emphasizes that he is not the originator of the idea, merely the first to actually make it work. Size is not a problem here, as with greater than 200 inch mirrors: the astrophysicist claims his approach will permit the construction of virtually flawless mirrors at least five times as large as Palomar's. Borra concedes the one insurmountable flaw of a liquid mirror: it can only look straight up. Of course, HUGE mirrors, even looking straight up, will cut a large swath through the night sky. He proposes numbers of such mirrors, set up at different latitudes, to cover the full spectrum of the sky. Certain problems in astrophysics would lend themselves to this sort of an approach. A great advantage of this sort of telescope is its low cost. The prototype 40 inch model cost under $7,500 to build. Borra is the recipient of a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for a 60 inch version now under construction ($22,500). Borra estimates the cost of a liquid mirror telescope as large as 30 meters for $7.5 million. He compares this to the 400 inch, 36 segment mirror for the Keck Telescope to be erected in Hawaii for some $25 million. Vibration distortion is reduced by a thin layer of oil on the surface, and debris and dust is easily skimmed off. ------- OK, all you dreamers out there! How would you go about building this in space??? ------- LT S. L. Moreau, USN WIS JPMO Washington, DC 20330-6600 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 86 23:40:55 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Intense Sunlight from Space To: OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL ... After the colimating lens, place a disk ... of ... graded-index optical fibers aligned in parrallel. Graded-index fibers cause light entering them from slightly off-axis angles to line up with the axis. This big disk will reduce the divergence of the image to about .0001 radians or so ... Sorry, won't work. What graded index fibers do is keep light from getting too far from the axis of the fiber. They do not really decrease the divergence. Light will leave with at best the same divergence as it entered. This can best be visualized by remembering that optical paths are always reversable. If a fiber could exist which decrease the divergence of light going in one end and coming out the other, then it would increase the divergence of light entering the latter end and exiting the former. But the two ends are equivalent, i.e. it's made of the same stuff whichever way you turn it. So it can't do what you think it does. Similarly, there isn't really such a thing as one way glass. And if decreasing-divergence fibers or one way glass did exist, it would be easy to build a perpetual motion machine (of the second class) using it. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 86 04:16:59 GMT From: k.cs.cmu.edu!jwa@PT.CS.CMU.EDU (James Anderson) Subject: re: Dale and historic trivia Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The person was Archimedes and allegedly he was drawing geometric formulae in the sand when he ignored a roman soldier and was killed, with a SHORT sword, the common roman hand weapon, not a big sword. Additionally the soldier was slain for killing Archimedes since the attacking general had ordered he be taken alive. This story nicely illustrates two points, stupidity is fatal (the soldier), and genius without common sense can be just as deadly. Jim ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 86 11:35:46 PST (Thursday) From: Lynn.ES@xerox.com Subject: Re: Flat mirrors ... In-Reply-To: Cramer's message of 8 Dec 86 23:22:28 GMT To: Space@angband.s1.gov Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.com, voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cramer> Clearly there are some problems using Newton's Rings to Cramer> determine the flatness of objects a few miles across because Cramer> the surface of the water becomes non-flat. It's a lot worse than you thought. The water against which you wish to check flatness has already dropped (because of earth's curvature) an eighth of a wavelength in three feet. You can still use interference patterns on mirrors larger than this if you work the mirror until the rings are the right place for the earth's curvature, a more difficult problem than making the rings go away to indicate flat. Also, getting the water sufficiently isolated from vibration may not be trivial. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 86 16:43:26 GMT From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Subject: Re: Sunlight as a weapon Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <961516.861211.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU> KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: > > From: hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com (Bruce T. Lowerre) > > Reaching back into my vague memory, I remember reading about a light > weapon which was first used in Biblical times! ... The reference was > to a "burning glass" that was used to ignite invading ships in a harbor. > > Yes, it was Archimedes who is credited with having 160 men reflect >sunlight from their flat shields to set fire to an invading fleet. >A sort of a 3rd century BC SDI system. > In principle, it is possible. Not that I see how they could have >aimed them. > ...Keith This was during the seige of Syracuse by the Romans under Marcellus. There are many ways of aiming a heliograph mirror (which is an equivalent problem), using simple plane geometry. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #71 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03012; Sat, 13 Dec 86 03:01:59 PST id AA03012; Sat, 13 Dec 86 03:01:59 PST Date: Sat, 13 Dec 86 03:01:59 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612131101.AA03012@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #72 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 72 Today's Topics: Imaging Extrasolar Planets Re: Mercurial Mirrors Re: Mercurial Mirrors Re: Sunlight as a weapon More on Archimedes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 86 18:00 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net Subject: Imaging Extrasolar Planets After sending the comment about scopes vs. fly-by probes for extrasolar planetary imaging, I went on vacation for a while, so I was unable to contribute to the ensuing discussion. Some comments... As was pointed out, a reflector telescope may not be the best design. In space refractors can be made *very* long, which makes the lenses thin. A comment was also made about the HST being good for UV. If imaging in the UV is crucial then use diamond lenses, or gas bags filled with helium. Also, remember that conventional telescopes use large aperatures to increase the number of photons collected, not just increase the resolution. For imaging planets around nearby stars a ten kilometer scope is overkill (from the photon statistics point of view). Decoupling photon collection efficiency from diffraction limits can lead to novel designs. Two examples: (1) A diffraction telescope. The idea is to use a fresnel zone plate to focus light in a very narrow wavelength range. The plate is generated in real-time by directing two laser wavefronts (one spherical, the other nearly planar) on a sheet of optically nonlinear material. The plate will have severe chromatic abberation, but we can filter out all photons except those in a narrow frequency band (different from that of the laser beams). (2) A tomographic occultation telescope. Set up a large opaque screen. Place the screen between a smaller scope and the planet. Now maneuver the scope so that the edge of the screen occults the planet. By putting the scope sufficiently far from the screen diffraction around the edge can be reduced (but the screen must then be larger to still cover the planet). Scan the scope through the penumbra to get a one-dimensional brightness curve. Rotate the screen (or, use a circular screen and multiple small scopes) and repeat. Techniques like those used in CAT scanners can reconstruct an intensity map of the planet from the brightness curves. I imagine the screen will be several kilometers across and the smaller scopes will be stationed several billion kilometers behind it. Finally, my criticism only applied to planetary imaging by fly-by probes. Clearly, detailed study of a planet requires close contact, which means manned colonization missions. Fly-by probes could at least serve as test-beds for technology to be used in these later flights. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 86 23:28:08 GMT From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov <*munch*> One might use the liquid-mirror principle for a space telescope simply by accelerating the container holding the liquid. There's probably no need to have a mirror that remains liquid while it is being used. But imagine a very nearly paraboloidal "bowl" that is spun s-l-o-w-l-y about its axis while being accelerated s-l-o-w-l-y along its axis. A thin layer of liquid in the bowl would create a much better paraboloid than the bowl itself. One could let the liquid harden and pop it out, or let it harden and use it in the bowl, or let it harden, use it in the space environment and then "refigure" it by remelting when micrometeoroids and so on had caused the optical surface to degrade. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 86 22:10:58 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > The 15 Dec 86 issue of TIME magazine (Science, pg 94) has an interesting > article about a prototype mirror made entirely of a puddle of liquid mercury > in a shallow frame. The entire device spins slowly (1 revolution/6 seconds) > to give the 40 inch diameter mirror the correct concavity. The builder > Ermanno Borra... > ...claims his approach will permit the construction of virtually flawless > mirrors at least five times as large as Palomar's. > > Borra concedes the one insurmountable flaw of a liquid mirror: it can only > look straight up... > > A great advantage of this sort of telescope is its low cost. > > Vibration distortion is reduced by a thin layer of oil on the surface, and > debris and dust is easily skimmed off. > > OK, all you dreamers out there! How would you go about building this in > space??? > > LT S. L. Moreau, USN > WIS JPMO > Washington, DC 20330-6600 It should be easier to build in space than on the ground. I read that TIME article too, and it seems that one of the biggest problems with building one of them previously has been vibration from the bearings and speed variations from the motors. Neither of these problems need be confronted in space. You simply spin the whole assembly; bearings and motors are not required. Once spun up to speed with small rockets, inertia keeps it steady. What is required is a substitute for gravity. An ion propulsion system, powered by an electrical source with no moving parts, would fill in nicely. You don't need a full g (or anything close to it), and could spin the telescope more slowly than you would on the surface of the earth. Since the use of acceleration would have an effect on the telescope's orbit, I'd expect this thing to be placed in a rather high orbit where the velocity changes incurred during observations could be "undone" before they put it on an undesirable course. Note that in space you don't have the aiming problem you have on earth, as you can simply point, fire the engines, wait for the mirror to stabilize, and observe. Since the liquid mercury would tend to slosh around a lot during pointing maneuvers, you might want to imbed heating and cooling coils in it so that you could freeze the stuff (in its parabolic shape), re-point the telescope, and then thaw it back out again for the observation (I am assuming that thermal stresses induced when the mirror is frozen would render it useless for observation until re-melted and stabilized). One more thing--you would definitely want this telescope to be unmanned, as vibrations induced by people moving around would render it useless. You would probably want no moving parts anywhere on it during observations (this includes tape recording equipment, heating/cooling, etc.); the lack of moving parts is what makes ion propulsion so attractive. Dan Starr AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville IL ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 86 00:20:19 GMT From: tektronix!tekgen!tekigm!tekigm2!timothym@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Timothy D Margeson) Subject: Re: Sunlight as a weapon Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <961516.861211.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU> KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: > Yes, it was Archimedes who is credited with having 160 men reflect >sunlight from their flat shields to set fire to an invading fleet. >A sort of a 3rd century BC SDI system. > In principle, it is possible. Not that I see how they could have >aimed them. > ...Keith Have you ever played with a flat mirror in broad daylight? Aim is simply a matter of looking at where that REAL bright spot is, and moving the mirror with the correct hand-eye coordination. Hence, with 160 men - and their 3 to 4 square foot shields - you have a solar furnace equal to 600 square feet focused down to 4 square feet. Not as great as say a 4 inch magnifying glass on an ant, but a reasonable facimily. It is an interesting concept to try focusing said 4 inch (12.6 sq. in.) glass down to a spot 0.164 inches in diameter (0.085 sq. in.), and measure the mean rise in temperature on a small piece of wood (this would effectively equate by the same ratio of the shields). As I recall, a 4 inch glass making a .2 inch spot on my hand was at best more than comfortable :-) ! -- Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 PO Box 3500 d/s C1-937 @@ 'Who said that?' Vancouver, WA. 98668 {amd..hplabs}cae780!tektronix!tekigm2!timothym (this changes daily) ------------------------------ Date: Fri 12 Dec 86 10:35:58-PST From: John Sotos Subject: More on Archimedes To: space@angband.s1.gov I seem to recall that some Greek scientist in the late 1970s tried to replicate the Archimedes scheme by constructing mirrors from materials he thought Archimedes had available, then measuring the temperature out in the harbor as a bunch of people (graduate students no doubt) aimed mirrors there. He found that the temperature so generated would indeed have been high enough to start a fire. Sorry for the inability to remember details, but I'm pretty sure it was in the New York Times in the 1975-1979 time frame. John Sotos Stanford University ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #72 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04143; Sun, 14 Dec 86 03:02:05 PST id AA04143; Sun, 14 Dec 86 03:02:05 PST Date: Sun, 14 Dec 86 03:02:05 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612141102.AA04143@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #73 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 73 Today's Topics: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Re: Other Asteroid uses Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Re: Mercurial Mirrors Centrifugal force Centrifugal force Re: Mercurial Mirrors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Dec 86 20:18:38 GMT From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Clayton Cramer) Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > The 15 Dec 86 issue of TIME magazine (Science, pg 94) has an interesting > article about a prototype mirror made entirely of a puddle of liquid mercury > in a shallow frame. The entire device spins slowly (1 revolution/6 seconds) > to give the 40 inch diameter mirror the correct concavity. The builder > Ermanno Borra, of Quebec's Laval University, emphasizes that he is not the > originator of the idea, merely the first to actually make it work. Size is > not a problem here, as with greater than 200 inch mirrors: the astrophysicist > claims his approach will permit the construction of virtually flawless > mirrors at least five times as large as Palomar's. > Sometime during the 1970s Scientific American carried an article about infrared astronomy in which they used a similar approach to produce the rough blank for a plastic mirror. They spun up a huge mass of liquid resin (about 40 inches across) for three days, then slowly added hardeners. (Of course, they still had to figure the mirror by traditional methods and aluminize, but the expensive and laborious task of getting a rough parabola was all taken care of.) > OK, all you dreamers out there! How would you go about building this in > space??? > > LT S. L. Moreau, USN I see some serious problems, because not only do you need the rotation around the axis of imaging to produce the curve, but you also rotation normal to the surface of the mirror to produce gravity to hold the mercury in place...I get dizzy very easily...I think I'll stick to my 8" Newtonian. Clayton E. Cramer ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 86 17:22:51 GMT From: mimsy!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa@seismo.css.gov (Ken Arromdee) Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov >And I wish people would stop thinking up (relatively) absurd uses for nuclear >weapons! And I wish people would stop getting annoyed just because other people propose beating a few swords into plowshares... -- Look before you leap, but he who hesitates is lost. NSA, CIA, NRO, cryptography, terrorist, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 86 00:23:23 GMT From: imagen!atari!dyer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Landon Dyer) Subject: Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I asked an astronomer. He said (amongst other things) that mercury makes a terrible reflector (not so hot at its best, and simply terrible once you get outside its limited range). He mumbled something about temperature control (I didn't understand it) and then mentioned that the focal length would vary a lot. Well, /I'm/ not an astronomer....are these big problems? (He also said the things have been around a "long time," something like 30 years). The shape is great. Maybe you could freeze it and and coat it with something? -- -Landon Dyer, Atari Corp. {sun,lll-lcc,imagen}!atari!dyer /-----------------------------------------------\ | The views represented here do not necessarily | "If Business is War, then | reflect those of Atari Corp., or even my own. | I'm a Prisoner of Business!" \-----------------------------------------------/ ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 86 14:07:44 GMT From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!bds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8612102153.AA15968@mitre.ARPA>, ltsmith@MITRE.ARPA (Sheri L. Smith) writes: > Borra concedes the one insurmountable flaw of a liquid mirror: it can only > look straight up. Of course, HUGE mirrors, even looking straight up, will cut > a large swath through the night sky. I read this story in Science News where it was pointed out that unless the telescope was pointing at the pole star it would not be able to keep a given star in its field of view for long. I'm afraid this technology will not replace current telescopes, but it can still be useful. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Dec 86 02:18:50 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Centrifugal force To: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu ... gravity does affect HORIZONTAL velocity because the lift needed to counter gravity is directly proportional to forward velocity. ... It's not clear whether you are speaking of a planet or an O'Neill colony, but in either case the (fictitious) lift is proportional to the SQUARE of the horizontal velocity. "Centrifugal force" is always M V**2 / R. In an O'Neill colony the "centrifugal force" is downward, and the "lift" comes from horizontal motion in the anti-spin direction. Where VC is the speed at which the ground is turning, and V is your anti- spinward speed relative to the ground, the lift is M (VC-V)**2 / R. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Dec 86 02:40:19 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Centrifugal force To: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov In an O'Neill colony ... the lift is M (VC-V)**2 / R. I meant the WEIGHT is M (VC-V)**2 / R. The LIFT is M (VC**2 - (VC-V)**2) / R or 2 M V VC - V**2 / R. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 86 05:04:48 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <1246@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> The 15 Dec 86 issue of TIME magazine (Science, pg 94) has an interesting >> article about a prototype mirror made entirely of a puddle of liquid mercury >> in a shallow frame. The entire device spins slowly (1 revolution/6 seconds) >> to give the 40 inch diameter mirror the correct concavity. The builder >> Ermanno Borra, of Quebec's Laval University, emphasizes that he is not the >> originator of the idea, merely the first to actually make it work. Size is >> not a problem here, as with greater than 200 inch mirrors: the astrophysicist >> claims his approach will permit the construction of virtually flawless >> mirrors at least five times as large as Palomar's. >> This seems spectacularly unlikely (that would be an 83 foot mirror, remember) but he's certainly welcome to try... Of course, he'll have to compete with arrays of ordinary glass mirrors, which are pretty cheap if they can just lie flat on the ground and not have to adjust for different pointing angles -- and they're certainly no more sensitive to wind or other disturbances! > >Sometime during the 1970s Scientific American carried an article about >infrared astronomy in which they used a similar approach to produce the >rough blank for a plastic mirror. They spun up a huge mass of liquid >resin (about 40 inches across) for three days, then slowly added hardeners. >(Of course, they still had to figure the mirror by traditional methods >and aluminize, but the expensive and laborious task of getting a rough >parabola was all taken care of.) > J.R.P.Angel and others (at the University of Arizona) are currently developing honeycomb mirrors, which are cast around blocks of refractory brick in such a way as to leave thin front and back plates with a connecting hexagonal web, thus drastically lightening the mirrors. In order to allow grinding of the front surface without removing too much of the front plate, the mirrors will be cast in a rotating furnace to provide the rough figure for final polishing. They are currently making 3.5 meter diameter mirrors, and are planning to make 8 meter f/1 mirrors in the next few years -- that's a glass furnace close to 30 feet in diameter, all rotating continuously for the several-week cooling time. Incidentally, some of their preliminary work has been with "assembled" (as opposed to cast) honeycomb mirrors, made of glass plates, which are fused together and "slumped" over a concrete form, at just below melting temperature. Incidental to all this discussion of really LARGE space telescopes is the likelyhood that, for telescopes up to ~100 meters, the surface of the Moon is a much better site than free space. One gets "that solid, secure feeling" that only a planetary surface can provide, and the dust- and trash-clearing effects of a gravitational field, while retaining the freedom from atmosphere and a g-field low enough to allow some very large structures. And your astronomers can walk around without messing up your observation. And you can build on the dark side and have the only site in the entire solar system that never has to look at (or listen to, for all you radio astronomers) the Earth. And there are generous supplies of raw materials just lying around. And other advantages.... Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.UUCP ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #73 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04554; Mon, 15 Dec 86 03:02:44 PST id AA04554; Mon, 15 Dec 86 03:02:44 PST Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 03:02:44 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612151102.AA04554@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #74 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 74 Today's Topics: Re: Refractors vs. reflectors in space Re: Mercurial Mirrors Investment More mirrors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Dec 86 07:55:53 GMT From: genrad!panda!husc6!necntc!encore!linus!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (der Mouse) Subject: Re: Refractors vs. reflectors in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <365@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: > A lens gives an unobscured aperture, which is mandatory for > circumstellar imaging, [and ...] A reflector can also give unobstructed aperture. Make the mirror in the shape of a piece of a parabaloid of revolution, the shape you would normally use; but merely ensure that the axis of the paraboloid (which the point of focus will be on) is far enough off to one side of the mirror that the aperture is unobstructed. Conceptually, take a *really* *big* paraboliod and slice a piece out of one side. Of course the focus of the piece will be identical to that of the whole paraboloid - so put your optics at the focus as usual, but now they don't get in the way of the aperture. Any problems with this other than those of fabrication of such a mirror (as if they weren't enough)? der Mouse USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,utzoo,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse Europe: mcvax!decvax!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse ARPAnet: think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse@harvard.harvard.edu [USA NSA food: terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, CIA, secret, decode] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 86 07:32:15 GMT From: tektronix!reed!nscpdc!djg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Derek J. Godfrey) Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Recent talk of "mercurial"[sic] mirrors in space, have at least given me somthing to smile about - mercury is a solid at such low tempratures. But then I thought so - the reasons for abandoning pure metal mirrors - namely temprature caused figure variation - are not present in the stable cool of space. Therefore the mirror could be made on Earth such that it would have the correct figure at 4K. [P.S another grin "mercurial" means "changeable" and not "made from mercury"] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 02:25:43 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Investment To: REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov, pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!nrh@caip.rutgers.edu From: Robert Elton Maas ... Our nation ... must consider investments which help the human race at large rather than the United States alone. ... Why? ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 02:47:13 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: More mirrors To: hplabs!hp-sdd!rb-dc1!dwren@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov From: hplabs!hp-sdd!rb-dc1!dwren@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Doug Wren) Then presumably you would be willing to stand at the point of intersection of the reflections of the Sun emanating from 1,000 flat mirrors, each one only one square foot in area? It depends on the focal length. If it is more than 2000 feet (i.e. if all the mirrors are at least 2000 feet from me), I would be quite willing. net.readers: Spare me bullshit about the ~32 minute angular diameter of the Sun. It doesn't matter at short ranges, such as the distance between an Earth-orbiting mirror and the surface of the Earth. Wrong. The Sun is about (roughly, now) 1% as wide as it is distant from the Earth; True. a flat mirror (on Earth) therefore illuminates, with the Sun's light, an area about 1% greater in width and 1% greater in height (per distance to target) than the size of the mirror. Wrong. About a sixth of that. You should have compared the Sun's width with the circumference of its "orbit", not with the radius. ...Keith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #74 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06401; Tue, 16 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST id AA06401; Tue, 16 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST Date: Tue, 16 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612161102.AA06401@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #75 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 75 Today's Topics: "Mercurial" defined... Re: Refractors vs. reflectors in space Re: Mercurial Mirrors Re: Mercurial Mirrors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: space@angband.s1.gov Cc: tektronix!reed!nscpdc!djg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: "Mercurial" defined... Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 10:21:02 -0500 From: Sheri L. Smith Gee... in my dictionary it says mercurial 1. pertaining to, containing, or caused by the metal mercury 2. of or pertaining to the god Mercury 3. of or pertaining to the planet Mercury 4. active; lively; sprightly; volatile 5. changeable; fickle; flighty; erratic The play on the varied meanings of the word was deliberate. How about a temperature regulated mercury mirror in orbit around the planet Mercury? If you pointed it at the sun, I daresay your biggest problem would be cooling it. But an interesting (even poetic) way to gain close up information on our nearest star. Now you have me smiling!! Sheri ----- LT S L Moreau, USN WIS JPMO Washington DC 20330-6600 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 86 00:19:04 GMT From: hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com (Bruce T. Lowerre) Subject: Re: Refractors vs. reflectors in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <573@mcgill-vision.UUCP>, mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes: > In article <365@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: > > A lens gives an unobscured aperture, which is mandatory for > > circumstellar imaging, [and ...] > > A reflector can also give unobstructed aperture. Make the mirror in > the shape of a piece of a parabaloid of revolution, the shape you would > normally use; but merely ensure that the axis of the paraboloid (which > the point of focus will be on) is far enough off to one side of the > mirror that the aperture is unobstructed. Conceptually, take a > *really* *big* paraboliod and slice a piece out of one side. Of course > the focus of the piece will be identical to that of the whole > paraboloid - so put your optics at the focus as usual, but now they > don't get in the way of the aperture. > > Any problems with this other than those of fabrication of such a > mirror (as if they weren't enough)? Yes. It's called cometic aberration. The further off center you get with a reflector and the lower the F ration, the greater the distortion. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 86 13:13:09 GMT From: rutgers!clyde!watmath!watnot!ccplumb@spam.ISTC.SRI.COM (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <108@mordor.s1.gov> jtk@mordor.UUCP (Jordan Kare) writes: >>>[...] the astrophysicist claims his approach will permit the >>>construction of virtually flawless mirrors at least five times as >>>large as Palomar's. > This seems spectacularly unlikely (that would be an 83 foot >mirror, remember) but he's certainly welcome to try... Five times larger seems awfully big, any way you look at it, but perhaps what's being talked about here is a mirror with 5 times the *area*. (I.e. 450 in. diameter, or 37.5 feet.) This seems a little more reasonable. I'm still not passing judgement on the idea's practicality, however. -Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP) Zippy says: I can't think about that. It doesn't go with HEDGES in the shape of LITTLE LULU -- or ROBOTS making BRICKS... ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 86 19:00:26 GMT From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (James Symon) Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > > I see some serious problems, because not only do you need the rotation > around the axis of imaging to produce the curve, but you also rotation > normal to the surface of the mirror to produce gravity to hold the mercury > in place...I get dizzy very easily...I think I'll stick to my 8" Newtonian. > > Clayton E. Cramer Why not hang it in the gravity gradient from an equal mass the same distance the other side of the orbit and let tidal forces hold it in place? (or a larger mass closer to keep the cables shorter). I have suggested this before as a way to get low G gravity in orbit. Is there something inherently wrong with the idea? Is cable technology a serious problem? Of course you still have the same problem mentioned by others with regard to mercury mirrors, i.e. they are hard to point anywhere but straight up. I think though that if your container was something more than a hemisphere you could point its opening in some direction other than straight up and make the axis of spin other than straight up. You would get a shape resulting from the combination of the very low G used to hold it in the container and the "centrifugal" force from the spin. It feels like it would be a parabola with its axis of symmetry slightly off the axis of spin. To track a star would require pretty fancy control I suppose. Jim Symon UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon symon%unc@csnet-relay ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #75 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08278; Wed, 17 Dec 86 03:02:12 PST id AA08278; Wed, 17 Dec 86 03:02:12 PST Date: Wed, 17 Dec 86 03:02:12 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612171102.AA08278@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #76 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 17 Dec 86 03:02:12 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #76 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 76 Today's Topics: Re: Refractors vs. reflectors Re: new shuttle Planetary Conjunctions Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors bits of Shuttle-related news ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Dec 86 12:17:48 PST (Tuesday) From: Lynn.ES@xerox.com Subject: Re: Refractors vs. reflectors In-Reply-To: Lowerre's message of 16 Dec 86 00:19:04 GMT To: Space@angband.s1.gov Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.com, hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com Unobstructed reflectors have been around a long time. Herschel had a very large (I think four foot diameter) almost unobstructed one. He sat under the tube with the top half of his head in front of the mirror, staring through the eyepiece right down the tube at the primary mirror (no secondary mirror). If he had tilted a little more off-axis, he could have operated without obstruction at all; but with such a large mirror, a half head of obstruction made little difference. This design is now referred to as a Herschellian telescope. There are several ways to avoid or minimize the coma and astigmatism that a parabolic mirror has when used off-axis. 1) build the mirror parabolized off-center so that the on-optical-center secondary is off-center physically. This can be best visualized by imagining an ordinary Newtonian reflector from which slightly over half of the primary mirror is cut off and discarded (cut off the side that was obstructed by secondary mirror, its support, and the eyepiece assembly. Making the primary, without making both halves and discarding one, is difficult but manageable. 2) The coma and astigmatism are reduced by some large power of the f/ratio (Lowerre mentioned this). So a sufficiently long primary mirror f/ratio will reduce the problems to acceptable levels even far off axis. This is how Herschel got away with it. 3) Use a secondary that introduces coma and astigmatism opposite to that of the primary when used off axis. The Schiefspiegler (sp?) design of telescope does just this. 4) The smaller the obstruction, the closer the resulting image is to that without obstruction. So an extremely small secondary can be made sufficiently close so as to consider it an unobstructed telescope. In short, designing an unobstructed reflector is a well-solved problem. Note that the designers of the Hubble Space Telescope used an obstructed design (though I believe they kept the secondary size reasonably small), and still expect to get excellent (understatement) resolution. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Dec 86 13:56 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net Subject: Re: new shuttle D. Starr wrote: The Soviet space program also uses a launch vehicle with over 1000 flights to date. By now, they have sufficient experience with the vehicle to believe that one failure is most likely due to a random manufacturing flaw and not a design defect which must be corrected immediately. This will be the case with the Shuttle system eventually (if it makes it that far), when we have twenty Shuttles and several hundred flights behind us. Until that time, accidents will of necessity delay the program. I can state with complete confidence that we will never have twenty shuttles of the current design. Why? Because there is no market for them (the subsidy on just four shuttles was draining NASA enough) and the current shuttle is already very obsolete. A recent NASA study (Dec. 1 AW&ST) shows that advances in materials, hot structures, dual-fuel engines, electrical actuators, etc. could be used to build vertical launch single-stage-to-orbit fully reusable vehicles that might be able to carry nearly their own dry weight in payload, with much reduced operating costs. That AW&ST article also says that NASA & DOD want to separate heavy lift and manned operations by 1995, so this "Shuttle 2" will be smaller than the current shuttle. Payload planners have also determined there will be little justification for returning many large payloads to earth, so it needn't have a large cargo bay. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 86 13:27:56 PST From: tencati@jpl-vlsi.arpa Subject: Planetary Conjunctions To: space@angband.s1.gov X-St-Vmsmail-To: ST%"space@s1-b.arpa" The following was posted to a local astronomy mailing list. I thought I would share it with this list. If you noticed that Jupiter and Mars were getting "awfully close" to each other in the evening sky...now you know why: ======================================================================= Planetary Conjunctions ---------------------- Date/time Planets delta dec elongation from sun 1986 Dec 19 7h Mars - Jupiter +0 31 79 E 1986 Dec 19 15h Mercury - Saturn -1 19 13 W 1986 Dec 25 14h Mercury - Uranus +0 40 10 W 1987 Jan 2 14h Mercury - Neptune -2 19 6 W 1987 Jan 24 20h Venus - Saturn +1 47 46 W 1987 Jan 31 17h Venus - Uranus +3 04 46 W 1987 Feb 11 13h Venus - Neptune +1 17 45 W 1987 Apr 19 12h Mercury - Jupiter -1 21 17 W 1987 May 4 22h Venus - Jupiter -0 38 29 W 1987 Jun 11 0h Mercury - Mars +0 37 quasi-conjunction 1987 Jul 12 1h Mercury - Venus -4 50 12 W 1987 Aug 18 22h Mercury - Venus +0 30 2 W 1987 Aug 21 7h Mercury - Mars +0 40 2 E 1987 Aug 24 6h Venus - Mars +0 15 1 E 1987 Oct 20 1h Mercury - Venus -3 28 15 E 1987 Nov 20 16h Venus - Saturn -2 08 23 E 1987 Nov 24 10h Venus - Uranus -0 56 24 E 1987 Dec 3 10h Venus - Neptune -2 22 26 E 1987 Dec 18 23h Mercury - Saturn -2 17 3 W 1987 Dec 20 20h Mercury - Uranus -1 10 1 W 1987 Dec 27 10h Mercury - Neptune -2 46 3 E ====================================================================== Enjoy! Ron Tencati Jet Propulsion Lab Pasadena, Ca. 91109 (TENCATI@JPL-VLSI.ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 86 18:00:00 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > (He also said the things have been around a "long time," something > like 30 years). Longer than that. Dr. Rowland -- the man who made the first good diffraction gratings -- tinkered with the idea early in this century. As I recall, he made it work but not well enough to be practical: too many problems with vibration. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 86 19:54:12 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: bits of Shuttle-related news Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Reading an old issue of Flight International a while ago (specifically, the 19 July issue), I came across a couple of interesting tidbits. "NASA has approached UK ejection seat manufacturer Martin-Baker to ask if the company could build an in-atmosphere escape system for the Space Shuttle..." [Martin-Baker makes possibly the best ejection seats in the world, with a long history and thousands of lives saved. The US Navy just standardized on one of their designs for all its combat aircraft.] Flight claims that M-B responded with a system using eight of the company's latest high-performance rocket seats. The interesting part is how they propose to solve the problem of getting all of a large crew out. The difficulty is that some of the crew are seated in the mid-deck, which has the flight deck above it and the external tank below. Giving each seat an individual hatch would mean finding room for eight hatches in the shuttle roof, and also probably finding room for all eight crew on the flight deck. Martin-Baker's proposal is based on an idea that was developed and tested (although not adopted, due to money shortages and bureaucratic priorities) for the rear-compartment crews of the RAF's V-bombers. The three rear crew were seated side by side with one hatch above the center seat; first the center seat went out, then the outboard seats tilted inward and went out one by one. For the Shuttle, M-B has proposed a 2-3-3 crew layout with three hatches. Apparently NASA was impressed with the proposal, and in particular with the seat's safe envelope being larger than expected -- the Shuttle climbs quickly and the thin air at higher altitudes permits ejection at higher speeds than usual. The other interesting news item was in an article about the Soviet Proton booster. The Soviets are reported to have unofficially offered to launch the Ulysses mission on Proton! [Ulysses has been delayed, probably for five years or more, by the Challenger disaster and the cancellation of the Shuttle/Centaur combination. I suspect there would be problems in taking the Soviets up on this offer, since Ulysses has US participation I think.] -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #76 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10555; Thu, 18 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST id AA10555; Thu, 18 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST Date: Thu, 18 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612181102.AA10555@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #77 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 18 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #77 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 77 Today's Topics: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Spin Casting (Was Mercurial Mirrors) Aviation Week subscription info. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Dec 86 08:08:00 GMT From: irwin@a.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov A note to djg, funny, I have a Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition before me, and it does not agree with you. Mercurial: 1. of Mercury (the God or Planet) 2. of or containing mercury 3. caused by the action or use of mercury 4. ect. 5. etc. P.S.: (Grin) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 86 08:23:11 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andrew Folkins) Subject: Spin Casting (Was Mercurial Mirrors) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <1246@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> The 15 Dec 86 issue of TIME magazine (Science, pg 94) has an >> interesting article about a prototype mirror made entirely of a >> puddle of liquid mercury in a shallow frame. The entire device spins >> slowly (1 revolution/6 seconds) to give the 40 inch diameter mirror >> the correct concavity. [...] > >Sometime during the 1970s Scientific American carried an article about >infrared astronomy in which they used a similar approach to produce the >rough blank for a plastic mirror. They spun up a huge mass of liquid >resin (about 40 inches across) for three days, then slowly added >hardeners. (Of course, they still had to figure the mirror by >traditional methods and aluminize, but the expensive and laborious task >of getting a rough parabola was all taken care of.) This method has become the new "gee-whiz" way to make "conventional" mirrors as well : there's a pilot project at the U. of Arizona which has successfully produced 1.8m f/1 mirrors by spinning the entire oven at 15rpm during the casting process. According to an article in the July 1985 issue of Sky & Telescope, it works pretty well - "The technique many said wouldn't work proved so overwhelmingly successful that it was immediately acknowledged as a major step toward building truly giant telescopes on Earth or in space." They have plans for an 8m oven, this may be completed already - "After a test on a 3-metre blank late this year [that's 1985], the new oven will be ready to begin work on four 7.5 metre mirrors for the National New Technology Telescope." They also "hope to spin-cast each 8-metre, f/1 blank in less than six weeks, rather than the usual six months required by conventional methods." It is also quite economical, the savings in glass alone for a large mirror (>5 metres) would amount to several tons and probably pay for the cost of the oven while at the same time greatly shortening the time and cost of figuring the mirror. One more note from the same article : "Although this idea had been around since the turn of the century, when physicist R. W. Wood first spun mirrors of liquid mercury (S&T: September 1984, Page 266), . . ." Andrew Folkins ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew 53 24' N, 113 30' W The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 86 16:44:07 GMT From: ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Roger J. Noe) Subject: Aviation Week subscription info. Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Every so often someone will post asking for details on how to subscribe to Aviation Week & Space Technology, particularly because it gets mentioned and quoted from so often on these groups. I don't remember seeing the information posted recently so I thought I'd toss it out in anticipation of future requests (and probably in answer to previous ones). This is not intended as an endorsement or advertisement of the magazine. If it bothers anyone to see commercial articles in these newsgroups, I'd merely point out that the question gets asked often enough to deserve a posted answer. If you feel you must say something to me about it, please send mail; don't clutter these groups with meta-discussions. Thanks. Roger Noe ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe Uniq Digital Technologies rjnoe@uniq.UUCP 28 South Water Street +1 312 879 1566 Batavia, Illinois 60510 41:50:56 N. 88:18:35 W. Mail completed subscription form to the attention of Robert W. DeAngelis, Circulation Director, AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10124. Yes ... Send me AVIATION WEEK for [ ] 36 mos. @ $112.00 [ ] 24 mos. @ $83.00 [ ] 12 mos. @ $51.00 Lines 1 thru 6 must be filled in before subscription can be processed. 1 Name ________________________________________________________________________ 2 Title ______________________ Eng. Deg. [ ] Yes [ ] No Type ________________ 3 Co./Org./Div. _______________________________________________________________ 4 Nature of Business __________________________________________________________ 5 Address/City ___________________________________________ State ____ Zip _____ 6 Please check one that best describes your title/function: (B)[ ] Corp. Officials: (E)[ ] Engineers; designers; (G)[ ] Procurement; G.S. Grades 16-18 Scientists; Planners Productions and all (C)[ ] Managers; Dept. (F)[ ] Other Engineering other administrators Heads; G.S. Grades Technical Scientific (H)[ ] Line Flight 6-15. R&D Titles & Functions Titles (other (D)[ ] Engineering Mgmt. than military) R&D Titles & Functions (J)[ ] Retired Other (please specify) ________________________________________________ Mail subscription to: [ ] Home Address [ ] Company Address Address _______________________________ City _____________ State ____ Zip _____ [ ] Bill Me [ ] Payment Attached Charge My Subscription to: [ ] American Express [ ] Visa [ ] MasterCard...Interbank No. ______________ Account No. _________________ Date Card Expires ________ Signature_____________ Basic rates apply to managers, engineers, and scientists in aviation, aerospace and related technologies; military officers and government officials. Rates for all others slightly higher. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #77 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12252; Fri, 19 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST id AA12252; Fri, 19 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST Date: Fri, 19 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612191102.AA12252@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #78 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 78 Today's Topics: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Re: new shuttle Re: Mercurial Mirrors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Dec 86 17:46:43 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@seismo.css.gov (John Hogg) Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <416@unc.unc.UUCP> symon@unc.UUCP (James Symon) writes: >Why not hang [a mercury mirror] in the gravity gradient from an equal >mass the same distance the other side of the orbit and let tidal forces >hold it in place? (or a larger mass closer to keep the cables shorter). >I have suggested this before as a way to get low G gravity in orbit. Is >there something inherently wrong with the idea? Is cable technology a >serious problem? Cable technology is not an issue, but assuming that off-axis pointing is not used (and it has been criticized in another posting), you will find "an equal mass" (a large rock?) right in front of the mirror. Somewhat inconvenient. Supplying on-axis acceleration with an ion motor seems more promising, but there's still a large problem: sloshing. Are there any numerate readers out there who can estimate settling time after pointing? I would think that waves would continue for so long as to make changes in drift rate highly expensive. Of course, a band of sky could be viewed by having the scope slowly rotate normal to its axis, but even then you'd better be prepared to see interesting things once and for a limited period, and uninteresting space for most of the time. And that secondary rotation might do subtle but disasterous things to the mirror shape. There are certain advantages to solid mirrors... John Hogg hogg@utcsri.uucp hogg@csri.toronto.cdn ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 86 17:38:55 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > ... Dr. Rowland ... tinkered with the idea early in this century... Oops and dammit. It was Wood, not Rowland. I was confusing two history-of-physics articles read in fast succession. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 86 18:33:43 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: new shuttle Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > That AW&ST article also says that NASA & DOD want to separate heavy lift > and manned operations by 1995, so this "Shuttle 2" will be smaller > than the current shuttle... Separating the two roles is what should have been done all along, of course. Then we would have a *considerably* smaller Shuttle in greater numbers -- a much better approximation to "routine access to space". (In fairness, it should be noted that NASA wanted Shuttle 1 to be smaller than it is.) Mind you, anyone who thinks that Shuttle 2 will be operational within 20 years is dreaming, unless DoD gets behind it and pushes hard (unlikely, since they have always been big expendable-booster fans). I might believe first flight by 2000 if serious development was starting *now*, which it's not. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 86 18:26:39 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Recent talk of "mercurial"[sic] mirrors in space, have at least given > me somthing to smile about - mercury is a solid at such low > tempratures. But then I thought so - the reasons for abandoning > pure metal mirrors - namely temprature caused figure variation - are not > present in the stable cool of space. Therefore the mirror could be > made on Earth such that it would have the correct figure at 4K. "low temperatures"? "stable cool"? What on Earth (or rather, off Earth) are you thinking of? Virtually any object in space is in bright sunlight, in fact decidedly bright sunlight, much of the time. Temperature control is a major issue in spacecraft design, but cooling is often more of an issue than heating. If you look at designs for the Space Station, you'll see prominent waste-heat radiators. The only ways you get 4K in space are at great distances from the Sun, with copious supplies of liquid helium for cooling (a la IRAS), or just maybe with great efforts at building insulated sunshades (just blocking sunlight isn't enough because then your sunshade itself is a nice warm object radiating heat in your direction). This was yet another gross blunder in the Analog story. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #78 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00259; Sat, 20 Dec 86 17:32:08 PST id AA00259; Sat, 20 Dec 86 17:32:08 PST Date: Sat, 20 Dec 86 17:32:08 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612210132.AA00259@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #79 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 79 Today's Topics: "A Quest For Excellence" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 86 17:59:14 EST From: weltyc%cieunix@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: "A Quest For Excellence" As part of one of the space organizations I belong to (I'm not sure which one, but if anyone really wants to knwo I can find out) I got a magazine called "Aerospace" for Fall 1986. It claims to be the official publication of the Aerospace Industries Assoc. There are a few articles (it's quite small), and one is the final report of the Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, chaired by David Packard. It opened with this summary: "Excellence in defense management will not and can not emerge by legislation or directive. Excellence requires the opposite - responsibility and authority placed firmly in the hands of those at the working level, who have knowledge and enthusiasm for the tasks at hand. To accomplish this, ways must be found to restore a sense of shared purpose among Congress, the Department of Defense, and Industry. Each must foresake its current ways of doing business in favor of a renewed quest for excellence." To sum up the report, the commission recommended a new code of ethics be adopted by defense contractors, and a streamlining of the acquisition process, esp. to avoid disasters such as the "spare parts" incidents. It pointed to "...several decades of an increasingly bureaucratic and overregulated process" as one of the major causes of current problems. As an editorial note, these words are very nice, and I doubt anyone would disagree with their truthfulness, but is anyone going to pay attention to these comments? -Chris ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #79 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00910; Sun, 21 Dec 86 03:01:50 PST id AA00910; Sun, 21 Dec 86 03:01:50 PST Date: Sun, 21 Dec 86 03:01:50 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612211101.AA00910@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #80 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 80 Today's Topics: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Re: new shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Dec 86 21:23:37 GMT From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Kurt Allen) Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <7427@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > Virtually any object in space is in bright sunlight, >in fact decidedly bright sunlight, much of the time. Temperature control >is a major issue in spacecraft design, but cooling is often more of an issue >than heating. If you look at designs for the Space Station, you'll see >prominent waste-heat radiators. The reasons for spacecraft running so hot are, I believe, the large number of electronic/electrical parts giving off heat + the heat of the astronauts. When Apollo 13 had to shut down power to it's command module, because of lack of O2 to continue running the power cells at their usual level , the temperature became low enough to cause discomfort and some health concerns to the astronauts. If a part is protected from the sun by any non-transparent low heat conductive part I would expect it to stay fairly cool. (Probably not 4 degrees K. though). -- Kurt W. Allen 3M Center ihnp4!mmm!allen ------------------------------ Date: 19 Dec 86 13:03:28 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!tcom!pete@seismo.css.gov (Peter Kendell) Subject: Re: new shuttle Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8612162042.AA07301@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >That AW&ST article also says that NASA & DOD want to separate heavy lift >and manned operations by 1995, so this "Shuttle 2" will be smaller >than the current shuttle. Payload planners have also determined there >will be little justification for returning many large payloads to >earth, so it needn't have a large cargo bay. Well, well! Just what ArianeSpace have proposed for the European Shuttle. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #80 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02084; Mon, 22 Dec 86 03:02:09 PST id AA02084; Mon, 22 Dec 86 03:02:09 PST Date: Mon, 22 Dec 86 03:02:09 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612221102.AA02084@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #81 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 81 Today's Topics: Re: "A Quest For Excellence ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Dec 86 13:46 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: weltyc%cieunix@csv.rpi.edu, space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net Subject: Re: "A Quest For Excellence > As an editorial note, these words are very nice, and I doubt >anyone would disagree with their truthfulness, but is anyone going to >pay attention to these comments? In a word: no. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #81 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04746; Tue, 23 Dec 86 03:02:05 PST id AA04746; Tue, 23 Dec 86 03:02:05 PST Date: Tue, 23 Dec 86 03:02:05 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612231102.AA04746@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #82 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 82 Today's Topics: Re: new shuttle Re: Mercurial Mirrors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Dec 86 13:55:17 GMT From: cbatt!cbdkc1!blb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu ( Ben Branch 3S315 CB x4790 WSB ) Subject: Re: new shuttle Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Maybe we can just buy a few Hermes from ESA (1/2 :-)). ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 86 18:52:18 GMT From: cbosgd!gwe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (George Erhart) Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov >A lot of people have said a lot of things recently about liquid (including mercury) and gaseous mirrors...... This is a rather nifty idea. There are, however a number of difficulties to overcome. 1) Regardless of the "ambient" temperature in space, a gradient will no doubt exist between the liquid (which must be maintained within its melting range) and the "environment" of the mirror. I would think that convective currents within the fluid would cause noticeable changes in the reflector. 2) Mercury possesses a rather high vapor pressure (relative to other molten metals), even at atmospheric pressure. Vapor loss in vacuum would probably be quite rapid, requiring replacement of the Hg as well as causing problems similar to atmospheric disturbances. Further, if the frame of the telescope is cooler than the mirror itself, mercury will condense upon it... what a mess ! 3) Mercury is bloody dense ! It is not a particularly economical metal to put into orbit. I suggest that if the convective currents can be overcome, it would be better to use liquid alloys of the lead-tin-{Bi,In,Hg,As,Sb,Ga...} system (solders, if you must) as they are less dense and have much lower vapor pressures. Better still, raise the operating temperature a bit and use liquid aluminum (although oxidation [yes, even in "vacuum"] might be a problem) which is even less dense and much more reflective. Okay, all you optics experts out there ! Any comment on the convective currents ? I *still* think this is a rather nifty idea ! ---------------------------------clip and save---------------------------------- Bill Thacker cbatt!cbosgd!cbdkc1!serial!wbt DISCLAIMER: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't come back to you, track it down and kill it. --------------------------------valuable coupon--------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #82 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06081; Wed, 24 Dec 86 03:02:10 PST id AA06081; Wed, 24 Dec 86 03:02:10 PST Date: Wed, 24 Dec 86 03:02:10 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612241102.AA06081@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #83 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 83 Today's Topics: Baseball at L5 New Space Shuttle SPACE Digest V7 #82 Re: Mercurial Mirrors Re: SPACE Digest V7 #82 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Dec 86 17:38:58 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (Rick Kolker) Subject: Baseball at L5 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Okay folks, here's a question for you. An SF short story I've written depends on the answer. Let's say we decided to play some baseball on an L5 colony. A nice big cylinder spinning away to provide 1g at the "surface". What effect (if any) would there be on a fly ball to the outfield? I know the "gravity" would vary, but would the spin force the ball to "curve" as well in relation to the field? Obviously the diameter of the cylinder and the rate of spin would affect things but how much? Thanks for your help Rich Kolker 8519 White Pine Dr. Manassas Park, VA 22111 (703)361-1290 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Dec 86 13:50:17 SET From: Hermann Schneider Subject: New Space Shuttle To: Space@angband.s1.gov In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 23 Dec 86 03:13:26 PST Just send me the order for a few HERMES. We are trying hard to set it up. And I am shure if you would order some, we would finish the job earlier. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1986 11:29 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov, minsky%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #82 In-Reply-To: Msg of 23 Dec 1986 06:15-EST from Ted Anderson Here is an an alternative to those big mirrors for deep space. First you launch a tetrahedron of little "alignment" ships. Each of these contains a laser+interferometer device and a laser (or a particle-beam device). The four alignment ships are connected by six carbon fibre threads. Next you launch large number of micro-reflectors into the space within the tetrahedron. Each microreflector is nothing more than a flat, thin, bit of foil, perhaps one centimeter in diameter, and optically flat. At three points on its periphery, each microreflector has embossed on it a small pit in the shape of a corner-reflector that allows the alignment ships to apply light-pressure to move the microreflector (or has a coating that selectively absorbs the particles of the particle-beam). Now we can assemble the microreflectors to form a telesscopic surface. The alignment ships can use their light beams (or particle beams) to move each microreflector to any point in the interior of the tetrahedron, and orient it in any direction. It should be feasible to do this to within a fraction of a wavelength, using reflection interferometry. If we are talking about a composite mirror whose diameter is the order of a kilometer, there is no need to impose parabolic figures on the individual microreflectors, because the angular orientations of the flat surface elements canb be corrected to one part in 100,000. This gives the mirror more resolution than could be used; the microreflectors could be larger, but that maks the stiffness problem worse, and increases the weight of the system. The only problem is maintaining the positions of 10,000,000,000 micro-objects. If we are in deep space and can perform alignments at 100,000 per second, then we can perform one realignment per day. This is limited by the speed of light; higher speeds are possible if we can use multiple alignment beams. Of course, much smaller systems would be feasible, and could be oriented more quickly. However, I imagine this system to be located at least a few light-days away from Earth, and we will not often want to swing it around through large angles. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 86 09:02:39 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <3175@cbosgd.ATT.COM> gwe@cbosgd.UUCP (Bill Thacker) writes: >>A lot of people have said a lot of things recently about liquid (including >mercury) and gaseous mirrors...... difficulties.... ... >I suggest that if the convective currents can be overcome, it would be better >to use liquid alloys of the lead-tin-{Bi,In,Hg,As,Sb,Ga...} system >(solders, if you must) as they are less dense and have much lower vapor >pressures. Better still, raise the operating temperature a bit and >use liquid aluminum (although oxidation [yes, even in "vacuum"] might be >a problem) which is even less dense and much more reflective. > >Okay, all you optics experts out there ! Any comment on the convective >currents ? I *still* think this is a rather nifty idea ! Convective (fluid) currents can be retarded by "freezing" the metal during the molten "mirror forming" stage with a steady state magnetic field, which "rotates with the spinning mirror". Then a film of protective diamond can be laid down on the finished surface with a low density methane plasma discharge. Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 24 Dec 86 00:40:40 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #82 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU writes: >Next you launch large number of micro-reflectors into the space within >the tetrahedron. Each microreflector is nothing more than a flat, >thin, bit of foil, perhaps one centimeter in diameter, and optically >flat. >... >The only problem is maintaining the positions of 10,000,000,000 >micro-objects. If we are in deep space and can perform alignments at >100,000 per second, then we can perform one realignment per day. This >is limited by the speed of light; higher speeds are possible if we can >use multiple alignment beams. Of course, much smaller systems would >be feasible, and could be oriented more quickly. However, I imagine >this system to be located at least a few light-days away from Earth, >and we will not often want to swing it around through large >angles. Would sunlight (light pressure), solar wind (pressure and surface erosion), and the solar magnetic field affect the little mirrors noticeably? Presumably not at the distance you're talking about, which is probably outside the solar magnetopause, but on the other hand we don't know much about the environment out there yet. How about the solar gravity gradient and self-gravity of the mirror? I have a vision of 10e9 mirrors all accelerating away (``Come back!'' cry the astronomers), although I haven't applied any numbers yet. It also sounds like fun to write the software for - maybe SDI programmers should be the ones to do it. I love the idea, I'd just like to explore the various environmental factors affecting it a bit more. How thick does foil (aluminum foil or???) have to be to be a good reflector? Your concept reminds of Robert Forward's ``Starwisp'' interstellar probe, with similar use of tiny components and massive (and redundant) parallelism. Maybe using some of Drexler's nanocomputers, semiconductor lasers, and the like, each element of the array could be responsible for itself (actually today's technology would probably do, except that my mind boggles at the thought of building 10 billion gadgets like this without the sort of massive automation nanomachines might bring). -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #83 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07278; Thu, 25 Dec 86 03:02:10 PST id AA07278; Thu, 25 Dec 86 03:02:10 PST Date: Thu, 25 Dec 86 03:02:10 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612251102.AA07278@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #84 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 84 Today's Topics: Re: Baseball at L5 Liquid metal mirrors in space: a bad idea? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Dec 86 04:46:45 GMT From: rpics!yerazuws@seismo.css.gov (Crah) Subject: Re: Baseball at L5 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Let's say we decided to play some baseball on an L5 colony. A nice big > cylinder spinning away to provide 1g at the "surface". > > What effect (if any) would there be on a fly ball to the outfield? > I know the "gravity" would vary, but would the spin > force the ball to "curve" as well in relation to the field? > It's not just the fly balls - it's the pitches too. Consider this scenario: The field is oriented with the plate-mound-2'nd-center field axis running parallel to the axis of rotation. Now, the pitcher throws the ball. Because these are only amateur baseball players, we assume that air effects (such as curves, sinkers, etc) don't happen. If the pitcher throws the ball directly at the strike zone, the ball (because it becomes an independent object in orbit about the earth-moon as soon as the pitcher lets go) will follow a straight line - toward where the strike zone WAS. Which will be antispinward a ways. How far depends on how fast the cylinder was rotating. So a pitcher would have to act like a duck hunter and "lead" the strike zone. Second effect - the ball won't dip. It's an independent orbiting object, and this part of it's orbit is very very close to a straight line. If the batter connects, the ball is again on it's own independent orbit in some arbitrary direction. Let's assume he hit it straight "up" (toward the spin axis). Again ignoring air friction, a lot depends on how fast the cylinder is rotating compared to how fast the ball was hit. If the ball was hit just fast enough to cross the cylinder diameter in one half a spin time, the catcher can stand his ground and catch the ball as he passes underneath. If the ball crosses faster than half a spintime, the ball will come down spinward of the catcher. If it was a slow straight-up pop fly, and takes more than half a spintime to cross, the ball will come down antispinward of the catcher. If we start to allow air drag, the situation gets more interesting. Balls thrown (or hit) spinward and upward won't go as far as balls thrown or hit antispinward and upward, because of drag. Consider this: we take a ball and give it some velocity upwards and spinwards. As it rises, the spinward velocity of the air around the ball decreases - and greater difference in velocity increases drag. Likewise, the antispinward ball sees the spinward air velocity decreasing, but since it's own spinward velocity is negative, the difference decreases, and so does the drag. (If this is confusing, consider in this paragraph that "spinward" does not mean angular displacement but rather is a unit vector tangential to the playing surface and "frozen" there when the ball is thrown.) Now a very amusing case comes to mind. Say the batter tries to bunt - and succeeds in sending the ball directly antispinward - with approximately the peripheral spin velocity. The players will see the ball take off to the antispinward dugout - and then RISE in a nearly circular arc, a low-flying hazard to crops, statuary, and casual passersby. After the ball has zoomed around the periphery of the colony, the catcher will be able to attempt a catch. If the misses, he can wait another spin time and try again. And again. If it's too high for him, he can call a teammate in from the outfield and climb on his shoulders. This of course ignores air drag, which will slowly cause the ball to reaccelerate and fall toward the outside of the colony. If the batter foul-bunts inaccurately (rather, accurately in terms of elevation, but slightly toward or away from the pitcher, the ball will describe a helix toward or away from the sun, skimming the surface at chest height, and terrorizing all but the stoutest fans of baseball. Can anyone else think of some other special cases that would look neat and/or unbelievable? Also, don't forget the other possible field orientation - with 1'st/mound/3'rd parallel to the spin axis. -Bill Yerazunis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Dec 86 14:42 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net Subject: Liquid metal mirrors in space: a bad idea? I'm puzzled by this continuing focus on liquid metal mirrors for use in space. First of all, it's going to be hard to provide much acceleration. Supplying the acceleration by rotation doesn't work, since coriolis accelerations deform the mirror. An ion engine or other similar rocket is also not likely to be practical: at those low accelerations surface tension is probably significant, as are perturbations due to the solar wind, tides or self gravitation. It was suggested that a mirror be formed by spinning the metal, and allowing it to freeze. This will not produce a perfect solid mirror: the surface will be roughened by metal crystal grains, and most metals contract when cooled, distorting the surface. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #84 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08464; Fri, 26 Dec 86 03:02:08 PST id AA08464; Fri, 26 Dec 86 03:02:08 PST Date: Fri, 26 Dec 86 03:02:08 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612261102.AA08464@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #85 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 85 Today's Topics: Bucks from space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Dec 86 18:03:50 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Bucks from space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov [If this line is missing, please complain to your Systems Administrator] A couple of months ago I posted a long message arguing that space mining and manufacturing is probably never going to be profitable. This is my belated answer to the many replies I received on that subject. First, let's consider the prospects for mining the Moon or asteroids FOR EXPORT TO EARTH. (I will address mining for space consumption and orbital factories in future messages.) LUNAR MINING ------------ > > [Me:] We can expect rich ore bodies to be much less common > > on the Moon than on Earth. > [Andrew Folkins:] Sure, but so what? The energy to smelt the > stuff is free, and the supply of raw materials is basically > limitless. Who cares if your efficiency is only 10%? > ... Low abundance means you will have to process of large volumes of rock through complex chemical cycles. This means lots of equipment, bigger power plants, and large reagent losses. All of this means large capital and operating costs. > > [Me:] Right now there is no mineral on the Moon worth mining. > [Dale Amon:] [Lunar highlands soil] contains a great deal of > pure Fe-Ni that can be magnetically separated. As far as I know, the concentration of nickel (and presumably metallic iron) in Lunar soil is very low, a few hundred parts per million at most [2, p.17:940]. Perhaps you mean ilmenite (iron-titanium oxide?) Anyway, nickel is worth less than $4.00/lb [1], and iron some $0.20/lb. > [Dale Amon:] The lunar highlands soil is as rich in Ti as the > rutile sands of Australia. > [Mike Smith:] Titanium aint cheap. Raw titanium metal costs something like $6/lb, and titanium alloys for aerospace are $15-$25/lb [1,4]. Obviously, there is a bit of a gap between the metallurgist's definition of "very expensive" ($25/lb) and NASA's notion of "very cheap" ($500/lb). > [Dale Amon:] There is only one [Moon export to Earth] that will > be meaningful in the same time frame as the first mining > efforts: He3. According to Paul Dietz's message [7], the average concentration of He-3 in lunar soil is about 5 parts per billion. Let's assume the price of 3He goes up to $10,000/g (from its current price of $700/g). If you manage to process 4 million tons of soil a year (that is >100 kg/second!) with 100% efficiency, you will get a mere $200 million/year worth of He-3. > [Andrew Folkins:] What's really needed is a lunar Landsat to > survey the geological and chemical properties of the Moon ... I agree wholeheartedly. > > [Me:] The Moon is very poor in hydrogen, chlorine, nitrogen, > > etc. [If used for metal extraction], extra equipment and > > energy will be necessary to recover them from waste products. > [Dale Amon:] There is a great deal of research that has gone > into doing the processes with only catalytic elements shipped > from Earth. I have seen such papers, and they do seem quite promising. However, I would like to see a reasonably complete prototype plant working here on Earth, before I start believing their figures for the cost, mass, and throughput of the whole system. ASTEROID MINING --------------- > [Andrew Folkins:] Agreed, the lack of volatile elements will be > a problem. All the more reason for asteroid mining. > [Dale Amon:] The H2 may come from Earth in the short run, but > it is probably simpler to go after a chondritic asteroid or a > burned out comet.... the Delta V requirements for some are > even less than for a trip to the moon, although considerably > longer: 3-5 years total mission time. The technical problems of going to the asteroids are formidable. It is by no means obvious that manned missions of that length will be feasible, much less economical, in the next thirty years. The proposals for asteroid development I have seen are extremely vague and full of holes --- even by the standards of the field. > [Dale Amon:] ... In the case of a nickel-iron, smelting > mirrors are used to separate out some of the platinum group > elements which can be returned immediately with most of the > crew. Even if we get there, it is not clear whether there will be any mineral products worth mining for shipment to Earth. Common metals like iron and nickel are far too cheap. Rare metals, although more abundant there than on Earth, are still very scarce --- 10 to 100 parts per million, according to your own sources [8, p.375]. That means less than $1 worth per kg of asteroidal material. At those prices, a $3.6 billion expedition would have to process more than 10 kg of asteroid per second for ten years just to pay back the investment. Proponents of asteroid mining usually say "smelting mirrors" as if they were some sort of magic wand. For example, the article referred above proposes using mirrors to do in-place zone-melt refining of the asteroid, processing some 2.4 tons/sec through 30 zone-melt cycles, thus enhancing the concentration of rare earth elements to 80%. For details, the reader is referred to a conveniently unpublished paper. This proposal makes as much sense as using gravity to extract iron from its ore (you melt the ore, and let it stand; iron, being denser than oxygen, will collect at the bottom...) > > [Me:] Besides, we still don't know for sure what the asteroids > > are made of. > [Andrew Folkins:] Actually, we have a fairly good idea of what > they are made out of. Analysis of meteorites indicate that > there is just about all the raw materials we need : nickel, > iron, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, silicon, ... > [Dale Amon:] We already know compositions of many near earth > asteroids spectroscopically. You can say we don't know for > sure, and that is correct. Yes, we have fairly good GUESSES, that are consistent with the evidence mainly because there is very little of it. As I remember, asteroid and meteorite spectra have no definite lines, only a few broad and shallow bumps that can be matched by a wide range of materials. Moreover, the spectrum of an object may be completely falsified by a thin layer of dust on its surface. Also, meteorites that end up on museum shelves are a VERY selective sample of those that enter the atmosphere, and no one knows for sure whether these have the same origin as the Earth-grazing asteroids. > [Dale Amon:] I certainly would not disagree with getting some > probes out to look over the property. > [Andrew Folkins:] NASA has had an asteroid-rendevous project on the > back burner for years. Great. Let's send those probes out. THE MASS DRIVER --------------- > > [Me:] Lunar factories will need a steady stream of `space > > trucks' to lift the product out to space. > > Transportation alone is going to cost several hundred dollars > > per pound of product. > [Dale Amon:] You have not done your homework. The mass driver > already works. It has been tested at (2/3?) of full scale > size. A Mass driver including power supply could be delivered > to the moon in less than a shuttle bay. ... Read up on it. What do you mean by 2/3 scale? Any references? The references I found in the Proceedings of the Space Manufacturing conferences [3,p.71] [8,p.391] say that a 1/2 meter long segment of the mass launcher accelerated a 40-gram bucket at 1500 G (G=Earth gravity, 10m/sec^2), and they hope to get that up to 1800 G. This sounds quite impressive, until you realize that you can get a lot more than 1800 G by just hitting a steel ball with a hammer. Obviously, the problem is not just getting high accelerations, but also sustaining them long enough. A proposal for a 1800 G lunar mass driver is described elsewhere in the 1985 Proceedings. It has 100 coils, is 160 meters long, and launches four one-pound projectiles per second (that is about 160 tons per day, or 60,000 tons per year). It consumes 12MW of electrical power, imparting 1.5MJ in 0.13 seconds to each projectile. Since the coils fire one at a time, each coil must be switched from 0 to 12 Megawatt and back to zero in a few microseconds. The coils and their mounts must be strong enough to resist a 2000-pound push four times per second. The exit velocity must be 2370 m/sec, with a transverse velocity error less than 0.05 m/sec (i.e., directional accuracy better than 0.00002 radians = 5 seconds of arc). The prototype used plain aluminum and copper coils, since the resistive losses incurred in a single firing would not heat them up significantly. The full design would have to support CONTINUOUS firings at ten times the power level; clearly, it would need superconducting coils --- PULSED superconducting coils --- for which there is simply no technology at present. Another small detail: as described in [3], the prototype's bucket was connected by a tether wire to a capacitor bank of its own. That is obviously not going to work in the full design. Such a mass driver will require a large liquid helium plant and a sizable capacitor bank (or the equipment to make the capacitors on the Moon). It needs equipment to manufacture and load four one-pound sintered rock projectiles per second, and devices to decelerate the empty buckets and return them to the starting end. That of course is just to get the stuff off the Moon. To complete the system, you still need a kilometer-size catching net somewhere near the Moon (say, at L2). You need machinery to collect those four projectiles per second and feed them to some other transport mechanism for shipment to GEO, LEO, or the Earth. Now, what did you say about demonstrations at 2/3 of full scale? > [Dave Newkirk:] If you have a lot to launch, the initial cost > of the accelerator is worth it. > [Dale Amon:] The cost is dollars/lb. Let's assume your mass driver and associated systems cost $3.6 billion (a wildly optmistic estimate). You have to mine, process, launch, catch, de-orbit, collect, and sell one million dollars of merchandise PER DAY, for ten years, just to repay the capital (ignoring interest and operating costs). At 4 lb/sec, that gives a bit under $3/lb. So, what are you going to launch? Sintered lunar soil, iron, and aluminum are too cheap. Except for titanium, other metals are too rare to be extracted at that rate. At $6/lb titanium may have a chance; but now add in the interest (another million dollars per day), supplies, operating costs, night downtime, and a mining+smelting plant producing four pounds of titanium per second... CONCLUSION ---------- I still believe that mining extraterestrial bodies for Earth consumption is not going to make sense in the foreseeable future. The intrinsic value of lunar and asteroidal ores is too low by orders of magnitude to compensate for the high costs of capital, development, transportation, and operations. Furthermore, it is by no means clear that the many technological problems can be solved at all in that time frame. (More to come) REFERENCES [1] Metal Statistics 1986, Fairchild Publications (1985 prices). [2] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition (1974, printed 1986) Volume 17, page 940, Table 3: Abundance of the elements in... [3] Space Manufacturing 5: Engineering with Lunar and Asteroidal Materials. Proceedings of the Seventh Princeton/AIAA/SSI Conference, May 8-11, 1985. [4] CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (a.k.a. "the Rubber Bible") 66th edition (1986). [7] Paul Dietz's message <8611120617.AA02138@s1-b.arpa> [8] Space Manufacturing 1983. Proceedings of the sixth Princeton/SSI Conference, May 9-12, 1983. Published as vol. 53 of AAS's Advances in the Astronautical Sciences. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #85 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09489; Sat, 27 Dec 86 03:01:48 PST id AA09489; Sat, 27 Dec 86 03:01:48 PST Date: Sat, 27 Dec 86 03:01:48 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612271101.AA09489@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #86 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 86 Today's Topics: Re: "A Quest For Excellence" Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Dec 86 16:51:00 GMT From: irwin@a.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: "A Quest For Excellence" Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The bureaucratic process in this country is pathetic. It is no wonder that other nations can "beat our sox off" when it comes to advancement and development. I recently had the opportunity to converse with a computer programmer who graduated with a PHD, went to an Aerospace Contractor and spent six years, quit them and went into another field of work (still computer related). I asked how come, he told me. He said that when a contractor sends out 10 men, each with a spoon, to dig a ditch, which one man could have dug with a shovel, you have an example of the type of thinking that plagues our country. He said that doing it this way ups the nose count of the contractor's work force, making them appear to be a bigger company, such that they are more likely to get contracts. This type of production is what leads to the cost overruns. This is prevalent through out the work force in the US. The construction trades are a prime example. Here at the University of Illinois, there is a current project, to run PVC pipe under every street, to every building on campus, through which fiber optic cable will be pulled, linking all machines on campus. If you observe the work force, you will find one man in a backhoe, one with a shovel in his hand, and ten men with their hands in their pockets watching. In the case of the programmer, he was told not to do his best, but to do it such that it took more people to accomplish the task, removing incentive for "excellence". This was contrary to his way of thinking, brought about a very low morale and his eventual resignation from the company. The Blue Ribbon Commission? Will it be listened to? It should be, but how do you change the entire US industry? The govenment is no better, they will argue over which state should have a facility built in it, for reasons of which Senator's voters will get the jobs, not for reasons as to where it can be done the best, (close resourses, etc). ------------------------------ Date: 24 Dec 86 16:08:23 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A Andrews) Subject: Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > > (He also said the things have been around a "long time," something > > like 30 years). > > Longer than that. Dr. Rowland -- the man who made the first good diffraction > gratings -- tinkered with the idea early in this century. As I recall, he > made it work but not well enough to be practical: too many problems with > vibration. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry I know fer a fack that such mirror making ideas were in vogue about 1962 when I took my course in Solar Energy at New Mexico State Univesity. --arlan ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #86 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10537; Sun, 28 Dec 86 03:01:53 PST id AA10537; Sun, 28 Dec 86 03:01:53 PST Date: Sun, 28 Dec 86 03:01:53 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612281101.AA10537@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #87 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 87 Today's Topics: Where to look for lunar He-3 information Quibbles about J. Stolfi's message ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Dec 86 12:04 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com, space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net Subject: Where to look for lunar He-3 information J. Stolfi referred to a message about lunar He-3 I sent to SPACE some months back. My information came from an abstract by Barney B. Roberts (NASA Johnson Space Center) that appeared in the Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., 31(9), Oct. 1986, page 1499. The paper was presented at the 1986 Fall Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics in Baltimore, MD. Please read that abstract for full details. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 86 14:20 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net, jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com Subject: Quibbles about J. Stolfi's message J. Stolfi's article very nicely shows the difficulties any mining company must face in mining Et material for use on earth. I have a few quibbles, however... > [Stolfi] The technical problems of going to the asteroids are formidable. > it is by no means obvious that manned missions of that length will be > feasible, much less economical, in the next thirty years. Ignoring for the moment whether such a mission could be funded, this probably depends on how long weightlessness can be tolerated. There are likely some earth-crossing asteroids that are easier to get to than Mars. Also, Orion-style nuclear rockets are currently feasible in a technical sense, although not politically in this country. These could easily visit near-earth asteroids in months with payloads of hundreds of tons. > [Stolfi] A proposal for a 1800 G lunar mass driver is described elsewhere > ... It consumes 12MW of electrical power... Since the coils > fire one at a time, each coil must be switched from 0 to 12 Megawatt > and back to zero in a few microseconds. The coils and their mounts > must be strong enough to resist a 2000-pound push four times per > second. The exit velocity must be 2370 m/sec, with a transverse > velocity error less than 0.05 m/sec (i.e., directional accuracy better > than 0.00002 radians = 5 seconds of arc). I think Stolfi is engaging in a little misrepresentation here, making this sound outrageous. First of all, 12 MW of *pulsed* power is not out of the question: it is applied to each coil for only a few milliseconds. A better measure is the *energy* delivered by each coil per pulse: an average of 30 kilojoules. Also, it is not the case that the fixed coils must be brought from zero to full current in a few microseconds. Designing a large coil that can withstand 2000 pounds of force is not difficult although obviously one must worry about fatigue. It has been proposed that the transverse error be minimized by down-range electrostatic corrections; I'm not sure that would be feasible, though, although it's not obviously impossible. > The prototype used plain aluminum and copper coils, since the resistive > losses incurred in a single firing would not heat them up > significantly. The full design would have to support CONTINUOUS > firings at ten times the power level; clearly, it would need > superconducting coils --- PULSED superconducting coils --- for which > there is simply no technology at present. Another small detail: as > described in [3], the prototype's bucket was connected by a tether wire > to a capacitor bank of its own. That is obviously not going to work in > the full design. Whoa! The fixed coils don't have to be superconducting! One can tolerate significant losses there, since you can circulate coolant through them, and they can be made massive to reduce resistance. Stolfi is referring to the bucket coil, which must be superconducting (a normal coil would either be too heavy to launch or have so little thermal inertia it would melt). This solves the problem of energizing the bucket coil, though: persistent currents are used. >Such a mass driver will require a large liquid helium plant and a >sizable capacitor bank (or the equipment to make the capacitors on the >Moon). The only liquid He needed would be for the bucket coils. The helium and these coils would be imported and recycled. The capacitors would likely use the vacuum as a dielectric. This isn't practical on earth, since large volumes of vacuum are not free as they are on the moon. The capacitor's plates and supports could be made of local materials. Stolfi's points about other system components are well taken. I wonder where he got the $3.6 billion figure for a lunar mass driver, though. Does that include development cost? Was it built entirely on earth, then transported to the moon? Development cost can be amortized over many launchers, and transportation from earth is expensive, so it would likely make sense to manufacture parts for the mass driver on the moon. Also, ideally, if one is exporting raw materials from the moon to the earth, one would like to avoid mass catchers and ferry vessels in space, and just shoot large durable chunks to earth. This isn't (?) really feasible with a mass driver, since the individual projectiles are so small, but it might be possible with other concepts to launch larger projectiles at lower rates on trajectories terminating in a few well chosen impact zones on earth. I'll send a follow-up note on this. > [Stolfi] A couple of months ago I posted a long message arguing that > space mining and manufacturing is probably never going to be profitable. > ... > I still believe that mining extraterestrial bodies for Earth > consumption is not going to make sense in the foreseeable future. ... I note that "never" has mutated into "not in the foreseeable future". The latter is a much weaker claim. Paul Dietz ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #87 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11710; Mon, 29 Dec 86 03:02:06 PST id AA11710; Mon, 29 Dec 86 03:02:06 PST Date: Mon, 29 Dec 86 03:02:06 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612291102.AA11710@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #88 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 88 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #86 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Dec 1986 20:54-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #86 In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sat, 27 Dec 86 03:10:30 PST Jorge Stolfi: I'm too swamped to argue with you, but I hope you come to our conference here in Pittsburgh, March 27-29,1987. You can then argue in person with the people who are doing the work and not only think it will work, but feel they have solved most of the problems you are suggesting. It would be great fun to go and research a rebuttal, but I am unfortuneately unable to justify the time right now. Better to argue with primary sources than with me anyway... Dale Amon Chairman, 6th Space Development Conference PS: anyone who takes on running a national conference has to be crazy, a masochist, or more likely, both. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #88 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13275; Tue, 30 Dec 86 03:02:08 PST id AA13275; Tue, 30 Dec 86 03:02:08 PST Date: Tue, 30 Dec 86 03:02:08 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612301102.AA13275@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #89 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 89 Today's Topics: Mirror, Mirrors, in the sky ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Dec 86 14:26 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: Mirror, Mirrors, in the sky ... To: space@angband.s1.gov A recent SPACE entry proposed floating about a million mirrors in space to make a big mirror. However, I've got a bad feeling about this : each of those seperate mirrors has something the corresponding section of a big mirror does not have : a discontinuity at the edge. Won't this produce LOTS of diffraction patterns, dramatically degrading the image? ( Remember, we are talking LOTS of mirrors, each a LONG way from the focal plane. ) MMTs don't have this problem because they only have a few elements, the total edge is only a few times more than the total edge a single mirror would have. But a 10,000 small mirrors with the same area as 1 big mirror will have 10,000 times as much edge! This means 10,000 times the trouble with edge effects. As I recall from my days as an engineering student, its always EDGE EFFECTS, and things like them, that screw up simple assumptions. I think this is the case in both the "build a big mirror out of flats" and the "use a lot of little mirrors" proposals. Edge effects may get mercury mirrors, too: on any cooling body, the edges cool first, then the surfaces, then the volume of the object. Unless the liquid and solid have the same density, AND the material has a zero coefficient of thermal expansion, no way will you get a good surface. Dennis O'Connor ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #89 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15017; Wed, 31 Dec 86 03:02:09 PST id AA15017; Wed, 31 Dec 86 03:02:09 PST Date: Wed, 31 Dec 86 03:02:09 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8612311102.AA15017@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #90 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 90 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V7 #89 Re: Baseball at L5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1986 12:45 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov, minsky%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #89 In-Reply-To: Msg of 30 Dec 1986 06:16-EST from Ted Anderson The scattering of light from the edges of small mirrors will indeed degrade the image of a composite telescope. The effect is not quite a bad as O'Connor fears; 10,000 small mirrors has only 100 times the amount of edge per unit area as one large mirror. However, in my rather drastic partitioning of a 1 km mirror into 1 cm cells, the increase in scattered light might be the order of a factor of 100,000. A one-centimeter mirror is 20,000 wavelengths across. If we imagine the mirror's edge to be a white band a wavelength in width, then the intensity of light scattered into the focus would be of the order of 1/10,000 that of the average brightness of the sky. Presumably this can be reduced by a factor of the order of 1000 by optically tapering those edges. (Is that true, optic scientists?) Our huge mirror concentrates light by a factor of 10,000 over concentional 10 meter telescopes. I think this means that we end up with a sensitivity decrease of 10 for the dimmest objects - but with a resolution increase of 10,000 for mot of the objects that we can already see. We should also distinguish between scattering and coherent diffraction. Any regular defect in a mirror will act like a grating that produces concentrated sidelobe peaks - false images - of bright objects. However, this effect disappears when we use large numbers of irregularly spaced small mirrors. The sidebands of very large irregular arrays become increasingly diffuse, in contrast to how the sidebands of regular gratings become increasingly sharp. These effects decrease as the mirror elements increase in size, but then the issues of structural rigidity return. It seems to me that the advantages of this way to obtain great resolution outweigh most objections because it has such a high ratio of active reflector to structural overhead weight. As for those objections about the mirrors flying away, that will happen only if the system encounters a compact particle beam or a massive, slow intruder. I don't suppose we know enough yet about the liklihood of such events in deep space. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 86 16:06:57 GMT From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (James Symon) Subject: Re: Baseball at L5 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > > If the pitcher throws the ball directly at the strike zone, the ball > (because it becomes an independent object in orbit about the earth-moon > as soon as the pitcher lets go) will follow a straight line - toward > where the strike zone WAS. Which will be antispinward a ways. How far > depends on how fast the cylinder was rotating. So a pitcher would > have to act like a duck hunter and "lead" the strike zone. Nope. When the pitcher lets go of the ball it has the same spinward velocity as the strike zone. The strike zone accelerates toward the cylinder axis but except for the resistance of the air (which is also accelerating inward) the ball no longer is accelerated inward thus the ball appears to drop just as on earth but there is no reason for it to move to anti-spinward. The same applies to fly balls. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #90 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17279; Thu, 1 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST id AA17279; Thu, 1 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST Date: Thu, 1 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701011102.AA17279@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #91 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 91 Today's Topics: Baseball at L5 Re: Baseball at L5 orbiter simulation Alternatives to the mass driver ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 86 10:03:32 EST From: weltyc%cieunix@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) To: space@angband.s1.gov Cc: In-Reply-To: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu's message of 30 Dec 86 16:06:57 GMT Subject: Baseball at L5 YOU'RE BOTH HALF RIGHT...read on... If you just let go of a ball, it would appear to drop to the ground, like on earth, but not (obviously) because of gravity. It would drop because as you let go of the ball, it becomes a free object - no longer held in the circular motion of the station - and would travel in a direction tangent to the circle at the point of release. Because the surface is moving in a circle, this tangential movement will give the appearance of falling. If you throw the ball, however, it's apparent motion to someone on the surface depends entirely on two things: The size of the circle (the diameter), and the DIRECTION you throw the ball ( If the circle is big enough, there will be no observable difference), You can't impart a circular trajectory on a baseball (not counting air res, and all that), so the straight line of the baseball compared with the circular motion of objects on the surface will appear to do weird things. If you throw the ball in the direction of the spin, that is, if you and the ball are moving (tangentially) forward (in space, not in the station) and you throw in the same direction as your velocity, the ball will appear to sink (if you aimed it directly at the target), because the target will be moving (in reference to the point from which it starts) upwards and away. If you throw the ball against the spin, ie the other way from above, the ball will appear to rise, as the target is now moving downwards and towards the starting point of the ball. Note the ball will always land, as it's straight line of motion will eventually reach a point on the surface. I suppose, however, it might be possible to imart exactly the opposite velocity as it would have if you let it drop (ie the velocity it has from traveling with you on the surface of the station) so that the ball would remain stationary in space, and seem to travel forever at a constant height to those on the station. Of course, there are other movements involved in a space station besides its spin, and all these would factor in as well and aren't considered here. -Chris ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 86 17:34:53 GMT From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (t.ebersole) Subject: Re: Baseball at L5 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The latest (Jan. or Feb.) issue of Analog has an article by John Cramer (The Alternate View) in which he discusses the forces affecting things used in various sports as they might be played in a rotating space habitat. For example, anything thrown spinward "falls" as the curved outer wall (floor) rotates "upward" to meet it. If thrown anti-spinward, the object "rises" as the floor rotates "down" away from the object. Coriolis "forces" (which, it occurs to me, are probably a subset of the previously described 3-d "forces") are also described. Read the article for more details and more interesting prose. I apologize if my use of quotes for "imaginary" or "relatively" has confused anyone, and for any Zapotecan idioms my Christmas-cheered brain may have unwittingly typed. Happy New Year. Prospero Anyo Nuevo. Sacru Isray.(Phonic not "spellic", okay?!?) Tim Ebersole ...ihnp4!mtuxo!tee ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 86 15:17:24 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Subject: orbiter simulation Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** After reading about it in the EE times, I had to by a copy of "Orbiter" for my PC. First of all I do not work for Spectrum Holobyte nor do I know anyone who does. Clearly this is a superior piece of software. If you are a frustrated space enthusiast that would clean latrines if that's what it takes to get up there, you will enjoy this program. Now the bad news....it is slow. I'm running an AT&T 6300 (8mhz) with a hard disk and 8087 Math chip (the program claims to take advantage of the Math chip if it is available) and the response time in accepting keyboard commands is just barely tolerable. The reason that it is slow is that it is a simulation and when it has a shuttle and a MMU and a satellite all in orbit, not to mention the graphic displays to update, the PC is running flat out. Personally, I'm impressed with what they have done, given the equipment they are making it run on. The SSMEs are running hot and the APUs are nice and cool I've got the "wish I could fly the shuttle blues". Fred ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Dec 86 17:21 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net, jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com Subject: Alternatives to the mass driver J. Stolfi recently had some complaints about the mass diver. I said I'd send some comments on possible alternative launch schemes. Here are two: (1) Electromagnetic induction accelerators. Unlike the mass driver, in which superconducting bucket coils carry a persistent current, current in this accelerator's armature is generated by induction from an AC current in the stator. Like the mass driver, there is no physical contact between the armature and the accelerator. A recent paper describing this kind of accelerator (IEEE Trans. Magnetics, Nov. 1986, pages 1453-1458) showed how to reduce slip losses that heat the armature. The concept described had these parameters: Length 18 meters Projectile 15cm long by 6cm dia. aluminum cylinder (1 kg) Average accel. 250,000 gees Muzzle velocity 10 km/sec The stator is a three phase varying pitch solenoid. Peak magnetic field is 20.6 Tesla. The design, which comes from U. Texas, makes use of a novel generator concept in which the frequency rises during the launch. System efficiency is estimated to be 28%. Muzzle velocity seems to be limited by armature heating, which is between 480 and 690 degrees C (slip losses between 0.65% and 0.95%). Precooling the projectile to LN2 temperatures or transpiration cooling might be worthwhile. Their concept could be adapted for use on the moon. Armature heating and kinetic energy would be over 17 times lower. This should ease synchronization requirements and permit large nonconductive payloads to be piggybacked. Armatures could be braked and returned to the breach by reversing the accelerator at reduced power. To dissipate heat, armatures could be placed in contact with a refrigerated heat sink between uses. Several hundred armatures would be needed (depending on the firing and cooling rates). The armatures are simple, just solid aluminum, and could be manufactured on the moon. Beryllium might be better but would have to be imported. (2) Railguns. Solid armature railguns can easily reach 2.4 km/sec. The armature is again made of aluminum and is in this case launched with the payload. Armatures could be recycled and remanufactured by dropping the aluminum from space near the launch site. Frictional erosion of the rails could be a problem; perhaps the rails can be recoated or remanufactured frequently. System efficiency could be increased and armature mass reduced if the railgun is augmented with superconducting coils above and below the barrel. Both of these ideas are simplified if the material being exported from the moon includes aluminum metal, not just unprocessed ore. The armatures could then be considered to be part of the payload and would be reprocessed for use in space (or could act as ablative shields for masses launched to earth). Both designs can potentially achieve much higher accelerations than O'Neill's Mass Driver III and may be much shorter. At 250,000 gees, for example, lunar escape speed is reached in slightly over 1 meter (vs. 160 meters for Mass Driver III). It may be feasible for the launcher to swivel to track a stream of mass catchers in low lunar orbit. Benefits: transit time to the collectors is reduced, to ~ 100 - 1000 seconds, so they can be smaller (albeit more numerous) or the launcher can be less accurate, and muzzle velocity can be reduced somewhat. By the way, don't take this as evidence that I think lunar mining for consumption on earth will make sense soon. Stolfi pointed out that only for titanium would it be even arguable to mine on the moon (ignoring He3). However, Stolfi didn't tell us why titanium is so expensive. I suspect it is because the metal is hard to refine, not because the ore is rare, so setting up lunar sources of ore solves the wrong problem. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #91 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18558; Fri, 2 Jan 87 03:02:16 PST id AA18558; Fri, 2 Jan 87 03:02:16 PST Date: Fri, 2 Jan 87 03:02:16 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701021102.AA18558@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #92 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 92 Today's Topics: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Re: Alternatives to the mass driver Re: Alternatives to the mass driver Re: Baseball at L5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Dec 86 19:08:56 GMT From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!akgua!galbp!GALBPBB!bing@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov How cold does it have to be for mercury to turn solid? Seems to me that once the thing is shaped by gravity, you could freeze it to solid form. I mean it's pretty cold out there... mail reply address: ...galbp!bing ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jan 87 03:16:06 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > ... However, Stolfi didn't tell us why titanium is so > expensive. I suspect it is because the metal is hard to refine, not > because the ore is rare, so setting up lunar sources of ore solves > the wrong problem. Correct. Titanium is one of the more common elements in the Earth's crust; there is no shortage of low-grade titanium ore. Titanium dioxide is commonly used as a white pigment in paint. But the metal is just awful to refine, because it's fiercely active chemically and its properties are greatly affected by even trace impurities. (Sample: The Lockheed Skunk Works had a devil of a time figuring out why the metallurgical quality of welds on the SR-71 varied depending on whether the welds were made in summer or winter [in an air-conditioned building!]. Turned out they were using tap water for cleaning the welds, and the chlorination in the local water system varied with the season. Isn't titanium metallurgy fun?) -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jan 87 03:11:59 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8612312339.AA16676@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >J. Stolfi recently had some complaints about the mass diver. I said >I'd send some comments on possible alternative launch schemes. Here >are two: > >(1) Electromagnetic induction accelerators. > ..... >(2) Railguns. There are several other major alternatives to mass drivers. (3) Tether systems (3a) rotating skyhook -- a tapered cable in low lunar orbit which rotates like the spoke of a wheel rolling on the lunar surface -- the ends of the cable periodically touch the surface (at zero relative velocity) and can pick up payloads, which are released into lunar escape orbits half a cable rotation later (or are hoisted up to the cable hub and released into lunar orbit). The skyhook is maintained in orbit by any of several means -- lowering waste mass (say, space refinery slag, or pieces of a captured asteroid) back to the surface, or ejecting a smaller amount of waste mass via some type of electric thruster at the hub. A lower-mass rotating skyhook can be used to reach only part-way to the lunar surface, allowing an even lower velocity electromagnetic (or other) launcher than would normally be needed on the moon to get mass up to the tether end (this trick works for Earth orbit, too) (3b) Stationary skyhook -- a la several recent science fiction books -- except that the material strength required for a lunar skyhook is not science-fictional. The skyhook would extend from the lunar surface to the L1 or L2 points. (3c) "active" skyhooks -- versions of Keith Lofstrom's Launch Loop or Rod Hyde's Starbridge, using (respectively) an iron ribbon and a particle stream to support a structure dynamically. These (and similar systems) would be vastly easier to build on the moon (free vacuum, lots of solar power, no hurricanes or space junk or nearby cities to worry about) than on earth, and might be competitive with passive skyhooks for certain cases (e.g. lunar polar mining) (4) Laser Launching This is my own field these days. One uses a large laser (10 - 100 MW avg. power) on the moon to heat propellant (probably liquid oxygen) in a cheap, possibly throwaway, rocket engine to generate thrust and lift a payload from the surface. Since thrust is delivered over a long distance (several hundred kilometers) and time (several minutes) one can launch substantial payloads (several tons, with a 100 MW laser) at very low accelerations, and with very modest power storage and switching (a major problem with electromagnetic launchers). A laser launch system would probably be somewhat less massive than an electromagnetic launcher, for a given payload capacity, and would have much greater flexibility -- launches could be in any direction and to any final velocity, and the laser could also be used to land payloads, whereas I wouldn't care to try to hit the bore of an electromagnetic launcher with an incoming payload.... It would even work for manned vehicles. (5) Gas gun The Jules Verne approach, although probably with a two-stage gun, and electrically-heated propellant (oxygen again?) unless we find a source for Lunar hydrogen. Very simple, fairly efficient -- just heavy, so you have to assume it's built out of local materials... >By the way, don't take this as evidence that I think lunar mining >for consumption on earth will make sense soon. I am currently participating in a Cal-Space (California Space Institute) study (sponsored by NASA) of means for transporting lunar materials to Earth orbit. Several of the techniques mentioned are being considered. Note, however, that the only material considered "worth the effort" in the foreseeable future (25 years or so, according to NASA) is oxygen delivered to low Earth orbit as spacecraft propellant. They are not considering any "construction" materials, and they are certainly far from considering delivering anything to the ground -- it's not even clear that, using NASA accounting, it will be worth bringing back oxygen. I think NASA is (necessarily) very conservative in their assumptions, but it still seems very unlikely that any raw materials will be worth retrieving from space unless and until there is a large space industrial base, comparable (say, within two or three orders of magnitude) of the Earth industrial base, which has learned to obtain and transport materials at low cost for its own use. But once, for example, the General Technics Satellite Solar Power Plant Construction Company has a 50,000-ton-per-year spun-glass fabrication plant running at L-5, who's to say they won't be shipping some by-product titanium "downhill" to us.... Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.s1.gov jtk@mordor.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jan 87 00:04:19 GMT From: rpics!yerazuws@seismo.css.gov (Crah) Subject: Re: Baseball at L5 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <478@unc.unc.UUCP>, symon@unc.UUCP (James Symon) writes: > > > > If the pitcher throws the ball directly at the strike zone, the ball > > (because it becomes an independent object in orbit about the earth-moon > > as soon as the pitcher lets go) will follow a straight line - toward > > where the strike zone WAS. Which will be antispinward a ways. How far > > depends on how fast the cylinder was rotating. So a pitcher would > > have to act like a duck hunter and "lead" the strike zone. > > Nope. When the pitcher lets go of the ball it has the same spinward velocity as > the strike zone. The strike zone accelerates toward the cylinder axis but > except for the resistance of the air (which is also accelerating inward) the > ball no longer is accelerated inward > thus the ball appears to drop just as on earth but there is no reason for it > to move to anti-spinward. The same applies to fly balls. Does this really work? Well, I did the experiment. On top of my record turntable I placed a vertical cylinder (actually, a rolled-up poster). My turntable has a flat mat on the top, so I could see the path of a micro-softball (a BB) essentially unimpaired by surface effects. Sure enough - if I drop a BB from the top of the cylinder it falls to the bottom. It does not curve outward to strike the cylinder, even when the record turntable is set all the way up to "45". Only when the BB begins to be accellerated by the mat at the bottom does the BB move outward toward the cylinder. So - if a pitcher can give the ball a velocity which contains no spinward component, the ball will follow a straight line toward where the strike zone was. For part two of the experiment, I moved the BB at about the peripheral velocity of the cylinder spinward, and dropped it. Now the BB follows what looks to me (a stationary observer) like a straight line, right to the cylinder. If I try and rotate my head with the cylinder, it looks like a segment of a curve. Conclusion of experiment - whether the ball flies straight or falls depends on whether the pitcher can counter the spinward velocity of the L5 colony surface. How fast does the colony surface move? If it's more than 70 feet per second, I don't think a rank amateur like myself can counter the spin without working awfully hard on the pitch. But batting is another matter altogether - even an amateur can reach speeds in excess of 200 feet per second in hardball. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #92 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19687; Sat, 3 Jan 87 03:01:58 PST id AA19687; Sat, 3 Jan 87 03:01:58 PST Date: Sat, 3 Jan 87 03:01:58 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701031101.AA19687@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #93 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 93 Today's Topics: Re: orbiter simulation Re: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1987 19:17 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Cc: minsky%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu In-Reply-To: Msg of 2 Jan 1987 11:57-EST from Gloriana Davenport We all agree that the Challenger disaster was terrible. How could NASA and Morton-Thiokol be so careless about those O-rings? But I have only now realized that the problem is much broader in nature. The other day, I tried to re-fill our seltzer siphon bottle. I inserted the carbon dioxide cartridge, screwed down the injector device and -- out came a stream of gas and ice. After losing three cartridges this way I carefully disassembled the entire system - and discovered that the blast of gas was leaking past a defect in the O-ring seal. I fixed it with a little dab of silicone sealer. The very next day, I found a puddle of water under the electric coffee-pot. Dissecting of the device revealed a leaky O-ring seal in the juction between the pot and the electric heating element. Another dab of sllicone. It seems appropriate for Congress to investigate the reliability procedures used by NASA and Morton-Thiokol, but my experience suggests that the problem runs much deeper. Apparently, unreliable O-ring seals pervade our entire economy. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jan 87 19:11:35 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (Rick Kolker) Subject: Re: orbiter simulation Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <931@inuxe.UUCP> fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) writes: >*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** > >After reading about it in the EE times, I had to by a copy of >"Orbiter" for my PC. First of all I do not work for Spectrum >Holobyte nor do I know anyone who does. > >Clearly this is a superior piece of software. If you are a frustrated >space enthusiast that would clean latrines if that's what it takes >to get up there, you will enjoy this program. > >Now the bad news....it is slow. I'm running an AT&T 6300 (8mhz) >with a hard disk and 8087 Math chip (the program claims to take advantage >of the Math chip if it is available) and the response time in accepting >keyboard commands is just barely tolerable. The reason that it is slow >is that it is a simulation and when it has a shuttle and a MMU and a >satellite all in orbit, not to mention the graphic displays to update, >the PC is running flat out. > >Personally, I'm impressed with what they have done, given the equipment >they are making it run on. > >The SSMEs are running hot and the APUs are nice and cool >I've got the "wish I could fly the shuttle blues". > > Fred > I've been playing with the MAC version of Orbiter for about six months now and haven't noticed processing time getting in the way. My background included a couple of sessions in the shuttle simulator at Huntsville's "Space Camp" (yes adults can go) so I know from whence I speak when I say this is a good program. Spectrum Holobyte promises me I'll see the version for my Atari ST shortly, I can't wait. +------------------------------------^----------------------------------------+ | Rich Kolker / \ | 8519 White Pine Dr. / * \ It lives again | Manassas Park, VA 22111 | | | (703)361-1290 | ^ | +---------------------------------v/---\v-------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jan 87 16:28 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net Subject: Re: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver Jordan Kare (jtk@mordor.s1.gov) proposed some additional ways to launch mass into space. 1) Rotating lunar tether. I didn't include this because it doesn't eliminate the need for a mass driver type electric engine, it just moves it to space. Also, dropping industrial slag back down to the moon seems like a zero sum game, unless the industrial slag can be slingshot somehow in the earth-moon system and captured again at high speed. I'm leary about managing the orbital dynamics, too, and the mass flow rate per unit system mass doesn't seem very high. It seems like a good system for transporting fragile cargo or for lunar surface exploration, though, since you can land and take off from unprepared areas. 2) Stationary lunar tether. A tether extending to the L1 or L2 points would be *very* long, and would, I thought, be quickly broken by space debris. 3) "Active Skyhooks". I haven't seen Starbridge, but I have seen Lofstrom's Launch Loop proposal, and I don't believe you could erect it practically on earth (that thing is huge). I was going to include a lunar launch loop as a third proposal, but edited it out. It would work like this: the ferromagnetic loop would be positioned by attractive magnetic levitation between two ground level parallel superconducting cables. Current in the cables is directed in opposite directions. This scheme is stable in the vertical direction but unstable in the horizontal, so some active control is needed (however, unlike Lofstrom's scheme, the instability is in a direction perpendicular to the centripetal forces). The system is laid out in a racetrack on the lunar surface, the ends are banked and have a much stronger magnetic field. The loop is levitated at rest and accelerated by induction motors to above lunar escape speed; the maglev components now acting to keep the loop from rising. Payloads are placed on the loop and accelerated as in Lofstrom's scheme; the straight section of the racetrack either does not follow the lunar surface (the middle is in a ditch) or the payload is kept down by the maglev system. A small system could be a few tens of kilometers across. The payload carriers could be recovered after use by landing them on a long metallic runway, decelerating from orbital speed by magnetic drag (this would require payloads to be placed in low orbit). (Someone had a paper on a lunar launch loop at some L5 conference, I think; pointer please?) 4) Laser launching. With induction accelerators or railguns, the system mass is going to be dominated by the powerplant, and I presume the same will be true of a lunar laser launcher. I worry about the efficiency of a laser launcher. You'll lose energy in the laser, in the rocket, and in refining the reaction mass. This scheme does have the big advantages over mass-driver-like schemes of being able to transport cryogens, and not requiring mass catchers. 5) Gas gun. Instead of electrically heating the gas, may I suggest a pebble bed nuclear reactor/heat exchanger? A fast closing valve to retain propellant gas might also be useful, if the propellant has a high boiling point (steam?). This brings up the interesting point: how does one generate large amounts of electrical power on the moon, where disposal of waste heat is a big problem? Solar is expensive and often unavailable. Transfer heat to lunar soil? Use a pebble heat transfer material that is continuously tossed upwards and cooled by radiation in flight? Receive beamed power from earth? Eventually a solar power satellite in space would be a good choice, but that's not possible at start-up. About bringing back lunar oxygen: to get oxygen on the moon, you'll need a powerplant there, probably nuclear. If you're going to use a nuclear powerplant to make oxygen to burn with hydrogen, why not skip the intermediate steps and just use a nuclear reactor to heat hydrogen in a rocket? That reactor needn't be very large. This will use more hydrogen, but will be much cheaper than lifting oxygen from earth for use in chemical rockets, if the OTV can be reused. By "worth the effort" I presume NASA meant for use in orbit. I'm suprised NASA didn't mention the possibility of lunar polar ice, and obviously a lunar base would make use of local materials, if only for shielding (or do they mean they won't have a lunar base for 25 years?). ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #93 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21006; Sun, 4 Jan 87 03:01:58 PST id AA21006; Sun, 4 Jan 87 03:01:58 PST Date: Sun, 4 Jan 87 03:01:58 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701041101.AA21006@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #94 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 94 Today's Topics: Re: Bucks from space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Jan 87 09:01:18 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: Bucks from space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov [] My thanks to Paul Dietz for posting actual references on Lunar He-3 and alternative mass drivers; I will try to get them. Meanwhile, here are some comments: > [Paul Dietz:] I think Stolfi is engaging in a little > misrepresentation [of the Snively-O'Neill mass driver design] > here, making this sound outrageous. As an ignorant onlooker, I am more than likely to get my facts wrong. But please credit me with enough wits to realize that by engaging in intentional misrepresentation on this bboard I would be merely shooting my own foot. Also, I didn't try to make the mass driver concept sound outrageous (it certainly isn't). What I find outrageous is the claim that it has been demonstrated at 2/3 full scale, that it will require only a couple of shuttle-loads of equipment, and that the whole system will be cheap enough to ship raw materials to Earth at competitive prices. > [Me:] The full design would need superconducting coils... > [Paul Dietz:] Whoa! The fixed coils don't have to be superconducting! Oops, you are right there. Sorry... > [Paul Dietz:] I wonder where [Stolfi] got the $3.6 billion > figure for a lunar mass driver, though. ... > Development cost can be amortized over many launchers... The Apollo program cost some 70 billion in current dollars, or some 2-3 billion per launch. A single Shuttle orbiter costs some 2 billion, excluding development costs. Even allowing for improved technology and economies of scale, we can safely expect to pay several billions for the manufacture, delivery and installation of a mass driver on the Moon. (I picked 3.6 billion because it gave a nice round number on a per-day basis.) Add to that bucket handlers, mining, smelting and life support equiment, cooling plants, power plants, mass catchers, Moon-orbit-to-Earth-orbit transportation, ground support, and all the associated paraphernalia. Maybe 36 billion per unit is still too optimistic ... > [Paul Dietz:] Was it built entirely on earth, then transported > to the moon? ... it would likely make sense to manufacture > parts for the mass driver on the moon ... ...provided the extra equipment necessary to manufacture those parts is lighter than the parts themselves. This may be true for structural elements, but is not obvious for the rest, even for such "simple" things as coils, capacitors, and solar cells. Moreover, just supporting a crew on the Moon for the time it takes to build a capacitor bank out of rock and sunshine may cost more than shipping the thing from Earth. > [Paul Dietz:] The capacitors would likely use the vacuum as a dielectric. > This isn't practical on earth, since large volumes of vacuum > are not free as they are on the moon. My impression is that using vacuum as a dielectric doesn't pay off. Since electrical attraction between the plates is going to be several pounds per square inch, you have to insert some thin insulating layer or grid between them to keep them apart. In that case, it is better to use a solid layer, which seems simpler to build and gives a higher capacitance than vacuum. At least, one of the MD-III papers [4] explicitly discards the idea of capacitors made by spreading lunar dirt between metal plates, and suggests making them by vapor deposition of alternate layers of metal and glass. In any case, I wonder how much time and equipment mass will it take to build the capacitor bank. > [Paul Dietz:] Stolfi didn't tell us why titanium is so > expensive. According to [1], over 60% of the titanium produced in the US goes to aerospace applications. Maybe it is expensive because the Pentagon buys it? :-) Seriously, refining costs are about half the answer. From [3], 146--148: "[Titanium] is produced by converting the ore, rutile or ilmenite, into titanium dioxide by means of simple chemical treatment. The dioxide is then converted to the tetrachloride, and heated with magnesium or sodium which reduces it to the metal [this is known as the Kroll process]. ... Although titanium uses in industry are constantly widening, its market is very much dependent on the fortunes of the aerospace industry. The value of the metal bears almost no relationship to the price of the ore, but more to the value of the pure metal (magnesium or sodium) required to reduce it from the ore. Both these metals are abundant in sea water but incur in high energy costs in production." The other half of the answer seems to be that titanium metallurgy is expensive; the price of aircraft quality sheets and billets is at least double that of reasonably pure titanium powder.[1] See also Henry Spencer's recent message on this bboard. > [Me:] A couple of months ago I argued that space mining and > manufacturing is probably never going to be profitable. > ... I still believe that it is not going to make sense in > the foreseeable future. ... > [Paul Dietz:] I note that "never" has mutated into "not in the > foreseeable future". The latter is a much weaker claim. Nothing has mutated; I believe in both, with different degrees of confidence. Consider the idea of raising horses in Antarctica for the US market. This is not going to make sense in the foreseeable future, because in that time span horse breeding is certainly going to be much more expensive there than here. It is also quite possible that such trade will NEVER happen, because if and when the cost difference disappears, chances are there will be no longer a market for horses, or no horses, or no markets, or no Antarctica, or no US, or no one alive who gives a damn about what a certain J. Stolfi said about international horse trade back in A.D. 1986. REFERENCES [1] "Metal Statistics 1986", Fairchild Publications. [2] R. Packard, "Metal Bulletin Handbook 1986" Metal Bulletin Books Ltd, UK (1984 prices). [3] J. Edwards & P. Robbins, "Guide to non-ferrous metals and their markets", Kogan-Page, UK (1979). [4] M. Prado & D. Renfroe, "Lunar-based mass driver power supply: Assessment of homopolar generators, compulsators, and capacitor banks" in "Space manufacturing 5: Engineering with Lunar and asteroidal materials," proceedings of the Seventh Princeton/AIAA/SSI Conference, May 8-11, 1985. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: My employer may or may not have strong opinions about this stuff, but I don't dare to ask. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #94 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23044; Mon, 5 Jan 87 03:02:14 PST id AA23044; Mon, 5 Jan 87 03:02:14 PST Date: Mon, 5 Jan 87 03:02:14 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701051102.AA23044@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #95 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 5 Jan 87 03:02:14 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #95 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 95 Today's Topics: Bucks from space (2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Jan 87 09:13:31 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Bucks from space (2) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov [Why worry about the line eater, when there are MESSAGE eaters on the loose?] Still on the subject of industrial development of space, let's now consider the prospects for material processing in space, again FOR EARTH CONSUMPTION. MANUFACTURING COSTS ------------------- > [Me:] Manufacturing something in space is bound to be > substantially more expensive than doing it on Earth, because > labor, materials and equipment are more sophisticated. > [Dale Amon:] Possibly true on the early manned space station. > Probably not after a decade of experience. And certainly not > true on the lunar surface. Hell, you don't even need to shield > a nuclear reactor. Just sit it in a crater. (See papers by > Dr. Kraftt Ehricke shortly before his death). I can't comment on the unshielded reactor for lack of data (do you have the references)? However, it seems to me that a nuclear reactor for use in space has to be compact, lightweight, reliable, sturdy, highly automated, and require very little maintenance. (It also need a fairly big radiator). For the same power output, such a reactor will surely be a lot more expensive than a Earth-based one. And the same goes for most equipment. > [Me:] The smallest space factory or lunar mine is going to cost > billions of dollars more than a comparable facility on Earth. > [Dale Amon:] You are using old fashioned thinking. You don't > launch a factory. You launch the space age equivalent of a > quonset hut and then you ship in modules for the processing you > intend to do. A quonset hut plus equipment is a factory, isn't it? The problem is that the space age equivalent of a quonset hut comes with a space age price ... VALUE OF ZERO-G --------------- > [Me:] It is still highly unlikely that microgravity and > abundant high vacuum will ever find significant industrial > applications in metallurgy, bioindustry, etc. > [Dale Amon:] The growth of protein crystals has important > possibilities for drugs. Are you sure? Biochemists want to grow large protein crystals in order to study their structure by X-ray diffraction. As far as I know, to grow protein crystals (on Earth or in space) you have to start with a fairly pure and concentrated solution. The hardest part of drug purification is getting to this stage. It is also not clear to me how hard it is to grow protein crystals in 1g. My impression is that most previous attempts seem to have been one-shot affairs, with (relatively) small staffs working on a (relatively) small budget, and practically re-inventing the necessary technology from scratch. The technology used seem to be quite low-tech, such as hanging a drop of solution from the bottom of a microscope slide, and letting it evaporate slowly. So, when scientists describe protein crystallization as "difficult, slow, and expensive", what they mean is probably orders of magnitude better than NASA's idea of "easy, quick, and cheap". In fact, several biologists have criticized the Shuttle protein crystallization experiments for their lack of controls. It is quite possible that better results would have been obtained with Earth-based biocrystal technology, if the same level of funding and resources had been available for its development [6]. > [Dale Amon:] The market will decide whether earthly processes > will win out in terms of purity etc. ... I also know of a > successful business man who is donating large sums of money to > electrophoresis research ... Well, Ortho Pharmaceuticals pulled out of MacDonnell Douglas' electrophoresis project (it seems they found a better Earth-based way to do what they wanted). McDD then tried to get 3M interested in the project, but they too dropped out after some preliminary studies (which 3M said gave them a better understanding of mixing processes and crystal growing on Earth). Note that all this happened before the Challenger disaster [5, 9]. > [Me:] It will take a long while for radically new space-based > silicon-growing processes to reach the same level of perfection > now attained by Earth manufacturers. > [Dale Amon:] The truth is that amateurs with primitive > equipment have generated crystals of the size and quality of > earthly manufacture. I've seen the side by side slides. Can you be more specific? Do you really mean 6" by 1' silicon monocrystals with impurities and dislocations down to the parts per billion range? Then why isn't NASA rubbing those crystals under the nose of all the Van Allens out here? > [Dale Amon:] It is likely that we will be able to generate > defect free large wafers with simple zone refining. > Remember wafer scale integration? The idea that failed and > took Trilogy Inc (Amdahl & Co) with it? It is probably > possible with zero G processing. Or maybe it will fail again, and take NASA with it? :-) Seriously, it is hard to imagine zone refining growing better and cheaper 6'' wide silicon crystals than the current Earth-based methods. Moreover, crystal defects are not the major cause of failure for large silicon ICs; further improvements will not have a great impact on IC yields, and therefore will have little economic value. As for GaAs, there are many alternative technologies currently being developed that are well adapted to gravity, are at lest as likely to succeed, and are potentially much cheaper than any space-based process. For example, the Japanese are routinely growing 3'' wide GaAs by the same crystal-pulling (Czochralski) method used for silicon [10]. The `hot' technology now is growing a thin layer of GaAs on top of a silicon wafer; the resulting wafers are less brittle and better heat conductors than plain GaAs, and can probably be made as big as those now routinely used for silicon (6''-8'') with little additional effort [11]. By the time we start experimenting with GaAs refining on the space station, Earth-based technology will probably have progresed beyond reach. Also note that many of the problems of GaAs technology are unrelated to gravity, and may even get worse for zone refining in zero G. For example, a major problem is the tendency of arsenic to evaporate out of the melt, leaving excess gallium behind. The Japanese solve this problem by covering the molten GaAs with an inch-thick layer of molten boron oxide, and pulling the crystal through it. Maybe this trick can be adapted to zero G refining, but it is not clear how. > [Mike Smith:] One of the wafers in my product line was > worth $40,000 per... Chip fab lines are not THAT large. > Wonder how many wafers would fit in a shuttle ... An orbiting semiconductor facility will be essentially a Si or GaAs crystallization plant. All prior and subsequent processing steps are hardly affected by gravity, and can be done more cheaply on Earth. So, for profit computations you should not consider the price of complete ICs, or even ``blank'' wafers, but rather the price of unsliced single-crystal ingots, minus that of starting materials (ultrapure Si and GaAs). (Anyone got any numbers)? By the way, here is a relevant quote from a 1984 paper [12], p. 82--86. The author was working for Microgravity Research Associates, a company that plans to grow GaAs in space. "Space-produced GaAs will cost a great deal more than that produced on Earth, primarily because of the very high cost of space transportation. ... The cost of production aboard Shuttle-serviced free flyers or a space station, where the furnaces will remain in orbit, are expected to be considerably less. ... However, it should be noted that regardless of which mode is used ... transportation costs using the Shuttle Transportation System are the dominant part of production costs. These costs, unless significantly reduced, will keep the price of space products restrictively high." PROBLEMS OF ZERO-G ------------------ > [Me:] In fact, the lack of gravity and a limited air supply are > a serious problem for many industrial processes. Many common > operations such as weighting, boiling, pouring, etc. > are much harder or impossible to perform in zero G. > [Dale Amon:] The advantage of space is that you can get ANY > gravity or gravity gradient you want. Take two external tanks, > tether them together, start the mess spinning and voila! > Thousands of cubic feet of industrial space with whatever > gravity field you want. So you do zero G processing in the > zero G shed, then move the materials over to the half G shed > for weighting, boiling, etc. Or maybe if you have a > special requirement, run it over to the HiG/HiGradient shed > with the short tether... For one thing, this is not the space station that NASA wants to build. Note that a rotating space station (especially one improvised out of ETs) poses special problems for large solar panels, antennas, EVAs, docking with other spacecraft, and so on. Also, it means doing an EVA every time you have to transfer materials between zero-G and X-G. (Many proposed zero-G processes need really good zero-g, so they will probably have to be carried out in an isolated module.) Also, someone metioned that humans have a hard time adapting to the disorienting effect of Coriolis forces on the inner ear. > [Dave Newkirk:] Boiling is much easier in vacuum than at sea > level on the Earth. It's trivial to vary the pressure to > achieve any boiling point you want. Ah, but you don't want to dump your precious liquids out to space. Especially if the vapor is what you are after. One problem with boiling liquids in zero G is that there is no convection, so the fluid close to the heating elements will get to the boiling point while the rest of the liquid is still cold (like heating a pot of water from the top). Moreover, once the liquid close to the heater starts to boil, its vapor will push the liquid away from the heater, reducing heat transfer to nearly zero. If you can get the whole mass to boil, you will find it hard to keep the liquid in the boiler while letting the vapor escape. Finally, you have the problem of collecting the liquid at the condenser end. > [Dave Newkirk:] A device was used in Skylab to weigh the > astronauts that [worked by measuring the force needed to > produce a known acceleration]. You missed my point. Sure, almost anything that can be done on Earth can also be done in space, given the proper equipment. My point is that the necessary equipment will usually be more cumbersome, less flexible, less reliable, harder to develop, and awfully more expensive than its Earth equivalent. Witness the 100K$ Coke can. There are indeed many processes that are easier in zero G, and would require expensive equipment and/or sohisticated trickery to do on Earth. However, it is not at all obvious that the advantages of doing them in space will be greater than the disadvantages. > [Me:] A chemical spill that would be of no consequence on > Earth may seriously harm a space station and/or its crew. > [Dale Amon:] [A space-based industrial facility] will almost > certainly be built with isolated modules for hazardous > materials. Even if something blows up, you don't have a > disaster. A space station contains precious little air and water, so you cannot just hose down a spill, or let the wind dilute a gas leak to harmless levels. Powders and aerosols won't settle in zero G, and hot vapors won't rise. To save mass, space station equipment will generally be more delicate than its Earth equivalent, which will tend to increase both the probability and the severity of accidents. Damage to the life support system or any of many other critical items would force the crew to abandon the station. The station is very far from rescue teams and repair crews. Repairs are more difficult, replacement parts more expensive, and system logistics is a lot less flexible than for Earth-based industries. Should I go on? > [Dale Amon:] Any industry balances the cost of safety measures > versus the expected cost of accidents. Right. Since accidents are a lot more expensive, safety measures will be more expensive, too. RESEARCH OR INDUSTRY? --------------------- > [Andrew Folkins:] We don't know enough about zero-G > manufacturing at this point to say that nothing useful will > ever be discovered because we really haven't looked yet. Right on. The biotechnology and materials processing that will be done on the space station is RESEARCH. It may or may not turn up processes of clear economic potential. If and when that happens, private industry will need no prodding, and will quickly move into development and production by itself, paying the whole bill (that is what happened with communication satellites, right?). But until then, all materials science experiments in space will be pure RESEARCH, and it should be clearly labeled/planned/funded/evaluated/administered as such. In particular, the expected scientific and commercial payoffs from those experiments must be weighted against those of other space- and ground-based research. CONCLUDING REMARKS ------------------ In summary, I still believe that the prospects of space manufacturing for Earth consumption in the foreseeable future (say, the next thirty years) are rather dubious. The value of microgravity for industrial processing (as opposed to research) is still undemonstrated, and it will benefit at most one or two steps in the manufacture of any given product. The fact that drugs and semiconductors have a high price per pound is largely irrelevant, since those few steps account for a small fraction of the total cost, and/or require processing large amounts of intermediate materials. Revenues from space manufacturing are therefore unlikely to repay the transportation costs. To those we must add the high cost of development, equipment, safety, ground support, crew rotation, and other operational expenses. Moreover, space manufacturing also has to contend with long development time, long turnaround time between experiments and batches, and little scheduling flexibility. Space manufacturing will undoubtedly become cheaper as technology advances, but the same will happen to Earth-based manufacturing; in the long run, it is not clear when (or whether) the former will win. These beliefs are apparently shared by people with people far more knowledgeable then me. Even a NASA Task Force on the Commercial use of Space had to admit that "there are no major short-term commercial uses of space that are currently demonstrable" [5]. NASA and the space societies should admit frankly that the Space Station and the Shuttle are not potential gold mines, but awfully expensive RESEARCH tools, in the same category as particle accelerators, polar stations, and deep-sea drilling ships. NASA may gain some support on the short run by ``overselling'' the commercial potential of space; but sooner or later the public will notice all those zeros in red ink, and NASA's support will go down the drain (along with its credibility). It would be quite unpleasant to discover one day that after spending ten years and countless billions on the space station, we got nothing useful out of it --- neither a lucrative space industry, nor a sound research program, but only a big chunk of expensive, obsolete, and largely useless hardware. Please, let's not go through the Shuttle story all over again. (To be continued) REFERENCES [5] J. M. Logsdon, "Status of space commercialization in the USA" Space Policy, vol. 2 no. 1 (February 1986) 9--15. [6] Science (somewhere in last 18 months; sorry, I can't find the exact reference). [9] B. M. Register, "Rx for the 1990s." Space World vol. W6-270 (June 1986), 13--17. [10] T. E. bell, "Japan reaches beyond silicon" IEEE Spectrum vol. 22 no. 10 (October 1985), 46--54. [11] B. C. Cole, "Technology outlook: Semiconductors" Electronics vol. 59 no. 33 (October 1986), p. 83. [12] R. L. Randolph, "Producing gallium arsenide crystals in space." NASA Conference Publication 2313: proceedings of the Second NASA Symposium on Space Industrialization, Huntsville AL (Feb. 1984), 82--86. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * * * * * T H E D R E A M I S A L I V E * * * * * (and reality ain't got nothing that a bit of CPR can't cure) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISCLAIMER: The above does not reflect the opinions of my employer on space policy, but may strongly affect its opinion about myself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #95 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25395; Tue, 6 Jan 87 07:53:38 PST id AA25395; Tue, 6 Jan 87 07:53:38 PST Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 07:53:38 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701061553.AA25395@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #96 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 07:53:38 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #96 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 96 Today's Topics: Element prices and abundances ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Jan 87 11:32:21 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Element prices and abundances Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov For those who like numerical trivia, here are approximate cash prices and abundances for most chemical elements. These numbers were compiled from very disparate sources by a totally unqualified amateur (that's me) who certainly added quite a few typos and unit conversion errors along the way. Ergo, don't stake the future of your country on these data. Additions, corrections, and pointers to better sources will be most welcome. "Price" is a recent (~84-86) market or list price, in dollars per pound, for the element in reasonably pure form. Beware that those of the most expensive elements were extrapolated from per-gram prices, so they may be grossly inaccurate. Also, some data from the Rubber Bible [6] may apply to lab-reagent grade, which may be somewhat more expensive than industrial grade. Note that rare earth elements are expensive partly because it is very difficult to separate them from each other. Therefore, the market value of rare earth mixtures (as may be produced by smelting lunar or asteroidal ores) may be much lower than what the numbers below may indicate. Element abundances are in parts per million (mass). Unless noted otherwise, Moon data are the largest of the values reported in [1,p.12] and [4] (and therefore are not supposed to add to 1000000). Those for the Earth crust and meteorites (type I carbonaceous chondrites) are from reference [4]. Element abundances for the Earth crust have little economic relevance, since their concentration in commercial ore deposits is often hundreds or thousands times the crustal average. Such levels of enrichment are unlikely to have occurred on less differentiated bodies, such as the Moon and asteroids, except of course for metal/stone separation on the latter. PRICE ABUNDANCES (PPM) AN ELEMENT ($/lb) EARTH MOON CHOND. -- ------------- -------- ------- ------- ------- 01 Hydrogen (?) 1400 200 22000 02 Helium (?) (?) 35 [7] (?) 03 Lithium 22.70 [3] 20 12 1.3 04 Beryllium 196.00 [2] 2 2 0.04 05 Boron (?) 10 2 5 06 Carbon (?) 250 140 37000 07 Nitrogen (?) 20 100 2700 08 Oxygen (?) 466000 470000 453000 09 Fluorine (?) 650 140 190 10 Neon 700.00 [6] (?) (?) (?) 11 Sodium (?) 28000 5200 5500 12 Magnesium 1.48 [2] 21000 63000 96000 13 Aluminum 0.50 [2] 81000 140000 8500 14 Silicon 0.69 [3] 277000 224000 103000 15 Phosphorus (?) 700 2300 1400 16 Sulfur (?) 260 1700 62000 17 Chlorine (?) 130 14 260 18 Argon (?) (?) (?) (?) 19 Potassium 240.00 [6] 26000 4600 500 20 Calcium (?) 36000 111000 10600 21 Scandium 23000.00 [6] 20 75 5 22 Titanium 5.70 [2] 4400 73000 400 23 Vanadium 4.94 [2] 140 50 57 24 Chromium 3.75 [2] 100 3300 2200 25 Manganese 0.80 [2] 950 2200 1700 26 Iron(pig) 0.10 50000 169000 184000 27 Cobalt 12.50 [2] 25 25 480 28 Nickel 3.29 [2] 70 15 10400 29 Copper 0.69 [2] 50 11 140 30 Zinc 0.42 [2] 70 15 320 31 Gallium 236.00 [2] 15 4.5 10 32 Germanium 477.00 [2] 1.5 0.1 34 33 Arsenic 1.97 [3] 1.8 0.05 2.0 34 Selenium 9.00 [2] 0.1 27 27 35 Bromine (?) 2.5 0.1 5 36 Krypton 3600.00 [6] (?) (?) (?) 37 Rubidium 900.00 [6] 90 3.4 2.3 38 Strontium 8.00 [6] 390 170 8 39 Yttrium 150.00 [6] 30 120 1.6 40 Zirconium 7.00 [6] 170 370 11 41 Niobium 17.00 [2] 20 21 0.5 42 Molybdenum 17.97 [2] 1.5 0.5 1.6 44 Ruthenium 1820.00 [2] 0.01 --- 0.7 45 Rhodium 13200.00 [2] 0.005 --- 0.2 46 Palladium 1790.00 [2] 0.01 0.006 0.6 47 Silver 90.00 [2] 0.05 0.008 0.4 48 Cadmium 1.31 [2] 0.2 0.004 1.0 49 Indium 38.00 [2] 0.05 --- 0.09 50 Tin 5.82 [2] 3 0.6 1.6 51 Antimony 1.40 [2] 0.2 0.007 0.15 52 Tellurium 20.00 [6] 0.01 0.02 3.3 53 Iodine (?) 0.5 --- 0.6 54 Xenon 1500.00 [6] (?) (?) (?) 55 Cesium 400.00 [2] 2 0.1 0.19 56 Barium 20.00 [6] 400 200 4 57 Lanthanum 370.00 [6] 30 18 0.19 58 Cerium 900.00 [6] 60 54 0.63 59 Praseodymium 450.00 [6] 8 11 0.09 60 Neodymium 900.00 [6] 30 46 0.42 62 Samarium 2300.00 [6] 6 15 0.13 63 Europium 23000.00 [6] 1 1.9 0.05 64 Gadolinium 1800.00 [6] 5 20 0.24 65 Terbium 900.00 [6] 1 3.6 0.04 66 Dysprosium 1400.00 [6] 3 25 0.22 67 Holmium 3600.00 [6] 1 4.9 0.06 68 Erbium 1400.00 [6] 3 14 0.14 69 Thulium 4500.00 [6] 0.5 1.9 0.02 70 Ytterbium 300.00 [6] 3 13 0.13 71 Lutetium 30000.00 [6] 0.5 1.9 0.02 72 Hafnium 500.00 [6] 3 13 0.26 73 Tantalum 30.00 [2] 2 1.7 0.02 74 Tungsten 9.00 [3] 1 0.3 0.14 75 Rhenium 3700.00 [6] 0.001 --- 0.04 76 Osmium 1970.00 [2] 0.005 --- 0.45 77 Iridium 5830.00 [2] 0.001 --- 0.40 78 Platinum 4960.00 [2] 0.01 --- 0.9 79 Gold 4620.00 [2] 0.005 --- 0.18 80 Mercury 4.17 [2] 0.08 --- 1 81 Thallium 8.00 [6] 0.5 --- 0.14 82 Lead 0.25 [2] 13 1.2 2.9 83 Bismuth 5.22 [2] 0.2 --- 0.13 90 Thorium 10.00 [6] 7 2 0.04 92 Uranium(oxide) 15.61 [2] 2 0.5 0.01 A few rare isotopes: 01 Deuterium 450.00 [6] (?) (?) (?) 02 Helium-3 315000.00 [7] (?) 0.005 [7] (?) 06 Carbon-13 350000.00 [6] (?) (?) (?) Entries from the list above worth more than $200/lb: 06 Carbon-13 350000.00 [6] (?) (?) (?) 02 Helium-3 315000.00 [7] (?) 0.005 [7] (?) 71 Lutetium 30000.00 [6] 0.5 1.9 0.02 63 Europium 23000.00 [6] 1 1.9 0.05 21 Scandium 23000.00 [6] 20 75 5 45 Rhodium 13200.00 [2] 0.005 --- 0.2 77 Iridium 5830.00 [2] 0.001 --- 0.40 78 Platinum 4960.00 [2] 0.01 --- 0.9 79 Gold 4620.00 [2] 0.005 --- 0.18 69 Thulium 4500.00 [6] 0.5 1.9 0.02 75 Rhenium 3700.00 [6] 0.001 --- 0.04 67 Holmium 3600.00 [6] 1 4.9 0.06 36 Krypton 3600.00 [6] (?) (?) (?) 62 Samarium 2300.00 [6] 6 15 0.13 76 Osmium 1970.00 [2] 0.005 --- 0.45 44 Ruthenium 1820.00 [2] 0.01 --- 0.7 64 Gadolinium 1800.00 [6] 5 20 0.24 46 Palladium 1790.00 [2] 0.01 0.006 0.6 54 Xenon 1500.00 [6] (?) (?) (?) 68 Erbium 1400.00 [6] 3 14 0.14 66 Dysprosium 1400.00 [6] 3 25 0.22 65 Terbium 900.00 [6] 1 3.6 0.04 60 Neodymium 900.00 [6] 30 46 0.42 58 Cerium 900.00 [6] 60 54 0.63 37 Rubidium 900.00 [6] 90 3.4 2.3 10 Neon 700.00 [6] (?) (?) (?) 72 Hafnium 500.00 [6] 3 13 0.26 32 Germanium 477.00 [2] 1.5 0.1 34 01 Deuterium 450.00 [6] (?) (?) (?) 59 Praseodymium 450.00 [6] 8 11 0.09 55 Cesium 400.00 [2] 2 0.1 0.19 57 Lanthanum 370.00 [6] 30 18 0.19 70 Ytterbium 300.00 [6] 3 13 0.13 19 Potassium 240.00 [6] 26000 4600 500 31 Gallium 236.00 [2] 15 4.5 10 Happy dreams... REFERENCES [1] R. D. Johnson, ed. "Space Settlements: A Design Study." NASA SP-413 (1977), quoting data from [8]. [2] "Metal Statistics 1986", Fairchild Publications (1985 prices) [3] R. Packard, "Metal Bulletin Handbook 1986" Metal Bulletin Books, Ltd (UK) (1984 prices) [4] "Encyclopaedia Britannica" 15th edition (1974, printed 1986) Volume 17, page 940, Table 3: Abundance of the elements in... [6] "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" (a.k.a. "the Rubber Bible"), 66th edition (1986) [7] Barney B. Roberts, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., 31(9), Oct. 1986, page 1499. As quoted by Paul Dietz in message <8611120617.AA02138@s1-b.arpa> [8] H. J. Ross Jr &c., "Compositional data for twenty two Apollo-16 samples." Proceedings of the 4th Lunar Science Conference, vol. 2 pp 1149--1158. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #96 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA26922; Wed, 7 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST id AA26922; Wed, 7 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST Date: Wed, 7 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701071102.AA26922@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #97 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 97 Today's Topics: New "High" Temperature Superconductors Discovered "Voyager" flight around world Re: O-rings and Silly cOnes NASA wanted a smaller shuttle?? Re: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver Re: NASA wanted a smaller shuttle?? Re: "Voyager" flight around world ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 3 Jan 87 10:23 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net Subject: New "High" Temperature Superconductors Discovered In the NY Times last wednesday (12/31/86) there was a fascinating story that has some small bearing on mass drivers. According to the story, scientists at Bell Labs and U. of Houston have discovered new superconducting materials with transition temperatures well above the boiling point of liquid hydrogen. The U. of Houston material, discovered by Dr. Paul C. W. Chu, is a lanthanum barium copper oxide, and becomes superconducting at 40.2 deg. K at a pressure of several hundred thousand PSI. The Bell Labs material is still secret (pending patent submission) but is said to begin showing signs of superconductivity at 40 deg. K and becomes fully superconducting at 36 deg. K at normal pressure. Dr. Chu says it may be possible to raise the transition temperature to 50 deg. K in the near future and perhaps to 77 deg. K (the boiling point of liquid nitrogen). ------------------------------ Date: 1987 January 03 10:42:16 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: "Voyager" flight around world The two-person refueless flight around the world got a lot of publicity and fame, yet I wonder whether it was just a stunt or something of true significance. The Apollo landing on the moon would have been just an expensive dead-end stunt if we hadn't collected rock samples, left cubic corner reflectors and seismic stations, and planned to return later for more activities. As it is, we haven't yet returned, but we have new information about the origin of the solar system (pure science/cosmology), new information about the titanium aluminum and oxygen etc. in the soil (useful for planning use of such materials), and we're using those cubic corner reflectors even today for precise location on Earth allowing us to measure continental drift in real time. But what future uses could that refueless flight possibly have? Lightweight drones for delivering medical supplies or as radio relays or emergency-distress-beacon locators, which can stay up for weeks without refueling yet be closer than a satellite and thus give faster data turnaround and more precise location with cheap eqipment? A replacement for recreational hang-gliding? What? Or is it truly just a dead-end stunt that got undue publicity to distract the public from Gippergate (aka IranContraGate)?? ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 87 16:57:21 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: O-rings and Silly cOnes Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU writes: >We all agree that the Challenger disaster was terrible. How could >NASA and Morton-Thiokol be so careless about those O-rings? ... >The other day, I tried to re-fill our seltzer siphon bottle. I >inserted the carbon dioxide cartridge, screwed down the injector >device and -- out came a stream of gas and ice. .. discovered.. defect >in the O-ring seal. I fixed it with a little dab of silicone sealer. >The very next day, I found a puddle of water under the electric >coffee-pot. ..... Another dab of sllicone. >Apparently, unreliable O-ring seals pervade our entire economy. But like the Brill-Creme commercial of decades past... A "little dab 'll do ya" ! Of course, now it is "dollops", whatever that is... :-) We will be "wetting" our orings with a film of "silicone rubber" just before installation as a matter of practice from now on. Paul M. Koloc: (301) 445-1075 {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jan 87 21:14 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov, space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net Subject: NASA wanted a smaller shuttle?? You (Henry Spencer), in V7 #78, wrote: > Separating the two roles [carrying passengers and heavy cargo] is what >should have been done all along, of course. Then we would have a >*considerably* smaller Shuttle in greater numbers -- a much better >approximation to "routine access to space". (In fairness, it >should be noted that NASA wanted Shuttle 1 to be smaller than it is.) NASA wanted what?! You're misinformed. I quote from the Rogers report: "The Space Shuttle Design" "The embryo Shuttle program faced a number of evolutionary design changes before it would become a system in being. The first design was based on a 'fly-back' concept in which two stages, each manned, would fly back to a horizontal, airplane-like landing..." "The second stage craft, conceived prior to 1970 as a space station ferry, was a vehicle considerably larger than the later Space Shuttle Orbiter. It carried its rocket propellants internally, had a flight deck sufficiently large to seat 12 space station bound passengers and a cargo bay big enough to accommodate space station modules...." So, the space shuttle was intended from the beginning as a heavy lift/passenger carrying hybrid. With regard to the more modern shuttle: the article "The Space Shuttle: A Policy Failure?" in Science last year documented how NASA struggled to retain the large payload bay the current shuttle has, in the face of pressure from OMB and others to scale it down. There was little pressure from DoD for a big shuttle (as you say, they've always been expendable booster fans). ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 87 23:12:09 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov One thing that gives me the heebie-jeebies about ideas like lunar laser launchers and such is the use of oxygen as a propellant for a thermal engine. Lordy, but that stuff is corrosive at high pressures and temperatures. Such engines will present formidable materials problems. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 87 06:11:56 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: NASA wanted a smaller shuttle?? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > >... NASA wanted Shuttle 1 to be smaller than it is.) > > NASA wanted what?! You're misinformed. I quote from the Rogers > report: > ... > "The second stage craft, conceived prior to 1970 as a space station > ferry, was a vehicle considerably larger than the later Space Shuttle > Orbiter... Check out a rather later version, the one Maxime Faget designed after the overall configuration (external boosters, external tanks) had settled down but before the need for USAF political support changed things: rather smaller payload bay, rather smaller orbiter, straight wings. That version set the basic configuration of the orbiter, although the details had to be changed later. > So, the space shuttle was intended from the beginning as > a heavy lift/passenger carrying hybrid... *Which* beginning? Here lies the conflict: you are confusing earlier design concepts with the evolutionary stages of the one that eventually became real. > ... the article "The Space Shuttle: A Policy Failure?" > in Science last year documented how NASA struggled to retain the > large payload bay the current shuttle has... I read the article but don't recall that particular discussion. However, note that the basic theme of that article was that much of NASA's behavior has been dictated by the attempt to conduct an ambitious program without proper political support. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that NASA was reluctant to offend the USAF by shrinking a payload bay sized to fit their requirements. > ... There was little pressure from DoD for a big shuttle (as you say, > they've always been expendable booster fans). On the contrary, if you look it up I think you'll find that both the precise size of the payload bay and the precise (theoretical, now unlikely ever to be realized) maximum payload requirements for the Shuttle were set by USAF lift requirements. Ditto the cross-range requirement. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 87 09:33:17 GMT From: cbmvax!grr@rutgers.rutgers.edu (George Robbins) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8701032201.AA20433@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes: >The two-person refueless flight around the world got a lot of >publicity and fame, yet I wonder whether it was just a stunt or >something of true significance. ... > A replacement for recreational hang-gliding? What? Or is it >truly just a dead-end stunt that got undue publicity to distract the >public from Gippergate (aka IranContraGate)?? Then why don't you do a little reading about it? The whole works has been convered in detail in various aviation magazines for over a year. It has about as much to do with Reagan as maybe climbing Everest. Doing somthing previously considered impossible changes the rules that 'everybody knows' and puts both technology and people to the test. Useful? Only time will tell... George Robbins, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #97 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA28560; Thu, 8 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST id AA28560; Thu, 8 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST Date: Thu, 8 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701081102.AA28560@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #98 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 8 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #98 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 98 Today's Topics: Re: ubiquity of O-ring problems Re: "Voyager" flight around world Re: Refrigerator Gaskets Re: "Voyager" flight around world Re: "Voyager" flight around world Re: SPACE Digest V7 #95 Re: Baseball at L5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shimon Edelman Date: Sun, 4 Jan 87 15:52:20 -0200 To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: ubiquity of O-ring problems Newsgroups: fa.space In-Reply-To: <215@wisdom.BITNET> In Space Digest V7 #93 MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu writes: > >It seems appropriate for Congress to investigate the reliability >procedures used by NASA and Morton-Thiokol, but my experience suggests >that the problem runs much deeper. Apparently, unreliable O-ring >seals pervade our entire economy. All home refrigerators have rubber gaskets along the perimeter of the doors. The rubber usually deteriorates and the sealing efficiency drops quite soon. I had a pleasant surprise when I discovered that in the new refrigerator we've bought the entire gasket contact area was constantly heated to about 30 deg. Celsius, to prevent damage from the low temperature inside the refrigerator. Was a similar solution feasible for the SRB O-rings? BTW, our refrigerator is Israeli-made; is gasket-heating a standard practice in the US? Shimon Edelman (edelman%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 87 22:20:33 GMT From: clyde!watmath!looking!brad@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Brad Templeton) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Actually, what bothered me was that this was billed as the first flight around the world without refueling. We all know this was done over 25 years ago by Yuri Gagarin, and three times in a row shortly thereafter by a certain senator. This was the first time it was done within the atmosphere. The advantage of staying within the atmosphere seems little but show. Nonetheless, it can still be fun as show. People set themselves all sorts of artificial "goals" and then work hard to reach them. This can still be exciting to watch, even if the goal is meaningless in terms of real applications. Otherwise why is there press for something like "The first North American woman to climb Mt. Everest?" Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 87 04:16:33 GMT From: epiwrl!parker@seismo.css.gov (Alan Parker) Subject: Re: Refrigerator Gaskets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov My US built GE has such heaters. I always thought the purpose was to prevent (or reduce) condensation. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 87 01:40:11 GMT From: cae780!weitek!sci!daver@hplabs.hp.com (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8701032201.AA20433@angband.s1.gov>, REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes: > The two-person refueless flight around the world got a lot of > publicity and fame, yet I wonder whether it was just a stunt or > something of true significance... I felt more or less the same way. It was newsworthy, but not important. In listening to the various announcers, there was a lot of comparison between this and the Apollo missions, which i was a bit disgusted by. Apollo could have lead to something significant--this won't. I'm being a bit too cynical. This has pushed the frontiers of aviation by a bit, and could lead to some incremental improvements in the art. Also, as was pointed out, this was something done by a small group of people for a comparatively small amount of money. > ...Or is it > truly just a dead-end stunt that got undue publicity to distract the > public from Gippergate (aka IranContraGate)?? Do you really think the news services and public opinion are that easily manipulated? This is getting to sound like some of the more amusing conspiracy theories. david rickel cae780!weitek!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 87 15:44:57 GMT From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I'm a bit more optimistic about the Voyager. First, the fact that it has been done is important. As has been mentioned, it will open up people's thinking. It increases the area of known engineering possibility. Secondly, it has shown that we can build complex structures with lighter weight materials. Voyager weighed about 1/4 as much as a similar craft built with "conventional" materials. If you reflect that a large commercial aeroplane has a weight pattern (very roughly) of 40% tare, 30% fuel and 30% payload, how much would it be worth to make that 10%:30%:60%? We may be at the beginning of a rethinking of air transport economics. Finally, Voyager was an excellent test of our new navigation and weather-monitoring facilities. Even given the craft, the journey would not have been possible 30 years ago: the pilots would have got lost, run into a typhoon, &c, and ended up a mystery like Amelia E. This opens the door to a considerable expansion in low-budget flying. There seems to be a pattern to such things. A long period of research and minor experiments. A big demo in a blaze of publicity. A public let-down, while the lessons are being learned and applied. And then the new thing is part of our accepted environment. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 1987 14:54-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #95 Sorry, I can't go digging for the Ehricke reference, no time. Agreed, the space shuttle, the space station or anything else bulit by the government will not be cost effective for industrial purposes because they are overbuilt, over-high-tech'ed, outweighed by their paper trail and caught up in state dept, DOD and white house politics. (NOTE: Nonetheless they are all we've got at the MOMENT, so I ain't sayin' we shouldn't keep pushin' them forward to blaze the trail.) I did not intend to infer that other than small profitable industries will arise from these. I do believe it is possible for a few small successes even under these circumstances, but nothing space-shattering. But with private vehicles built to safety standards at which the pilot is willing to fly, with a file drawer of documentantion rather than a train of box cars worth, and industrial space modules with people used to working zero G as a daily matter. Just because NASA calls them EVA's and plans them out, doesn't mean it will remain that way. I recommend we change the name from EVA to "going outdoors", and then apply all the care and foresight one would use before donning scuba and dropping into the ocean. I don't remember the source of the slides, but I think it might have been one of the Skylab astronauts I saw in a lecture about 3 or 4 years ago. The Earth/Space slides were VERY striking. It might also have been a Dr. Mazelsky from Westinghouse who gave an MPS lecture I saw 5 years ago. I have the lecture notes somewhere, but once again, I must limit myself to off the top of the head info for the nonce. Once again, come to the conference and argue with first sources instead of making me gnash my teeth wanting to dive in and rebut!!! I think your arguments are sometimes reasonable, but there are blind spots you seem to have. Three days at our conference should fill them in... Dale Amon Chairman, 6th Space Development Conference PS: As much as I'd like to, I won't be responding to this discussion beyond this, unless a one or two liner will suffice. No offense Jorge, you're fun to fight with, but I really am busy. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 87 18:53:35 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: Baseball at L5 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I did some graphical modeling of the behavior of a baseball in a rotating colony and came up with the following (details of modeling technique available on request, but it requires nothing more sophisticated than a ruler and a compass): 1) A ball which is simply dropped will curve slightly antispinward. This is because the tangential velocity it has when it is dropped from some point "above" (closer to the center) the floor is less than the tangential velocity of the floor. The "higher" the ball is dropped from, the larger this curve becomes. 2) A ball thrown straight "up" will curve in the spinward direction. This is because its tangential velocity is higher than the tangential velocity needed to stay "above" the point it is thrown from. The ball will land "ahead" of the point it is thrown from. 3) A ball which is thrown "up" from a tall enough building will curve in the spinward direction as it rises, be significantly spinward of the building when at the same "altitude" as the building roof, then back up and crash through a first story window. 4) Balls hit or thrown with axial speed components behave the same as balls dropped or thrown straight up or down. This is because the axial component of the velocity is in a non-accelerated frame of reference (same as the horizontal component of a ball's velocity on earth). 5) None of these effects are significant unless the ball's path takes it over a large part of a revolution (> 30 degrees of arc) and its "apogee" is more than 10% of the colony's radius. Note that if the field is to be reasonably flat (<2 degrees difference between the two foul poles), the colony must be ~10 miles in diameter, so the anticipated paths of the balls (<400' maximum altitude) would fit within this restriction. I have not yet gotten around to modeling the behavior or balls hit with spinward/antispinward velocity components, but will post when I do. Also, I need to know approximate values for spin rates of a 10-mile diameter colony with 1 gee nominal surface "gravity." Anybody care to compute? Dan Starr ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #98 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00581; Fri, 9 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST id AA00581; Fri, 9 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST Date: Fri, 9 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701091102.AA00581@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #99 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 99 Today's Topics: Re: "Voyager" flight around world summary of NRC report on Shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Jan 87 16:23:36 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Actually, what bothered me was that this was billed as the first > flight around the world without refueling. > > We all know this was done over 25 years ago by Yuri Gagarin... Sorry, doesn't count under FAI rules :-) because they both jettisoned a fair bit of hardware in the first few minutes of their flights, a privilege that Voyager didn't have. (The semi-accidental loss of the winglets pales beside the deliberate loss of 95%+ of the vehicle...) Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 87 19:48:59 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: summary of NRC report on Shuttle Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov [This is sort of a special issue of my normal AW&ST summaries (which I'm going to try to resume shortly, by the way). The National Research Council report on the Shuttle program got bare mention in various places, but deserved better. Fortunately, World Spaceflight News published the full text of the report, as they are wont to do for important space-related stuff.] [WSN is at Box 98, Sewell NJ 08080; $30/yr and worth it.] NRC convened a panel of experts at Congressional request to assess the feasible Shuttle flight rates and to examine the underlying assumptions behind the Shuttle manifest. The work largely preceded the decision to build a Challenger replacement, but is largely unaffected by it. Basic assumptions were the question of "whether the national intent was to have a sustained manned spaceflight program -- one in which manned flight was a regular and continuing occurrence year in and year out -- or to treat the shuttle fleet as a declining resource ... which in due course would, through use or accident, diminish to zero", and the question of whether the assessments were for the near-term transition period or for the longer term in which expendables would be an alternative to the shuttle for many payloads (this will not occur until circa 1991 due to long lead times for resuming expendable production). The panel decided that satisfying its mandate required examining both time scales, and that the nature of the mandate implied the assumption of a sustained program. Barring major new initiatives, there is no realistic prospect of anything superseding the shuttle until at least the year 2000 and probably rather later. Even when the technology is on hand, developing a launch system to the point of reliable operation takes a decade or so. The technology for the Aerospace Plane, in particular, is *not* on hand. The specific Aerospace Plane which is *hoped* to be available for the year 2000 cannot replace the shuttle. There is talk of assorted shuttle derivatives, but none has gone beyond rough sketches yet and possibly none ever will. Treating the shuttle fleet as a declining resource therefore involves a probable hiatus in manned spaceflight starting sometime in the late 1990s. This precludes the space station. More seriously, it results in the near- inevitable collapse of the shuttle manifest relatively quickly. Realistic planning CANNOT assume a loss rate of 0.00000000%. Quite modest estimates yield an Orbiter fleet going effectively to zero within a decade or so. Anticipation of this would largely destroy the manned space program in advance, since realistic planning could not assume shuttle availability for even the highest-priority payloads. THERE CAN BE NO VIABLE SHUTTLE FLEET WITHOUT CONTINUING ORBITER PRODUCTION. No management can set reliable schedules based on so small a fleet unless it is possible to add an Orbiter quickly enough to avoid major schedule disruption after Orbiter loss, wearout, or unforeseen contingencies. Over and above the possibility of further losses, the current Orbiters cannot realistically be expected to last 20 years or more -- there is no reliable way to predict Orbiter life yet, but they are stressed much more severely than commercial airliners. The number of Orbiters actually available for scheduling is noticeably less than the nominal size of the fleet, because maintenance and modifications tie up the Orbiters part of the time. It appears that the schedulable fleet in fact is smaller than the nominal fleet by almost one whole Orbiter. Furthermore, the current fleet is effectively only 2 Orbiters for many purposes, since Columbia is old and lacks the performance needed for many large payloads. Given 3 Orbiters, after the initial buildup, NASA can sustain 8-10 flights per year from KSC -- subtract about 1/yr if Vandenberg is in use too -- IF (a) no Orbiter is lost or irreparably damaged, (b) there is enough logistic support, and (c) there are no problems requiring substantial recurring downtime. With 4 Orbiters, the rate becomes 11-13/yr, PROVIDED that (a-c) are met AND (d) processing facilities at KSC are upgraded, (e) operations facilities and personnel at JSC are enlarged, and (f) crew-training facilities are improved. Requirement (b), which basically boils down to "adequate supplies of spare parts", is particularly crucial. The 3-Orbiter rate might surge to 12/yr, and the 4-Orbiter rate to 15/yr, for short periods (4 months or so max.) provided (a) both payloads and upper stages are standard, (b) there are no first-of-a-kind missions, (c) all launches AND LANDINGS are at KSC, and (d) missions are relatively short and do not involve classified payloads, Spacelab, or rendezvous. ALL THESE RATES ASSUME THAT NO ORBITER IS LOST OR RENDERED INOPERABLE FOR A SIGNIFICANT TIME. This assumption is false unless Orbiter production is ongoing. There is also room for concern about (a) the need for more modern flight simulators rather than just upgrades to current ones, (b) the past pattern of repeated late changes to the manifest, and (c) the need to define NASA vs. contractor responsibilities more clearly. Payload offloading onto expendables is well underway for DoD payloads. NASA has looked at offloading some of its payloads. The panel recommends that NASA look seriously at launching the TDRSs on expendables, given how critical they are to other missions. NASA has as yet done nothing about procuring expendables for its payloads, partly due to lack of money and partly because of interagency battles over responsibilities. Commercial satellite people now generally express preference for expendables, assuming availability. The assumption of availability is questionable. The transition period will be lengthy, and the long-term demand for commercial expendable launches -- after the mess caused by 51L and the expendable shortage clears up -- is very uncertain. Building and operating the Space Station with a 3-orbiter fleet is not realistic. There is too much potential for Orbiter downtime, and too little reserve capacity. Operating the Station will require returning payload from orbit in quantities approaching the launch quantities, limiting the usefulness of expendables for Station operation. "Total national space launch costs depend principally upon the size of the nation's space program. Perhaps surprisingly, the total launch costs are relatively independent of the particular mix between shuttles, Titan IVs, MLVs, and Titan IIs (for example) for a given total weight to orbit..." This result is somewhat sensitive to the shuttle depreciation rate. [In other words, as I have been heard to say before, people who talk about how cheap expendables are have not priced expendables lately. -- HS] Present KSC facilities, with planned upgrades, appear sufficient to handle 12 missions/year. JSC manpower is not, nor is spares production. Crew training facilities need upgrading to meet such a rate, more simulators are needed, and a fourth shuttle training aircraft is required. Given the policy of landing at Edwards for the next while at least, and a probable 18-month lead time, it would be wise to buy another Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. Shuttle turnaround time is (1) KSC processing, (2) mission duration, (3) transit time from landing point to KSC, (4) inspection and maintenance, and (5) contingencies (major damage to or loss of an Orbiter; emergency landing; weather delays; late manifest or flight-plan changes; payload delays; facility or support downtime; spares shortages). Item (1) has averaged 75 work days; the record (46) is considered a surge condition. 75 is a conservative average, with 60 an optimistic but not unrealistic average. Item (2) averages 7 days. Item (3) averages 6 days from Edwards, including 1 day for weather delays. Item (4) is expected to average about 2 weeks per flight. The sustainable and safe work week is probably a 3-shift 5-day week, i.e. no 7-day weeks except in crises. Item (5) is not readily predictable but both airline and USAF experience show a clear need for backup vehicles if schedules are to be met. Shuttle system failure rate to date is 4%. A factor of 4 improvement is realistic given vigorous efforts to improve safety. A factor of 10 improvement is most unlikely. The realistic failure rate is not low enough to permit reliable manifest planning without "some planned backup, work- around and/or replacement Orbiter". A spare Orbiter would do for problems that are not design flaws. Another possibility would be to hold the planned per-Orbiter flight rate below the maximum, so that it could be increased to maximum to absorb the increased demand between an Orbiter loss and the arrival of a replacement. Regardless, there can be no long-term confidence in shuttle manifests without an agreed strategy to cope with Orbiter losses. NASA is likely to solve the logistics problems identified by the Rogers report by the early 1990s. The maintenance of the shuttle industrial base is a more serious problem. It is not practical to increase shuttle reliability enough to do without. Maintaining the base would require a production rate of about an Orbiter every 3 years, plus spares production. This is too high to match realistic loss rates; a somewhat lower rate (4 years?) may have to be accepted. The panel thinks that 8-10 flights per year in the early to mid 1990s will meet demand except for the Space Station. The panel estimates that the current Station design adds demand roughly equal to 2 more Orbiters plus provision for a replacement if and when needed. [If the above seems to harp repeatedly on the need for replacement Orbiters, plural, it is because the report emphasizes this repeatedly. -- HS] Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #99 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02132; Sat, 10 Jan 87 03:02:00 PST id AA02132; Sat, 10 Jan 87 03:02:00 PST Date: Sat, 10 Jan 87 03:02:00 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701101102.AA02132@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #100 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 10 Jan 87 03:02:00 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #100 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 100 Today's Topics: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization Re: "Voyager" flight around world Re: "Voyager" flight around world Re: Mirrors, mirrors, in the sky Re: "Voyager" flight around world ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Jan 87 07:31:20 GMT From: tektronix!cae780!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <722@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > We all know this was done over 25 years ago by Yuri Gagarin, and three > times in a row shortly thereafter by a certain senator. Actually, i don't think any of the space flights qualify. They all involved dropping things off of the craft (like the first stage). Some of the Single Stage to Orbit proposals might eventually qualify. david rickel cae780!weitek!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Jan 87 16:38:44 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization In Vol 7, No. 66 Jay Wooten seemed to imply that it was impossible to make a clean nuclear explosive. Since Jay is from Los Alamos National Lab (where they design nukes), this seemed an interesting assertion. It has been my understanding that "clean" nuclear explosives really exist. In International Defense Review I read an article about RRR weapons that supposably are the opposite of the neutron bomb (a big blast with no radiation). Also Ed Teller has always been pushing "Project Plowshare" that is supposably based on clean nuclear explosives. Most of the radiation in a hydrogen bomb comes from the tamp used in the secondary stage. Hydrogen bombs make a big bang because the tamp is uranium-238. A neutron bomb produces lots of neutrons because it uses a beryllium-8 tamp. Why couldn't one design a nuclear explosive with a tamp that absorbs neutrons, releasing heat but not transforming into a radioactive isotope (tungsten for example)? I know there are people out there who can answer this question but can't because of their Q-clearance. However I'm sure there is someone who has left the bomb trade that can talk about this. I might add in passing that this is an annoying aspect about the nuclear weapon's business. Alot of nuclear weapon's technology is directly applicable to space industrialization but is inaccessible because it is unnecessarily classified. The belief that declassification of nuclear technology will lead to proliferation is false because the basis for weapon's developement is the industrial infrastructure (uranium enrichment, PUREX, etc.) and not simply the knowledge about how a nuke works. The physics of nuclear weapons and the engineering of outmoded weapons should be declassified. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 87 18:48:00 GMT From: irwin@a.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > /* Written 4:02 pm Jan 3, 1987 by REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU*/ > /* ---------- ""Voyager" flight around world" ---------- */ > The two-person refueless flight around the world got a lot of > publicity and fame, yet I wonder whether it was just a stunt or > something of true significance. > Or is it truly just a dead-end stunt that got undue publicity to > distract the public from Gippergate (aka IranContraGate)?? > /* End of text from uiucdcs:sci.space */ Where is your sense of adventure? If one tries to set a new record for the 440 yard dash, does one need to take into account what it will offer the world at large in the next 100 years? Does the act have to be labled a "dead-end stunt"? If one decides to climb a mountain face that has not been climbed before, is it a dead-end stunt? In this case, they wanted to be the first to fly non-stop around the world with out taking on additional fuel, after take-off? Can't they do that if they want, or would you tell them that they can't, as it will not benifit the future of the world? IranContraGate distraction? Aw come on! They started planning and building for this 5 years ago, long before that ever came about. They wanted to achieve, and they did, simple as that. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 87 13:52:34 GMT From: cbatt!osu-eddie!tanner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Tanner) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <1200@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: > Doing >somthing previously considered impossible changes the rules that 'everybody >knows' and puts both technology and people to the test. Absolutely. It's worth remembering that before Lindbergh's flight it was widely believed by engineers and scientists (not universally, but widely) to be technologically impossible to fly non-stop from New York to Paris. Engines were thought not to be powerful enough to lift the weight of fuel needed, so one needed more engines, increasing the weight, increasing the fuel needs, etc. Lindbergh succeeded in a lightweight, single engine airplane where many, better financed, efforts failed in big, heavy, multi-engine ships. There was no immediate scientific payoff to Lindbergh's flight. But it was a dramatic demonstration of the capabilities of airplanes which caught the public imagination. It undoubtedly had an effect on the future development of aviation by making air travel seem possible, with many ripple effects including public and corporate support for aviation research. The point is that there is no way of telling what the value of something like Voyager's flight is. Simply watching people pursue a dream with hard work, dedication, etc., has to lift the spirits a little. But one obvious possible benefit of the flight is to give people confidence in `plastic' airplanes. The material Voyager is made of is light weight, apparently easy to work with, relatively cheap, and obviously durable. But people have been unwilling to buy, or ride in, plastic airplanes. Maybe now the big companies will be willing to spend the money to develop such airplanes with who knows what potential benefit. Some things are simply worth doing for their own sakes. Often useful, valuable, things spin off from them. But that's not why you do them. I don't think we landed people on the moon just to plant a few esoteric scientific instruments. And the benefits to society of the moon flights go far beyond the scientific results. -- mike ARPA: tanner@ohio-state.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 87 19:27:15 GMT From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jonathan P. Leech) Subject: Re: Mirrors, mirrors, in the sky Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <287@linus.UUCP> wdh@linus.UUCP (Dale Hall) writes: >In article <2608@ihlpa.UUCP> imprint@ihlpa.UUCP (Imagen printer) writes: >>A recent article claimed that 10,000 small mirrors with the same total >>area as one large mirror will have 10,000 times as much edge. I think >>that the 10,000 mirrors will have only 100 (i.e., sqrt(10000)) times >>as much edge. > >No. If you have N objects, all alike, with circumference C, the total >of their circumferences (assuming the individuals are separated from >one another) is N*C: True enough, but not relevant to the problem. Obviously 10000 SMALL mirrors can't have 10000 times the edge length of a single LARGE mirror; each small mirror would have to have the same edge length as the large mirror, i.e. be the same size! 1 meter radius mirror: Area = Pi m^2 Edge = 2 Pi m 10000 1 cm radius mirrors: Area = 10000 * Pi * (1/100)^2 = Pi m^2 = area of 1 meter radius mirror Edge = 10000 * 2 * Pi * 1/100 = 200 Pi m = 100 x edge area of 1 meter radius mirror NOT 10000 x edge area! Need we say more? Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 87 21:11:40 GMT From: jpierre@eddie.mit.edu (John Pierre) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <130@sci.UUCP> daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes: >In article <722@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >> We all know this was done over 25 years ago by Yuri Gagarin, and >> three times in a row shortly thereafter by a certain senator. > >Actually, i don't think any of the space flights qualify. They all >involved dropping things off of the craft (like the first stage). Some >of the Single Stage to Orbit proposals might eventually qualify. What difference does dropping stages make? They still circumnavigated that planet without refueling. Rockets use up fuel just as the voyager aircraft used up fuel...they both lost significant mass. Why would dropping engine casings somehow dimish or make capsule orbits not count? The answer is that space capsules don't actually "fly". They cheat not because they lose stages, but because they don't have to expend energy to maintain an altitude. -john pierre ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #100 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00695; Sun, 11 Jan 87 03:02:07 PST id AA00695; Sun, 11 Jan 87 03:02:07 PST Date: Sun, 11 Jan 87 03:02:07 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701111102.AA00695@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #101 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 101 Today's Topics: Re: NASA wanted a smaller shuttle?? space"flight" is NOT! Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Jan 87 02:44:00 GMT From: necntc!frog!john@husc6.harvard.edu (John Woods, Software) Subject: Re: NASA wanted a smaller shuttle?? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > > >... NASA wanted Shuttle 1 to be smaller than it is.) > > NASA wanted what? > Check out a rather later version, > > > ... the article "The Space Shuttle: A Policy Failure?" > > in Science last year documented how NASA struggled to retain the > > large payload bay the current shuttle has... > > note that the basic theme of that article was that much of NASA's behavior > has been dictated by the attempt to conduct an ambitious program without > proper political support... > > > ... There was little pressure from DoD for a big shuttle (as you say, > > they've always been expendable booster fans). > > On the contrary, if you look it up I think you'll find that both the > precise size of the payload bay and the precise (theoretical, now unlikely > ever to be realized) maximum payload requirements for the Shuttle were set > by USAF lift requirements. Ditto the cross-range requirement. > -- Drat. I made at least six copies of that Science article, and they're all at home. Anyway, according to the article, the Shuttle's size bounced around quite a bit; NASA did tend to want larger shuttles than OMB did, but when they made noises like they might agree to a smaller shuttle, OMB immediately would reduce the size of an allowable shuttle... Finally, NASA got the idea of designing a Shuttle sized exactly to USAF requirements for payload and cross- range capability, to which the USAF replied "So what?" Nevertheless, the fact that the Shuttle was just the right size for a reluctant AF to use managed to convince enough people in the administration. John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 87 21:58:00 GMT From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Yaron P Sheffer) Subject: space"flight" is NOT! Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Amazingly enough, people try to compare the Voyager flight to space launches. Ridiculous!! The former relies on atmospheric lift for the entire duration of the flight, the second merely orbits (I.e. in free fall). The "95% disposal" argument doesn't count: Voyager uses a lot of its weight as a propelant too. Similarly, even one-stage space vehicles of the future are not going to "fly" and try breaking aviation records. They will be ORBITING, not flying. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 87 01:44:19 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8701061625.AA25816@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > . . .Most of the > radiation in a hydrogen bomb comes from the tamp used in the secondary > stage. Hydrogen bombs make a big bang because the tamp is uranium-238. > A neutron bomb produces lots of neutrons because it uses a beryllium-8 > tamp. Why couldn't one design a nuclear explosive with a tamp that > absorbs neutrons, releasing heat but not transforming into a radioactive > isotope (tungsten for example)? You would still have the problem of the fission-powered trigger (uranium-234 (? -- whichever one comes from thorium-fueled breeder reactors), uranium-235, or plutonium). You would also have the problem of neutrons from the fusion radioactivating the surrounding matter (including the non-hydrogen parts of the bomb), even if you used a neutron-absorbing shell (some of the neutron flux would get through anyway). Interesting idea though -- maybe a very thick shell would do it? Considering that you wouldn't have to worry about war-time delivery (it's a peaceful-use device, not a warhead), this might be practical. Also, you can't make anything of beryllium-8, because it decays immediately into helium-4 by spontaneous fission/alpha emission (the only form of radioactive decay known in which the two decay modes are synonomous!). Maybe you meant beryllium-9? And now for the really important point -- > I know there are people out there > who can answer this question but can't because of their Q-clearance. > However I'm sure there is someone who has left the bomb trade that > can talk about this. This society isn't as free as you think. People who have been in that trade are probably under implicit and/or explicit gag orders that we haven't heard of, in addition to those we have heard of. Yes, I'm paranoid, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. > I might add in passing that this is an annoying > aspect about the nuclear weapon's business. Alot of nuclear weapon's > technology is directly applicable to space industrialization but is > inaccessible because it is unnecessarily classified. The belief > that declassification of nuclear technology will lead to proliferation > is false because the basis for weapon's developement is the industrial > infrastructure (uranium enrichment, PUREX, etc.) and not simply the > knowledge about how a nuke works. They'll use any excuse to keep the public ignorant of what's going on, including keeping them ignorant of what has happened in the past. Remember _1984_? > The physics of nuclear weapons and > the engineering of outmoded weapons should be declassified. > Gary Allen I agree entirely -- it is a service to society that you made this point, and it would be really good if we could convince people in government of it. Unfortunately, reason and politics -- especially military politics, and especially the politics of the current administration -- don't mix. As far as many of those who classified this stuff are concerned, the less the commoners know, and the less they ask questions, the better; and they would prefer that we didn't even have this discussion. Keep on bringing up the awkward questions! Indeed, if we want to keep our freedoms in the U. S., count it as a patriotic duty to do so. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu seismo!tardis!lucius Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out of this system is unreliable). Please send only to the address given above. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 87 04:08:51 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > ... my understanding that "clean" nuclear explosives really exist. Well, relatively clean. The fission trigger is hard to clean up much. > ... Hydrogen bombs make a big bang because the tamp is uranium-238. Well, a bigger bang, anyway. One way of reducing yields for testing is to use a non-reactive tamp; the Soviet 100-MT bomb was an extrapolation from a test at something like 57 MT with a lead tamp, as I recall. > A neutron bomb produces lots of neutrons because it uses a beryllium-8 > tamp. Glurk. Pick another isotope, please. Beryllium-8 has a half-life of a fraction of a picosecond; nobody is going to build H-bomb tamps out of it! Also, my impression was that one gets a neutron bomb by just minimizing the size of the fission trigger and minimizing the reactivity of the tamp. The D-T fusion reaction emits much of its energy as neutrons without help. Perhaps one could get more neutrons at lower energy with a suitable tamp, though. > Why couldn't one design a nuclear explosive with a tamp that > absorbs neutrons, releasing heat but not transforming into a radioactive > isotope (tungsten for example)? ... It sounds plausible, although it had better be a thick tamp (it has to soak up *most* of the high-energy neutrons from the fusion) and an element with several stable isotopes in a row (multiple neutron absorption seems likely). But I'm just an amateur bomb designer :-). Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #101 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02043; Mon, 12 Jan 87 03:02:31 PST id AA02043; Mon, 12 Jan 87 03:02:31 PST Date: Mon, 12 Jan 87 03:02:31 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701121102.AA02043@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #102 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 102 Today's Topics: Mining in space compared to mines on Earth Re: "Voyager" flight around world re: Voyager Comments to Voyager (the plane) Re: "Voyager" flight around world ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 87 11:44:20 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Mining in space compared to mines on Earth In our shared dream for space industrialization, one of our hoped means for the economic utilization of space is the acquisition of precious metals. Recently I was in South Africa and had the opportunity of touring the East Rand Proprietary Mine (ERPM) which is the world's largest gold mine and formally the world's deepest. Another South African gold mine is currently deeper (3777 meters) but ERPM could regain that record if economic justification arose. At ERPM I went to level 76 which is 3400 meters under the ground. The Witwatersrand has an unbelivable amount of gold. Four billion years ago when the earth was sterile with an acidic atmosphere, there was a large mountain range near the Witwatersrand. This mountain range had a gold concentration of 0.1 grams per ton. Several rivers ran through this range eroding away the rock carrying the soil to a river delta where the Witwatersrand is today. In this river delta the gold accumulated. Later a volcanic intrusion occured right in the middle of this delta forming a bubble of molten rock underneath the soil. This intrusion lifted the whole area up like a blister. This caused the gold rich soil to run down to the base, further concentrating the gold into a ring around the base of this blister. Then the whole area went geologically dead during the Pre-Cambrian age and was buried under accumulated soil. The ERPM mine is based upon a gold reef or strata that is about half a meter thick. This reef forms a plane that is 24 degrees to the horizontal. It is about ten kilometers in width (this particular reef) and goes from the surface down to an unknown depth. The gold content is fairly uniform at an average of 4 grams per ton. The stope face that I saw had a gold concentration of 7 grams per ton. The important point about the ERPM is that the gold content of the reef will never degrade. However since the reef is at 24 degrees to the horizontal, the company will have to mine deeper and deeper at greater and greater cost. Currently ERPM's main costs are labor and energy. However ERPM will eventually have to turn its back on a gold reef of a guaranteed yield of 4 grams per ton because the cost of bringing it to the surface will be too great. This story is not unique in the history of mining. The state of Nevada's original economy was based on silver mining of the so called Comstock Lode. The Comstock Lode never ran out but became so costly that it was no longer cost effective to mine. There are two main points about this story that are relevant to space industrialization. The first point is that water is essential for the concentration of minerals. Worlds without water will almost certainly prove uneconomical for mining. Fortunately the planet Mars has had a history of extensive flooding and has alluvial fans vaguely like those of the Witwatersrand. The second point is that "mined out" terrestrial mines are not free of ore but rather are no longer cost effective to mine. Mining an extraterrestrial source will be cost effective **only** after it is more economicly attractive in comparison to an abandoned terrestrial mine. The absolute best yielding active gold mine in South Africa is operating at 4 kilograms of gold per ton. Gold mining in space will probably have to beat this yield before it can be economicly attractive. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 87 18:09:09 GMT From: sdcc6!ix241@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (ix241) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov "Look at what free men can do!" D. Rutan, 23 Dec 1986. That is the significance of Voyager. John Testa UCSD Chemistry sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix241 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 87 02:29:12 GMT From: crvax1.dec.com!kaplow@decwrl.dec.com (There is no 'N' in TURNKEY) Subject: re: Voyager Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I've seen several postings regarding the round-the-world flight of Voyager. People wonder if it was a publicity stunt, a significant aeronautical achievement, or a Reagan plot to take the heat of the Iran/Contra scandal. To dump the last farce first, Voyager was financed with absolutely no government funds. Voyager has been flying for a couple years, proving out the design and setting several records for closed circuit flying in the process. A couple years back, it made an appearance at the EAA flyin. They flew up and down California for over 11,000 miles to set a record broken only by their round the worked flight earlier in the project. It is nothing more than a coincidence that the flight happened in the middle of this scandal. The Voyager team had been waiting for many months for the right weather conditions for the flight, which finally occurred last month. The project began several years ago, when Bert Rutan had the idea, and drew a rough sketch for the Voyager on a restaurant napkin. Bert has pioneered structureless composite construction for homebuilt aircraft, and planes like his Long-E-Z have set several (shorter) distance records. Dick and later Jeanna were pilots for several of these records as well. Voyager was an extension of that technology, to reach a long unobtainable aviation goal. Just like climbing Mt. Everest, the reason was because "it was there". I see the long range contributions of Voyager being much greater than the other recent first, Paul MacCready's Gossamer man powered aircraft. As to what useful technology will come out of this flight, Beech Aircraft has already started work on a business jet designed by Rutan, and built of similar composite materials. It will be more fuel efficient than any current aircraft. Rutan's canard designs eliminate the possibility of stalls, one of the biggest dangers of conventional design private aircraft. In addition, the canard actually contributes to the aircrafts lift, a conventional tail is a loss. Teledyne Continental and Mobil Oil together came up with an engine and lubricant that could run for 2-3 times the normal time between oil changes and overhauls for this flight. This could cut maintenance costs for general aviation. The engine was also more fuel efficient than any current powerplant. The only part of the project that could be considered a publicity stunt was delaying Voyagers landing several hours, keeping two very tired pilots in the air even longer, so that there could be live press coverage of the landing. Even that was not totally for publicity, as they felt it was safer to wait for dawn to land. While Voyager might not be another Wright Flyer or Apollo-11, I think it will be as important as a Spirit of St. Louis or Glamorous Glennis when the history books are written. It was also interesting that while 1986 was clouded by the Challenger disaster, it also had two success stories, both taking a (relatively) long time to complete their journey, both named "Voyager". Bob Kaplow Digital Equipment Corp. Arlington Heights, IL UUCP: {decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!crvax1.dec.com!kaplow ARPA: KAPLOW%CRVAX1.DEC@DECWRL.DEC.COM * Reach for the Stars * ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 87 21:52:37 PST From: Eugene miya To: space-incoming@angband.s1.gov Subject: Comments to Voyager (the plane) I think the achievement of the Rutans and Yeager are really noteable. Their work over the past couple of years has few comparisons. (the comments by the other Yeager, don't deserve comment, just let them pass.) Sure there are the technological triumuphs, the use of new shapes (foils and frames) and lightweight materials. But I think for the people who read this group it's the human aspects which make their feat special. [This almost sounds like something George "Because it's there" Leigh Mallory said about climbing Everest {you hit the special cord in me about climbing}.] It's the thinking and the resultant sacrifice which is rarely seen in our materialistic, hi-tech society (e.g., Yeager's: "If I cut my hair off that's 6 more flying miles."). Our hat's off to them. --eugene miya for NASA/Ames Research Center and NASA/Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 87 12:18:33 GMT From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The original purpose of the Voyager flight, as publicly stated by the Rutan brothers in the press, was to generate publicity for an airplane business they wanted to start in California. Clearly they suceeded in the publicity department. The notion of Voyager as a planned distraction from the Iran affair is amusing. I monitored HF communications between Voyager and "Mission Control" for the last few days of the flight. At one point, Rutan is flying up the northeast coast of South America. The ground comes on and says "I guess you two haven't been following the news much for the past week, but you probably know that Reagan is in a real mess over this Iran thing, and he thinks it wouldn't be such a bad idea to come out to California to watch you guys land." Rutan said something like "Let's worry about getting back first". I would characterize this response as "annoyed"; clearly Rutan wasn't all that excited about his flight being a political windfall for a politician. Before Henry Spencer gets bent out of shape about the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, I should note that the frequencies involved are in the aeronautical service and are therefore exempt from the act; the frequencies were also widely publicized in advance of the flight and those involved were quite aware that many people were listening. Phil ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #102 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04232; Tue, 13 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST id AA04232; Tue, 13 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST Date: Tue, 13 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701131102.AA04232@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #103 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 103 Today's Topics: Voyager flight Re: Mirrors, mirrors, in the sky Re: "Voyager" flight around world Voyager's flight Re: "Voyager" flight around world Re: Voyager Re: "Voyager" flight around world ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 08 Jan 87 11:24:01 SA From: Tero Siili Subject: Voyager flight To: space It just occurred to me, that there has been(and probably still are) plans for aerial reconnaissance and survey of martian landscape using powered gliders. I just wonder, whether 'Voyager' experience (design, engines, etc..) could have some relevance concerning such gliders. Circumstances are naturally completely different, but there just MIGHT be something to learn after all. TS ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 87 15:34:01 GMT From: mcnc!philabs!linus!wdh@seismo.css.gov (Dale Hall) Subject: Re: Mirrors, mirrors, in the sky Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <287@linus.UUCP> wdh@linus.UUCP I wrote: >In article <2608@ihlpa.UUCP> imprint@ihlpa.UUCP (Imagen printer) writes: >>A recent article claimed that 10,000 small mirrors with the same total >>area as one large mirror will have 10,000 times as much edge. I think >>that the 10,000 mirrors will have only 100 (i.e., sqrt(10000)) times as >>much edge. > >No. If you have N objects, all alike, with circumference C, the total of >their circumferences (assuming the individuals are separated from one >another) is N*C. ....(etc).... All this WAS true, but irrelevant. The comparison of total edge lengths was between the set of 10000 tiny mirrors, and the single big mirror. The constraint of total areas being equal then forces a relationship between the tiny circumference and the big circumference, which reduces to the sqrt(N) factor in the final analysis. Oh, well. I forgot to read the original article carefully. Wasn't that dumb? Thanks to those kind enough to point out my foolish ways. Dale Hall. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 87 18:21:10 GMT From: pixar!good@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (The question you have to ask yourself, Punk, is "Do I feel lucky?") Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <2835@osu-eddie.UUCP> tanner@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mike Tanner) writes: >It's worth remembering that before Lindbergh's flight it was widely >believed by engineers and scientists (not universally, but widely) to >be technologically impossible to fly non-stop from New York to Paris. That's interesting considering the fact that some 72 people had flown the Atlantic before Lindbergh. His claim to fame was doing it non-stop and solo. Multi-engined, multi-manned planes had already made the trip in hops or non-stop. This in no way diminishes the feat of tenacity and endurance that was Lucky Lindy's flight. Similar to the Voyager flight, it involved a great amount of stamina and luck, and deservingly captured public attention. --Craig ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 87 10:01:06 GMT From: castor.usc.edu!seestedt@oberon.usc.edu (Walker J. Seestedt) Subject: Voyager's flight Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Comparing Yuri Gagarin's wonderful orbit of the earth as being the first 'flight' around the world is akin to comparing an artillery shell's flight to that of an air-to-air guided missile. Yuri's capsule was launched into a BALLISTIC flight which resulted in an ORBIT around the Earth outside of the atmosphere. After the initial burning of fuel to acheive orbital velocity, no further fuel was consumed during the the flight save that which slowed the capsule for re-entry. The Voyager, however, lifted off under power which was SUSTAINED throughout the flight from take-off to landing some 9 days later. During this time the Voyager was under constant control of the pilot, who navigated the craft on it's journey. Note the word 'navigated'. Yuri Gagarin AND John Glenn, in addition to other astronauts who followed had limited, if any, control over their craft. The Voyager maintained constant fuel consumption and was supported by the atmosphere throughout it's flight. As to calling this feat 'simply a stunt', all I can say is that the person who said that has little imagination. This 'stunt' has proven the viability of airframe composites, and the accuracy of modern navigation systems among other things. People often need something a bit more spectacular to show them that something is possible. Don't discount them. Walker J. Seestedt. Student, University of Southern California. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 87 18:16:06 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Before Henry Spencer gets bent out of shape about the Electronic > Communications Privacy Act, I should note that the frequencies involved are > in the aeronautical service and are therefore exempt from the act; the > frequencies were also widely publicized in advance of the flight and those > involved were quite aware that many people were listening. Phil, you're a ham (in the radio sense!), are you not? Didn't your studying for your license include the FCC regulations that forbid revealing the contents of private communications to others? These long pre-date the ECPA, and I don't recall the ECPA superseding them. My recollection is that awareness of listeners and publication of frequencies are irrelevant unless listening is specifically invited; was it? Not that I think anyone is likely to object in this case, but it should be something one thinks about first. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 1987 23:50-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Voyager Voyager is important because general aviation technology has been frozen for 30 years. No one can afford the price tag of the few american GA craft still coming off the line. The combination of insurance and fear of innovation are killing it. Voyager publicized the possibilities, was a conscious attempt to revive the excitement of personal flight and individualism. It was important if you love flying rather than being flown. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 87 18:18:46 GMT From: hpcea!hpsrla!hpsadla!jimh@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Horn) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Regarding value of Voyager's flight: There's a lot. At first blush, or without knowing much about what happened, one could easily wonder about the apparent hype and coverage. But I believe that there is a lot of real substance there, most of which was glossed over by the media or even downright hidden. First of all, unlike space travel (near-earth), aviation may appear rather mature. Yet we are still learning much all the time. But all the attention tends to go to the higher/faster/more-expensive/military/aerospace research going on. Nonetheless, advances in structures, control, aerodynamics (especially stability and airfoil research), navigation and communications, human interface, propulsion, and so on, while less glamorous, are of great importance too. Voyager's place in all this comes to view when you study it. With a lift-to-drag ratio greater than any other powered aircraft in history, a structure-to-gross weight ratio also greater, new engines, propellors, airfoils, structures, construction techniques, crew communications, engine & fuel control systems (more below), and more designed from ground up just because of this one effort - there was a LOT of innovation in that bird. And while we won't all be flying around in Voyager clones in the future, we will be in its offspring. Burt Rutan, the designer, is now VP of Beechcraft, and the designer of the Beech Starship - which that small company has invested .25 Billion (with a B) getting into production while Cessna and Piper aircraft have been closing their doors. John Roncz, the wizard who designed the 11 airfoils used in the Voyager now works for Beech too. Already we're seeing the spinoffs. Yet these are less important in my mind to the triumph of spirit the whole effort represents. For, despite the image projected by the media, the whole project was really made possible by the `little guy' - volunteer donations of effort, time, and money. Did you know that the records that Voyager broke are the first time in 40 YEARS that absolute aviation records were broken by someone other than the military of one nation or another (or NASA)? That, unlike all such prior efforts where a government decided to spend whatever it took to achieve the record, some individuals and volunteers did so - and by more than a factor of two? And in order to do so and still keep their independence, while Dick was deeply in debt, he deliberately turned down a blank check for several million by a large american tobacco company who wanted to sponsor the whole thing - because he felt that, when the school children of this country looked at the aircraft, he didn't want some cigarette name on it? That speaks to me of principle. I've had the pleasure of dealing with Dick and Jeanna since '81, as they have been in the CAFE 400 air races here every year (Dick set the all-time high score for same '84), and have been involved in the Voyager project since '84 myself. The amount of research that went into every phase of that project is a story which needs to be told. I know that their engine monitoring system, used in a number of their test flights, has caused some excitement in the aviation instrument community - and that's just one tiny part (mentioned because that's my baby). The main thing, though, was that this was a well planned, methodical, and terribly difficult project which was completed not only successfully, but extremely so. Instead of travelling the 23000 miles (or so) needed to count as circumglobal, they went the whole 25000. Allowed to drop wastes along the route, they chose not to. Allowed to drop the gear after take off, they didn't. In short, it was a truely class act. And that's why, despite the morbid their fascination with the folks in Washington D.C., even the press couldn't ignore such a captivating adventure. Dick and Jeanna - my congradulations. Jim Horn {The World}!hplabs!hpcea!hpsrla!jimh (707)794-3130 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #103 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06486; Wed, 14 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST id AA06486; Wed, 14 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST Date: Wed, 14 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701141102.AA06486@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #104 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 14 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #104 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 104 Today's Topics: Re: Voyager Spin rate Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power? planets.c again Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization Around the world non-stop Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power? Re: around the world on nuclear power? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Jan 87 14:54:08 GMT From: milano!sierchio@im4u.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Voyager Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The reason none of us can afford the GA aircraft coming off the line is that the manufacturer's can't afford the liability insurance. This has forced Cessna to stop manufacture of all Piston Aircraft. A blow to those nostalgic fools like myself, who first soloed in a raggedy 150. Michael Sierchio @ MCC Software Technology Program UUCP: ut-sally!im4u!milano!sierchio ARPA: sierchio@mcc.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 87 21:57:52 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Spin rate To: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) ... I need to know approximate values for spin rates of a 10-mile diameter colony with 1 gee nominal surface "gravity." Anybody care to compute? The formula for centripetal acceleration is velcocity squared divided by radius. Converting to metric, the radius is 8045 meters, the circumference is 50,550 meters, the desired acceleration is 9.8 meters per second per second, so the circumferential velocity must be 281 meters per second, and the spin rate must be one revolution per three minutes, or twenty revolutions per hour. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 87 16:14:32 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!watmath!looking!brad@seismo.css.gov Subject: Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov While Voyager made a flight with regular fuel, does anybody know whether or not this would have been an easy thing to do (and perhaps years ago) using nuclear power? It seems to me that if you could build a nuclear powered aircraft it could fly around the world as many times as you like. What are the weights and sizes for the reactors they have in submarines? What about the simple reactors used in satellites and the Apollo program? These must surely be light - do they have the power? I know that somebody managed to build a solar powered aircraft once. If this is true, then possibly a solar-powered drone could stay up forever. The above technologies have application to ariel surveys of Mars. I don't think such would be done using fossil fuels. Of course, more efficient aircraft and engine designs are always interesting. Better ways of storing fossil fuels aren't quite as neat. Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 87 13:40:33 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Subject: planets.c again Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I've received alot of requests for the source copy of Planets.c and in most of the cases I have been able to respond via electronic mail. However, there are some of you that my return mail spun around in the nether world of the electronic maelstrom and ended up back on my doorstep. Therefore, to the rest of the net I beg your forgiveness but I intend to repost the source. It is fairly long and terribly dull reading so when you see the subject "planet.c source" and you don't want a copy throw it in the bit bucket before it reaches your screen. Fred Mendenhall ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 87 23:30:01 GMT From: ur-laser!larry@ROCHESTER.ARPA (Lawrence P. Forsley) Subject: Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Leaving the tamper aside in what is effectively a fission-fusion-fission bomb, you have the "small" problem of a few kilotons of a-bomb used to produce x-rays and neutrons used to produce the hydrogen bomb. If one believes the Progressive Magazine article about the H-Bomb from a few years back, those x-rays implode a Lithium Deuteride column while the 10%c velocity neutrons come around and breed tritium from Li. I find your idea of a neutron absorbing tamper curious. Those neutrons are necessary to make the thing go! Larry Forsley ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1987 23:31 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Around the world non-stop In-Reply-To: Msg of 10 Jan 1987 06:20-EST from Ted Anderson To me the funniest part was how the news services all agreed that a non-stop around the globe flight was the "last and final record to be accomplished in aviation". ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 87 06:57:15 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > While Voyager made a flight with regular fuel, does anybody know > whether or not this would have been an easy thing to do (and perhaps > years ago) using nuclear power? ... Not easy. The weight problems, especially in shielding, are monumental. Maybe not impossible, but not at all simple. > What are the weights and sizes for the reactors they have in submarines? I don't have numbers offhand, but subs tend to be volume-limited rather than weight-limited, so I doubt that they're light. > What about the simple reactors used in satellites and the Apollo program? > These must surely be light - do they have the power? The Apollo lunar experiment packages, and some satellites, use isotope generators, not reactors. Just an isotope slug and something to turn its heat into power. They are relatively compact, independent of sunlight (which is why the Voyagers and the Viking landers used them), and fairly long-lived, but they are heavy for their power output. I don't think they'd scale up well, either -- those generators are small. The Soviet radar satellites do use reactors. They probably don't have the shielding a human crew would need, though, and I doubt that their output is high enough to be useful for major propulsion applications. A megawatt is a very powerful radar, but 1400 horsepower ( = one megawatt) isn't a lot for propulsion. > I know that somebody managed to build a solar powered aircraft once. > If this is true, then possibly a solar-powered drone could stay up > forever. That one is more promising, I'd say. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 87 22:21:57 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: around the world on nuclear power? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > >> What are the weights and sizes for the reactors they have in submarines? > > I don't have numbers offhand, but subs tend to be volume-limited rather > than weight-limited, so I doubt that they're light. > When submerged, the specific gravity of a submarine is very slightly less than that of sea water. So if you know the size, you can calculate the mass of the whole submarine. The reactor shielding and the outer wall are the only really heavy parts, so my uninformed estimate would be that each comprises half the mass. I presume that power outputs are classified, so it might be hard to make an estimate of how effective submarine reactors would be in other applications. By the way, the U.S. Air Force did have a nuclear airplane project back in the 1950's. The idea was to keep bombers flying at all times so they would be much less vulnerable to an enemy first strike. As far as I know, the project was never even close to getting off the ground, but there was a very nice story in Analog (1984 or 85?) based on this project.-- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #104 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08382; Thu, 15 Jan 87 03:02:23 PST id AA08382; Thu, 15 Jan 87 03:02:23 PST Date: Thu, 15 Jan 87 03:02:23 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701151102.AA08382@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #105 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 15 Jan 87 03:02:23 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #105 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 105 Today's Topics: Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power? Re: Around the world non-stop Re: Nuclear devices Re: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Jan 87 23:49:44 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <195@ur-laser.UUCP>, larry@ur-laser.UUCP (Lawrence P. Forsley) writes: > . . .I find > your idea of a neutron absorbing tamper curious. Those neutrons are > necessary to make the thing go! What the idea meant (if I am understanding all the terms correctly) is that a shell of neutron-absorbing matter (preferably chosen so that no radioisotopes with significantly long half-lives form) would get useful work from outgoing neutrons while reducing the amount of radioactive contamination (it still would not solve the problem of fission waste from the trigger). It would not affect the nuclear reactions because the only neutrons absorbed would be ones that would be lost to the surroundings if not absorbed, and thus not important to either the fission trigger or the breeding of tritium from lithium. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu seismo!tardis!lucius Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out of this system is unreliable). Please send only to the address given above. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 87 23:14:12 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <727@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP writes: > While Voyager made a flight with regular fuel, does anybody know > whether or not this would have been an easy thing to do (and perhaps > years ago) using nuclear power? It seems to me that if you could build > a nuclear powered aircraft it could fly around the world as many times > as you like. We don't need to go over all the horrible details of what would happen if the contents of a fission reactor got strewn all over the place (and if you make it tough enough to stay perfectly intact (even a crack is unacceptable) in a crash it will be too heavy for an aircraft). Even with a fusion reactor you would have the problem of the tritium fuel, and probably also of pieces of the reactor which would become radioactive due to the neutron irradiation (although this is not as bad as fission waste). > What are the weights and sizes for the reactors they have in submarines? > What about the simple reactors used in satellites and the Apollo program? > These must surely be light - do they have the power? I think NASA has done some studies on using fission reactors for rocket propulsion. They are too heavy for takeoff from Earth. If you are trying to use them for something other than rocket propulsion your problem is even worse because you have to have a huge cooling apparatus. (Using the air as your propellant in something similar to rocket propulsion might be possible, but this presents other problems, and still doesn't solve the problem that a crash would be a large-scale disaster.) -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu seismo!tardis!lucius ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 87 19:01:02 GMT From: pixar!good@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (but... but...) Subject: Re: Around the world non-stop Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU writes: > >To me the funniest part was how the news services all agreed that >a non-stop around the globe flight was the "last and final record to >be accomplished in aviation". Kinda like when Captain Kirk used to say, "Space -- the final frontier". I suppose that circumnavigating the globe twice, or faster, or *solo* wouldn't count... --Craig ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 1987 01:54-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Nuclear devices In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sun, 11 Jan 87 03:12:06 PST I agree with Gary. I also believe that anything to do with nuclear physics is considered 'born classified'. No other area has this doctrine. It says that even if a kid genius out there has a break through, if he makes it public he can be prosecuted, or so I understand it. I can see secrecy if you go into a project with eyes open and have the right to examine your contract. I cannot condone the above doctrine and see it as a serious infraction of the Bill of Rights as written. I see it as quite Fascist. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 87 22:12:55 GMT From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@LLL-LCC.ARPA (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <7471@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP writes: >One thing that gives me the heebie-jeebies about ideas like lunar laser >launchers and such is the use of oxygen as a propellant for a thermal >engine. Lordy, but that stuff is corrosive at high pressures and >temperatures. Such engines will present formidable materials problems. Depends how sneaky you are. Using only materials indigenous to the moon for fuel, one could make a chemical engine fueled by aluminum and liquid oxygen. An excess of oxygen would serve to provide reaction mass (I doubt that Al2O3 has a high vapor pressure). I can think of several ways to make chamber walls that are refractory and non-combustible; ceramics such as zirconium oxide are fine. Bleeding oxygen over the throat would help keep it cool. The aluminum could be injected as a liquid, if suitably preheated. Stratified combustion would keep the hot stuff off the chamber walls. You only need to get up to 1 mi/sec or so; who cares about efficiency so long as it's CHEAP? Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. {ihnp4|online}!itivax!mnet!russ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #105 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01387; Fri, 16 Jan 87 03:02:15 PST id AA01387; Fri, 16 Jan 87 03:02:15 PST Date: Fri, 16 Jan 87 03:02:15 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701161102.AA01387@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #106 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 16 Jan 87 03:02:15 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #106 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 106 Today's Topics: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1987 January 12 14:09:52 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: "KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU"@mc.lcs.mit.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 87 19:42:53 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Why invest for all mankind? To: REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Message-ID: <964983.870111.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU> BACKGROUND: From: Robert Elton Maas ... Our nation ... must consider investments which help the human race at large rather than the United States alone. ... From: "Keith F. Lynch" Why? ... MY PREVIOUS MESSAGE (INDENTED), KFL'S LATEST REPLY ( FLAGGED), AND MY REPLY HERE (NORMAL): Helping the rest of the world isn't bad providing we help ourselves enough to pay back our investment. But if some other investment has an even higher payoff, why not make that one instead? Because we absolutely need several different things, all of them not just one. Like the missing wheel on a bicicle, the part we miss is more important than all the things we have; all the other parts are worthless if that one part is missing. We absolutely must invest in several areas, one of which is space. The payoff of other endeavors is zero if we absolutely need space in the long run, we invest in the others but forsake space, and go extinct. Therefore we can't compare payoff of non-space endeavors against payoffs of space, we must compare payoffs of space stuff against one another, and each of the other absolutely-essential categories among themselves too, but not one essential category against another. We absolutely need air, water, absense of thermonuclear war, food, space, and a few others. If we forsake any one of those to the point where we lose that resource for long enough (3 minutes without air, a week without water, 20 minutes without absense of thermonuclear war, 3 weeks without food, 200 years without space at this time when the Earth is nearly full already, etc.), we all die. Optimally the whole world should make investments that benefit the whole world. Why? Why shouldn't each country make investments that best benefit that country. Better yet, why shouldn't each individual make investments that best benefit that individual? You misunderstand me, I think. I mean THE WHOLE WORLD qua committee, not each nation or individual sacrificing for the "common good". I.e. optimally there should be a world government to tax each world citizen to pay for projects of a world-wide nature that wouldn't be of advantage to a specific nation, just like there are national governments to tax their citizens for projects of a national nature that wouldn't benefit just particular provicences or counties, etc. There are various kinds of tasks that are best handled at various sizes of government. Space benefits the whole world so should be handled by world government, but that doesn't yet exist, so next best thing is for the largest nations/economies to develop space either invidivually or in consort with each other. Note, no one individual would benefit from building a coast to coast freeway, only state governments by piecemeal or cooperation, or a national government, can perform such a task. Therefore if each individual did what benefits him individually but nobody ever cooperated for mutually-beneficial tasks, highways and space development and many other wonderful tasks would just never ever happen. But the whole world doesn't have any agency for making such investments, the United Nations notwithstanding. I don't know how the UN or anyone else would decide what investment was for the greatest benefit of the whole world, even if one conceeded that such an investment was desirable. They would decide that poisoning the air was bad for everyone, so they would have a committee work toward keeping the world's air suitable for breathing. They would decide that poisoning the water was bad, so they would have a committee work toward keeping international rivers clean, leaving local rivers to the individual nations. They would decide that extending our habitat out to space is in the long run virtually necessary for preventing various kinds of worldwide catastrophe from destroying the whole species, so they would have a committee work on developing space. In each absolutely-necessary category, i.e. within the provence of each committee, they would weigh the various ways of getting the job done, consider investment and payoff, and come up with a decision as to what investment was the greatest benefit within that general category. Therefore the large nations and other economic forces must make such investments. Why not individuals? No individual has enough money to make a dent in space, and no individual can reap such a significant fraction of an investment to be worth it even if a dent could be made. Someday when space access is routine, a small investment could result in immediate payoff that can be captured by an individual. But currently, payoff is so long down the road, the company or individual that makes the investment can hardly expect to anticipate the correct payoff and arrange to capture it for himself. Only in a few special cases like comsats can payoff be captured by the investor within a few years, and even in that case we have large international corporations (ITT, Xerox, Western Union, etc.) not individuals making the investment and reaping the payoff. What is an "economic force"? Large corporation such as listed above, common market of nations such as Europe, consortium of corporations or corporations&nations, etc. And what do you mean by a nation? Do you mean the nation's government? Yes. More correctly, their economic force as wielded by their government agencies such as NASA, DOD, DOE, ... If so, how do they get the money to invest? Taxation, or a pool of private investors that is insured by the government (ultimately via the tax base; i.e. banks are trusted not because they don't fail but because FDIC protects them, thus it's safe to invest in banks via ordinary deposits). Thus NASA uses tax money directly to go to space, but also NASA could underwrite a private company if that company was willing to keep all the books in order and not do anything that NASA thought grossly dangerous/foolish. You still haven't said why any of this is desirable. Why go into space you ask?? Why get out of bed? (1) you can certainly survive for a few weeks without getting out of bed, but ultimately you starve if you stay in bed. (2) you can certainly survive for a few decades without getting out of Earth, but ultimately you blow yourself up or ruin the ecology or get hit by a comet or suffer any number of calamaties if you don't get off this planet. Japan is making investment in computer technology that while helping Japan's economy most will also benefit the world at large, You can bet that they are doing it exclusively for their own benefit. If it benefits others, it is simply because they know that to get things that others have they have to offer them values in return. This is capitalism in action. Each individual or group making decisions, not based on what is best for the world, but on what is best for themselves. Right. But in fact Japanese computer/robotics technology benefits the whole world. It's just that Japan gets more than its equal share of the benefit, so it's worthwhile to make the investment. They don't care if the rest of the world benefits, so long as they benefit a lot more. But an individual in Japan wouldn't be smart to try to develop 5th-generation computers or the robotics industry all alone because he'd go broke before he got the task done while the rest of the world would be in shape to pick up where he left off and reap the profit eventually. It's all a matter of what scale of cooperation is big enough to reap profit before going broke. Writing a small software system is dandy for an individual, like an operating system on a micro (CP/M), or a game, but a really large software system (SDI) isn't feasible for an individual to even attempt except as a fun teaching experience (if it doesn't take too much time away from paying work). Pushing into space isn't presently appropriate for an individual, even piggybacking on NASA/STS with getaway specials. and the USSR is developing habitat in space mostly for their own use but of great value to mankind. ... I don't think that a Soviet space presense is of any benefit to makind in general. Quite the opposite. I respectfully disagree. Although USSR military presence in space is ominous, the general technology of longterm habitat can't help but leak out to the spacefaring world at large. As to payback, if payback is 4 times investment, and if we receive half the payback (the rest of the world receiving the other half), then our individual payback is 2 times investment, so is worthwhile. Unless we can get more by investing in some other way. Our payback is survival, which is infinity, mediated by our uncertainty as to whether our survival is really at stake. It's impossible to come up with good estimates since we have no experience in this area (surviving global thermonuclear war or loss of rainforests etc.). The 4:1 payback is merely an illustrative example. Do you have a way to indefinitely expand our separation, and thus vulnerability to natural and man-made disasters, without going into space?? I think space is absolutely necessary in the near future (less than 200 years, but with need to get starting bootstrapping within the next 30 years or less). I'm still not sure who "we" is. Do you mean the government? Or individuals in the United States? Governent and other large economic forces as stated before. ... Of course with scientific investments we can't compute payback. We have to take a chance, making scientific investment with no promise of payback. Mostly we just get lots of good science, enriching the world conscience, ... I didn't know their were consciences except in individuals. Are you saying that the world somehow collectively feels guilty when it doesn't invest enough in science? Sorry for the spelling error. Let me check the dictionary this time... I meant to say "consciousNESS", unfortunately there's no noun form for the basic word without the "NESS" ending. Anyway that's what I meant to say, according to webster's "the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual , or of an aggregate of the people ". An individual tends to forget things, but in a community that is communicating such as these Arpanet digests there's lot of back and forth information/idea flow that keeps an idea alive even when there's not any single person who has continuously kept the idea alive inside himself. It's sort of like copies of genes (on chromosomes) in lots of individuals, so if one gene dies the others can continue on anyway, except they get replicated and cross-planted so they breed even faster than the individuals. I guess it's like network worms, which replicate themselves from one machine to another, and even though they are exterminated at every machine over and over, they are never exterminated simultaneously across the board, there is always at least one copy somewhere which can repopulate the rest of the machines after their system maintainers have gone offline. So an idea, killed by natural forgetfulness in each person, nevertheless remains alive in the community consciousness by being replicated and communicated from the temporary holder-person to those who have forgotten. Anyway, ideas not only stay alive but develop as the pass through many minds, so the overall consciousness is a lot more than any individual's consciousness. It is the nature of scientific inquiry that the whole world benefits but the society that makes the investment gets more than its fair share ... Huh? How much is its fair share? Why wouldn't ALL OF IT be its fair share? I meant to say EQUAL SHARE, i.e. fair share under socialism. Of course under lassaize faire (sp?), 100% to the investor and damn the rest of the world is "fair". What I mean is the result is more cornered (in sense of cornering the market) than socialism but less cornered than lassaize fair (sp?). Some people can't tolerate anything less than 100% of their profit, so they sit waiting for world society to do it instead. Others can live with others reaping some of their profit, so they do it now. I prefer the latter approach during this interim period until world governent exists or space profit is cornerable. the USA would invest in space travel and nuclear fusion, not in transcendental meditation or religion, How would one invest in transcendental meditation or religion? Same way you invest in anything else, you have some idea what experiment to try, it takes money, so you "throw money at it". I personally think/feel/believe such investments would be a waste of money and human energy, but others would disagree. I'm saying for the most part the USA hasn't set up billion-dollar TM-research facilities, whereas the have set up billion-dollar space shuttle and fusion research. thus the USA which is technological would reap more profits from any practical use than would some non-technical society such as Buddhist monks or Catholic Church ... I would think that something real, such as transistors, would benefit every user, whether or not they believe in transistors, while something bogus, like Buddhism, would benefit nobody, whether or not they believe in Buddhism. The idea being that reality is real and does not depend on one's beliefs. You and I are obviously not Buddhists, at least not adament ones. I completely agree with your above paragraph and am glad the USA government agrees too. But look at Iran or Tibet. Why shouldn't we make investments that will benefit all of mankind? Because such investments don't benefit us. If they do, then perhaps they should be made. But for that reason only. Not because of any benefit which accrues to anyone else. WRONG. We are part of mankind. If we benefit mankind at large, we benefit ourselves to whatever fraction we are mankind. Thus if I personally benefit mankind, I reap 1/5,000,000,000 of that personally. If I could singlehandedly save the human race, and I couldn't find any way to singlehanded save myself and California without saving the rest of the human race, I'd go ahead and save everybody even though most of them (in my opinion) don't deserve that gift. You are making the incorrect assumption (stated clearly above; if you didn't mean that you'll have to retract it like I retracted my spelling mistake) that if an investment benefits all of mankind then it won't benefit yourself personally. I say it is possible for an investment to benefit both myself (or my nation etc.) and the world at large simultaneously. You don't seem to admit that possibility. I agree with the second part, which seems to contradict the first part. If an investment benefits both the world at large and the investors, then it is worthwhile (providing of course the payback is greater than the investment). My point is we should't dismiss an investment out of hand just because we reap only half or less of the payback. If the payback is enormous, and we get a reasonable share (say a third or so), it may be well worth doing. How could we possibly calculate what is of the greatest benefit to all mankind, anyway? We don't have to. We just have to calculate something that we understand well enough to have a pretty good idea it'll be a bonanza, and we can't think of anything much better that we understand well enough to work towards. Maybe somebody will come up with something better, so they make more profit than we do, but we all make profit, and we all make the world better, so who cares if we really did our absolute best we could have. Why should we restrict our investments to those which will benefit us only? Because we are us. Why should one eat when one is hungry rather than feed others? Why should one take home a salary for one's work rather than donate it all to charity? It looks like you misunderstand my use of "only" an are knocking down a straw man. I was comparing investments that help us but nobody else, vs. those which help both us and everybody else, saying we shouldn't exclude the latter. My use of "only" refers to "us". You thought I was comparing investments that help us with investments that don't help us at all. Your mis-interpretation was that my use of "only" referred to investments that help us. I agree that we shouldn't go around doing things to help others at our own expense when that help doesn't help us at all. I think most foreign aid is stupid, especially now when our own economy is in trouble, deep in debt, deeper each year. I disagree that we shouldn't do anything that helps others and ourselves too, we should if we have no hope of capturing the profit all to ourselves alone. If you insist on looking at things on a national rather than an individual scale, why should only United States residents be eligible for our welfare and Social Security systems? Aren't people in other countries just as needy? It is our national taxbase that pays for our national welfare system, so it is our national citizenry that should maximize its benefits, ignoring whether others benefit or not. It's pretty easy to prevent large numbers of aliens from getting welfare, and that prevents our benefits from being thinned by sharing, so we should go ahead and restrict the benefits. But we can't absolutely prevent any alien from getting welfare intended for our citizens, therefore we shouldn't insist on such absolute restrictions. We should have welfare because it benefits us a lot, prevent gross sharing with others, but not worry that a few others sneak past our restrictions. With space development it's not feasible to make such restriction that only our own citizens reap benefits, so we either do nothing or share with world a bunch. Perhaps it would be clearer if you were to read Ayn Rand's book _Atlas Shrugged_. Except for all the smoking in the book, it pretty closely represents my ideas. Jan Kok gave it to me many years ago and I did read it and liked it. It's too long to read again now. I do believe in payback on investment, but I also believe in insurance. Welfare is a form of insurance when not carried to extreme. Each individual can be confident that he won't starve to death due to some business failing. I prefer to live in a society that such insurance against starving. If I lose my job and can't find another, I may lose my apartment and car and much of my property, but I'll be around to try again when my luck changes. What happened in Atlas Shrugged wasn't a little insurance, but gross flattening of income to where nobody could get any return on investment whatsoever, so nobody invested any more, and the whole industrial base went kaput with everybody lazing around instead of investing. It's a good example of where socialism can lead if we go too far. USA is in no danger of that, even before Reagan, but it is in danger of refusing to make investments that we urgently need because the government refuses to make those kinds of investments that just are too big for any smaller economic force to make. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #106 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03020; Sat, 17 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST id AA03020; Sat, 17 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST Date: Sat, 17 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701171102.AA03020@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #107 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 17 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #107 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 107 Today's Topics: What is a tamp? Anniversity of the Challenger Accident Stop this trash! (nuclear reactors and use of `men') Re: Around the world non-stop Aerospace anniversaries Re: Nuclear devices Re: Voyager flight -- around the wo My mistake, it's Beryllium-9 not 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 12 Jan 87 16:00:43-PST From: Steve Oliphant Subject: What is a tamp? To: space@angband.s1.gov The recent discussion of the possibility of clean nuclear explosives has refered to a tamp. What is it? Steven Oliphant OLIPHANT@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU ------- ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 87 17:42:57 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Anniversity of the Challenger Accident Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov To the readers of Space Digest: I thought you might like to know about a memo we have received from the Director at NASA/Ames which also goes for the other NASA Centers and JPL. The memo came from advice from the Office of the Administrator. At 8:38 PST (9:38 MST, 10:38 CST, 11:38 EST) the flags at the Centers will be lowered to half mast for the day. This is for January 28 (Wednesday). Immediately following, this time, all employees are being asked to observe 73 seconds of silence at their desks. This moment of silence will recognize the sacrifice of all astronauts who have died serving the space program. And the memo further notes that January 27, 1987 marks the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire where Grissom, White, and Chaffee lost their lives. It is not supposed to affect other observances of the National Day of Excellence and National Teacher Recognition Day, or business. --eugene miya NASA/Ames Research Center ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 87 18:07:06 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Stop this trash! (nuclear reactors and use of `men') Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Please stop the trash! (second time) Recent postings about nuclear technology (non flying or orbiting) and gender problems with the English language diverge from the point of this group. I started reading this news group (again) when the Usenet reorganized. My management gave me the nod to do this. Increasing levels of irrelevance waste NASA's (my) time. I try and answer questions as best as I can, but don't tax my resources. Sure nuclear technology is interesting. You humans have a gender problem with your language, but USE MAIL, not news to reply. Flame all you want to the sender, but don't do it over the net. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 87 20:01:16 GMT From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Clayton Cramer) Subject: Re: Around the world non-stop Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > > To me the funniest part was how the news services all agreed that > a non-stop around the globe flight was the "last and final record to > be accomplished in aviation". Yeah, to me the last and final record in aviation will be a human-powered non-stop around the globe flight. :-) Clayton E. Cramer ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 87 15:12:51 GMT From: ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Roger J. Noe) Subject: Aerospace anniversaries Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov One day none of us will forget to mark this year is of course the day 28 January 1987, one year since the disintegration of the shuttle orbiter Challenger and the death of the crew of NASA mission 51-L. It is not the only significant anniversary related to aerospace exploration that will come up in 1987. There are several I've noted in my calendar file, some of them just as tragic, others landmarks of achievement. The first that comes to mind is for me permanently connected to the 51-L disaster, for several reasons. The day before the last launch of Challenger I remember thinking to myself, "Nineteen years ago . . . I heard a radio bulletin after dinner that three of my heroes had died." I know I'm not the only one who got an eerie feeling the next morning. January 27 this year will be twenty years since astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee died when a flash fire swept through their Apollo spacecraft at Cape Kennedy launch complex 34 while undergoing a practice countdown. A couple other important anniversaries in 1987: Feb. 20 - 25 years since John Glenn became the first U.S. astronaut to orbit the Earth. Apr. 24 - 20 years since Soviet cosmonaut Komarov died when Soyuz 1 impacted. May 21 - 60 years since Charles Lindbergh landed near Paris in "The Spirit of St. Louis" at the end of his solo transatlantic flight. Aug. 20 - 10 years since Voyager 2 was launched. Sept. 5 - 10 years since Voyager 1 was launched. Oct. 4 - 30 years since the first artificial Earth satellite (Sputnik I) was launched. Oct. 14 - 40 years since the first supersonic flight (Chuck Yeager in the X-1). I'm sure there are others that would be of interest to readers of these newsgroups, this is just what I found in my own calendar file. Roger Noe ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe Uniq Digital Technologies rjnoe@uniq.UUCP 28 South Water Street +1 312 879 1566 Batavia, Illinois 60510 41:50:56 N. 88:18:35 W. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 87 01:44:31 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: Nuclear devices Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <537432846.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > I agree with Gary. I also believe that anything to do with nuclear > physics is considered 'born classified'. No other area has this > doctrine. It says that even if a kid genius out there has a break > through, if he makes it public he can be prosecuted, or so I understand > it. > > I can see secrecy if you go into a project with eyes open and have the > right to examine your contract. I cannot condone the above doctrine > and see it as a serious infraction of the Bill of Rights as written. I > see it as quite Fascist. Our society is far from perfectly democratic (or perfectly representatively democratic, even), and getting worse under the current administration. If they get their way, even statements like the above could be used against you (maybe they already can. . . ?). It is cause for concern that no one here showed any interest in the previous posting on the evil of making information classified. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu seismo!tardis!lucius ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 87 02:32:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Voyager flight -- around the wo Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Those who know might not be able to tell you. A nuke-powered, ultra-long- duration aircraft would make an excellent scout/recon craft for the military. Anybody connected with such a project is unlikely to be *allowed* to tell you anything about it. -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jan 87 09:59:04 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: My mistake, it's Beryllium-9 not 8 Henry Spencer and Lucius Chiaraviglio caught me on a typographical error where I incorrectly stated that the neutron bomb uses a Beryllium-8 tamp. Actually it uses a Beryllium-9 tamp. The reaction is: Be-9 + n >>>> Be-8 + 2n - 1.666 MeV The reaction doubles the number of neutrons and absorbs blast energy, which are features desired in a neutron bomb. My source is "The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices" by Friedwardt Winterberg. I recommend buying this book ***second hand*** or xeroxing a library copy because the book is published by the Fusion Energy Foundation whose politics is extremely unsavory. Never-the-less this book is the best unclassified source that I've seen on nuclear weapon's physics. Gary Allen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #107 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04141; Sun, 18 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST id AA04141; Sun, 18 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST Date: Sun, 18 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701181102.AA04141@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #108 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 18 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #108 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 108 Today's Topics: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Re: Nuclear devices Re: Nuclear devices More on clean nuclear explosives Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Jan 87 23:43:59 GMT From: cbatt!osu-eddie!chris@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Chris Krieg) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <3026@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU> ix241@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ix241) writes: > >"Look at what free men can do!" D. Rutan, 23 Dec 1986. That is the >significance of Voyager. > Let's here it for people who believe!!! I don't see how someone could think that the around the world flight, without refueling , of Voyager as just some stunt. first of all it proved something that many said couldn't be done. It wasn't "just some stunt". It took years of planning, research and hard work to show what man can do. Did most people look at the first cross- Atlantic flight as just a stunt? Look where that got us today, regular flights to Paris, London, and other european cities. Who knows what the information from Voyager can do for us. I don't think you could condemn the flight to being "just a stunt" just because it didn't have instant answers to world problems. Those people had a dream. They took the newest materials, gathered ideas, set to building, and made the dream come true. If thats not exiting, I don't know what is!! Chris Krieg @osu-eddie.uucp Ohio State University CIS department ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 87 02:32:58 GMT From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Nuclear devices Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov While nuclear technology is at present the only field riddled with "born secret" rules, the government has repeatedly attempted to extend the same sorts of controls into two other fields: cryptography, and most recently, SPACE TECHNOLOGY. As director of the NSA, Bobby Inman went on a crusade a few years back to grant to the NSA pre-publication censorship rights over ALL cryptological research (whether or not funded by the United States Government). Even as recently as several years ago the US government had the "right" to issue secrecy orders on any patent application (no matter who funded the work) whose publication it considered "detrimental to the national security". These were done authority of a "state of emergency" declared during the Korean War by President Truman! For the details, read the Puzzle Palace by James Bamford. Now I have heard that Reagan wants to extend the "born classified" tradition to SPACE TECHNOLOGY, because of its applications to strategic defense. No matter that much space technology has extremely important and peaceful applications in the civilian world, or that Reagan says he wants to give our Star Wars technology to the Soviets. Those who support SDI because they hope to ride their free enterprises into space on the backs of the military should perhaps ponder this. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 87 10:16:03 GMT From: news@csvax.caltech.edu (Usenet netnews) Subject: Re: Nuclear devices Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <245@ka9q.nnj.ampr.us> karn@ka9q.UUCP writes: >Now I have heard that Reagan wants to extend the "born classified" >tradition to SPACE TECHNOLOGY, because of its applications to strategic >defense. No matter that much space technology has extremely important >and peaceful applications in the civilian world, or that Reagan says he >wants to give our Star Wars technology to the Soviets. >Those who support SDI because they hope to ride their free enterprises >into space on the backs of the military should perhaps ponder this. >Phil I'd be interested in reading your reference for this. Along similar lines, I am disturbed by the recent reports in Av Week that the military now wants access to the Space Station. This seems to be making our international partners even more unhappy. If the military needs a space station, let them build their own, I say. I suspect even they would be happier this way in the end. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jan 87 15:41:40 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: More on clean nuclear explosives "Clean" nuclear explosives will be of extreme importance in such space industrial activities as mining, colony construction, propulsion, and asteroid breakup and deflection. In response to my earlier message on clean nuclear explosives, I've received some mail that expressed complete misconceptions on how nuclear weapons work. I make no claims on being an expert in this field and welcome correction if any errors are made. The "explosive" used in fusion weapons is a lithium-deuterium compound. The main reaction is: T + D >>> He-4 + n + 17.6 MeV 4.8 MeV + T + He-4 <<< Li-6 + n Li-6 is transformed by a neutron into tritium. The tritium fuses with deuterium yielding helium and a neutron. The neutron is then used in the next cycle. This cycle is self contained. Neutrons from the tamp aren't required to sustain it. The tamp serves mainly as a reflecter of x-rays and gammas that compress the lithium-deuterium explosive into fusion. This compression is achieved either through direct photon pressure or by transforming a foam surrounding the lithium-deuterium into a high temperature plasma. This plasma in turn compresses the Li-D explosive. Modern nuclear weapons are in three stages. The first stage is either an A-bomb or a boosted A-bomb. The second stage involves the lithium-deuterium explosive employing autocatalytic thermonuclear detonation. The third stage is the tamp itself that was used in the second stage. By constructing it out of uranium-238 (the common and normally useless isotope of uranium), additional yield is gained by transmuting it into a fissile isotope. Most of the radiation and fission products come from this U-238 tamp. This source of radiation could be removed by replacing the U-238 with another material (I had earlier suggested tungsten). Apparently the Russians once used lead for this purpose. However the first stage, (A-bomb trigger) will produce some fission products as well. Here is the sixty five dollar question. Is it possible to select a tamp material that generates little amounts of radioactive material and neutrons, **plus** produces lots of very hard gamma rays such that the gamma radiation transitions the nuclei of the fission products from the A-bomb trigger into stable isotopes? If such a tamp existed, then you'd have a very clean nuclear explosive. Does anyone out there **really** know his nuclear physics well enough to answer this question? Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 87 19:44:07 GMT From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcms!hpfcmp!rjn@hplabs.hp.com (Bob Niland) Subject: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov re: "Actually, what bothered me was that this [the Voyager flight] was billed as the first flight around the world without refueling. We all know this was done over 25 years ago by Yuri Gagarin, and three times in a row shortly thereafter by a certain senator." As numerous other netters have pointed out, the Vostok/Gagarin flight does not qualify for the aircraft record, because it drops so much mass. Moreoever, there is some question about whether or not the early USSR orbital flights even qualified for the FAI spacecraft records. The following is from "Red Star in Orbit", by James E. Oberg, Random House, 1981. Page 54 "The earliest published Soviet descriptions of the landing told of Gagarin swining from a personal parachute, singing hymms to the motherland. But suddenly the official accounts became vague. At the post-flight press conference, a Western newsman asked the question directly: At touchdown, was Gagarin inside or outside his ship? After a moment's consultation with the political official in charge of the conference (who had already approved the script of questions and answers for the Soviet journalists), Gagarin delivered a hymm of praise to the brilliance of the "chief designer" of the spaceship (Korelov, of course - but it was forbidden to reveal his name, so the job title was used instead), who had made BOTH modes of descent possible. But he would not answer the question: WHICH mode had been used. This uncertainty came to a head in Paris three months later, when the International Astronautical Federation, or FAI (the acronym for the French name), convened a meeting to certify the world records being claimed for the flight. A longstanding FAI rule could have meant an embarassing propaganda defeat: to qualify for any new world flying record, a pilot must take off AND LAND in his aircraft or spacecraft. The rule book was quite explicit on this point. As it turned out, the Vostok capsule was equipped with an ejection seat, which served to catapult the pilot clear of the booster in the event of a launch failure. The same system was to be used during the final descent to earth, since the three ton spherical landing capsule did not pack a parachute large enough to ensure a gentle (or even a survivable) landing. The pilot was supposed to fire the ejection seat at about 20,000 feet and come down separately. Gagarin had almost certainly used this method. In Paris, the FAI director-general confronted the Soviet delegate with the crucial question: "Where was the pilot on return in relation to the space vehicle?" Perhaps sensing a plot to deny the Soviet Union its rightful recognition, the Soviet spokesman loudly protested: "Ask the Americans if the U.S.A. believes that these records claimed for Gagarin were actually made. All the people of the world have already endorsed Gagarin's flight and have accepted it as fact." The wrangling went on for five hours, with the FAI officials demanding documentation that Gagarin had landed inside the ship and the Soviet delegates denouncing such requirements as obstructionist and insulting. Finally, as dinnertime approached, the FAI officials gave in and agreed to certify the Soviet version of the flight that Gagarin had been inside the capsule. Subsequently, when foreign newsmen asked for evidence that Gagaring had landed inside the ship, Soviet officials would point to the FAI certification as independent proof of their claims. But as the proverb goes, nobody has a good enough memory to be a successful liar. A year later cosmonaut Popovich was asked how he landed, and without checking he blurted out, "Like Titov and Gagarin, I landed outside the ship"; in 1964 the three-man Voskhod capsule would include a small retrorocket to cushion the final landing, and boastful Soviet space officials would point to it as "the first time that a crew could land in its ship." Ten years later a book by chief Soviet space correspondent Evgeny Riabchikov would describe how the Vostok came down in a plowed field while Gagarin himself came down in a pasture near a deep ravine." On the page 53, Oberg also points out that the first flight was entirely on automatic pilot. The manual controls were secured by a lock, and Gagarin never even open the sealed envelope containing the combination. So some might make a case that Gagarin was a passenger rather than a pilot. Nonetheless, no one apparently disputes that the Soviets were the first to orbit a human being and return him safely to earth (by whatever means). Regards, Hewlett-Packard Bob Niland 3404 East Harmony Road [ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!rjn Fort Collins CO 80525 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #108 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00830; Mon, 19 Jan 87 03:03:03 PST id AA00830; Mon, 19 Jan 87 03:03:03 PST Date: Mon, 19 Jan 87 03:03:03 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701191103.AA00830@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #109 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 109 Today's Topics: Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power? Re: "Voyager" flight around world Re: SPACE Digest V7 #103 This group (netiquette) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Jan 87 21:19:57 GMT From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Kurt Allen) Subject: Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <7511@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> While Voyager made a flight with regular fuel, does anybody know >> whether or not this would have been an easy thing to do (and perhaps >> years ago) using nuclear power? ... > >Not easy. The weight problems, especially in shielding, are monumental. >Maybe not impossible, but not at all simple. Once I was in a class with an engineer who claimed that he worked on a prototype nuclear powered airplane for the U.S. government. (Take all this with a large grain of salt) According to him the project was cancelled in the late 50's or early 60's for environmental reasons. Air and some liquid (water?) were heated by injecting them into a pipe lined with a fissionable material. The engines consisted of many of these 'pipes' and were air-breathing and air-cooled, like the early fission reactors. As the careful reader will notice there are some environmental problems associated with this type of cooling system. He mentioned that the shielding for this plane only needed to exist on the front part of the engines (I.E. the parts facing the pilot). I don't know anything about this project, but what this person told me. It may or may not be true, but I thought it was an interesting idea, nevertheless. Kurt W. Allen 3M Center ihnp4!mmm!allen ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 87 18:41:55 GMT From: cbatt!osu-eddie!tanner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Tanner) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <446@pixar.UUCP> good@pixar.UUCP (The question you have to ask yourself, Punk, is "Do I feel lucky?") writes: >In article <2835@osu-eddie.UUCP> tanner@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mike Tanner) writes: >>It's worth remembering that before Lindbergh's flight it was widely >>believed by engineers and scientists (not universally, but widely) to >>be technologically impossible to fly non-stop from New York to Paris. > >That's interesting considering the fact that some 72 people had flown >the Atlantic before Lindbergh. His claim to fame was doing it non-stop >and solo. Multi-engined, multi-manned planes had already made the trip >in hops or non-stop. This in no way diminishes the feat of tenacity and >endurance that was Lucky Lindy's flight. Similar to the Voyager flight, >it involved a great amount of stamina and luck, and deservingly captured >public attention. > --Craig > ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good Please re-read what I wrote (and you quoted) more carefully. I did not say "fly the Atlantic". I said "fly non-stop from New York to Paris". There's a difference, the NY-Paris flight is much farther. No one had done it non-stop before AND many experts WERE saying it couldn't be done. -- mike ...cbosgd!osu-eddie!tanner ------------------------------ Sender: "Norman_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com Date: 13 Jan 87 07:25:45 PST (Tuesday) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #103 From: "Norman_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com To: Space@angband.s1.gov Cc: "Norman_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com In-Reply-To: ota%angband.s1:GOV:Xerox's message of 13-January-87 (Tuesday) 3:29:20 PST Reply-To: "Norm_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com I agree with the positive sentiments expressed by several others on the Voyager flight, especially Walker Seestedt and Jim Horn. I have a question. Does anyone have any idea as to why the other Yeager (the General), whose book about himself, "Yeager" I read recently, and who from all I know about him (or think I know) is a genuine hero himself, denigrated this accomplishment with some disparaging remarks such as something like (not an exact quote): "What's so great about it? It's like adding extra fuel tanks to a plane." I don't understand this. That doesn't sound like it could be coming from a guy who's supposed to have all the "right stuff". Are all the TV commercials he's been doing recently going to his head? What don't I know about this? I'm surprized more hasn't been made of this. I wonder if it's because the press simply doesn't want to embarrass a genuine American hero by making too much of his snap remark, assuming it was one. Signed, Bothered and bewildered Norm Schuster. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 87 22:42:44 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: This group (netiquette) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I was just Cc'ed by Bob (Snake Dike on Half Dome next year) Ayers about the discussion about terminology and gender. I think the problem is partially a technical one and partially a sociological one. The technical problem is that because this group is gatewayed to the ARPAnet, many people read this group using a mail system as opposed to others who use News or Notes software. At one time I read mail, too. Flaming is partially a consequence of this. We have to set up some conventions to reduce trash similar to Mark Horton Summer's Emily Post of the Usenet. I propose the following: 1) Because I don't trust mailers, everybody should append a short return address in the body of the message (a signature in the Usenet providence). It is assumed everybody has a reasonable mailer and knows how to use the mail system on their machine, otherwise ask your administrator. [Yes I read space for a while from a destructive (read once) mail system on TSS/370.] 2) If you see something posted you disagree with, SEND MAIL to that person, post a followup only if you are absolutely certain everybody should see it (I don't know how else to say this in nice words). If you want a 3 or more way discussion, consider using mail aliases. If you have something for the greater group summarize and post FOR the group. 3) It will be the responsibility (courtesy) of the original poster to summarize followups. (Assuming a good mailer to embed contents.) Perhaps raw deals (poor editing or summaries) can be responded by the reader to the net. 4) If you as a reader do not see a summary forthcoming, ASK for a summary or further information from the original poster. (Like: you ask for info X, another reader sends you mail and says ME,too! then it's worth a wider post if say three or more people request the same). 5) A comment: sure it's neat to occasionally see a mail message from notables like Minsky [sure, I wrote him "fan mail" while I was junior high school [1968]], but most people on the net are not Minsky. Perhaps if you try bouncing ideas off a few people responsive to ideas (like a referee) before noting on the net). Some one should post a message like this periodically (maybe twice yearly) to remind people (network memory). (maybe Ted Anderson). This junk has to stop. I'm travelling back East next week, and I don't want 100 space articles (alone) to wade thru when I get back. I'll unsubscribe before then and it would take another net reorg to consider reading. Stepping down from soap box. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #109 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02183; Tue, 20 Jan 87 03:01:48 PST id AA02183; Tue, 20 Jan 87 03:01:48 PST Date: Tue, 20 Jan 87 03:01:48 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701201101.AA02183@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #110 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 20 Jan 87 03:01:48 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #110 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 110 Today's Topics: 1987 NASA-ASEE Summer Faculty Fellowship Program Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power? Re: Nuclear powered flight Re: "Voyager" flight around world ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jan 87 23:42:25 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: 1987 NASA-ASEE Summer Faculty Fellowship Program Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Since 1964, NASA has had a program for summer faculty fellows. The program is held jointly with the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE). The Centers and educationally institutions working on this are: The Jet Propulsion Lab and Caltech NASA/Lewis Research Center and Case Western Reserve NASA/Langley Research Center, Old Dominion and Hampton Universities The NASA/Marshall and NASA/Kennedy Space Centers with U Alabama Huntsville NASA/Johnson and U of Houston-University Park and Texas A&M NASA/Goddard SFC, Univ. of Maryland and Howard U NASA Ames, Dryden Flight Research Facility and Stanford. Duration is 10 weeks. A wide variety of topics are available from computing, mechnical engineering, life sciences, aeronautics, propulsion, materials, earth science, atmospheric science, robotics, etc. Stipends are $800 per week, there is a travel allowance. There are 150 first-year fellowships. Application DEADLINE is Feb. 1 1987. Offers made about March 1, 1987. I have participated in these in the past. I recommend them for any JUNIOR faculty (1-3 years experience). I have only received one of these forms. The questionaire asks all the typical information about past research, recommendations, etc. GET A FORM IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. You are wasting time if you call me. If you are interested, I would not delay. I would suggest calling: American Society for Engineering Education Suite 200 Eleven Dupont Circle Washington DC 20036 USA (202)-293-7080 Get the ASEE form first. Ask for NASA-ASEE fellowship. Specific research topics are too detailed to reproduce here. Get the form and it will detail which Centers and Universities are covering which topics. The form gives points of contact where the materials should be sent: Caltech/JPL: Dr. Harry Ashkenas MS 180/900 Jet Propulsion Lab Caltech 4800 Oak Grove Dr. Pasadena, CA 91109 Case Western Reserve and NASA/Lewis: Dr. Joseph Prahl Dept. of Mechnical and Aerospace Engineering Glennan Bldg. Case Western Reserve Univeristy Cleveland, OH 44106 Old Dominion U, Hampton U, and NASA/ Langley: Dr. Surendra Tiwari Dept. of Mecahnical Engineering and Mechanics Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA 23508 U Alabama, NASA Marshall and Kennedy: For Marshall SFC: Dr. Gerald Karr Dept. of Mechanical Engineering University of Alabama Huntsville, AL 35899 For Kennedy SC: Dr. Ernest Spivey System Training and Education Development PM-TNG Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899 Texas A&M, U of Houston, NASA/Johnson Prof. William Jones, Jr. Dept. of Electrical Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3128 U Maryland, Howard U, NASA/Goddard SFC Dr. Harold Boroson Dept. of Electrical Engineering University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Stanford University/ NASA Ames RC and Dryden Flight RF Mrs. Nita Girard Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 87 17:17:17 GMT From: wdl1!mas1!gulvin@sun.com (Tom Gulvin) Subject: Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In the '50s, General Dynamics was contracted by the Air Force to produce a nuclear powered airplane. It was to be called the X-6 (as in X-1, X-15, etc. - ever wondered where all the other numbers went?). It was to have 4 or 6 jet engines powering a (probably) B-36. The actual nuclear powered airplane was not built, but a specially shielded B-36 was flown with a moderately sized test reactor in its tail for a few years. Tom Gulvin - MAS, Cupertino, CA P.S., it was only conventionally powered and a B-50 filled with test gear and a C-119(?) filled with Marines flew near it all the time. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 87 02:36:06 GMT From: bzs@bu-cs.bu.edu (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: Nuclear powered flight Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I thought this was proposed during the Eisenhower administration and had gone down as one of the great guffaws of technological proposals? Perhaps technology has changed sufficiently to make it less of a joke than in the 50's, but it still sounds like a mediocre idea to me (just asking for trouble.) Now, constructing one out in space for a long range space flight seems rational enough, but I can't imagine anywhere in *this* world I want to get to badly enough to risk flying about with a reactor strapped to my tail. How about more creative methods of storing energy, the world isn't that big, powerful batteries and rubber bands (so to speak), now that might be clever! But nuclear driven steam turbines?! Sounds silly to me (ok, maybe not steam turbines, but what is this alleged nuclear reactor supposed to do to drive the ship? Seems like steam turbines are the current state of the technology, I'd hate to fly about with Lake Michigan in the cargo bay.) -Barry Shein, Boston University ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 87 02:05:43 GMT From: princeton!puvax2!6080626%PUCC.BITNET@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Adam Barr) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <2881@osu-eddie.UUCP>, chris@osu-eddie.UUCP (Chris Krieg) writes: >I don't see how someone could think that the around >the world flight, without refueling , of Voyager as >just some stunt. first of all it proved something that >many said couldn't be done. It wasn't "just some stunt". >It took years of planning, research and hard work to show >what man can do. Did most people look at the first cross- >Atlantic flight as just a stunt? Look where that got us >today, regular flights to Paris, London, and other european >cities. Hold on a minute. It was inevitable that cross-Atlantic flight be developped once the airplane was invented; someone had to be the first to fly across solo. However Lindbergh, like most pioneers of this sort, did something before it was really safe to do. Lindbergh's flight had nothing much to do with the orderly progression of aviation technology from Kitty Hawk to today. As an example, look at space travel. Presumably in 50 years or whenever we will have some kind of lunar base, and space stations, and flights between them. But it would be an error then to say that the Apollo program was what was responsible for them. The moon landing was a stunt, specifically designed to show up the Russians who had had the gall to put up a satellite before the Americans did. All the hoopla about it masked the fact that while it was certainly a great technological achievement, it was not at all the logical way for the U.S. space program to proceed. It took ten years before the space shuttle flew and the orderly colonization of space began. Voyager is a triumph, but it was still a stunt. What is the point of a plane that can only take off from a 15000-foot runway, subject its two occupants to extreme physical and mental discomfort for 9 days while staying aloft, and then land again at the same runway? Right now, none at all. When the materials and ideas used to create it are applied to the design and construction of planes, some. But the real breakthrough will come when after many small steps forward, improvements in wing shape and engine design, a reasonably comfortable, reasonably safe, and reasonably useful plane manages to fly around the world without refueling. And when that happens, the connection between it and Voyager will be very slim. Incidentally, did Voyager set any sort of record for time of flight? Or has the Navy already kept planes up for weeks with midair refueling? Just wondering....Voyager was up longer than the Mercury missions and almost all of the Gemini and Apollo ones. - Adam Barr, 6080626@PUCC ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #110 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04102; Wed, 21 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST id AA04102; Wed, 21 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST Date: Wed, 21 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701211102.AA04102@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #111 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 21 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #111 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 111 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V7 #104 NASP: Rockets just as cheap? Nuclear airplane The NEXT aviation record A try for some forwarded NASA news ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1987 11:31 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #104 In-Reply-To: Msg of 14 Jan 1987 06:21-EST from Ted Anderson A nuclear airplane would be practical and one was once designed for SAC. As I recall, several billions were spent on it before congress wisely put a stop to the project. One by-product was a huge remote manipulator for servicing the engine - on the ground. The only thing wrong with the solar powered plane is that the sun goes off at night. It would work if one could carry enough batteries to power the plane for, say, 12 hours. However, it seems to me that this would be impractical with present-day technology because our rechargeable batteries hold only the order of a few percent of their weight in chemical energy. Since Voyager needed fuel for 20 12 hour periods, this means that batteries would probably not make it! However, NASA-type fuel cells might do the job. In order for the plane to stay in sunlight, it would need supersonic speed, and that would surely make the size and weight of solar cells impractical. A practical solution might be to use solar cells to electrolyse atmospheric water to refill a hydrogen balloon. A solar-powered lighter-than-air ship would easily be able to stay aloft for the night. The flight would take the order of months and perhaps set the record for the slowest flight around the world. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jan 87 17:59 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net Subject: NASP: Rockets just as cheap? The January 1987 issue of Technology Review has a scathing article on the national aerospace plane. Some points it makes: -- The vehicle or spinoffs have no chance of being effective passenger transports, and would have no plausible military utility beyond being a shuttle replacement. -- Many of the technologies critical to NASP will work just as well in reusable rocket powered vertical takeoff vehicles. For example, a space shuttle redesigned to use modern composite materials (instead of aluminum, for example) would save over 15,000 pounds. Some NASA people think an advanced shuttle with dual-fuel rockets would be as economical as a scramjet powered launch vehicle. Crucial common technologies are low maintenance subsystems, highly simplified & automated checkout and launch, and advanced materials. -- Development costs have been grossly understated. The author of the article estimates NASP will cost $17 billion, not the $3 billion DOD says. -- According to the author, a vehicle the size and weight of a conventional aircraft could get to orbit using scramjets only if the scramjets can operate up to about Mach 17. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 87 05:42:27 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Nuclear airplane Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > TOM GULVIN: In the '50s, General Dynamics was contracted by the > Air Force to produce a nuclear powered airplane. > MINSKI: As I recall, several billions were spent on it before > congress wisely put a stop to the project. Actually, I recall reading a fairly detailed "historical" article about this project in the IEEE Spectrum magazine, some 10--15 years ago. Sorry, but I don't have more details. Happy hunting... ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 87 13:54 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: The NEXT aviation record To: space@angband.s1.gov There is still at least one aviation record left to accomplish: Non-stop Un-refueled SOLO flight around the world. I see a few ways to do this : incredible endurance, a very good autopilot, a very fast plane, or a blimp ( or does a blimp count? ). BTW, I understand that once it gets up in the air ( it refuels immediately after takeoff ) the SR71 goes 'round the world without refueling. I think it's a solo cockpit, but obviously the Blackbird is disqualified from the above ( needs to refuel after takeoff, really just ballistic [just kidding], not in the atmosphere [depending on your definition] ). The implications of a SOLO non-stop no-refuel circum-global ( NO MORE HYPHENS! AAAGGH!! ) flight? How 'bout safer commercial airflight ( some crashes caused by pilot fatigue, especially medical helicopters ), through better foul weather aids, better autopilots, and better automatic fatigue monitoring, or whatever else it takes to do the job? Oh another goal : how 'bout the first NS NR CG flight around the world by an unmanned craft ( super cruisemissile )? Two categories here: remote controlled and totally autonomous. Put the auotpilot from the latter in a 747 as pilot backup!! As they say in New York, EXCELSIOR! Dennis O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 87 18:23:40 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: A try for some forwarded NASA news Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #111 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06353; Thu, 22 Jan 87 03:02:29 PST id AA06353; Thu, 22 Jan 87 03:02:29 PST Date: Thu, 22 Jan 87 03:02:29 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701221102.AA06353@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #112 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 22 Jan 87 03:02:29 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #112 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 112 Today's Topics: AEROSPACE DAILY - JAN. 14 Voyager, Drones and Fuel Cells SPACE Digest V7 #104 Re: Nuclear devices Re: Around the world non-stop ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 87 10:19:51 PST From: ames!telemail!hqnewsroom Article 21 of nasa.telemail.lf: Path: ames!telemail!hqnewsroom Newsgroups: nasa.telemail.lf Subject: AEROSPACE DAILY - JAN. 14 VOLUME 141 AEROSPACE DAILY, ISSUE 09 WEDNESDAY JANUARY 14, 1987 WEINBERGER EYES SOPC FUNDING OPTIONS Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and other officials at the Office of Secretary of Defense level are reconsidering funding options in fiscal 1988 for the Shuttle Operations Planning Complex at Falcon Air Force Station, Colo. The Reagan Administration recommended that no funds be spent for the complex in fiscal 1988, but apparently Weinberger realized on a "second glance" last week that the program should not be terminated, said a legislative spokeswoman for Rep. Joel M. Hefley (R-Colo.). Thus, the decision now is whether to continue funding SOPC, or terminate it, said a Defense Department official who asked not to be identified. Construction of the complex has begun, but it won't become operational until at least 1992. The complex would be used as a backup to NASA's Johnson Space Center during military Shuttle missions. It essentially will control Shuttle flight operations from liftoff to landing. "They must consider whether they want bombs and bullets or something more important," said the DOD official. He said a decision on whether to terminate SOPC, which is a part of the Consolidated Space Operations Center may be made any time between "today and a few months." IBM is the prime contractor, and a spokesman for the company in Washington declined to comment on how the Administration's actions might affect its $330 million firm-fixed priced contract. The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization wants to temporarily house its National Test Facility in the SOPC building. NTF will direct SDIO's National Test Bed, which is to demonstrate and evaluate alternative strategic defense systems, battle management/command and control communications, architectures and technologies throughout the U.S., Europe, Israel and other allied nations. Some industry sources have speculated that NTF might become a "permanent fixture" of SOPC. However, the DOD official said that if this were true, SDIO would not have requested $100 million in the fiscal 1988 military construction budget to build an NTF adjacent to the Shuttle complex. "This signals intent" to eventually vacate the SOPC facility, the DOD official noted. SOPC, after NTF vacates in a few years, could house satellite programs now "in their infancy," the official added. He declined to specify which ones. SDIO also is seeking an additional $115 million in research money to begin the third phase of its NTB contract. Solicitation is expected to begin in March, and a winner is to be selected by spring, the spokesman said. Either Rockwell International or Martin Marietta, the contractors working on NTB's second phase, will probably be selected to proceed in the next stage of the procurement, he added. - 2 - FEDERAL EXPRESS signed a contract under which RCA's Astro-Space Div. will build two Ku-band communications satellites, a Federal Express spokesman said yesterday. Terms and value of the 48-month contract could not be disclosed, he said. Expresstar A and B will be launched into orbital slots at 124 and 77 degrees West longitude and each will carry 34 transponders with a power level of 50 watts per transponder. RCA said they will be the most powerful commercial communications satellites in service. Memoranda of understanding have been signed with Martin Marietta for Titan and Arianespace for Ariane launch vehicle reservations but no firm dates have been scheduled, the spokesman said. NOAA FUNDING PLAN FOR EOSAT AWAITING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL A plan worked out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Office of Management and Budget for FY '87-'89 funding for the Earth Observation Satellite Co. is awaiting congressional approval, an Eosat spokeswoman reported. In the meantime, all subcontracts at Hughes Aircraft Co.'s Santa Barbara Research Center, Goleta, Calif., and RCA's Astro-Space Div., Princeton, N.J., were terminated as of Jan. 9 due to lack of FY '87 funds. The termination "was basically what we were hoping we wouldn't have to do," the spokeswoman said. All 260 people working at Hughes have been assigned to other programs and about eight remain on the program at RCA. "We're down to the minimum," she said. The plan approved by NOAA and OMB after a month of discussions (DAILY, Dec. 11, 19, 1986) provides for $62.5 million in FY '87 funding. Of that, $18 million would go toward launch of the Landsat 6 satellite and $44.5 million would go to Eosat for the satellite and ground system development. The original contract, won by the Hughes/RCA joint venture in 1985, called for operation of the land remote sensing system (Landsat 4 and 5 satellites) and funding for construction of two more satellites, sensors and ground systems. The revised plan reduces the system to one satellite. For FY '88, Eosat funding would be $62.6 million, including $12 million for the Landsat 6 launch and $50.6 million to Eosat for ground system and spacecraft development. For FY '89, funding would be $44.1 million with $20 million for launch and $24.1 million for the remainder of ground system development. To date Eosat funding has totalled $90 million. The original contract called for $250 million. If Congress approves the revised plan, the Eosat spokeswoman said, total funding through fiscal 1989 would be $209.2 million for Eosat and $50 million for the Landsat 6 launch. - 3 - Whether those numbers are sufficient is still in question, she said, because Eosat gave NOAA a figure "more like $236 million" for a one-satellite system and $285 million for two satellites. "There's been a lot of mixed messages that we've been getting from the Hill," she said, particularly whether or not a one-satellite system would do what was called for in the original legislation. If the plan is approved, Eosat would have to renegotiate its terminated subcontracts. "Hopefully we could do that pretty quickly," she said. Eosat efforts, she said, are geared toward getting "some sort of a long-term commitment...that will show a U.S. commitment at least for the next few years." If Congress approves the plan, she added, "at least there is some funding showing for FY '88, and that gives us some sort of intention on the future." Launch of the Landsat 6 satellite was scheduled for March 1989, but that date is threatened by the subcontract termination which pushes back completion of the satellite and sensors. AEROSPATIALE TEAM GETS ESA AWARD FOR ISO SATELLITE STUDY A team led by France's Aerospatiale has been awarded a European Space Agency contract for a study of the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) astronomy satellite, company spokesmen said. Development and manufacture are likely to cost $40 million, and the satellite is expected to be launched in 1992 or 1993 by an Ariane 4 rocket as part of ESA's scientific program, they said. ISO is designed to increase the sensitivity of observation in the infrared spectrum. It will screen out elements in the Earth's atmosphere that have impeded such observation in the past. ISO's telescope will be placed inside a cryostat containing 2000 liters of liquid helium which will maintain the payload at a temperature of 270 degree Centigrade for 18 months. Improved technology will make it possible to fly detectors two to three times more sensitive than those flown on earlier missions, spokesmen said. ISO will fly in an elliptical orbit with a perigee of 1000 kilometers and an apogee of 39,000 km. The payload will be a telescope with a diameter of 60 centimeters and a focal length of nine meters. It will supply images for experiments designed by a British/German/French/Dutch consortium. The service module carrying the payload will provide high pointing accuracy, spokesmen said. - 4 - Aerospatiale's ISO team members include West Germany's Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm, Italy's Selenia, Holland's Fokker, Belgium's ETCA, and Spain's CASA. Aerospatiale has responsibility for design, manufacture and integration of the telescope. MBB is responsible for the payload; Selenia for the service module telecommunications and data processing; Fokker for attitude control; ETCA for the power supply, and CASA for the module's structure, thermal control and harness. - END OF AEROSPACE DAILY FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1987 - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 87 18:17 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net Subject: Voyager, Drones and Fuel Cells Re Voyager: I've been reading about a new fuel cell from Argonne National Labs, developed by Darrell Fee, that would have been very useful to Rutan. The design consumes fuel (hydrogen, methane, propane, octane, and ethanol have been tried) and air to produce electricity with 60% efficiency. What's impressive is the size: the power/weight ratio of the cell rivals that of internal combustion engines. At 60% efficiency, Voyager could have flown *twice* around the world using these things. According to Scientific American, Fee says the raw materials for the cell will cost $2.50 per kilowatt, vs. $70 to 80 for conventional fuel cells (manufacturing costs were not stated; I assume they are dominant). I have a copy of a paper Fee and cohort wrote; the fuel cell uses yttria stabilized zirconia (an oxygen ion conductor) as the electrolyte, strontium doped lathanum manganite as the cathode and nickel-zirconia cermet for the anode. It runs at around 1000 deg. C. According to SciAm, Fee hopes to have 50 KW modules available in 3 to 5 years, operating at twice the efficiency of current gas fired generators. This could turn the economy of scale of electric power generation on its head -- even *residential* cogeneration might make sense (application to industrial cogeneration would be even more likely). One can imagine applying these fuel cells to automobiles. Power could be supplied under computer control to four independent dc motors at the wheels. Add a flywheel and use the motors as generators and one can recover energy currently lost in the brakes as heat. Nifty options like anti-skid braking or intelligent four wheel independent torque control could be added in software. The cells could also be used in solar powered drone aircraft. The drone would electrolyse water during the day, saving hydrogen for use at night (this is an old idea). According to SciAm, the cells may be used in the NASP. I'd imagine they'd replace the APU's currently used to supply power to hydraulic systems. Electrical controls should require much less maintenance. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 87 17:07:07 GMT From: necntc!cullvax!drw@husc6.harvard.edu (Dale Worley) Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #104 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU writes: > The only thing wrong with the solar powered plane is that the sun goes > off at night. It would work if one could carry enough batteries to > power the plane for, say, 12 hours. However, it seems to me that this > would be impractical with present-day technology because our > rechargeable batteries hold only the order of a few percent of their > weight in chemical energy. [...] There was a solar-powered plane built that worked! The energy storage system was its potential energy of altitude. It was a very light glider. During the day it rose to about 100,000 feet, and glided down to about 10,000 feet during the night. (It couldn't go below 10,000 feet, because you get into weather, and clouds may block the sun.) Dale Worley Cullinet Software UUCP: ...!seismo!harvard!mit-eddie!cullvax!drw ARPA: cullvax!drw@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 87 20:43:49 GMT From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Nuclear devices Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I just looked up the details I mentioned earlier regarding patent secrecy orders in my copy of the Puzzle Palace. According to Bamford, the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 provides that secrecy orders be for no more than 1 year unless renewed. However, in the event of a "Presidentially declared national emergency" the order remains in effect for the entire duration of the emergency plus six months. It just so happens that the Korean War emergency declared by Truman wasn't officially declared "over" until 1978!! It would seem that Nicaragua and South Africa aren't the only countries who use phony "states of emergency" to violate the fundamental rights of their citizens. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 87 17:58:14 GMT From: hpcea!hpsrla!hpsadla!jimh@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Horn) Subject: Re: Around the world non-stop Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Re: "last and final record..." I know this is going to be difficult to believe, but the above saying came from either the original poster or the media, not Dick, Jeanna, or anyone else from the Voyager team. The concept was "the last first in aviation", to use Jeanna's terms, referring to the last major milestone that they were able to come up with back in the beginning of the project (circa 1980). Dick and Jeanna have between them any number of aviation world records (you should see their living room wall - lots of nifty NAA and FAI certificates, mementos of various aircraft - even a radio-controlled helecopter hanging from the ceiling...). After setting so many of them (such as solo nonstop nonrefulled flight from Anchorage to Grand Turk in the Bahamas), they were wondering what the next major milestone to be achieved would be. After much discussion involving Dick, Jeanna, Burt, Mike, Sally, and others, this is the only major one that arose. So that's why they chose it. The sticking point is "milestone". Everyone remembers Lindbergh, who was the first to fly the Atlantic NON-STOP (May, 1927), even though it was flown by a brace of seaplanes in 1919 (with many stops). Everyone remembers the Wrights, who first FLEW (under control) a heavier than air (and self powered) airplane, even though down under and other places similar attempts were made earlier (but the experimenters hadn't solved the problems of propulsion and control). Everyone remembers Chuck Yeager (no relation to Jeanna), who first exceeded the `sound barrier' of Mach 1 - but not Scott Crossfield, who first broke Mach 2. Everyone remembers Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon. How many remember `Buzz' Aldrin, the second? And so it goes. In short, the difference is between records and milestones. All the first may be significant, but most aren't. The second set is much more select. It was a conscious decision to select such a goal and achieve it which marks the Voyager effort. Media hype and misquoting doesn't diminish the achievement. Jim Horn, Secretary The Comparitive Aircraft Flight Efficiency (CAFE) Foundation, Inc. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #112 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08580; Fri, 23 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST id AA08580; Fri, 23 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST Date: Fri, 23 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701231102.AA08580@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #113 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 23 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #113 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 113 Today's Topics: Year In Review: part 1 of 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jan 87 03:51:37 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Felton) Subject: Year In Review: part 1 of 3 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov NASA NEWS RELEASE 86-177 NASA 1986: THE YEAR IN REVIEW The Space Shuttle Challenger accident, the subsequent investigation and the recovery activities were the dominant National Aeronautics and Space Administration events of the year 1986. However, while the agency concentrated on the resumption of Shuttle flights in early 1988, major accomplishments in other areas were taking place. Following the spectacular encounter with planet Uranus in January, the Voyager 2 spacecraft continues its scientific journey through the solar system towards an encounter with Neptune in 1989. A new baseline configuration for the Space Station was adopted and draft requests for proposals were issued to prospective contractors - a major milestone for beginning development next year. NASA and the Department of Defense initiated the joint National Aero-Space Plane research program. This program will lead to an entirely new family of aerospace vehicles capable of horizontal takeoff and landing, single stage operations to orbital speeds and sustained hypersonic cruise within the atmosphere using airbreathing propulsion. Late in the year, NASA and the 3M Company signed an agreement under which the firm will conduct 62 materials processing experiments aboard the Space Shuttle over an extended period. These topics, including the appointment of NASA Administrator Dale D. Myers and other major managerial changes are detailed in this release. ADMINISTRATION Dr. James C. Fletcher became administrator of NASA for the second time on May 12, 1986, succeeding James M. Beggs who had resigned. Dr. William R. Graham was acting administrator when Fletcher assumed office. Fletcher previously served as NASA administrator from April 1971 to May 1977. The agency was deeply involved in the investigation of the Challenger accident, serving in a research and analysis role for the Presidential investigation commission, when Fletcher assumed office. His statement upon receiving the report of this commission set the tone for his administration: "Where management is weak, we will strengthen it," he said. "Where engineering or design prcesses need improving, we will improve it. Where our internal communications are poor, we will see that they get better." Fletcher immediately sought the opinions and advice of a large number of persons in the agency and out., then initiated a major study of NASA management structure. Working with the National Academy of Public Administration, Fletcher appointed retired Air Force General Samuel C. Phillips, who had headed the Apollo program in 1964, to direct this study. In addition, three separate committees of the National Research Council were organized to provide oversight of Space Shuttle redesign efforts. In other important activities during the year, the administrator: Secured Presidential and Congressional support for an orbiter to replace the Challenger. Secured Presidential and Congressional support to keep Space Station development on track towards its original goal - to achieve a permanent manned presence in space in 1994. Made a substantial number of changes among the agency's top management personnel, especially in the Space Shuttle and Space Station programs. Initiated a complete reassessment of Space Station design and assembly procedures which has lead to major changes in this program. He has encouraged continuing negotiations over Space Station issues with international partners. In the two major program management restructurings, which involved the Space Shuttle and the Space Station, the concept of a "lead center" was abandoned and the highest levels of program management moved to NASA Headquarters. In both cases, focal points of program authority and responsibility were clearly identified and lines of communications and decision-making channels and processes well defined. The action involving the Space Shuttle program responded to recommendations byt the Presidential 51-L accident investigation commission, which had recommended that NASA consider emphasizing centralized authority for programs that involve several NASA centers. Decisions concerning the agency's overall structure and management were expected to be announced shortly after Jan. 1, 1987. Changes in the Space Shuttle and Space Station programs are compatible with the agencywide adjustments to be announced. In the area of key personnel, Fletcher appointed new directors for the Kennedy Space Flight Center, whose directors had retired, and for the Johnson Space Center, whose director was reassigned within the agency. He also appointed a new associate administrator for the Space Station program. These appointments led to numerous additional appointments in key positions in each of the centers and NASA Headquarters, especially in the Space Shuttle and Space Station programs. In one of the most important moves during the year, Fletcher created the new Office of Safety, Reliability, Maintainability and Quality Assurance, also in response to a recommendation by the Presidential commission, to reemphasize these areas in the wake of the Challenger accident. It is headed by an associate administrator who reports directly to the administrator. As the year ended, Fletcher announced to all civil servants and contract employees a new set of goals for the agency, developed by NASA's Strategic Planning Council, which he chairs. He also explained a continuing effort to identify specific objectives to meet the goals. In the document the agency explicitly stated, for the first time in its history, a goal of expanding the human presence beyond the Earth. The administrator established a group to determine NASA's response to the long-term goals for the U.S. Space Program recommended byt the President's National Commission on Space, and initiated an effort to develop short term goals to take the agency to 1995. The latter effort is under the direction of Dr. Sally Ride. These activities took place within the context of growing national concern about the health of the American space effort compared to expanding space programs in the Soviet Union, Western Europe, Japan and China. SPACE FLIGHT NASA's launch year for 1986 began on Jan. 12 with the launch of Space Shuttle mission 61-C using the orbiter Columbia. Robert L. "Hoot" Gibson commanded the 6-day flight with Charles F. Bolden Jr. serving as pilot. Mission specialists included George D. "Pinky" Nelson, Steven A. Hawley and Franklin R. Change-Diaz (the first Hispanic American to journey into space). Also aboard were payload specialists Robert J. Cenker of RCA and U.S. Rep. Bill Nelson of Florida. Payloads on 61-C included RCA's Satcom K-1 communications satellite, successfully deployed; the Materials Science Laboratory; the first Hitchhiker payload-of-opportunity carrier; the Infrared Imaging Experiment; and 13 Getaway Specials. Mission 61-C concluded on Jan. 18 with a landing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Ten days later on Jan 28, mission 51-L with commander Francis R. "Dick" Scobee, pilot Michael J. Smith, mission specialist Judith A. Resnik, Ellison Onizuka and Ronald E. McNair and payload specialists Gregory B. Jarvis of Hughes and Christa McAuliffe, the first teacher in space, was launched from Kennedy Space Center, Fla., at 11:38 a.m. EST. AT 73 seconds into the flight, the orbiter Challenger broke under severe aerodynamic loads, after the leaking right-hand solid rocket motor caused the external tank to fail setting off an explosive burn of propellants which destroyed the external tank. The crew and the vehicle were lost. Jan. 28 - Shortly after the accident, a 51-L Interim Mishap Review Board was established to investigate the cause of the mission failure. This group, headed by Jesse Moore, Associate Administrator for Space Flight, NASA Headquarters, consisted of Richard Smith, Director of Kennedy Space Center, Fla.; William Lucas, Director of Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.; Arnold Aldrich, Manager, National Space Transportation System at Johnson Space Center, Houston; James Harrington, Director, Spacelab, NASA Headquarters; and Walter Williams, NASA consultant to the administrator. Feb. 3 - President Reagan announced the formation of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, headed by William P. Rogers, former Secretary of State. The commission was directed to (1) review the circumstances surrounding the accident to establish probable cause; and (2) develop recommendations for corrective or other action based upon its findings and determinations. Feb. 5 - NASA Acting Administrator William R. Graham established the 51-L Data and Design Analysis Task Force (replacing the Interim Mishap Investigation Board) to support the Presidential commission by analyzing facts, circumstances and design issues surrounding the accident. The Associate Administrator for Space Flight was designated Chairman of the task force. Feb. 20 - Rear Admiral Richard H. Truly was appointed Associate Administrator for Space Flight, replacing Jesse W. Moore, who had been named director of Johnson Space Center on Jan. 23. On Feb. 22, Truly named Thomas L. Moser as his deputy. March 1 - James R. Thompson, Princeton University, was appointed vicechairman of the NASA 51-L Data and Design Analysis Task Force. March 25 - A Solid Rocket Motor Redesign Team was formed to requalify the motor of the Space Shuttle's solid rocket booster. The group was managed on an interim basis by James E. Kingsbury, director of Marshall's Science and Engineering Directorate. May 3 - Delta 178 carrying the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES-G), launched at 6:18 p.m. EDT, from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., was destroyed by range safety due to premature main engine shutdown. May 4 - An investigation board headed by Lawrence J. Ross, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, was formed to investigate the Delta 178 flight failure. May 9 - John W. Thomas, Spacelab Program Office Manager at Marshall Space Flight Center, assumed management responsibility for the Solid Rocket Motor Redesign Team. June 6 - The report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident was submitted to President Reagan. This report included nine recommendations by the commission to help assure the safe return to flight. June 11 - Astronaut Robert L. Crippen was assigned to head a group formed to review overall Space Shuttle program management. June 19 - NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher announced the decision to terminate the development of the Centaur Upper Stage for use aboard the Shuttle. This decision was based on the fact that, even following certain modifications identified by ongoing reviews, the resultant stage would not meet safety criteria being applied to other cargo or elements of the Space Shuttle system. June 25 - TRW, Inc., was selected by NASA for negotiations leading to the award of a contract to develop the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV). A reusable, remotely operated, propulsive vehicle to increase the range of the Space Transportation System, the OMV will be used primarily for spacecraft delivery, retrieval, boost, deboost and close proimity visual observation beyond the operating range of the Space Shuttle. July 14 - NASA's plan to implement the recommendations of the Rogers commission was submitted to President Reagan. Aug. 5 - James R. Thompson was named director of Marshall Space Flight Center, replacing Dr. William Lucas, who retired July 1. Aug. 15 - President Reagan announced his decision to support a replacement for the Challenger. At the same time, it was announced that NASA no longer would launch commercial satellites, except for those which are Shuttle-unique or have national security or foreign policy implications. Aug. 18 - Astronaut Sally Ride was named Special Assistant for Strategic Planning, responsible for reviewing NASA's goals and objectives for nearto long-term planning. Aug. 20 - Lt. Gen. Forrest S. McCartney, Commander of the Space Division, Air Force System, Los Angeles, was named director of Kennedy Space Center, replacing Richard G. Smith who retired from NASA on July 31. Aug. 22 - NASA announced the beginning of a series of tests designed to verify the ignition pressure dynamics of the Space Shuttle solid rocket motor field joint. The series will be conducted over the next year at Morton Thiokol's Wasatch Division in Utah and Marshall Space Flight Center. Sept. 5 - Study contracts were awarded to five aerospace firms for conceptual designs of an aternative or Block II Space Shuttle solid rocket motor. Sept. 5 - A Delta vehicle carrying a Strategic Defense Initiative payload was launched successfully from Cape Canavaral Air Force Station. Sept. 10 - Astronaut Bryan O'Connor was named chairman of a new Space Flight Safety Panel. This panel, with oversight responsibility for all NASA manned space program activities, reports to the Associate Administrator for Safety, Reliability, Maintainability and Quality Assurance. Oct. 2 - Aaron Cohen was appointed director of Johnson Space Center, replacing Jesse Moore, who left the position to become special assistant to the NASA General Manager at Headquarters. Cohen had been director of research and engineering at Johnson. Oct. 2 - After an intensive study, NASA announced the decision to test fire the redesigned solid rocket motor in a horizontal attitude. This test best simulates the critical conditions on the field joint which failed during the 51-L mission. Oct. 3 - NASA announced February 1988 as the target date for resuming Shuttle flights. A 3 -year projected manifest was released based on a reduced flight rate and accomodating as far as possible the payload backlog. Oct. 16 - NASA announced that it would proceed with the construction of a second horizontal test stand for redesigning and recertification of the Space Shuttle solid rocket motor at the Morton Thiokol Wasatch facility in Utah. The new test stand will be designed to simulate, more closely than the existing SRM stand, the stresses on the SRM during an actual Shuttle launch and ascent. Oct. 29 - The Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, released its report on the Investigation of the Challenger Accident. Nov. 5 - A new management and operations structure for the National Space Transportation System was announced by NASA Deputy Administrator Dale Myers. Arnold D. Aldrich was named director of the National Space Transportation System in Washington, D.C. He had previously been manager of the NSTS in Houston. Nov. 13 - A Scout launch vehicle carrying the Polar Beacon Experiments and Auroral Research satellite was launched successfully from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Nov. 26 - NASA announced the selection of the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), a launch vehicle which fits into the cargo bay of the Shuttle as the baseline option for three planetary missions - Galileo, Magellan and Ulysses. In addition, the Transfer Orbit Stage (TOS), which also fits in the Shuttle payload bay but has the potential for being integrated with a Titan launch vehicle, was selected to place the Mars Observer spacecraft into the proper interplanetary trajectory. While these missions all are baselined for the Shuttle, an option was kept open until early 1987 to fly one of them on a Titan. Dec. 4 - An Atlas-Centaur carrying a FLTSATCOM military communications satellite was launched successfully from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station at 9:30 p.m. EST ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #113 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11284; Sat, 24 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST id AA11284; Sat, 24 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST Date: Sat, 24 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701241102.AA11284@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #114 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 24 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #114 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 114 Today's Topics: Year In Review: part 2 of 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jan 87 03:51:37 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Felton) Subject: Year In Review: part 2 of 3 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov SPACE STATION This was a year of progress and transition for the Space Station as NASA laid the organizational and programmatic framework for beginning development during which the final design, construction, launch and initial operation of the permanently manned Space Station will take place. A new baseline configuration for the Space Station, called the "dual keel," was adopted as the reference configuration to guide the final 8 months of preliminary design activities. Former Lewis Research Center Director Andrew J. Stofan was named Associate Administrator for Space Station in June and Dr. Franklin D. Martin was subsequently named the deputy associate administrator. A major review of Space Station program management was conducted by former Apollo Program Director Gen. Samuel Phillips. Based on that review, the NASA Administrator announced in June the decision to locate a Space Station Program Office in the Washington, D.C. area. The program office is responsible for overall technical direction and content of the Space Station. Thomas L. Moser was selected as the Space Station program director. In July, the NASA administrator directed the Space Station Office to review all aspects of the Space Station program, including design, work package assignments and functions. The review was to address Congressional concerns over the implications of the work packages and examine technical issues involving the Station. Primary among the technical issues was the ability of the Shuttle to support the Space Station assembly sequence and the ability of the crew to support the extensive extravehicular acitvity (EVA) required for both assembly and maintenance of the Station. Based on the review, NASA modified the Station baseline configuration including expanding the "resources" nodes used to connect the working and living modules together adn establishing a revised assembly scenario. Expanding the resource nodes permits flight critical command and control equipment, previously located outside on the Space Station's framework, to be housed inside the nodes. This alleviates the need for crew members to perform EVA for routine maintenance and replacement of these components. The expanded nodes also provide about 4,000 cubic feet of additional pressurized volume to the Space Station. The revised assembly sequence concentrates on accommodating payload instruments during early assembly missions and on obtaining permanent occupancy as soon as possible to enhance the ability of the Station to generate early scientific return. Following considerable analysis, NASA field center work package assignments for the various Space Station components were developed and approved by the NASA administrator. On the international front, program level agreements were reached with Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency (ESA). Japan is conducting preliminary design on an attached multipurpose research and development laboratory including a pressurized module, an exposed work deck, a scientific/ equipment airlock, a remote manipulator arm and an experiment logistics module. Canada is concentrating its preliminary design activities on a mobile servicing center, a multi-purpose system equipped with manipulator arms to help assemble and maintain the Space Station, instruments and experiments. ESA is conducting preliminary design of a permanently attached pressurized laboratory module and a polar orbiting platform. In addition, NASA and ESA agreed to jointly study an ESA man-tended free flyer (pressurized module and resource module). The Task Force on Scientific Uses of the Space Station published it's second and final summer study report, examining ways the manned Space Station could contribute to scientific research and calling for NASA to generate general guidelines for ensuring the Station's effectiveness as a research facility. The task force will become part of a permanent advisory group under the NASA Advisory Council. Draft requests for proposals (RFPs) for the Station's development phase were issued to prospective contractors in November, marking a major milestone in the preparations for beginning development next year. A Technical and Management Information System (TMIS) RFP was issued in July. The TMIS is a computer-based system that will support the technical and management functions of the overall Space Station program. A Software Support Environment (SSE) RFP was issued also. The SSE will provide "the environment" that will be used for all computer software developed for the Space Station program. A Space Station Operations Task Force was formed in September to recommend optional concepts for managing and conducting operations aboard the manned base and the platforms. SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS The temporary loss of U.S. space launch capability precluded what was to have been "A Year For Space Science." Five major scientific mission launches were planned for 1986, including Spartan Halley, Astro-1 and three planetary mission Galileo, Ulysses and Hubble Space Telescope. However, NASA science and applications continued working a variety of activities not requiring launches. The Space and Earth Science Advisory Committee (SESAC), of the NASA Advisory Council, issued an in-depth report on the status of space science within NASA. The 2-year study entitled "The Crisis in Space and Earth Science, A Time for A New Commitment," called for greater attention and higher priority for science programs. SOLAR SYSTEM/PLANETARY SCIENCE The most notable science achievement during 1986 was the successful encounter with planet Uranus by the Voyager 2 spacecraft in January. The Uranus encounter provided prime scientific data on a planetary body never before examined by a space probe at such close range. The 9-year-old robotic spacecraft, Voyager 2, is continuing its scientific journey through the solar system towards and encounter with planet Neptune in 1989. The Galileo mission to Jupiter, a joint project with the Federal Republic of Germany, was planned to make a comprehensive, long term study of the planet's atmosphere, magnetic field and its moons. The Galileo could be launched from the Shuttle either in November 1989, or June 1991, or be launched by an expendable launch vehicle. The Ulysses mission, a cooperative effort between NASA and The European Space Agency, will provide the first view of the sun and the solar system from above the ecliptic plane. The data will provide knowledge about the sun and also will help scientists to better understand the effects of solar activity on the Earth's weather and climate. The Ulysses mission is being considered for launch in September 1989 or October 1990. Atlas (formerly Earth Observation Mission 1 and 2), planned as a 1986 launch, will be the first of a flight series to study long-term changes in solar irradiance and to monitor changes in the chemical composition of the middle and upper parts of Earth's atmosphere over an 11-year solar cycle. Atlas is manifested for November 1990. The Hubble Space Telescope originally scheduled for launch in October 1986, will carry five scientific instruments to study the stars, planets and intersteller space. Four telescopes are provided by the United States and the fifth by the European Space Agency. During "down time," the Space Telescope has undergone continual "end-to-end" testing to maintain the health of the instruments. The current NASA manifest calls for launching the Hubble Space Telescope in November 1988. Astro-1 is a Shuttle-borne observatory to explore the universe by observing and measuring the ultraviolet radiation from celestial objects. The Astro instruments can peer deeply into the ultraviolet spectrum, gaining more information than previously possible and study objects of interest to optical and radio astronomers. Astro-1 is now manifested for January 1991. EARTH SCIENCES 1986 marked a notable interest in the Earth and its environment. NASA, NOAA and the National Science Foundation supported the scientific research efforts of the National Committee for Atmospheric Research in outlining new science data detailing the dangers to the Earth's environment. LIFE SCIENCES An effort to develop a "breadboard" or a basic life support system for use in outer space aboard the Space Station or long term space flight was highlighted by continued interface with project offices, colleges and universit ies. APPLICATIONS Satellite Aided Search and Rescue System (SARSAT) developed by NASA and its international partners, is credited with saving the lives of more than 600 persons who were stranded or injured in remote areas around the world. AERONAUTICS NASA's aeronautical research and technology efforts continued to expand U.S. capabilities in civil and military aviation, contributing significantly to U.S. world aviation leadership and to national security. These efforts covered the spectrum from fundamental disciplinary research to flight testing. In President Reagan's State of the Union address, he said "We are going forward with research on an aerospace plane.... that could shrink travel times between Washington, D.C. and Tokyo... or any other cities no matter how distant... to less than 2 hours." At the President's request, NASA and Department of Defense initiated the joint National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) research program that will lead to an entirely new family of aerospace vehicles. NASP is an accelerated technology development program leading to a flight research vehicle (X-30) to validate a wide range of aerospace technologies and capabilities including horizontal takeoff and landing, single-stage operation to orbital speeds and sustained hypersonic cruise within the atmosphere using airbreathing propulsion. A wide variety of future operational aerospace vehicles will be possible as a result of this technology development and validation program, ranging from civil space launch vehicles and hypersonic transports to long range defense interceptors. Other joint NASA/DOD programs, such as the X-29 forward swept wing experimental aircraft, X-wing research aircraft, the tilt rotor/JVX aircraft and the mission adpative wing, substantially augmented the military data base. Joint NASA/Federal Aviation Administration programs addressed lightning strikes, wind shear, icing and other issues affecting aviation safety. The forward swept wing X-29 aircraft completed its flight envelope at the Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, Calif., in November. The X-29 is a joint Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency/ U.S. Air Force/ NASA flight research program. A modified F-15 jet aircraft performed the maiden flight of the highly integrated digital elelctronic control (HIDEC) system. HIDEC provides coordinating communications between the aircraft's flight control computer and engine control computer for better performance. The world's most powerful supercomputer facility, the Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation (NAS) system located at Ames, became available to scientists and engineers throughout the United States in July. The NAS system is chartered to progressively incorporate the world's most advanced supercomputer technology into the NAS facility and serve as a pathfinder in supercomputing for government, industry and universities. The NAS CRAY-2 computer is unique in having a 256 million word memory (largest yet available) and can perform 250 million computations a second. Accomplishments in the turboprop research area include successful completion of ground tests of both singleand counter rotation propfan concepts in preparation for flight tests to verify large scale propeller structures, aeroelastics and acoustics. The unducted fan, gearless counter rotation propfan has attained 0.72 Mach number, exceeding all previous propeller design capability, during flight tests on a modified production aircraft under industry sponsorship. The 1986 tilt rotor research accomplishments included the use of the XV-15 Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft to investigate rotor/wing aerodynamic interaction flow phenomena. NASA, FAA and DOD signed an agreement to study the potential national benefits of tilt rotor technology. The fabrication and assembly of the Rotor System Research Aircraft/X-Wing research vehicle was completed in August. The joint DARPA/NASA program continues to advance the state of technology in high speed rotorcraft flight. The United States (DOD/NASA) and the United Kingdom signed a joint research agreement in early 1986 to foster collaboration in the development of advanced Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) technologies aimed at reducing the technological risk associated with potential ASTOVL aircraft development. A take-off/landing monitor was developed and successfully evaluated by more than 30 pilots. The monitor provides pilots with an integrated display of aircraft state during take-off and landing including safety warnings and indications of optional stopping positions on the runway. NASA and FAA signed an agreement for a 5-year, $24 million research project to develop technology for airborne wind shear detection and avoidance. NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif. signed a Small Business Innovation Research contract with ACA Industries, Palos Verdes, Calif., to build the advanced concept joined wing. Initial flight tests are planned by ACA Industries for early 1988 at Mojave, Calif. The joined wing incorporates a swept-forward rear wing. Lighter aircraft structures and increased fuel efficiency are the primary benefits anticipated. SPACE TECHNOLOGY The NASA Space Research and Technology program provides critical and sometimes unique elements of the technology base which enables national leadership in space activities. It is focused on technology for the development of more capable, less costly space transportation systems, large space systems such as growth space stations, geosynchronous communication platforms and advanced scientific, Earth observation and planetary exploration. A cryogenic bearing mechanical/thermal model is now operational and is being used to determine cooling, lubrication and bearing design characteristics supporting increased bearing life. A hollow core, single crystal, turbine blade design has shown the potential of up to 20 times the low cycle, fatigue life of directional solidified blade materials currently in use. Technology for space-based liquid oxygen/hydrogen expander cycle engines has progressed in the areas of combustion, heat transfer, materials compatibility, high expansion ratio nozzle performance and engine level system testing. The technology for small chemical thrusters advanced significantly in 1986. Progress continues in improving the performance of solar photovoltaic cells and arrays. Recent successes include reducing performance loss caused by natural radiation. Phase II of the joint DOD/Department of Energy/NASA Space Nuclear Reactor Power System Development Program (SP-100) started in 1986. NASA supported DOE's major SP-100 ground engineering systems acquisition process which led to a multi-year contract award to the General Electric Co. New lightweight composite materials of titanium and graphite or tungsten fibers were demonstrated to be feasible for heat pipe fabrication for use at temperatures of 1,000 degrees C. NASA completed initial evaluations of teleoperated robotic space servicing tasks. Orbital refueling and space structural assembly tasks were evaluated. NASA investigations of titanium doped saphire laser materials have resulted in a 5-fold increase in power efficiency. This improvement was the result of close cooperation between NASA system modelers and materials manufacturers. The new lasers offer the potential for the important scientific objective of space sensing of atmospheric water vapor profiles. Future and long-duration manned missions and bases will require revolutionary new concepts in environmental control and life support systems. Progress was made in developing and testing advanced components which are more reliable, lighter and more efficient in the areas of regenerable air revitalization and water reclamation. Research has focused on the development of advanced thermal protection systems for the Space Shuttle, advanced space transportation systems and hypersonic vehicles including the Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer Vehicle and the National Aero-Space Plane. A chemical vapor deposition facility is now in operation for studies on ceramic/ceramic composite processing for the development of highly durable, high temperature hot structures. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #114 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12740; Sun, 25 Jan 87 03:02:03 PST id AA12740; Sun, 25 Jan 87 03:02:03 PST Date: Sun, 25 Jan 87 03:02:03 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701251102.AA12740@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #115 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 25 Jan 87 03:02:03 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #115 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 115 Today's Topics: Year In Review: part 3 of 3 Re: SPACE Digest V7 #82 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jan 87 03:51:37 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Felton) Subject: Year In Review: part 3 of 3 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov SPACE TRACKING AND DATA SYSTEMS The Space Tracking and Data Systems program plans, implements and operates the worldwide tracking, data handling and communications facilities and services in support of NASA and other agency programs. Support is provided to planetary spacecraft, Earth-orbiting satellites, Shuttle missions, sounding rockets and balloons, and aeronautics research vehicles. The launches of the next two Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS) to complete the satellite constellation of three in-orbit for an operational system were planned for 1986. The TDRS launched on Jan. 28, was lost in the Space Shuttle 51-L accident. The current Shuttle manifest includes launches of the next two TDRS satellites in 1988. Ground-based tracking network operations, which support low-Earth orbital spacecraft, are being extended to provide needed coverage until TDRSS becomes operational. An upgrade of the Deep Space Network (DSN) was key to the success of the Voyager 2 encounter with the planet Uranus in late January 1986. Nearly 500 images of the planet, its satellites and rings were obtained during the nearencounter phase. This support was possible due to a new method of arraying NASA's large antennas and by combining signals with Australia's large antenna at their Parkes facility. Also during March and April, the DSN completed its rather extensive support to the various Halley's Comet observations. Work also began in 1986 to increase the sensitivity of the DSN in preparation for the Voyager 2 encounter with the planet Neptune in 1989. This will be accomplished by improving the efficiency of the large DSN antennas and by simultaneously combining signals received by the DSN antennas, during the encounter, with other antennas at non-NASA facilities. A major development in NASA's ground communications program, the Program Support Communications Network (PSCN), became operational in 1986. The PSCN is a common user, integrated, digital network connecting NASA installations, major contractors and universities. The network provides voice and data services to support the agnecy's institutional and programmatic requirements. It employs advanced technologies developed by the communications industry. COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS A memorandum of understanding was signed with SPACEHAB, Inc., Seattle, establishing a framework for cooperation in SPACEHAB's efforts to develop and market payload bya habitable modules that would augment the Space Shuttle crew compartment. Twenty-five teams were selected as a result of NASA's second solicitation to establish Centers for the Commercial Development of Space. The objective of these centers is to stimulate high technology research in the microgravity of space. An agreement with Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle was established to fly a series of materials processing experiments on the Shuttle. The objective of the experiments is to prove that crystals of a size and quality, impossible to create on Earth, can be produced in space. Lawrence F. Herbolsheimer was appointed deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Commercial Programs. He is responsible for advancing the interests and participation of the private sector in the U.S. space program. Four teams (from 25 submissions) were selected under the second program solicitation, establishing Centers for the Commercial Development of Space. Using NASA Apollo program technology, a UNISTICK control system was developed by the Johnson Engineering Corp., Boulder, Colo., under a joint agreement with the U.S. Veterans Administration. When installed in a road vehicle, the system allows the handicapped to drive by using a joystick. Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, was selected for contract negotiations to develop and implement a program to stimulate and sustain interest by U.S. companies in the utilization and application of aeronautics and space technology. An agreement was reached with Space Services Inc. of America, Houston, for use of NASA's Wallops Flight Facility for launch of the expendable Conestoga booster. NASA selected 172 research proposals for immediate Phase I award negotiations in the agency's 1986 Small Business Innovation Research Program. Included were 144 small, high technology firms located in 31 states and territories. NASA and the 3M Co. signed an agreement under which the firm will conduct 62 materials processing experiments aboard the Space Shuttle over an extended period. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS SPACE STATION - NASA and its Space Station partners reached agreement on hardware elements that would be carried into preliminary design, including permanently-attached laboratories (ESA and Japan), a polar platform (ESA) and a mobile servicing center (Canada). In addition, NASA and ESA jointly will study a man-tended free flyer to provide a basis for determining its utility to the Station. U.S. negotiations began with Canada, ESA and Japan on agreements for the detailed design, development and operational Station program phases. It is anticipated that agreements will focus on programmatic and management mechanisms for program implementation and on political commitments and the legal regime within which the program will operate. NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and their counterpart agencies in Europe, Japan and Canada, have begun planning the research and operational Earth observation payloads for the NASA and ESA Space Station polar platforms. IACG - Interagency Consultative Group for Halley's Comet (IACG) representatives witnessed, from control centers in the Soviet Union and the Federal Republic of Germany, the historic Halley encounters byt the Soviet Vega and ESA's Giotto missions. The IACG presented the scientific results from the six spacecraft encounters with Comet Halley to the international community, the President of the Republic of Italy and Pope John Paul II. The IACG is comprised of NASA, ESA, the U.S.S.R. Intercosmos Council and Japan's Institute of Space and Astronautical Science. ESA RECEPTION OF ERS-1 DATA - The Acting Administrator and the ESA Director General signed a memorandum of understanding that permits NASA reception of limited quantities of synthetic aperture radar data from ESA's Earth Remote Sensing Satellite-1. Under the agreement, NASA also will exchange its scatterometer and rada imagery for other ERS-1 data of interest. In permitting NASA direct readout from ERS-1, ESA reciprocates similar provisions made by NASA for European data readout from the Seasat and Nimbus-7 spacecraft. LAUNCH SERVICES - NASA and the Government of Indonesia concluded an agreement with the launch of the Palapa B2-P communications satellite on a Delta vehicle in March 1987. The Palapa system provides essential telecommunications to the Indonesian archipelago. AIRCRAFT SURVEY OF THE AMAZON - NASA and the Brazilian Space Institute conducted the first phase of an extensive aircraft survey over the Amazon, known as the Global Tropospheric Experiment/Amazon Boundary Layer Experiment. The program goal is to better understand the global atmospheric circulation and to contribute to long-term research objectives in climatology. The second phase is planned for the April-June 1987 rainy season over the Amazon. AGREEMENTS - Annex III to the Protocol on Cooperation in Aeronautical Science and Technology was signed by China and the U.S. to cover a second phase of cooperation, including a cooperative basic research program in fatigue and fracture mechanics. A joint symposium on propulsion research instrumentation was held in China. The text of a new U.S./U.S.S.R. Space Cooperation Agreement was negotiated. The proposed agreement envisages bilateral cooperation in solar system exploration, life sciences, solar terrestrial sciences, Earth sciences and astronomy/astrophysics. The United States and the Kingdom of Morocco agreed on the one-time establishment of a Space Shuttle emergency landing site at Casablanca/Mohamed V Airport, in advance of Mission 51-l. The two sides also discussed development of a longer-term agreement for the use of the airfield at Ben Guerir as a Shuttle emergency landing site. INTERNATIONAL TRACKING SYSTEM HIGHLIGHTS - The Australian Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization, Parkes Radio Astronomy Observatory provided support to the Voyager encounter with the planet Uranus under an arrangement involving the NASA Deep Space Network. The Japanese Institute of Space and Astronautical Science's Usuda Deep Space Station participated with NASA in the first experiment to take orbiting Very Long Baseline Interferometer measurements. The same quasar radio source was observed simultaneously from space and from the two ground stations successfully for the first time. U.N./COMMITTEE ON THE PEACEFUL USES OF OUTER SPACE - After a decade of negotiation, the United Nations adopted a set of nonbinding principles governing remote sensing operations by member states. The principles reflect U.S. policies and practices for the conduct of remote sensing operations, specifically by encouraging international cooperation and the availability of data on a public, non-discriminatory basis. END ======================================================================== NASA News Release NO: 86-177 December 19, 1986 Reprinted for electronic distribution with permission By David W. Garrett Headquarters, Washington, D.C. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 87 11:56:57 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #82 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8612231302.AA05297@angband.s1.gov> A6@DDAESA10.BITNET (Hermann Schneider) writes: >Re: New Space Shuttle >Just send me the order for a few HERMES. We are trying hard to set it >up. And I am shure if you would order some, we would finish the job >earlier. Better still, Put in an order for a British Aerospace HoToL, and jump twenty years in technology. (Orders are about the only thing that will persuade thm to start building.) Sort of half :-) Bob Gray ERCC ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #115 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14058; Mon, 26 Jan 87 03:02:20 PST id AA14058; Mon, 26 Jan 87 03:02:20 PST Date: Mon, 26 Jan 87 03:02:20 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701261102.AA14058@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #116 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 26 Jan 87 03:02:20 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #116 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 116 Today's Topics: Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? [part 1 of 2] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 87 20:05:29 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? [part 1 of 2] To: Space@angband.s1.gov From: Robert Elton Maas But if some other investment has an even higher payoff, why not make that one instead? Because we absolutely need several different things, all of them not just one. Like the missing wheel on a bicicle, the part we miss is more important than all the things we have; all the other parts are worthless if that one part is missing. Then investing in that "missing part" will have the highest payoff. We absolutely must invest in several areas, one of which is space. Any evidence for this? You misunderstand me, I think. I mean THE WHOLE WORLD qua committee, not each nation or individual sacrificing for the "common good". I.e. optimally there should be a world government to tax each world citizen to pay for projects of a world-wide nature that wouldn't be of advantage to a specific nation, just like there are national governments to tax their citizens for projects of a national nature that wouldn't benefit just particular provicences or counties, etc. I consider this a good reductio ad absurdum of the necessity of ANY government with authority to tax. Who is to run this world government? People in different countries have radically different ideas as to the proper function of government. If it is run by pure majority vote, for instance, don't you think the billions of people in third world countries would vote themselves massive welfare at the expense of the more productive countries? Who gets to decide which investments are essential for the future of mankind? Different individuals have different ideas as to what investments are essential. If there is a world government where would the "boat people" go? There are sure to be people who dislike the way the government is run and wish to move to a country organized along different lines. If it is organized along "desirable" lines, what is to ensure that the billions who would prefer it to be organized along different lines would never gain control. And if they did, could the United States secede from the union? How could such a world government get started, and how could it hold together? There are so many seperatist movements, and the number of countries in the world increases with time, due to more and more groups seeking self determination. Even if I were to concede that a world government were desirable, which I certainly do not, There are various kinds of tasks that are best handled at various sizes of government. Space benefits the whole world so should be handled by world government, ... Why does space development benefit the whole world, except in the same sense that growing food benefits the whole world? I assume you would not use the latter as an argument for a world governement. Note, no one individual would benefit from building a coast to coast freeway, only state governments by piecemeal or cooperation, or a national government, can perform such a task. Not at all. It is only because individuals benefit from such a freeway that it is built. I don't agree that it has to be done by governments. Coast to coast railways were built by private companies. Therefore if each individual did what benefits him individually but nobody ever cooperated for mutually-beneficial tasks, highways and space development and many other wonderful tasks would just never ever happen. Cooperating for mutually beneficial tasks DOES benefit each person individually. This is why most people work in an organization with others rather than living as hermits. Note that this is VOLUNTARY cooperation. You seem to be speaking of INVOLUNTARY cooperation, i.e. if a person doesn't want to give his time and money to a project of the world government's choice, his property should be confiscated and he should be imprisoned or put to death. I don't know how the UN or anyone else would decide what investment was for the greatest benefit of the whole world, even if one conceded that such an investment was desirable. They would decide that poisoning the air was bad for everyone, so they would have a committee work toward keeping the world's air suitable for breathing. They would decide that poisoning the water was bad, ... I think individuals are capable of deciding these things for themselves. This is why there are laws against polluting the air and water on another individual's property without his consent. It is not clear what a committee would be able to do. They would decide that extending our habitat out to space is in the long run virtually necessary for preventing various kinds of worldwide catastrophe from destroying the whole species, so they would have a committee work on developing space. Are you sure they would conclude that? Why do you think they would come to the same conclusions that you do, even if you are right? The UN of today is dominated by people who think not at all like most Americans do, and they often conclude quite amazing things. I don't see why a world government would be any different. In each absolutely-necessary category, i.e. within the provence of each committee, they would weigh the various ways of getting the job done, consider investment and payoff, and come up with a decision as to what investment was the greatest benefit within that general category. Regarding pollution, what is wrong with simply telling a factory that it is forbidden to pollute more than some small amount, and leaving it to the factory owners to decide which of several technologies, all developed in the free market, would reduce the pollution to acceptable levels most cost effectively? Regarding space, what is wrong with allowing individuals and private organizations to spend as much or as little on space development as they choose to, and to do so in whatever ways, if any, that they think are best. Why would a small committee of bureaucrats be better able to plan mans future in space than the workings of millions of free minds? So far, government has given us the Apollo program, which has left us no worthwhile technology, no space infrastructure, no launch system, and has served mainly to "prove" to people that space exploration costs billions of dollars and produces nothing but a few common rocks similar to those found on Earth and some pretty pictures that Hollywood could have done better. So far, the UN has given us the "Moon treaty" which outlaws private property in space, making space resources legally usable only by governments, and taxable for the benefit of the third world and the communist countries. Fortunately, the United States did not sign this treaty, though we came amazingly close to doing so. So far, private enterprise has given us communication satellites, the only space development which has been unambiguously profitable. Therefore the large nations and other economic forces must make such investments. Why not individuals? No individual has enough money to make a dent in space, and no individual can reap such a significant fraction of an investment to be worth it even if a dent could be made. That's false. Individuals are all there are. The wealth owned by individuals is all the wealth there is. The work done by individuals is all the work that is done. The thinking done by individuals is all the thinking that is thought. One could equally well argue that only "the large nations and other economic forces" should eat food, since a million tons of food need to be eaten each day and no individual has a large enough mouth to eat that much. ... But currently, payoff is so long down the road, the company or individual that makes the investment can hardly expect to anticipate the correct payoff and arrange to capture it for himself. Space is a high risk investment. As such, people will invest in it only if the potential payoff is high. You have been arguing that it IS high. So what's the problem? Each launch may cost millions of dollars today. Few individuals have that much money. So? Who said that one individual must pay for one launch? If millions of people invest a few hundred dollars apiece, that is a lot of money. And if there ISN'T enough money to pay for space development, there will hardly be any more if it comes from people via taxation rather than via voluntary investment. It is the same people and the same money either way. If you are arguing that people SHOULD invest in space but WON'T because they are shortsighted fools, and that YOU know better than they do how their money should be spent, therefore you or people who think like you should be given the power to confiscate their money and spend it according to your whims, you are no better than any other tyrant or thief. If your argument is that people tend not to make long term investments, I will agree with you, and I will point out the reason for that. In the United States as it is today, it is virtually impossible to make long term financial decisions. This is because the laws, especially the tax code, change from year to year in a way that cannot be predicted in advance. People save as much as they can for their future security, and inflation takes it all away. People spend and borrow as quickly as possible to avoid inflation, and inflation drops, leaving them with debts they can't pay off. People make long term investment in IRAs, and the tax deferal for IRAs is suddenly repealed. People invest their life savings in real estate, renting it out to people who cannot afford to buy a house of their own, and suddenly the tax break for mortgages on houses the owner doesn't live in is repealed, making the investment worthless, and throwing millions of renters out on the street. People invest in a high quality private bus service, and the government starts running a taxpayer subsidized bus system in parallel with theirs, putting it out of business. People keep their life savings in silver certificates, and the government suddenly announces that they are no longer backed by silver or anything else. People create a large corporation, and it is broken into pieces by antitrust laws. People invest in an overseas corporation, and it is nationalized by the overseas government. People invest in launchers, and the government is likely to resume subsidizing their own launchers. People invest in space mining, and the government is likely to sign some treaty which allows the third world to keep half of their profits. Is it any wonder, in a financial climate like this, that people are not willing to risk very much on long term investments? Governments are no better than pickpockets, who complain after years of success at picking pockets that people aren't carrying as much cash, and that the neighborhood they haunt seems to be going into a decline. Only in a few special cases like comsats can payoff be captured by the investor within a few years, and even in that case we have large international corporations (ITT, Xerox, Western Union, etc.) not individuals making the investment and reaping the payoff. Who do you think invests in those companies if not individuals or other companies which are invested in by individuals? If so, how do [governments] get the money to invest? Taxation, or a pool of private investors that is insured by the government Why should money be taken from people against their will? And how does government afford this? By increasing the national debt even further? By raising tax rates even more? Or by cutting back on current spending? If the latter, what should be cut? (ultimately via the tax base; i.e. banks are trusted not because they don't fail but because FDIC protects them, thus it's safe to invest in banks via ordinary deposits). I have never understood why banks can't join in a private insurance pool. Not all banks are insured by FDIC anyway. And what makes FDIC so reliable? Do you really think they would pay off if many banks failed at once? Where would they get the money for that? Banks are not a totally safe investment. Most bank deposits actually shrank with time in the 1970s, thanks to inflation and high taxes on the interest. A portfolio of high risk high return investments is actually safer than a bank account. Thus NASA uses tax money directly to go to space, We have seen what that has bought us. but also NASA could underwrite a private company if that company was willing to keep all the books in order and not do anything that NASA thought grossly dangerous/foolish. If companies suspect that NASA or a NASA subsidized company will be developing space resources, they will be a lot less likely to invest in such things themselves. You still haven't said why any of this is desirable. Why go into space you ask?? Why get out of bed? No, I was refering to your plan to set up a world government which would have the power to steal money from all of us and invest it according to their own whims. I wasn't refering to why go into space. ... you can certainly survive for a few decades without getting out of Earth, but ultimately you blow yourself up or ruin the ecology or get hit by a comet or suffer any number of calamaties if you don't get off this planet. Certainly we have to evacuate by the year five billion, but can we really not survive here for a few more centuries? I would like to see human civilization spread beyond this planet, but not just any human civilization. I would not want to see the Soviet empire or a Fascist dictatorship colonize space. If we have the choice between freedom and space we should choose freedom. Not that I think those are our only choices. In fact I don't think non-free societies can maintain an advanced technology without free societies to parasitize. The Soviets may be able to put up all manner of things in space, but they aren't making any profit. The more active they are in space, the more they are draining their economy. Which is not to say they cannot afford to put up a ring of battle stations in orbit with which to threaten us and extort our wealth. In that sense only can Soviet space activity be profitable - in the same sense that an armed robber can use a gun to rob people of many times the cost of the gun. I do not know whether space will be profitable in the next few decades. Stolfi has made a good argument on the SPACE digest that it will not. But I don't think it should be up to you and I to decide that space is or is not worthwhile and therefore everyone should be required or forbidden to spend money on it. It should be up to the choices of millions of free individuals. If space is not profitable it cannot be used to any great extent. We can have occasional Apollo projects and Shuttle projects, but they will be a net drain on the economy and there will be little pressure not to abandon them except from people who favor space for space's own sake at other people's expense. I don't think such people will ever be the majority. At least I hope not. If we are to move large portions of mankind and the industrial base into space, space must be profitable. If it IS profitable, then private companies and individuals will be willing to invest in it. The only argument you might have left is that it will EVENTUALLY be profitable, but not yet. But the same thing could be said for any investment. That doesn't stop people from investing in it in expectation of future gains. You can bet that they are doing it exclusively for their own benefit. If it benefits others, it is simply because they know that to get things that others have they have to offer them values in return. This is capitalism in action. Each individual or group making decisions, not based on what is best for the world, but on what is best for themselves. Right. But in fact Japanese computer/robotics technology benefits the whole world. Of course. If it was of benefit to nobody, they would have known they could have gained no benefit by offering it to others. So they would have invested in developing some technology which would be of benefit to others. ...Keith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #116 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16648; Tue, 27 Jan 87 03:02:32 PST id AA16648; Tue, 27 Jan 87 03:02:32 PST Date: Tue, 27 Jan 87 03:02:32 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701271102.AA16648@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #117 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 27 Jan 87 03:02:32 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #117 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 117 Today's Topics: In Honor Of Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? [part 2 of 2] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jan 87 20:23:42 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Subject: In Honor Of Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov January 27 marks the anniversary of the Apollo fire and January 28th is the date of the Challenger tragedy. In honor of our fallen heros, you might consider wearing a NASA, Shuttle or other pro-space insignia during either of those days. Fred Mendenhall ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 87 20:06:13 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? [part 2 of 2] To: Space@angband.s1.gov It's just that Japan gets more than its equal share of the benefit, so it's worthwhile to make the investment. They don't care if the rest of the world benefits, so long as they benefit a lot more. It doesn't matter whether they benefit MORE or LESS than everyone else. If there was some way I could make myself slightly wealthier that entailed making everyone else much wealthier, I would do it. My only standard of value is what benefit accrues to ME. I don't really care whether it benefits other a great deal, a little, or not at all. Though it isn't clear what I could offer to others that would benefit them not at all that they would offer me great wealth for. Tobacco, perhaps? But an individual in Japan wouldn't be smart to try to develop 5th-generation computers or the robotics industry all alone because he'd go broke before he got the task done ... Nobody is suggesting that any individual develop a major technology all alone (though it has been done). I am simply advocating voluntary cooperation. Japanese comapanies have been able to do what they have because of Japanese individuals investing in them. And because the Japanese government has made it clear that it won't change the rules in midstream, for instance impose massive new taxes on successful businesses, or subsidize a companies competitors without warning. Japan is not a pure capitalist society, their government does heavily regulate their industries and levy large taxes. But they do not change the rules at whim and take financial potshots at wherever wealth seems to have accumulated, as the United States and Great Britain have done. It is that sort of bureaucracy which puts the brakes on useful economic activity. And which results in economic problems which are used to justify further monkeying with the economy, a vicious cycle. It's all a matter of what scale of cooperation is big enough to reap profit before going broke. Perhaps nobody dares form a company large enough to do meaningful space development because they fear the wrath of the trust busters. The antitrust laws are a good example of non-objective laws, i.e. laws which nobody can figure out whether one is breaking or not. Forming large companies in the United States today is sort of like one of those childrens games that involves pulling out straws until all the marbles come crashing down. Who wants to take that kind of risk with billions of dollars? Writing a small software system is dandy for an individual, ... but a really large software system (SDI) isn't feasible for an individual to even attempt ... Pushing into space isn't presently appropriate for an individual, ... For the Nth time, I am not advocating that people should live like hermits having nothing to do with eachother. I am completely in favor of cooperation. My argument is that such cooperation should be voluntary, not coerced, and that coercively financed programs tend to accomplish little or nothing at great expense, and that stealing from people even for a good cause is immoral, even if that was the only way to get into space, which I am not convinced it is either practical or necessary to colonize in the coming century anyway. Whew. It is curious that you mention SDI as a programming project that no individual can do. Many people feel it is something that no government or company can do either, regardless of the manpower brought to bear on the problem. I don't think that a Soviet space presense is of any benefit to makind in general. Quite the opposite. I respectfully disagree. Although USSR military presence in space is ominous, the general technology of longterm habitat can't help but leak out to the spacefaring world at large. What makes you think there is a non-military Soviet space presense? Or that they are doing anything but using OUR ideas to do it with? Unless we can get more by investing in some other way. Our payback is survival, which is infinity, mediated by our uncertainty as to whether our survival is really at stake. Then there should be no dearth of private investors, unless virtually all of potential investors disagree with you on whether our survival is at stake, in which case I would ask why you feel that your opinions are of more value than theirs. Do you have a way to indefinitely expand our separation, and thus vulnerability to natural and man-made disasters, without going into space?? Mankind has survived every natural disaster in the billions of years we or our ansestors have been on Earth. I can't think of any man-made disaster which could wipe out all human life with the remotely possible exception of nuclear war. And I don't see why moving to space would make mankind-wide nuclear war any less likely. If manned spacecraft can reach Mars, for instance, so can nuclear missiles. ... an idea, killed by natural forgetfulness in each person, nevertheless remains alive in the community consciousness by being replicated and communicated from the temporary holder-person to those who have forgotten. Anyway, ideas not only stay alive but develop as they pass through many minds, so the overall consciousness is a lot more than any individual's consciousness. There is no such thing as group consciousness. Only individual consciousness. Groups can't make decisions or have ideas or hopes or thoughts or ideals or aspirations or emotions. Only individuals can. It is true that people can get ideas from others, and can develop new ideas inspired by ideas from others. But this is not community consciousness. It is the nature of scientific inquiry that the whole world benefits but the society that makes the investment gets more than its fair share ... Huh? How much is its fair share? Why wouldn't ALL OF IT be its fair share? I meant to say EQUAL SHARE, i.e. fair share under socialism. Of course under lassaize faire (sp?), 100% to the investor and damn the rest of the world is "fair". Nasty Freudian slip there. Someone might suspect you of being a comsymp or something. Under socialism, the share (I won't say "fair") is not evenly divided among everyone, it is 100% to the government, which distributes it according to whim. Under capitalism, the fair share is not 100% to the investor, it is divided according to the voluntary agreements between individuals. Usually the investor gains only a small profit. Most of the money goes to pay for raw materials, labor, real estate, etc. What I mean is the result is more cornered (in sense of cornering the market) than socialism but less cornered than lassaize fair (sp?). Some people can't tolerate anything less than 100% of their profit, ... Their PROFIT is defined as their gain after everything else is taken out. As such, yes, their profit is 100% of itself by definition. If you are saying that since capitalism and socialism are extremes, the correct approach must lie between them, I would ask whether you would say that if the legistlature decides pi is 3 and mathematicians insist it is 3.13159... that the correct value must lie between the two extremes. I would ask you whether in the 1850s the correct approach to slavery was to allow only moderate amounts of it, or whether the correct approach to Indians was to massacre only half of them, or whether the correct approach when Galileo said Jupiter has at least four moons and the authorities said it had none was to compromise on two moons. Truth can be found by processes of experiment and reason. It cannot be found by processes of compromise or polling. How would one invest in transcendental meditation or religion? ... I personally think/feel/believe such investments would be a waste of money and human energy, but others would disagree. Exactly. And in a free market system, nobody has to invest in such things, or in anything, unless they choose to. What if your world government were inaugurated and it decided to invest nothing in space, but to invest trillions into pyramidology and Buddhist temples? That's YOUR MONEY we are talking about. Yours, and billions of people like you, at least to the extent that they want to be free to live their lives in their own way, and invest their time and money into projects of their own choosing, if any. Why shouldn't we make investments that will benefit all of mankind? Because such investments don't benefit us. If they do, then perhaps they should be made. But for that reason only. Not because of any benefit which accrues to anyone else. WRONG. We are part of mankind. So? We are also part of a family, a county, a state, a country, a continent, a hemisphere, animal life, all life, all matter, and all mass-energy. Do we have some responsibilty based on each of these inclusions? If we benefit mankind at large, we benefit ourselves to whatever fraction we are mankind. Thus if I personally benefit mankind, I reap 1/5,000,000,000 of that personally. That's right. If you had fifty million dollars and gave it to everyone evenly, you would get one penny of it, same as everyone else. So? If everyone did this, everyone would get some fraction of a cent from each person, and perhaps more than one cent from a few really wealthy people. The world would not then be any wealthier, except perhaps the postal employees :-) If I could singlehandedly save the human race, and I couldn't find any way to singlehanded save myself and California without saving the rest of the human race, I'd go ahead and save everybody even though most of them (in my opinion) don't deserve that gift. So would I. I find mankind of benefit to me. In fact I would spend or risk quite a lot to save them, since I would not enjoy life very much if I were the only person alive. You are making the incorrect assumption ... that if an investment benefits all of mankind then it won't benefit yourself personally. Nope. I know that is wrong, since I am part of manking. As in the above example, for the expenditure of a mere fifty megabucks I could be the proud owner of a new shiny penny. I say it is possible for an investment to benefit both myself (or my nation etc.) and the world at large simultaneously. Of course. That is how capitalism works. People invest their time and/or money in ways that they expect will be most profitable to themselves. Generally it is profitable precisely because other people are willing to give them value in return for their using their time and/or money in the profitable way. My company pays me for writing useful programs, so I write useful programs rather than pointless hacks. My bank pays me interest for depositing money, so I deposit money in the bank rather than keeping it in my mattress. A grocery store gives me food in return for money, so I give them money rather than old leaves, and so I shop there rather than at a hypothetical store which gives me only rubbish in return for my money. If an investment benefits both the world at large and the investors, then it is worthwhile (providing of course the payback is greater than the investment). If it benefits the investors, it is worthwhile. They need take no account of the world. Are you proposing some authority which would check all proposed investments and forbid those which did not benefit the world? Or are you saying that everyone should voluntarily behave like that? What is to be done with those who don't? My point is we should't dismiss an investment out of hand just because we reap only half or less of the payback. If the payback is enormous, and we get a reasonable share (say a third or so), it may be well worth doing. The investors will rationally be interested only in what their return on investment is. You seem to think I was arguing that they would (or should) not accept an investment if others benefit. This is silly. Why should they care whether others benefit? I agree that we shouldn't go around doing things to help others at our own expense when that help doesn't help us at all. True. The standard should always be whether it is to one's net benefit. But you seem to be saying one should help others even if one takes a loss, so long as it isn't a total loss. Why? I think most foreign aid is stupid, especially now when our own economy is in trouble, deep in debt, deeper each year. Are you saying it would be less stupid if the government was NOT deeply in debt? Why is a national debt worse than taxes anyway? It is our national taxbase that pays for our national welfare system, so it is our national citizenry that should maximize its benefits, ignoring whether others benefit or not. Right. Of course one could reason similarly on the state level, the county level, on down to the individual. From which one could conclude that there shouldn't be a welfare system at all. If one decides there should be, the question remains, why shouldn't everyone in the world be eligible? If you say because they don't pay the taxes that support it, I would point out that neither do the welfare recipients in our own country. I do believe in payback on investment, but I also believe in insurance. Welfare is a form of insurance when not carried to extreme. Why not make it voluntary, like other forms of insurance? What happened in Atlas Shrugged wasn't a little insurance, but gross flattening of income to where nobody could get any return on investment whatsoever, so nobody invested any more, and the whole industrial base went kaput with everybody lazing around instead of investing. It's a good example of where socialism can lead if we go too far. I think you misunderstood the book. It shows, not just the harm of a lot of socialism, but of even small amounts. It shows how the process once it takes hold tends to spread, and how the byproducts of the system tend to encourage its further spread, exactly like a fire. This is explained in her several nonfiction books, most of which are still in print. USA is in no danger of that, ... I strongly disagree. even before Reagan, ... Social spending, taxes, and the national debt, have all gone UP in the Reagan years. In the past thirty years every winning presidential candidate, in fact every major presidential candidate whether he won or lost, has promised to cut government spending and decrease the national debt. And yet spending and the debt are not only larger than every before, they are growing faster than every before. In any case, Objectivists (followers of Ayn Rand) do NOT support the Republican party, most of the conservative ideals, or Ronald Reagan personally. but it is in danger of refusing to make investments that we urgently need because the government refuses to make those kinds of investments that just are too big for any smaller economic force to make. To sum up, there is no investment which government can make which individuals cannot voluntarily make, government investments tend to be buy less at a higher price than private investments, since taxation is theft government cannot morally get any money to make any investments in any case, free individuals differ on which investments are urgently needed, and nobody has the right to compell others to invest according to his own ideas of what is urgently needed. ...Keith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #117 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19267; Wed, 28 Jan 87 03:02:33 PST id AA19267; Wed, 28 Jan 87 03:02:33 PST Date: Wed, 28 Jan 87 03:02:33 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701281102.AA19267@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #118 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 28 Jan 87 03:02:33 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #118 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 118 Today's Topics: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket Re: "Voyager" flight around world Re: The NEXT aviation record Re: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI Mars Observer Upper Stage Launch Forecast for 1987 Upper Stage Planetary Missions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 87 22:43:27 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket To: ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@lll-lcc.arpa Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@LLL-LCC.ARPA (Russ Cage) ... Using only materials indigenous to the moon for fuel, one could make a chemical engine fueled by aluminum and liquid oxygen. An excess of oxygen would serve to provide reaction mass (I doubt that Al2O3 has a high vapor pressure). ... The aluminum could be injected as a liquid, if suitably preheated. It doesn't have to be liquid. The company I work for (SAIC) has developed a liquid oxygen/powdered aluminum "rocket". We don't use it for propulsion - it is anchored to the ground and the flame points upwards - but as a twenty million watt continuous pure white light source. The vapor pressure of Al2O3 is very low even at white heat, but it would make a perfectly good reaction mass as a solid. A launch of such a rocket on the moon would probably be visible from Earth. It gives off a LOT of light. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 87 16:00:43 GMT From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <817@rosevax.Rosemount.COM> carole@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Carole Ashmore) writes: >The fact that 'men' has a primary meaning of 'human males' and a >secondary meaning of 'people' is precisely the problem. Particularly >in documents where rights or freedoms are being described or >guaranteed, the ambiguous meaning allows the sort of double bind >where demanding that 'people' rather than men be used can be ignored >because "everybody knows that men means men and women" and then when >the document is quoted in favor of the rights of some man who happens >to be a woman, they can switch around and say "well, 'All men are >created equal' means all men, not all men and women". Happened a lot >when women were trying to get the vote. > >In the case of real events with real people, we end up with female >acomplishments and female role models being ignored. When I was a >girl I read all about 'the men who gave us the atom bomb', and saw >nothing about Lise Meitner. > >In case you haven't noticed it, the English speaking world needs to >develop all the talent it can in technical and scientific fields. >Using the sort of language that hides the few female role models there >are harms the civilization as a whole by discouraging half our >potential talent. > Carole Ashmore Other way round: the primary meaning of "men" is "humans"; this is the meaning any native English speaker would assume unless context dictated otherwise. As can be seen by studying the OED quotations under that dictionary entry. If females are so sexist that they won't consider a career without a "female role model" then we are surely in trouble, but I suggest the answer is curing the disease rather than pandering to it. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 87 03:04:58 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov There was originally a solo-circumnavigation project competing with Voyager. The idea was to operate at much higher altitudes, riding the jet streams extensively for dramatically higher ground speeds. Still long enough to be hard on a single pilot, but not impossible. The idea died when the fellow behind it died, as I recall. Alas, I don't recall his name. Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 87 19:45:00 GMT From: uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uicsrd!xia@a.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I say let's not put V against V here. They are both great achievements. I think Voyger burned a few hundred gallons of fuel.Where did that go. They go into the Atmospher. If you insist on not dropping anything, you ought to ask them to collect all the fuel exaustion. I think the rule is stupid about not dropping anything. I think the rule should be not ADDING anything during the flight. I think the difference is that one is within, and and the other is outside the aptomspher. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 87 19:31:37 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Felton) Subject: Mars Observer Upper Stage Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov NASA NEWS RELEASE 86-162 NASA AWARDS UPPER STAGE CONTRACT FOR MARS OBSERVER NASA has signed a contract with Orbital Sciences Corp., Fairfax, Va., for acquisition of the company's solid-fuel upper stage to place the agency's Mars Observer spacecraft, weighing approximately 4,700 pounds, into the proper interplanetary trajectory, so that the spacecraft can proceed on its mission to study Mars. The launch is expected in the early part of the next decade. Called the Transfer Orbit Stage (TOS), the vehicle fits in the cargo bay of the Space Shuttle and has the potential for being integrated with a Titan launch vehicle. While the Mars Observer mission is baselined for the Shuttle, an option using an expendable launch vehicle is being kept open unitl early next year when a decision will be made. The TOS will thrust NASA's Mars Observer spacecraft into its interplanetary trajectory and separate from the spacecraft. The Mars Observer will then continue on its planetary mission under its own propulsive power. After about a year of flight, the spacecraft will come to orbit Mars to begin a 2-year study with a variety of scientific instruments. The 12-ton, 11 foot long upper stage is being built for Orbital Sciences by Martin Marietta's Denver Aerospace Division. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., has acted as technical monitor of the commercial development of the TOS effort. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., manages the Mars Observer spacecraft and its responsibility for its mission. The TOS is a medium capacity vehicle designed to economically carry payloads in the range between the Payload Assist Module (built by McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co.) and the Inertial Upper Stage (built by Boeing Aerospace Co.). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NASA NEWS RELEASE - 86-162 Nov. 26, 1986 Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution By Barbara Selby Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Leon Perry Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Terry Eddleman Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 87 19:34:52 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Felton) Subject: Launch Forecast for 1987 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov NASA NEWS RELEASE 96-179 NASA ANNOUNCES LAUNCH FORECAST FOR 1987 NASA plans six launches during 1987, which will include the Atlas Centaur, Delta and Scout expendable launch vehicles. Two missions are scheduled for February. The first launch is GOES-H weather satellite aboard a Delta rocket for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). GOES-H will become GOES-East in orbit and be stationed over the Atlantic Ocean. The single GOES satellite now in orbit will be shifted to the Pacific region becoming GOES-West. The Fleet Satellite Communications (FLTSATCOM) F-6 spacecraft also will be launched in February aboard an Atlas Centaur rocket. This FLTSATCOM will be a continuation of a launch program to place a set of three second generation communications satellites into orbit for the Navy. The first of this series was launched in December 1986. The FLTSATCOM satellites are also shared with the Air Force and other Department of Defense users. In March, a Delta rocket will place a Palapa communications satellite into orbit for the government of Indonesia. The FLTSATCOM F-8 spacecraft, will be launched in May, concluding the current series of FLTSATCOM satellites. During the fourth quarter, a Strategic Defense Initiative launch is planned. This will be the second of four planned Delta launches in this series. Also, at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., a Scout launch is planned for September with SOOS-2 (Stacked Oscar on Scout), a pair of navigation satellites for the Navy. NASA launched SOOS-1 in August 1985. 1987 NASA EXPENDABLE LAUNCH FORECAST Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla.: Feb. 19 - Delta 179/GOES-H Feb. 26 - Atlas Centaur (AC-67)/FLTSATCOM F-6 March 19 - Delta 182/Palapa B2-P May 21 - Atlas Centaur (AC-68)/FLTSATCOM F-8 4 TH Quarter - Delta 181/SDI Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.: September - Scout/SOOS-2 ------------------------------------------------------------- NASA RELEASE 86-179 Dec. 22, 1986 Reprinter with permission for electronic distribution By Barbara Selby Headquarters, Washington, D.C. George H. Diller Kennedy Space Center, Fla. _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 87 19:29:04 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Felton) Subject: Upper Stage Planetary Missions Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov NASA NEWS RELEASE - 86-161 UPPER STAGE SELECTED FOR PLANETARY MISSIONS NASA has selected the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), a launch vehicle which fits in the cargo bay of the Space Shuttle as the baseline option to carry probes to Jupiter, Venus and the Sun. However, an option is being kept open until early next year to fly one of these missins on a Titan IV. NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher selected the upper stage, built by the Boeing Aerospace Co. under Air Force contract, for three planetary missions -- Galileo, Magellan and Ulysses -- to launched in 1989 and 1990. These missions will be the first to employ an IUS to carry payloads to study other bodies in the solar system. Each of the planetary payloads will use a standard two-stage IUS, with the exception of Ulysses -- a probe to study the poles of the sun -- which will require the addition of a Payload Assist Module, built by McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co. The added module, a smaller "kick" stage, will be needed for additional energy to reach proper orbit around the sun. Ulysses is a joint mission of NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA). ESA funded and built the Ulysses spacecraft which will have on board several American scientific instruments. The IUS is a two-stage, 17-foot-long vehicle weighing more than 16 tons. It has already been employed to carry payloads to geostationary orbit - where satellites match the turning of the Earth and appear unmoving in the sky - although it has always been designed for both Earth-orbital and planetary missions. The Magellan mission will orbit Venus and map its surface with radar, since the cloud cover of the planet obscures direct vision. Gallileo will orbit Jupiter for nearly 2 years to measure such things as electromagnetic fields and plasma particles. The orbiting spacecraft also will send down an atmospheric probe for on-site readings, although the probe is expected to last for no more than a few hours because of the intense atmospheric pressure. Galileo is a joint mission of NASA and Germany, which developed the retropropulsion system for the probe's descent into the Jovian atmosphere. The study of the solar poles by Ulysses will be the first time in the history of the space program for such an area to be investigated. The Magellan, Galileo and Ulysses missions are managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. The IUS and payload-to-IUS integration for the planetary mission will be managed for NASA missions by the agency's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. In August a Commerce Business Daily announcement gave notice of a proposed NASA action to study aternative launch vehicles for planetary missions following cancellation of the Shuttle/Centaur Upper Stage. Because of an urgent and compelling need to reestablish NASA's planetary program following the Challenger accident, the space agency concluded that IUS had the unique capability to meet the mission requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA NEWS RELEASE 86-161 Nov. 26, 1986 Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution By Barbara Selby Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Leon Perry Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Terry Eddleman Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #118 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21110; Thu, 29 Jan 87 03:02:38 PST id AA21110; Thu, 29 Jan 87 03:02:38 PST Date: Thu, 29 Jan 87 03:02:38 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701291102.AA21110@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #119 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 29 Jan 87 03:02:38 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #119 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 119 Today's Topics: Space Station Analysis Re: "Voyager" flight around world Re: "Voyager" flight around world Nuclear aircraft and rockets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Jan 87 00:38:30 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Felton) Subject: Space Station Analysis Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov NASA NEWS RELEASE 86-181 SPACE STATION ANALYSIS RESULTS NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher accepted the additional analysis conducted by the Office of Space Station and directed Andrew J. Stofan, associate administrator for the Space Station to implement the recommended technical and work package modifications to the Space Station configuration that resulted from the review conducted this past summer. The additional analysis was in the areas of Space Station management, use of expendable launch vehicles (ELV), and cost impacts resulting from design changes. In September, Fletcher directed the Space Station office to provide additional details in the three areas as prerequisite to approving recommendations following a review of the Space Station program. A detailed engineering review of the Space Station configuration was performed by the Critical Evaluation Task Force (CETF). The task force examined the Space Station baseline configuration, specifically with respect to issues of transportation capability, flight assembly and checkout, operations and safety. An Executive Technical Committee, headed by Stofan, provided technical oversight to the task force and performed the review of the Space Station work package alignment. Design changes recommended by the CETF included replacing the nodes and tunnels in the original Space Station design with larger "resource" nodes. The nodes are used to connect the pressurized modules. The expanded nodes will house racks of command and control equipment, which in the baseline configuration had been located outside on the framework of the Station, thereby reducing significantly the amount of extravehicular activity required to maintain and replace equipment over the lifetime of the facility. The CETF also recommended revising the assembly sequence to provide early scientific return and reduce extravehicular activity on early station assembly flights. The design also achieves a permanent manned capability with fewer Shuttle flights, places the fixed servicing capabilities closer to the modules, and makes room for early payloads. The design also reduces EVA requirements for assembly and maintenance of the Space Station, and features an improved safe haven capability. The oversight committee recommended a realignment of certain work package responsibilities. Under that realignment, the Marshall Space Flight Center responsibilities included the laboratory, habitation and logistics modules, engine elements of the Space Station's propulsion system and the resource node structure. The Johnson Space Center responsibilities included the external truss, distributed subsystems, EVA systems, manned space systems, components and hardware in the habitat module, airlock and resources node outfitting. The Goddard Space Flight Center's responsibilities included the Space Station platforms, attatched payload accommodations, robotic servicer and NASA's role in servicing. And the Lewis Research Center's responsibilities included the power system. Contractual arrangements for the development phase between the Johnson Space Center and the Marshall Space Flight Center were to be reflected in specific exhibits in the contracts for each center's work package and were further documented in memoranda of understanding signed by both center directors. The additional analysis requested by Fletcher focused on the functional and organizational dimension of the Space Station headquarters structure within the overall management of the program, the potential for using expendable launch vehicles, particularly with regard to Space Station launch assembly, and the cost impact of the task force recommended design modifications to the baseline configuration. A summary of the results follows: MANAGEMENT - A detailed analysis of the management of the Space Station program, with emphasis on system engineering and integration, was conducted by a study team headed by Larry Ross, director, Space Flight Systems at the Lewis Research Center. In June 1986, Fletcher announced that a Space Station program office would be established in the Washington, D.C., area, which would be responsible for overall technical direction and content of the Space Station program, including systems engineering and analysis, configuration management and the integration of all the elements into an operating system. Ross' group examined the relationship between the program office in Washington, and the project offices at the NASA field centers. The resulting recommendation was consistent with NASA's earlier decision to establish a program office in the Washington, D.C., area. A major portion of the systems integration is to be performed at the NASA Centers through Space Station field offices which will be established at Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.; Johnson Space Flight Center, Houston; Kennedy Space Center, Fla.; Lewis Research Center, Cleveland; and Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. The Space Station project manager at each of the five centers will head the field office and will report directly to the program director in Washington. EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES - The potential use of existing or near-operational ELVs in the Space Station program was examined by a team headed by John Dunning of the Space Station Project Office at the Lewis Research Center. The teams' analysis demonstrated that, under certain conditions, the schedule for achieving both the man-tended and permanently manned milestones in the assembly sequence could be accelerated by 4 to 9 months through the use of ELVs. However, ELVs would increase the amount of EVA required during the first four Station dedicated Shuttle assembly flights by 10 to 40 percent, would require basing an Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle at the Station throughout the assembly phase to control, boost , and reboost passive structural elements, and could impact the weight and design of Space Station components because of the higher dynamic forces associated with ELVs. The analysis also demonstrated that the accelerated assembly schedule was dependent upon retaining the current Shuttle flight rate to support assembly of the Station, and required the availability of as many as three Titan 4 launches during the first 2 years of Station assembly activity. This analysis led the Space Station office to conclude that the substantial technical and programmatic uncertainties, the increased operational risks associated with the use of ELVs for the initial assembly phase and the increase in costs required to compensate for these uncertainties and risk far outweighed the marginal schedule benefits to the Space Shuttle be retained as the baseline transportation system for assemblying the Station's manned base. However, the program will continue to retain the option of using an expendable launch vehicle to launch the polar platform, one fo two unmanned free flyers that are components of the Space Station program. The study group concluded an ELV could be used to launch the high inclination platform in the event of a delayed reactivation of the Shuttle launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Also, recognizing that ELV's can be used for Space Station, and that the agency is continuing to reevaluate its STS utilization strategy in the context of overall national needs, Stofan has directed the program office to participate in the agency's mixed fleet studies and be prepared to discuss possibile alternative strategies to the baseline for both assembly, maintenance and resupply of the Space Station. COST IMPACT - The final item that was examined was the cost impact of the configuration changes recommended by the CETF. The analysis shows a net increase of approximately $49 million due primarily to replacing the nodes and tunnels, as defined in the original baseline configuration, with larger "resource" nodes and to increasing the power level of the photovoltaic solar arrays from 25 to 37.5 kilowatts. In additon, two cupolas were added to the configuration as was some support structure for the reaction control system. A separate major review of Space Station cost estimates is currently underway. This review, which began in September, is being conducted by a team of approximately 35 technical and resource experts from the Space Station office and the NASA Comptroller's office. Results of this review will be presented to the NASA Administrators in mid-January. Based upon these analyses, Fletcher has directed the Space Station Program to implement the technical and work package modifications to the Space Station configuration as outlined in the recommendations of the earlier review. The Administrator has also approved the memoranda of understanding between the Johnson Space Center and the Marshall Space Flight Center concerning work package responsibilities. Completion fo the analysis clears the way for final preparation of the requests for proposals (RFPs) for detailed design and development of the Space Station which are scheduled to be released to industry in February 1987 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA News Release 86-181 Dec. 23, 1986 Reprinted with permission By Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 87 16:41:37 GMT From: aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa@mimsy.umd.edu (Ken Arromdee) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov >Respectfully to those who are not doing so, the reference to "men" as >including those of the female gender should be discontinued... >You might wish to turn your eyes inward when appreciating I would like to point out something here. A consistent application of what you state here would require that you avoid such references to sight, etc... when you really mean to talk about all human beings, since some human beings are incapable of sight. Why do you consider it wrong to (allegedly) imply that all humans are males, yet it's OK to imply that all humans are sighted? Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 87 02:36:12 GMT From: bzs@bu-cs.bu.edu (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov From: ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) >I would like to point out something here. A consistent application of >what you state here would require that you avoid such references to >sight, etc... when you really mean to talk about all human beings, >since some human beings are incapable of sight. Why do you consider it >wrong to (allegedly) imply that all humans are males, yet it's OK to >imply that all humans are sighted? Look, this is getting ridiculous, talk about reductio ad absurdum and building up straw-men. No one said anything about sighted people, when they do, maybe someone *will* complain, and maybe in that context it will even make sense. The point was that the phrase "free men" was used about a group of two people, exactly 50% of which was female (well, ok, maybe it was meant to extrapolate out to the rest of us, who are still about 50% female.) Fine, a bunch of males immediately got on the horn and said "but I find the use of 'men' to describe all men and women's accomplishments perfectly acceptable and the status quo in English and really hope no one intends to change it." Ah, the discovery of Radium, "look what free men can do", spend a lifetime studying the Maori tribe, "look what free men can do", rule England "look what free men can do", you're right, it does serve you quite well, I'm not surprised you're so pleased with the current state of affairs... In the first place, it's not obviously the "status quo", I've seen secretarial manuals from the beginning of this century deal agonizingly over the issue of how to address a mixed or unspecified audience suggesting variations so as not to offend. It wasn't invented by a feminist in the last decade, it's been a sore spot for many years and just because the status quo pleases (serves) you doesn't make it right or cast in concrete. In the second place, I've heard white southerners try to "explain" to me till they're blue in the face that the term "nigger" was not perjorative, that it was simply the status quo and accepted in polite speech. It comes out sounding about the same as these arguments. Sometimes things change, sometimes they already have, and sometimes they just need to. Look at what free speech can do! -Barry Shein, Boston University ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 87 18:20:25 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@UTAH-GR.ARPA (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Nuclear aircraft and rockets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov During the '50s and '60s the USAF and NASA spent a lot of time and money on the problems of building fission powered aircraft and spacecraft. What I know about it is gleaned from a number of books and articles that I read during the '60s and early '70s. I no longer have the references, but all the books I read were available in school and public libraries. The articles were published in Popular Science and Time. At some point in the late '50s or '60s Popular Science had a cover article on fission powered aircraft. I even had a model of a proposed nuclear powered bomber, complete with parasite fighters. At one time the USAF did have an operating fission reactor installed in a bomber. It did not provide useful power to the aircraft, but was used to test the problems involved with operating a fission powered aircraft. The reactor was operated during flight. Ignoring moral, ethical, and environmental problems, the main problems with fission powered aircraft are the weight of the reactor and shielding, and the low heat transfer rate between the reactor core and the working medium. The weight problem can be partially solved by only shielding what must be shielded, the crew, avionics, and payload ( not nice to put H-bombs next to unshielded reactors, nasty things might happen ). This technique is called "shadow shielding". The other way to solve the weight problem is to build really big aircraft. During the '50s a 707 was considered a very big aircraft. I remember reading that fission powered aircraft were proposed again when the C5A was delivered. One of the things that killed the nuclear aircraft program was that no one knew how to build very big airplanes in the '50s. A nuclear powered aircraft the size of a 707 could have been built, but it would have had no useful payload, but a nuclear powered aircraft the size of a C5A would. Several prototype fission powered turbojets were constructed and tested. The ones I remember reading about used existing turbine and compressor stages, but had some kind of heat exchanger where the burners would be in a normal engine. One version used liquid sodium as a reactor coolant. The coolant circulated through the reactor to be heated and then through a heat exchanger in the engine to heat the air flowing through the engine. The other version used air as the reactor coolant. Compressed air was taken from just behind the compressor stage and passed through the reactor core. The heated air was exhausted through the turbine stage of the engine. Both of these were ground tested. I don't know how many cubic miles of air were irradiated during the tests, and I hope there was never a liquid sodium leak. Fission rocket engines that were ( to my knowledge ) tested were graphite cored reactors. The reactors were used to heat liquid hydrogen which was then exhausted through a standard converging/diverging nozzle. At least one of these had the core break up during a test firing. Pieces of the core were expelled from the motor and burned in the atmosphere. A couple of other types of nuclear rockets were proposed, but I don't think they were tested. One would have used a gaseous core. The idea is that hydrogen is a pretty good moderator, the core of the reactor is a mixture of hydrogen and, I believe, uraniumtetraflouride. The other was a metal cored reactor with very small holes placed very close together. I've only seen gaseous cored reactors mentioned as space propulsion systems. The solid core nuclear rocket engines were originally proposed for ICBM propulsion but were later developed for space propulsion. NASA talked a lot about a nuclear stage that would be launched in place of the third stage of a Saturn-5. It was to be used as a tug for hauling material from low earth orbit to low lunar orbit. -- -- Bob Pendleton Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet Riskier than RISC, Ciskier than CISC, the time for microcode is now. I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #119 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23482; Fri, 30 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST id AA23482; Fri, 30 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST Date: Fri, 30 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701301102.AA23482@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #120 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 30 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #120 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 120 Today's Topics: Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket Re: Voyager vs Vostok and the FAI Re: My mistake, it's Beryllium-9 not 8 Re Nuclear Devices and classification How many shuttles can orbit at once? A tamp is.... Re: Around the world non-stop Re: Nuclear Devices and classification Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Jan 87 11:35:44 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <965714.870116.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU> KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: > > From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@LLL-LCC.ARPA (Russ Cage) > > ... Using only materials indigenous to the moon for fuel, one could > make a chemical engine fueled by aluminum and liquid oxygen. An > excess of oxygen would serve to provide reaction mass (I doubt that > Al2O3 has a high vapor pressure). ... The aluminum could be > injected as a liquid, if suitably preheated. > > It doesn't have to be liquid. The company I work for (SAIC) has >developed a liquid oxygen/powdered aluminum "rocket". We don't use it >for propulsion - it is anchored to the ground and the flame points >upwards - but as a twenty million watt continuous pure white light >source. > The vapor pressure of Al2O3 is very low even at white heat, but it >would make a perfectly good reaction mass as a solid. > A launch of such a rocket on the moon would probably be visible from >Earth. It gives off a LOT of light. That "lots of light" means lots of radiation cooling of the reaction mass and energy loss that could otherwise be used to get a higher thrust. A longer "drift tube" section (acceleration chamber), with highly reflective walls might help reduce that loss. Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 87 12:19:12 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: Voyager vs Vostok and the FAI Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <41700001@uicsrd> xia@uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU writes: >I say let's not put V against V here. They are both great >achievements. I think Voyager burned a few hundred gallons of fuel. >Where did that go. They go into the Atmosphere. If you insist on not >dropping anything, you ought to ask them to collect all the fuel >exhaust. I think the rule is stupid about not dropping anything. I >think the rule should be not ADDING anything during the flight. I >think the difference is that one is within, and and the other is >outside the atmosphere. Well the Vostok wouldn't even get off the ground if the "exhaust" was included! Or don't you think that all that polluting rocket reaction mass exhaust doesn't count where the much reduce planes exhaust does. The differences are far more spectacular than that, anyway! One (Vostok) is in free fall like a falling rock and has no power to modify its orbit. The Voyager is under continuous power and can fly a zig zag path to any points on the globe. One costs like hell and the other is just quite a bit of money. The Voyager can change altitude and land at the field of its choice with control and the other (vostok) can only "crash" with the "pile it here or there" bailing out after atmospheric reentry but not terrestrial reentry (hopefully). I wouldn't call what the Vostok does "flying", it is more like being strapped into the giant Ferris wheel at the state fair, and then having it do a nose dive off the Santa Monica pier as a grand finale. C A P = (Chinese Air Police) Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 87 07:15:54 GMT From: melpad!bigtex!james@ngp.utexas.edu (James Van Artsdalen) Subject: Re: My mistake, it's Beryllium-9 not 8 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov IN article <8701130902.AA03948@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET wrote: > [...] I recommend buying this book ***second hand*** or xeroxing a > library copy because the book is published by the Fusion Energy > Foundation whose politics is extremely unsavory. Which is more unsavory, the politics, or advocating copyright violations? In any case, you didn't tell me whether the politics were left or right, so I don't know if I should buy two or noneo. :-) James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!james (512)-328-0282 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jan 87 13:14:16 pst From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum) To: ucdavis!angband.s1.gov!Space Subject: Re Nuclear Devices and classification >From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) > >In article <537432846.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >> I agree with Gary. I also believe that anything to do with nuclear >> physics is considered 'born classified'. No other area has this >> doctrine. It says that even if a kid genius out there has a break >> through, if he makes it public he can be prosecuted, or so I >> understand it. In fact this is not quite true. Cryptography is generally held to be classified - check the export laws. On a further note, I am not sure that I disagree with this policy. Given the current world political situation, I do not beleive it is reasonable to allow somebody to endanger the number of people that a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists would just so that they may demonstrate their scientific prowness to the world. It is a matter of balancing the risks of the uncontrolled spread of the knowledge against the benefits of the knowledge. In this case in particular, the risks are quite high... Eric ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 87 22:28:20 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!cdaf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Charles Daffinger) Subject: How many shuttles can orbit at once? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Should the need arise, either for rescue or for convenience of a hypothetical mission, is NASA capable of tracking and maintaining two or more shuttles in orbit at the same time? -charles Snail : Box 1662 Bloomington, In. 47402-1662 ATT : (812) 339-7354 USEnet: cdaf@iuvax.csnet | iuvax!cdaf BITNET: BCHC901@INDYCMS ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 87 09:54:21 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: A tamp is.... In Vol. 7, No. 107 Steve Oliphant asked: "What is a tamp?" In hard rock mining a tamp is sand or clay packed around an explosive charge. The tamp through its inertia keeps the explosive energy contained for a slightly longer time so that more stone is broken loose from the mining face. A tamp in a nuclear explosive device is a hollow cylinder of metal. The nuclear explosive material is within and coaxial to the tamp. The tamp, before it evaporates from the heat of the nuclear explosion, acts as a reflector of x-rays which precompresses the nuclear explosive for nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion actually occurs at the "burn front" on the nuclear explosive. This burn front is a shock wave that goes up the length of the tamp-radiation-precompressed nuclear explosive like a burning match. It's a "cute" idea, since the longer the tamp-nuclear-explosive, the bigger the bang. I think Ed Teller invented this idea but I'm not certain. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 87 13:39:55 GMT From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Subject: Re: Around the world non-stop Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <2010002@hpsadla.HP> jimh@hpsadla.HP (Jim Horn) writes: > The sticking point is "milestone". Everyone remembers Lindbergh, >who was the first to fly the Atlantic NON-STOP (May, 1927), even though >it was flown by a brace of seaplanes in 1919 (with many stops). Maybe in the country everyone remembers that. But in Britain we still remember that this feat was achieved by Alcock and Brown (cheers, flag wavings, strains of patriotic music...). Lindy was the first to do it SOLO. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 87 10:01:57 GMT From: ulysses!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Nuclear Devices and classification Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > In fact this is not quite true. Cryptography is generally > held to be classified - check the export laws. Classification and export control are separate issues. Export control is what the name implies -- prohibiting the export of certain technologies from the USA without a license from the federal government. Something doesn't have to involve classified technology to require such a license. Much of what falls under export controls involves purely unclassified items readily available in the US. Computers are the best examples. Now it is true that the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations, the basis of the export control laws) specifically mention "crypographic devices and related information" and therefore require export licenses. However, it is NOT yet the case that the government can arbitrarily classify (i.e., ban the DOMESTIC publication of) work done in cryptology by someone not funded by or associated with the government. The only apparent exception is the Invention Secrecy Act, which as far as I can tell applies only to patent applications. So the thing to do is to publish as widely as you can IMMEDIATELY after filing your patent application. The NSA, particularly under Bobby Inman, has pushed quite heavily for the authority to broaden its censorship powers even further, openly clamoring for the same kind of control over cryptology that the DOE already has over nuclear energy under the Atomic Energy Act. Fortunately, Inman's crusade was so incredibly arrogant that it was met by intense protest particularly from the academic sector. The result was a "compromise" where authors could submit their papers for "voluntary" review by NSA. However, the DoD from time to time still rattles its sabers when somebody (anybody, not just a government employee under a security agreement) is about to give a technical paper (any paper) they'd rather not see published. They usually cite the ITAR and claim that because there might be foreign nationals present at the conference, the speaker would violate US export controls without even leaving the country! The best example of this was the NSA employee who intimidated Hellman and Rivest, two of the inventers of public key cryptography. (see the Puzzle Palace, p 444, and the entire "Competition" chapter.) As SDI and the DoD's infatuation with military space toys of all kinds mushrooms, I expect that this sort of intimidation will become extremely common. As soon as the first space-related venture startup is driven out of business by this sort of nonsense I suspect that the "free enterprise in space" types (the ones now so overjoyed at all the money SDI is pumping into space technology) will start changing their tune. At a recent talk on cryptology, Prof. Cipher Deavers (editor of Cryptologia) pointed out that there are healthy cryptography industries in countries like Sweden, Austria and Switzerland -- neutral countries without US-style export controls. I'm becoming convinced that export controls have become a major contributing factor to the enormous US trade deficit, since the American products the world wants most and we are best at building are the ones we can't sell outside our borders without oppressive red tape. Even western Europe now considers the US to be a very unreliable supplier of high technology and avoids buying from us whenever possible. It is ironic that Inman went on the lecture circuit as a private citizen several years ago to speak on the subject of "Regaining America's Technological Leadership" or something like that. I wonder if he has contemplated his own part in destroying it. Needless to say, this article represents my personal views only. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 87 18:44:54 GMT From: cbosgd!gwe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (George Erhart) Subject: Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Although powdered Al would work well, it would be difficult to carry (as it cannot be packed at 100% density). It would probably be better to carry a tank of liquid aluminum, and atomize it into the reaction chamber. It seems to me that, while you'll have plenty of reaction mass, the exit velocity of that mass will be quite low. Most chemical propellants are chosen because of the volume of gases they produce when reacted. This aluminothermic engine would trap most of the gas (oxygen) in the oxide. As mentioned, excess oxygen could produce the necessary expansion ( -> velocity) but will necessitate a larger fuel load and decrease the operating temperature and efficiency. Methinks an honest-to-God thermo analysis needs to be done. I won't embarrass myself by trying this with my metallurgical thermo, but why doesn't one of you aero types give it a shot ? Bill Thacker cbatt!cbosgd!cbdkc1!serial!wbt ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #120 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05952; Sat, 31 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST id AA05952; Sat, 31 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST Date: Sat, 31 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8701311102.AA05952@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #121 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 31 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #121 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 121 Today's Topics: "Voyager" aircraft stunt/flight used by Reagan to distract media? Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info) Re: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI Re: Voyager Yeager Re: Nuclear Devices and classification Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info) Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket fission turbojets and rockets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1987 January 19 09:55:09 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: Space@angband.s1.gov Cc: crvax1.dec.com!kaplow@decwrl.dec.com Cc: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: "Voyager" aircraft stunt/flight used by Reagan to distract media? Date: 8 Jan 87 02:29:12 GMT From: crvax1.dec.com!kaplow@decwrl.dec.com (There is no 'N' in TURNKEY) Subject: re: Voyager Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I've seen several postings regarding the round-the-world flight of Voyager. People wonder if it was a publicity stunt, a significant aeronautical achievement, or a Reagan plot to take the heat of the Iran/Contra scandal. Apparently my original posting wasn't worded well. Several people misunderstood one point. Although I asked whether the flight itself was just a stunt with not much practical value, I did not ask whether the flight itself was a cover for Iran/Contra scandal, rather I asked whether the extra publicity given by Reagan to this stunt (I believe he got on live nationwide TV to praise the flight) was an attempt to divert the media from the scandal. That particular point hasn't yet been addressed. Did Reagan truly think the stunt worthy of his valuable time, with no thought of getting people distracted from "Gippergate", or did he have ulterior motives which were active? ... As to what useful technology will come out of this flight, Beech Aircraft has already started work on a business jet designed by Rutan, and built of similar composite materials. It will be more fuel efficient than any current aircraft. Rutan's canard designs eliminate the possibility of stalls, one of the biggest dangers of conventional design private aircraft. ... Thank you for your excellent answer to my question re original stunt being just a stunt or having true value. It seems it does have true value in "spirit" and in general aviation technology, although nothing earthshaking as far as I can tell so far, about as important as hundreds of other technological innovations of the past decade. Date: 7 Jan 87 12:18:33 GMT From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu The original purpose of the Voyager flight, as publicly stated by the Rutan brothers in the press, was to generate publicity for an airplane business they wanted to start in California. Clearly they suceeded in the publicity department. Hmmm, so it *was* primarily a publicity stunt for a business. But I think we can agree this is a better way to generate publicity than many we've seen lately. Rutan is flying up the northeast coast of South America. The ground comes on and says "I guess you two haven't been following the news much for the past week, but you probably know that Reagan is in a real mess over this Iran thing, and he thinks it wouldn't be such a bad idea to come out to California to watch you guys land." Hmmm, this seems to lead credence to my idea of Reagan deliberately using this as a distraction. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 87 22:22:18 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andrew Folkins) Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8701151854.AA00437@angband.s1.gov> OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes: > > BTW, I understand that once it gets up in the air >( it refuels immediately after takeoff ) the SR71 goes 'round >the world without refueling. I think it's a solo cockpit, but >obviously the Blackbird is disqualified from the above ( needs >to refuel after takeoff, really just ballistic [just kidding], >not in the atmosphere [depending on your definition] ). I think you've overestimated the capabilities of the SR71 just a bit. :-) The magazine "Airpower" published an article on the plane in May 1979. First, it's a dual cockpit, with pilot and 'fire control officer' (what he does in a recon plane is not clear, the terminology is probably leftover from when the Blackbird was being considered as an interceptor). The capabilities of the plane are Mach 3+ and 80,000+ feet (records set as of 1 July 1976 are 85,069 feet sustained altitude and 2,194 mph over a 15/25 km closed course, 2092 mph over a 1000 km closed course). These are the numbers released to the public, "many knowledgable people believe the Blackbird can sustain 100,000 to 120,000 ft. for an hour and a half". They don't explicitly give a range, but the Backbird cannot fly around the world without refueling. On the flight between the US and the Farnborough Air Show in 1976, the plane flew non-stop from Beale AFB but was refueled just after takeoff and again just past New York. The tanks were topped off near Nova Scotia, the total distance was 3490 miles in just under two hours. I'd guess at a range of about 3000 miles before the plane has to be refuelled : a typical test flight is Edwards to Florida at Mach III (2040 miles), fly around for a while until "it cooled off for a safe level for refueling", take in 7,000 to 9,000 gallons of fuel (maximum capacity 12,300 gallons) then back to Edwards - total time 3 hours 15 minutes. There's one interesting quote in the article, made by the pilot of the flight that set the World Absolute Closed Circuit Speed Record over a 1000 km course (2092 mph) : "The airplane flies best at maximum speed, and doesn't seem to be really happy at any speed under Mach 3.0. Because of the way the inlet system is designed, after accelerating past Mach 3.0, it just wants to keep on accelerating, so the pilot has to continually reduce power and climb to maintain his programmed speed." I'd really like to see the *classified* performance stats on this plane. They are probably truly impressive. 120,000 feet and Mach 5.0 anyone? The article is quite informative, lots of interview material and stats and pictures and stuff : Airpower, Vol 9 #3, May 1975. Andrew Folkins ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew 53 24' N, 113 30' W The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 87 07:42:00 GMT From: necntc!adelie!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov [rjn@hpfcmp.UUCP ] I am embarrassed to pick on a typo in such a long and interesting article; but *this* name should be known correctly to all space fans, like the names of Goddard and Von Braun: > Gagarin delivered a hymm of praise to the brilliance of the > "chief designer" of the spaceship (Korelov, of course - but it > was forbidden to reveal his name, so the job title was used > instead), It is Korolyov (or Koroliov, or, if you wish, Korolov, but the "l" is palatalized). The stress is on the last syllable. Jan W. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1987 12:59-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Voyager Adam Barr: There is a flaw in your logic. The driving forces behind technology are people and politics, NOT logic and orderly progression. It is the 'too early' dangerous stunts that convince people to put up the bucks, and that influence minds for generation. Thus the Lindbergh's are the real drivers of the technology through their HUMAN courage. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 87 02:51:29 GMT From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcms!hpfcmp!rjn@hplabs.hp.com (Bob Niland) Subject: Yeager Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov re: > Does anyone have any idea as to why the other Yeager (the General), > whose book about himself, "Yeager" I read recently, and who from all I > know about him (or think I know) is a genuine hero himself, denigrated > this accomplishment with some disparaging remarks such as something like > (not an exact quote): "What's so great about it? It's like adding extra > fuel tanks to a plane." The really ironic thing about Chuck's statement was that he had just completed (re-)setting a cross-country record in some obscure class of light twin. They just added some extra fuel tanks and strapped him in... Regards, Hewlett-Packard Bob Niland 3404 East Harmony Road [ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!rjn Fort Collins CO 80525 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 87 19:25:38 GMT From: cae780!leadsv!pat@hplabs.hp.com (Pat Wimmer) Subject: Re: Nuclear Devices and classification Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Why is this endless debate being conducted here? Move it to arms_discussion, or politics, or where-ever they endless debate these points! ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 87 18:06:09 GMT From: pixar!good@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bevare! Bevare the Big Green Dragon who seets on your dooorstep!) Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <741@cadomin.alberta.UUCP> andrew@cadomin.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) writes: >I'd really like to see the *classified* performance stats on this >plane. They are probably truly impressive. 120,000 feet and Mach 5.0 >anyone? I won't reveal my sources, but I've spoken with two people on seperate occasions who confirm the 120,000 feet part. I have serious doubts about the Mach 5.0. It is known, however, that at least 150 attempts to shoot it down have been unsuccessful. I am led to believe that part of the trick is simply out-running the SAM. --Craig ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 87 14:36:58 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov >Although powdered Al would work well, it would be difficult to carry >(as it cannot be packed at 100% density). It would probably be better >to carry a tank of liquid aluminum, and atomize it into the reaction >chamber. If your getting it from the moon then the environment is airless and the "compactness" of the fuel container is NOT a big issue. Consequently powdered Al should be very acceptable. >It seems to me that, while you'll have plenty of reaction mass, the >exit velocity of that mass will be quite low. Most chemical propellants >are chosen because of the volume of gases they produce when reacted. >This aluminothermic engine would trap most of the gas (oxygen) in the >oxide. Nearly all of the chemical fuels do trap most of there oxygen in the oxide during the burn. Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 87 20:50:10 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@UTAH-GR.ARPA (Bob Pendleton) Subject: fission turbojets and rockets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I have reason to believe that this didn't reach the net the first time I sent it. Sorry if this is a repeat. During the '50s and '60s the USAF and NASA spent a lot of time and money on the problems of building fission powered aircraft and spacecraft. What I know about it is gleaned from a number of books and articles that I read during the '60s and early '70s. I no longer have the references, but all the books I read were available in school and public libraries. The articles were published in Popular Science and Time. At some point in the late '50s or '60s Popular Science had a cover article on fission powered aircraft. I even had a model of a proposed nuclear powered bomber, complete with parasite fighters. At one time the USAF did have an operating fission reactor installed in a bomber. It did not provide useful power to the aircraft, but was used to test the problems involved with operating a fission powered aircraft. The reactor was operated during flight. Ignoring moral, ethical, and environmental problems, the main problems with fission powered aircraft are the weight of the reactor and shielding, and the low heat transfer rate between the reactor core and the working medium. The weight problem can be partially solved by only shielding what must be shielded, the crew, avionics, and payload ( not nice to put H-bombs next to unshielded reactors, nasty things might happen ). This technique is called "shadow shielding". The other way to solve the weight problem is to build really big aircraft. During the '50s a 707 was considered a very big aircraft. I remember reading that fission powered aircraft were proposed again when the C5A was delivered. One of the things that killed the nuclear aircraft program was that no one knew how to build very big airplanes in the '50s. A nuclear powered aircraft the size of a 707 could have been built, but it would have had no useful payload, but a nuclear powered aircraft the size of a C5A would. Several prototype fission powered turbojets were constructed and tested. The ones I remember reading about used existing turbine and compressor stages, but had some kind of heat exchanger where the burners would be in a normal engine. One version used liquid sodium as a reactor coolant. The coolant circulated through the reactor to be heated and then through a heat exchanger in the engine to heat the air flowing through the engine. The other version used air as the reactor coolant. Compressed air was taken from just behind the compressor stage and passed through the reactor core. The heated air was exhausted through the turbine stage of the engine. Both of these were ground tested. I don't know how many cubic miles of air were irradiated during the tests, and I hope there was never a liquid sodium leak. Fission rocket engines that were ( to my knowledge ) tested were graphite cored reactors. The reactors were used to heat liquid hydrogen which was then exhausted through a standard converging/diverging nozzle. At least one of these had the core break up during a test firing. Pieces of the core were expelled from the motor and burned in the atmosphere. A couple of other types of nuclear rockets were proposed, but I don't think they were tested. One would have used a gaseous core. The idea is that hydrogen is a pretty good moderator, the core of the reactor is a mixture of hydrogen and, I believe, uraniumtetraflouride. The other was a metal cored reactor with very small holes placed very close together. I've only seen gaseous cored reactors mentioned as space propulsion systems. The solid core nuclear rocket engines were originally proposed for ICBM propulsion but were later developed for space propulsion. NASA talked a lot about a nuclear stage that would be launched in place of the third stage of a Saturn-5. It was to be used as a tug for hauling material from low earth orbit to low lunar orbit, and for manned interplanetary expeditions. Bob Pendleton Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #121 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07296; Sun, 1 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST id AA07296; Sun, 1 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST Date: Sun, 1 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702011102.AA07296@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #122 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 1 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #122 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 122 Today's Topics: Laser Launched Rockets Re: "Voyager" aircraft stunt/flight used by Reagan to distract media? A use for nuclear fission in space Mars mission Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Re: Laser Launched Rockets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jan 87 04:03:18 GMT From: tektronix!orca!brucec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Cohen) Subject: Laser Launched Rockets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The latest issue of High Technology (Feb., 1987), has a short article on p.61 written by T.A. Heppenheimer about laser launching. It mentions a new program in the SDI Organization to investigate feasibility, and do some experiments with existing lasers. Current funding level is $2 million. The basic idea for laser-launched rockets has been around since the early '70s. Put simply, the fuel in the rocket is heated by a laser beam from the ground, so that only reaction mass is needed, not chemically reactive fuel and oxydizer, and that higher exhaust velocities than chemical fuels can be attained. Because the fuel is solid, there's no need for the mass of tanks, pumps, etc., but the thrust can be started, stopped, and throttled much more reliably than with a solid chemical propellant rocket. Putting the power source for the launch on the ground means that more payloads can be launched per year. Heppenheimer talks about 64,000 tons of payload per year, with one ton payloads and the laser operating just about continuously. I have trouble believing that, but I can accept 5,000 to 10,000 tons per year. If a launch site costs one or two billion dollars to build, about the cost of a shuttle, and can launch 50 - 100 times as much payload, the economics of space flight change drastically. It's not clear from the article that there's any favored technology in the SDI program, but there is a discussion of the advantages of FEL (Free-Electron Lasers). Quote: "... the efficiency may approach 40%, according to studies at California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, compared with 5% for a typical chemical laser." FEL's are pumped by a linear accelerator, so the primary energy source is electricity. I haven't paid much attention to the laser-launch idea for awhile, because it seemed to have died on the intellectual vine: the lasers available when it was first proposed were not powerful enough for the job, NASA seemed wedded to using conventional rocket technology, and the post-Apollo budget slump was upon us. Now, with a different technical and political environment, it looks as if the laser rocket has another chance. The article was short, and didn't cite any papers, so I don't have any technical details to give you. It would be helpful if some of you aerospace types out there could mail me citations for some of the work that's been done, and I will summarize to the newsgroup. Assume we don't know anything about it and need basic material; I don't even know if Kantrowitz, who developed the idea, ever published any specifics. If you have been looking around for topics of discussion in this group, here are several of them, based on various political, economic, and technical issues relative to laser-launching. POLITICAL o What is the best way to insure that a research program doesn't become hostage to the political controversy around SDI? Who funds it, and how do you insure that the work doesn't become classified and shelved? o How do you persuade the existing space establishment to spend time and energy, let alone money, on something radically different from the standard technology? No offense, but there is a large population of technical and managerial workers both in and out of the government who have a strong investment in the work done to date. o What are the factors which affect launch site selection? Is this a plus, like siting a factory or a government installlation, where local governments fight over who gets it, or a minus, like a dump or a nuclear waste site? Cnsider the reaction of people who are going to have tons of stuff flying over them on a regular basis. Can they be convinced that none of it will land on their heads? ECONOMIC o Just how cheap would this technique make delivery to orbit? Heppenheimer claims $100/kg, even amortizing the cost of the laser (he doesn't mention the rest of the launch facility, which won't be cheap), but that's got to be a horseback guess. There are a lot of variables, like the cost of power, and the ease of access to the launch site (both of which depend on the site selection) the size of the average payload, and the number of launches per year, and so on. o What are the effects on the private enterprise aspects of space with a launch technique this cheap available before the end of the century? Will the people who want access to space even be able to use that much? I assume that the governments will be able to use as much as they can get, as long as someone else pays for the development. TECHNICAL o What are the factors that affect selection of the type of laser? Clearly, efficiency and peak power capability are important. What else? o How about selection of the wavelength? Atmospheric properties, the absorption spectrum of the fuel, and the characteristics of the tracking optics are important here. Tunable lasers look like a good answer (FEL's are tunable over a very wide range). o Just how big a laser do we need? Can we time-share the beam, and keep several payloads in the air at once? This increases the tonnage we can launch. There are lots more topics. The whole subject is exciting because it looks like the first real alternative to chemical rockets which is technically feasible in the near future, and not banned by international treaty (nuclear rockets and Orion-type propulsion systems). Bruce Cohen brucec@orca tektronix!orca!brucec M/S 61-028, Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR 97070 (503) 685-2439 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 87 06:35:39 GMT From: cbmvax!grr@rutgers.rutgers.edu (George Robbins) Subject: Re: "Voyager" aircraft stunt/flight used by Reagan to distract media? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8701192147.AA01566@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes: > >Apparently my original posting wasn't worded well. Several people >misunderstood one point. Although I asked whether the flight itself >was just a stunt with not much practical value, I did not ask whether >the flight itself was a cover for Iran/Contra scandal, rather I asked >whether the extra publicity given by Reagan to this stunt (I believe >he got on live nationwide TV to praise the flight) was an attempt to >divert the media from the scandal. That particular point hasn't yet >been addressed. Did Reagan truly think the stunt worthy of his >valuable time, with no thought of getting people distracted from >"Gippergate", or did he have ulterior motives which were active? Why do you keep calling it a "stunt" - this is a derogatory and irritating term. A stunt implies some relativly safe/simple act hyped up to make it look difficult and/or death-defying. I've seen nothing from the Rutans or Jeanna that was more than a straight- forward "here is what we want to do, and here are the problems that we may encounter". Don't know what BS the news media cooked up at the last minute though... As someone who appreciates the the actual event, I don't give a f**k about Reagan trying to horn in (if that's the way you care to interpret his interest). That and 'gippergate' is a social/political issue that has only marginal application to this group as compared to say Reagan vs. the Shuttle or NASA vs. SDI. -George Robbins uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 87 15:58:39 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: A use for nuclear fission in space All this discussion about nuclear energy has reminded me of a crazy idea. Construct a very large nuclear reactor to be placed into Earth orbit. Attach to the reactor core a long boom upon which you have radiator panels to dump waste heat. On the end of this long boom, place a bit of shielding, a power coupling, and a whole bunch of ion engines with fuel tanks. Treat the whole assembly as a self propelled nuclear power plant. Such a nuclear power plant would be far more safer than a terrestrial plant. A nuclear fission reactor is not particularly dangerous **if** it has never been powered up. Technicians initially load a new reactor without shielding, standing right on top of the core. It is only after the core has been activated that it becomes a radiation danger. Construct the new reactor in low Earth orbit and chemically boost it to a high safe orbit. After a safety inspection the reactor is powered up. One could then dock the reactor to an orbital manufacturing facility, or if the technical and environmental problems can be resolved the reactor could be docked to a microwave transmission facitility and the power beamed down to earth. Since the reactor is self propelled, it could fly from one user to another and would almost always be in use. The reactor could also be used as a space tug for hauling freight between earth orbit and the moon or planets. When the reactor became old or began to malfunction it could be commanded to fly away from Earth orbit to a stable position in heliocentric space. The reactor could even be commanded to plung itself into the atmosphere of Venus or onto the ice caps of Mars. This disposal method could be made fail-safe by designing the reactor and ion engines such that the energy from the radioactive decay of fission products (usually a nuisance in terrestrial reactors) would be sufficient in providing power to the ion engines for final disposal of the reactor. Space is an environment well suited for radioactive processes. In addition, no other power source has the power-to-weight ratio of nuclear fission. Unlike solar power, a nuclear fission plant would be quite compact and easily assembled in space. A nuclear reactor would be more-or-less immune to sun induced radiation problems, most micro-meteorite impacts and large structure oscillations. The usual problems of radiation shielding and plant safety would be irrelevant with a space based reactor. By placing the reactor into a stable orbit and using fail-safe, fault tolerant control systems, you would have a system that represented virtually no public health risk, and would be environmentally benign Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 87 11:13:36 EST From: Les Eastman To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Mars mission Quoted without permission from the January 19, 1987 issue of Chemical & Engineering News, page 30: Panel proposes manned missions to Mars Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. are planning to send unmanned probes to Mars within the next few years. Now, a panel of experts from NASA and Los Alamos National Laboratory has recommended a series of manned missions to the red planet leading to the establishment of a permanent base there. The panel's report proposes several 30- to 60-day visits to different parts of the planet to help select a location for the permanent base. A later mission with a crew of eight would put human explorers on the Martian surface for about 440 days. According to Los Alamos, an initial Mars mission in the year 2000 would cost $30 billion to $40 billion in 1986 dollars - about half the cost of the Apollo moon program. The cost could be met, it says, if NASA's budget grows at 3% a year, the historic growth rate of the U.S. gross national product. The benefits of a manned Mars mission cited in the report include scientific advances, development of technology, and improved international cooperation. Les Eastman ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 87 21:09:23 GMT From: milano!wex@im4u.utexas.edu Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8701211503.AA04725@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes about a scheme to use fission plants in space. All well and good until... > [The] disposal method could be made fail-safe by designing the reactor > and ion engines such that the energy from the radioactive decay of > fission products [...] would be sufficient in providing power to the > ion engines for final disposal of the reactor. [...] By placing the > reactor into a stable orbit and using fail-safe, fault tolerant > control systems, you would have a system that represented virtually no > public health risk, and would be environmentally benign > Gary Allen I love phrases like "fail-safe" and "fault-tolerant" especially when they are juxtaposed like this. Mr. Allen blithely dismissed the possible disasters that a failure of such a system could cause. What happens when: - you miscalculate the stability of an orbit and it starts to decay? - your solid boosters fail on launch and start rocketing the payload toward (say) Miami? What do you do about the contaminated areas of Florida when the RSO destroys the launch vehicle? - some part in the ion engines or the guidance system fails and starts the reactor heading toward impact in New York or Moscow? Let's face it, nuclear fission is dangerous. Moving it into space isn't a cure-all. Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 87 16:40:54 GMT From: hplabsc!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Leik Myrabo and Dean Ing's book "The Future of Flight" is a good reference for more information on laser propulsion. I just got it, unfortunately, it is in a "popular science" style which seems targeted for an 8th grade audience, but the bibliography in the back is quite extensive and refers to a number of more technical sources (include a few which are classified). Heppenheimer's figure of 40% on the FEL is somewhat above what Myrabo and Ing claim (20-30%), but they claim that an infrared chemical laser getting 10% should be adequate. Some of their designs for rockets use hydrogen (*not* solid fuel as the original posting stated) and have a theoretical specific impulse of 1,000. The SSME gets somewhere around 400. Other designs work on air alone, depending on laser induced detonation of the atmosphere near the focal point to start a localized shock wave which then lifts the spaceship. Obviously, near the top of the atmosphere you'd need to inject some kind of gas to keep the shock wave going. Considering the obvious potential here, I wonder why yet another federal study is needed for this thing. If there is as much money to be made in space as people like Heppenheimer claim, then why isn't some venture capitalist sinking some bucks into the thing? NASA obviously isn't interested, since the technology is too far away from the conventional. Jim Kempf hplabs!kempf ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #122 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08568; Mon, 2 Feb 87 03:03:02 PST id AA08568; Mon, 2 Feb 87 03:03:02 PST Date: Mon, 2 Feb 87 03:03:02 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702021103.AA08568@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #123 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 2 Feb 87 03:03:02 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #123 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 123 Today's Topics: Yeager Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info) Re: Laser Launched Rockets Re: fission turbojets and rockets Re: Around the world non-stop Mining in space compared to mines on Earth Re: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI Continuing debate on whether government should invest in space Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? Re: Space and Government support Re: Libertarian Lecture ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jan 87 12:49:19 GMT From: ray@ROCHESTER.ARPA (Ray Frank) Subject: Yeager Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <1580004@hpfcmp.HP.COM> rjn@hpfcmp.HP.COM (Bob Niland) writes: Does anyone have any idea as to why the other Yeager (the General), whose book about himself, "Yeager" I read recently, and who from all I know about him (or think I know) is a genuine hero himself, denigrated this accomplishment with some disparaging remarks such as something like (not an exact quote): "What's so great about it? It's like adding extra fuel tanks to a plane." Yes, Yeager (the General) was reported to have said the above. But after reading his book, nothing he could do or say would suprise me. He is certainly a brave man, but brains, well........ ray ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 87 19:18:07 GMT From: hpcea!hpsrla!hpsadla!jimh@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Horn) Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The `Free Enterprise', originally known as the `Big Bird', was designed, built, and flown by Tom Jewett, who, with Gene Sheehan, formed Quickie Aircraft Corporation down at Hanger 68 at Mojave. The two of them are better known for their Quickie, Q-2, and Q-200 aircraft plans and kits. Actually, the first was the `Love One' by Jim Bede. That was a highly modified stretched-span single engine Schweitzer (sp?) sailplane which he used to capture the non-refulled closed course distance record in the '60s. It has since been rebuilt and has broken its own records as the `Phoenix'. It never had the range for a true circumglobal flight though - it would have had to use the jet streams, resulting in an 18000 mile (or so) flight. The Free Enterprise addressed the Love One's limitations and had a considerably greater capability. It was also a single place single engined conventional configuration monoplane, with the landing gear in a seperate carriage which remained on the runway as the aircraft lifted off. It also used highly modified sailplane wings. During a test flight in July 1982, he was returning to land after a flight with a higher fuel load than he had flown with before. At about 200' AGL in the renowned Mojave thermals, the turbulence caused the wings to go divergent and they failed. He died on impact. The plan had been to cruise at 24000' MSL at 200 MPH for a full 23000 miles. Due to an earlier dispute, Dick and Jeanna were racing somewhat to try to get done before Tom and Gene would. While the two groups were anything but friendly at the time, the tragedy did inject a further dose of caution into the Voyager's plans. As a long time Voyager volunteer - and a Q2 builder who knew Tom well - I'm happy to see some interest in the earlier efforts. Each year's CAFE 400 air race still has a Tom Jewett Memorial Award in his honor. Jim Horn, Secretary The CAFE Foundation, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 87 17:12:28 GMT From: terra!brent@sun.com (Brent Callaghan) Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The discussion on laser launching of rockets seems to have side-stepped what I consider to be an important problem: What's gonna happen to the trajectory if a nice fat cloud drifts into the beam ? I can imagine the beam punching its way through a light overcast - but certainly not a towering cumulus drifting along at low altitude. The chances of hitting a cloud would no doubt increase as the rocket approaches orbit and the slant range of the beam increases. The many weather holds for the shuttle have been bad enought - but waiting for a cloudless day (particularly in equatorial regions) would be intolerable! Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan @ Sun Microsystems uucp: sun!bcallaghan phone: (415) 691 6188 ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 87 22:34:42 GMT From: sdcrdcf!ism780c!marv@hplabs.hp.com (Marv Rubinstein) Subject: Re: fission turbojets and rockets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I guess I should say something about nuclear powered arcraft. In the early 50's I was employed as an aerodynamic test engineer at the University of Southern California's Aerodynamic Test Laboratory. One of the projects that I worked on was a stability and control evaluation of a proposed nuclear powered sea plane. The plane was interesting to say the least. At its designed take off weight, it had a density greater than sea water. So, in order to take off, the plane was to be equipped with floatation gear. When the craft reached hydrodynamic planing speed it was to dispose of the floats. But the nuclear engines did not provide enough thrust for take off so the plane was also to be equipped with JATO (jet assisted take off) bottles. Once air borne, the JATO was also disposed of. If there was an engine failure after the the floats were disposed of, the plane would sink! So scuba gear was to be provided for the crew. The flight time of the plane was limited by the allowable radiation dose for the crew. Needless to say, the plane was never built. BTW, if memory serves, I believe the first mission of JPL was the development of the afore mentioned JATO bottles. Marv Rubinstein -- Interactive Systems ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 87 15:11:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!daa@seismo.css.gov (David Allsopp) Subject: Re: Around the world non-stop Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <2010002@hpsadla.HP> jimh@hpsadla.HP (Jim Horn) writes: > The sticking point is "milestone". Everyone remembers Lindbergh, who was >the first to fly the Atlantic NON-STOP (May, 1927), even though it was flown >by a brace of seaplanes in 1919 (with many stops). >... >Jim Horn, Secretary >The Comparitive Aircraft Flight Efficiency (CAFE) Foundation, Inc. Please, credit where credit's due - the first non-stop flight of the Atlantic was by a couple of men from this side of the pond, i.e. Alcock and Brown. I can't remember the date, but I recall that they flew in a converted Vickers Vimy bomber and landed in a bog in Ireland. As mentioned elsewhere, Lindbergh was the first *solo* crossing, and went to Paris rather than the nearest land. Or don't you Americans remember British firsts?? :-) :-) :-) David Allsopp ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 87 03:44:56 GMT From: hpda!hppcgo!hpsal2!hpisof0!campbelr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Campbell) Subject: Mining in space compared to mines on Earth Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I always thought that one of the more attractive aspects of mining other worlds was not to bring it back but rather to build it there. It does not sound unlikely to me that the cost off getting materials off-planet in large quantities would cost more (and be an environmental hazard) than getting enough materials there to build from raw materials. Bob Campbell Hewlett Packard hplabs!hpdsd!hpisof0!campbelr ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 87 13:24:42 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI To: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcms!hpfcmp!rjn@hplabs.hp.com Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov Orbital flights do not qualify for the record Voyager broke, becuase that record applies to vehicles that are heavier than air. Space capsules are not heavier than air while in flight, they are weightless. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 1987 January 26 02:34:55 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Continuing debate on whether government should invest in space KFL and I are deeply involved in a long debate on merits of government vs. private investment in space during the next several years. (In the long term we both agree government should get out of space transport business.) I am saving my side of the debate (pro gov't investment in short term) here on disk rather than posting them to space. Anyone wishing to see the full debate (my side only), please contact me. Otherwise you'll see only major milestones or final concensus or whatever I think worthy of posting to all of SPACE digest. ------------------------------ From: warlord@athena.mit.edu Date: Mon, 26 Jan 87 13:40:45 EST To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? Correct me if I'm wrong, but here is what the discussion boils down to [and yes, I'm FOR space exploration]: [Robert Elton Maas] ...I.e. optimally there should be a world government to tax each world citizen to pay for projects of a world-wide nature that wouldn't be of advantage to a specific nation, just like there are national governments to tax their citizens for projects of a national nature that wouldn't benefit just particular provinces or counties, etc. [Keith F. Lynch] I consider this a good reductio ad absurdum of the necessity of ANY government with authority to tax. [Then a host of major legitimate problems with world governments pointed out] [REM] There are various kinds of tasks that are best handled at various sizes of government. Space benefits the whole world so should be handled by world government, ... Note, no one individual would benefit from building a coast to coast freeway, only state governments by piecemeal or cooperation, or a national government, can perform such a task. [KFL] Not at all. It is only because individuals benefit from such a freeway that it is built. I don't agree that it has to be done by governments. Coast to coast railways were built by private companies. and so on... REM advocates space exploration by world government mainly because he claims that everyone benefits, so everyone should pay. Keith says that individuals should pay for what they think are good investments, or not pay for bad ones. Which one seems more realistic? Stolfi has already shown that not every reasonable human being agrees with the claim that space is a good investment for the near future. It would seem that REM believes that we should all engage in this mass and unanimous speculation involuntarily. No matter how the world government decides to explore space, we will have disagreements on what projects are most beneficial. But only a subset will be explored due to the scarcity of resources. As Keith pointed out, it is not unusual for people to benefit from investments made by others. And why should people in the third world be forced to pay for space when they can't grow their own food? It would seem that an expensive project can harm a few poor countries, while it benefits the majority -- but is that what we want? By establishing space exploration as a major priority for all nations and making all pay, it is not even clear that all would benefit. I don't think many Ethiopians would care how much more food they could grow in space if they can't feed their children now... Granted, they'll starve in the long run if they can't grow more food, but who's going to tell them that they should invest for the future (because space is the future) rather than the present? I would think they'd invest once they see proof from other countries and after they take care of more important (to them) investments... REM is actually voicing the following claim we all learned in elementary school: somethings are simply too big for individuals to handle, but because we ALL need them, we should have a government organize and pay for it. As we grew up, we all learned that only individuals can pay because any organization is made of individuals (or did we?); a corporate tax is distributed among the corporation members, for example. We also learned that people can organize and get things done together, voluntarily. But most of us kept on believing that only government can handle the really BIG jobs. The organization of many corporations rivals those of small governments with only one resultant difference: these corporations make money; governments take -- and some can't even stay solvent... What happens with bankrupt corporations? They disappear unless they get back on their feet. Bankrupt governments can continue to increase their debt. Now, would you really want a world government to explore space for profit?... Edison Wong ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1987 13:33-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Space and Government support In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Mon, 26 Jan 87 03:14:39 PST Keith: I agree with you 100%. Where I differ is that "C'est ne-pas le mieux des mondes possible". However, there are those of us who are not so sanguine about the next fifty years. I am perfectly willing to use the existing structure to accomplish my goals because the existing structure makes it impossible to accomplish them through the preferable means, ie the ones you suggest. I'm a libertarian too, but I'm a pragmatist, not an ideologist. Please do keep telling people what should be, because you are right. But count on me to try to deal with deck AS DEALT. ------------------------------ To: space-incoming From: bouldin@ceee-sed Sender: ota Date: 26 Jan 87 17:52:00 EST Subject: Re: Libertarian Lecture Reply-To: About the post from Keith F. Lycnch: It is a lot more credible to complain about the perils of government seizure of private assets through taxation if you don't do it over a computer net that was created and supported by the taxation that you criticize. Without getting into specifics, I think almost _everyone_ agrees that there are certain endeavors that must be undertaken collectively, by a government of some sort. The disagreement is about what endeavors and how to support them. To get back to SPACE, rather than politics, who really cares how we get out into space, so long as we do? I think that it is fine to pursue all approaches in parallel. Private corporations or individuals are welcome, as are gov. subsidized corps. or government agencies or consortiums of several governments or the UN or other "world" organization. It is just to important to turn down any approach that may work. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #123 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11644; Tue, 3 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST id AA11644; Tue, 3 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST Date: Tue, 3 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702031102.AA11644@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #124 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 3 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #124 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 124 Today's Topics: Re: Laser Launched Rockets Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info) Re: sexism on space net Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Re: nuclear fission in space Re: nuclear fission in space Re: Laser Launched Rockets Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jan 87 09:33:47 GMT From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <7552@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >You betcha. Look at it this way -- assuming the accelerations are not too >grossly prohibitive, $100/kg means it costs about $10,000 to put *me* into >orbit with a bit of support gear. Load up my Visa, Mastercard, and personal >line of credit and clean out my chequing account, and I have enough. Tomorrow. The problem is that you need (I presume?) a reentry vehicle, which means that you multiply that mass figure by a factor of 100 or more. $10K one way, but $1M if you want the round trip. -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 87 09:27:48 GMT From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <7548@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >[Recommended reading of the month: Harry Stine's article in the Feb. issue >of Analog, in which he takes issue with NASA's wonderful new safety committee, >(on the grounds that the only well-proven rocket-safety system -- the Range >Safety organization used on all US rocket ranges, including KSC -- has very >good reasons for assigning final responsibility to *one* specific person) >and talks about how to *really* get the space program going again.] A nitpick: I think it is incorrect to describe the Range Safety system as well-proven. It failed badly in the Challenger accident. The boosters were destroyed despite the fact that they were no threat to any land area. This is an understandable failure, and should cause no great consternation, but it is nevertheless a failure of the system. -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 87 04:02:31 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > I'd really like to see the *classified* performance stats on this plane. > They are probably truly impressive. 120,000 feet and Mach 5.0 anyone? 120,000 feet, maybe. Mach 5.0 seems to be stretching it a bit. Nobody (who will talk) is sure what the Blackbird's top speed is, but one theory that has been advanced is that part of the reason for the long, long fuselage is to keep the nose shock wave off the wing. If this is so, some simple calculations put the shock at the wingtips at about Mach 3.3. The remarks about how the plane wants to go faster are not out of line with this -- that sort of thing is not uncommon. A number of circa-1960 fighters had maximum speeds set by heating or other problems rather than by thrust-vs- drag. (For another example, a "clean" Foxbat will do Mach 3.2 if you don't mind landing with the engines ruined, according to Belenko.) -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 87 05:12:35 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: sexism on space net Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Many people have expressed the wish that this subject would move > to net.anythingelse, that it is not a fit subject for sci.space. > Well, frankly, the offenses are occurring here on sci.space and > as a community of sentient beings we have a obligation to make > this environment comfortable for all who either wish to learn or > to share. And there is no place for innocent bystanders when the Holy Crusade is on the march, right? Comfort is in the eye of the comfortee. I am not unsympathetic to the point, but it's the fanatics who shout about our "obligation" to give everybody exactly what they want -- especially when "everybody" means the ones doing the shouting. How about if we all: (a) Try to be a bit more considerate of our downtrodden sisters; (b) Try to be a bit more considerate of people who use poetic language that is legitimate English and was never intended to offend; and (c) Try to be a bit more considerate of the many, many people -- including me! -- who are sick of seeing this argued out in sci.space! [This will be my LAST posting on the subject -- can you say the same?] -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jan 87 06:29:01 GMT From: pyramid!prls!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse@decwrl.dec.com (der Mouse) Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8701211503.AA04725@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > [about a reactor in Earth orbit] > When the reactor became old or began to malfunction it could be > commanded to fly away from Earth orbit to a stable position in > heliocentric space. Assuming the malfunction didn't keep it from obeying such commands. > The reactor could even be commanded to plung itself into the > atmosphere of Venus or onto the ice caps of Mars. Don't clutter up Venus or Mars with hot reactors! First of all, there may be someone on those planets (though it doesn't look much like it now); even if not, *we* may want to use them! Shoot it into the sun. Anything that can live in the sun is hardly likely to mind, and if there isn't anything living there I see no reason not to. (Please, no comments about "but there couldn't be anything living in the sun" (or on Venus or Mars); I'm trying to keep an open mind, or if you prefer, trying to cover even the near-impossible cases.) der Mouse USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,utzoo,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse Europe: mcvax!decvax!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse ARPAnet: think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse@harvard.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 87 03:07:12 GMT From: andrew.cmu.edu!postman#@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Walter Henry Roscello) Subject: Re: nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In Gary Allen's post on this subject, he mentioned that the space fission plants could be aimed at Mars or Venus when they are useless. Does anyone have any reasons not to send them to the sun? Surely it can take care of vaporizing anything we send there, and compared to it's mass, I can't see how we could do it any harm. Certainly it is better than littering the landscape of other planets. Walter Roscello Carnegie Mellon University wr0m#@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 87 03:07:12 GMT From: andrew.cmu.edu!postman#@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Walter Henry Roscello) Subject: Re: nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In Gary Allen's post on this subject, he mentioned that the space fission plants could be aimed at Mars or Venus when they are useless. Does anyone have any reasons not to send them to the sun? Surely it can take care of vaporizing anything we send there, and compared to it's mass, I can't see how we could do it any harm. Certainly it is better than littering the landscape of other planets. Walter Roscello Carnegie Mellon University wr0m#@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 87 04:38:33 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > o How do you persuade the existing space establishment to spend time and > energy, let alone money, on something radically different from the > standard technology? ... To put it bluntly, you don't, unless you have great patience and resources and are willing to spend many years campaigning. The only thing to do is to try to build a new and (temporarily) more open-minded space program. The key is not to fight for NASA to adopt it, but to fight to loosen the rules and sweeten the market for private investment. Multibillion-dollar investments are not beyond private industry -- Boeing spent two billion on the 757/767 development without even needing to take out a loan! > o What are the factors which affect launch site selection? Is this a > plus, like siting a factory or a government installlation, where local > governments fight over who gets it, or a minus, like a dump or a nuclear > waste site? Cnsider the reaction of people who are going to have tons > of stuff flying over them on a regular basis. Can they be convinced that > none of it will land on their heads? Generally it's a plus, because range-safety requirements are normally taken to preclude flying tons of stuff over populated areas on a regular basis. This is why the rocket ranges are all in places where the normal launch paths take the long-range stuff out over lots of empty ocean. (The inland ranges like White Sands are restricted to short-range rocketry and will hit the "destruct" button if predicted impact point is outside the range boundary.) Given that, the local governments can and do fight over launch sites (and their support facilities -- surely you don't think it was an accident that the Manned Spaceflight Center was in the home area of Lyndon Johnson, one of NASA's strongest supporters?). > o What are the effects on the private enterprise aspects of space with a > launch technique this cheap available before the end of the century? > Will the people who want access to space even be able to use that much? You betcha. Look at it this way -- assuming the accelerations are not too grossly prohibitive, $100/kg means it costs about $10,000 to put *me* into orbit with a bit of support gear. Load up my Visa, Mastercard, and personal line of credit and clean out my chequing account, and I have enough. Tomorrow. Well, tomorrow's Sunday. Day after tomorrow, then. Save worrying about details like paying it back and eating for the rest of the month until I'm back down. No, I'm not kidding. And that is a *big* market at those prices. Is there anyone reading this newsgroup who wouldn't mortgage their grandmother to go? Most *cars* cost more than that now -- certainly the good ones do. Tourism aside, a facility like that means that somebody who wants to try out a new process in orbit doesn't need to sign joint agreements with NASA or get in line for a shuttle flight in the year 1997 (maybe) -- he just goes up and tries it out. That's the difference between Columbus and ocean liners. > ... The whole subject is exciting because it looks > like the first real alternative to chemical rockets which is technically > feasible in the near future, and not banned by international treaty (nuclear > rockets and Orion-type propulsion systems). I agree that laser launchers are exciting, but I would note that nuclear rockets are not banned by international treaty, although Orion-type ones are. There is nothing much wrong with ordinary nuclear rockets except that off-the-shelf designs are not that much better than the really top chemical rockets. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 87 04:49:23 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > ... Attach to the reactor core a long boom upon which you have > radiator panels to dump waste heat. On the end of this long boom, place > a bit of shielding, a power coupling, and a whole bunch of ion engines... > ...Since the reactor is self propelled, it > could fly from one user to another and would almost always be in use. > The reactor could also be used as a space tug for hauling freight > between earth orbit and the moon or planets... Alas, nuclear ion propulsion is not quite as attractive as you seem to think. Reactor weight really is a problem, and ion-engine technology is not particularly good right now. High exhaust velocity, the speciality of ion engines, does not solve all problems -- the very low accelerations introduce their own set of problems. Note also that reactors tend to need refuelling and other maintenance work with some frequency. > ...In addition, no other power source has the > power-to-weight ratio of nuclear fission... Well, depends on what you mean by power source. The attractive thing about chemical rockets is that they pack ENORMOUS power outputs into very small packages. A Saturn V first stage weighed a few million pounds fully fuelled, and its power output was something like 35 *gigawatts*. A nuclear power plant putting out *two* gigawatts is very big and awfully heavy. > A nuclear reactor would be more-or-less immune to sun induced radiation > problems, most micro-meteorite impacts and large structure oscillations. > The usual problems of radiation shielding and plant safety would be > irrelevant with a space based reactor... Mmm, don't forget that the control equipment, probably the ion engines, and various other things will have to be shielded or they will have various problems. As for plant safety, consider that the SNAP-10A reactor -- the only US nuclear reactor in orbit, about 20 years old -- has shed several pieces of debris since it was shut down, and nobody has the faintest idea what the debris is or why it is being shed. It's not that simple. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 87 04:06:10 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > > ...Most chemical propellants > >are chosen because of the volume of gases they produce when reacted. > >This aluminothermic engine would trap most of the gas (oxygen) in the > >oxide. > > Nearly all of the chemical fuels do trap most of there oxygen in > the oxide during the burn. Yes, but their oxides are gaseous. As soon as aluminum oxide condenses from the gas, which it does pretty willingly even at very high temperatures, it is no longer contributing pressure and expansion to accelerate the exhaust jet. Not that the idea isn't worth looking at, but I'm told it's not nearly as attractive as it first seems. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #124 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13762; Wed, 4 Feb 87 03:02:49 PST id AA13762; Wed, 4 Feb 87 03:02:49 PST Date: Wed, 4 Feb 87 03:02:49 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702041102.AA13762@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #125 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 4 Feb 87 03:02:49 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #125 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 125 Today's Topics: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? (LONG - ca 170 lines) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jan 87 03:31:36 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov [Well, better late than never... we'll see if I can catch up.] [Recommended reading of the month: Harry Stine's article in the Feb. issue of Analog, in which he takes issue with NASA's wonderful new safety committee, (on the grounds that the only well-proven rocket-safety system -- the Range Safety organization used on all US rocket ranges, including KSC -- has very good reasons for assigning final responsibility to *one* specific person) and talks about how to *really* get the space program going again.] House Appropriations Committee refuses approval of NASA-GeneralDynamics commercialization agreement for Atlas-Centaur, citing concerns about inade- quate reimbursement of the government for launch-site use. Administration notifies Congress of intent to permit export of two Ford Aerospace comsats to Japan, for eventual launch by Ariane. China's Great Wall Industry Corp. (proprietors of the Long March boosters) signs letter of intent to launch Iranian comsat on Long March 3. GWIC again assures overseas customers that China will admit spacecraft hardware without customs inspection and will permit hardware owners to convey satellites to the launch site themselves. NASA enters FY1987 with record budget, $10.4G, up over 40% from FY1986. NASA's near-insurmountable budget difficulties were resolved by the diversion of $2.4G from DoD to finance the new orbiter. Fletcher will push to hold NASA's budget at $10G in subsequent years, which would help a whole lot in recovering from the current sorry situation. One selling point used to get Fletcher's approval of the new shuttle manifest apparently was the historical inaccuracy of payload manifesting. For over 20 years, NASA's launches in any given year have consistently flown about 70% of the payloads listed in the schedule as of the start of the year. The new manifest is probably not a very accurate reflection of what will really happen. Reagan and Gorbachev agreed in Iceland to resume full-scale cooperation in civil space projects; detailed talks to start shortly. First priority will be renegotiating a broad cooperation agreement, replacing the one that the US let lapse in 1982 over the Poland situation. DoD, as usual, continues to oppose broadly interpreted cooperative agreements on the ground that the Soviets might ferret out crucial US technological data like the value of pi. France, Germany, and ESA approve preliminary plans for Hermes project. The ESA members have until Nov 30 to pledge money for mission studies. Decision on full-scale Hermes development will be next year. Soviet SL-6 booster, launching a Soviet missile-warning satellite on Oct 3, has major failure, putting satellite in wrong orbit. First failure in the Soviet space program this year, 71 launches carrying 87 satellites so far. Problem was a premature upper-stage shutdown during boost out of parking orbit. Twelve whole days later, on Oct 15, another SL-6 successfully launches a replacement. Next SL-6 launch on Oct 24, a Molniya comsat, also successful. What was to be the 5th US space launch of 1986 is scrubbed on Oct 10 when the gyros of the Scout booster foul up about 5 hours before launch, putting the launch of the Polar Beacon / Auroral Research satellite (USAF, Defense Nuclear Agency, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics lab, USAF Geophysics lab) back to early November at the soonest. [If the comparison between the previous two paragraphs makes you feel sick, join the club... -- HS] McDonnell Douglas plans new facility in Pueblo, Colo. for Delta assembly. Engineering and project management will stay in California. NASA task force on microgravity science, chaired by astronaut Bonnie Dunbar, will evaluate state of US space materials-processing program and recommend how to gear it up for Space Station operations. ESA nears end of ground tests to sort out the Ariane third-stage-ignition problems. Decision on design changes in November. More powerful multi-jet igniter is likely. Hope is to resume Ariane launches in the first 4-5 mos. of 1987, aiming for seven launches in 1987, eight in 1988, nine in 1989. Orders continue to come in, seven since the launch failure in May. Inmarsat signs for the launch of Inmarsat 2 F2, mid-1989 using Ariane 4. Earlier in October, Intelsat signed for Intelsat 6 F3 on Ariane 4 in late 1989. RCA booked Satcom K-3 for Ariane 4 in 1989, and took out an option for the 1990 launch of Satcom K-4. Satcom K-3 was one of the 44 payloads holding firm contracts for Shuttle launches. Soviet/French mid-1990s Vesta mission will provide info on at least five different asteroids/comets during a five-year flight. Two launches in 1994. Main payloads will be Soviet Mars missions, but French-designed asteroid/comet flyby probes will go along and will be released before Mars-capture maneuvers. The probes will each carry a Soviet penetrator probe to return data from an asteroid landing. Pan Am Pacific Satellite Corp. joins competition for linking South Pacific island nations with satellite communications. One of PanAmPacSat's owners owns the retrieved Westar 6 satellite, which holds a special agreement guaranteeing a Shuttle re-launch (although it wasn't in the new manifest). However, PAPS is also talking to China about a Long March launch; there are no openings in the Ariane manifest soon enough. Hughes has a new comsat design, the HS 399, a relatively small and light one for regional networks and developing nations. It uses liquid-fuel engines for both perigee and apogee propulsion, permitting test firing of engines in orbit before perigee boost starts; the hope is that this will cut insurance costs. Letter from Capt. Robert G. Oler of Saudi Arabian airlines: "You must have a program [or] be a second-class power in space. The US has had a faltering one for several years and now has none at all. There is none because, like the Three Stooges, every 'player' in the US program is going his own way... [all] clamoring for a new expendable launch vehicle. Most seem to be based on Titan technology, but like the shuttle, Titan is not flying. Who wants to put [their payload] on the first Titan 4...?" "The subsidy issue is a phony one... Without USAF funding it, there will be no new ELV. Secretary of the Air Force Edward C. Aldridge's claim that this is USAF paying its 'fair share' of shuttle recovery cost is blue smoke. It's all taxpayers' money he spends. Why the shuttle had to pay its way, while others get subsidized painlessly, is bizarre logic, particularly in light of USAF's poor management of its manned-space assets. Nothing illustrates this more than the on-again/off-again saga of Space Launch Complex 6 at Vandenberg..." "If the Russian tortoise is catching the US hare, as several space scientists have clamored, they should examine how it is being done... The Russians have two manned space stations, a shuttle, a heavy-lift [launcher]... That they have a vigorous unmanned space program is a tribute to the funds they spend. Many in the US will be debating manned spaceflight for the rest of the century, with the Russians advocating it from orbit... The 'everyone- make-your-own-booster-or-program' approach guarantees there will be none. Ariane and other foreign launchers will fly US birds into space. The US station will stay on [paper], and freedom-loving people will stay on Earth or ride with the Soviets. Hard to believe the US put the first men on the moon -- but back then we had a plan; we don't now." -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jan 87 17:39:29 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!csrdi@seismo.css.gov (ECTU68 R Innis CS) Subject: Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? (LONG - ca 170 lines) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov This article is not entirely about issues of space travel. However, the articles to which it is a followup appear in sci.space, and since it is in keeping at least with the spirit of the originals, I've sent it in. Flames by e-mail only, please.... In article <965670.870116.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU> ("Keith F. Lynch") writes, in reply to Robert Maas' reply to his reply to Robert's original article: > #Robert: > Why shouldn't we make investments that will benefit all of > mankind? > #Keith > Because such investments don't benefit us. If they do, then perhaps > they should be made. But for that reason only. Not because of any > benefit which accrues to anyone else. > #Robert: > WRONG. We are part of mankind. > #Keith: > So? We are also part of a family, a county, a state, a country, a >continent, a hemisphere, animal life, all life, all matter, and all >mass-energy. Do we have some responsibilty based on each of these >inclusions? > YES. Keith, you make an awful lot out of the issue of the individual's freedom. I submit that freedom is a privilege, not a right, and it is a privilege earned only by accepting the responsibilities we face as part of an organised society. > #Robert: > If an investment benefits both the world at large and the investors, > then it is worthwhile (providing of course the payback is greater > than the investment). > #Keith: > If it benefits the investors, it is worthwhile. They need take no >account of the world. fer shure....if it benefits me to invest my time and money in hijacking a lorry carrying nuclear warheads from a naval base to an armoury, so I can make myself a nuclear weapon of my very own, which I can then use to extort a few million out of some organisation, then it's worthwhile. (Don't laugh - it could happen too easily). I defy you to refute that argument. Under your sort of world view, terrorism seems to be a worthwhile investment. #Keith: > Are you proposing some authority which would check all proposed >investments and forbid those which did not benefit the world? Or >are you saying that everyone should voluntarily behave like that? >What is to be done with those who don't? Those who are able to recognise their social responsibilities will be able to behave in such a way, voluntarily. We'll just have to tolerate those who don't, and hope they manage to breed themselves out of existence without taking the rest of us with them. #Robert: > It is our national taxbase that pays for our national welfare system, > so it is our national citizenry that should maximize its benefits, > ignoring whether others benefit or not. > #Keith: > Right. Of course one could reason similarly on the state level, >the county level, on down to the individual. From which one could >conclude that there shouldn't be a welfare system at all. Local taxbase pays for local welfare benefits? Why not? But if there is a distinction between what constitutes 'local benefits' and what constitutes 'national benefits', then it makes sense. Less money spent at high levels, more at low levels. #Keith: > If one decides there should be, the question remains, why shouldn't everyone >in the world be eligible? If you say because they don't pay the >taxes that support it, I would point out that neither do the welfare >recipients in our own country. But they almost certainly have, in their previous existance as tax-payers. #Keith: > To sum up, there is no investment which government can make which >individuals cannot voluntarily make, government investments tend to >be buy less at a higher price than private investments, since taxation >is theft government cannot morally get any money to make any >investments in any case, free individuals differ on which investments >are urgently needed, and nobody has the right to compell others to >invest according to his own ideas of what is urgently needed. > ...Keith Wrong on almost every point: INDIVIDUALS (except extremely rich ones) cannot match the sort of investment which a goverment can bring to bear. Government investments *can* be as efficient as private investments (British Telecom, which was making money hand over fist even under Labour governments). Taxation is not theft: a government provides certain facilities for its citizens which would not otherwise be provided, or would not be provided at such a cost that all could enjoy the benefits, or indeed *should* not be provided by other means. (National defence, f'rinstance). It is only fair that the cost of providing such services be borne collectively. Free individuals do differ in their opinions. That's one of their privileges in being free. They should also be able to accept that their opinions may not be shared by the majority of their co-members of society, and that the consensus reached by society regarding what investments are and aren't urgently needed may result in priorities very different from theirs. Granted, "nobody has the right to compell others to invest according to his own ideas of what is urgently needed." Likewise, however, nobody has the right "to invest according to his own ideas of what is urgently needed", if in so doing he will adversely affect his fellow members of society. To do so suggests an extremely self-centred view of reality, and in doing so the individual demonstrates his lack of respect for the society of which he is part, and abdicates all responsibilty for the effect of his actions upon it. This is *not* a way in which I imagine rational creatures to behave. Excuse the length of this contribution, and its near-total irrelevancy to space issues. I'll now add a few comments pertaining to the original subject of these articles. It is only sensible that we (the human race) should invest in developing space travel. This planet *is* finite, it's resources *are* running low, and it is only able to support a limited number of people. We may not be anywhere near the limit which it can support; ideally, we shouldn't have to get near it before thinking about moving on somewhere else. However, such development can only take place with massive expenditure. Since some of us have more appropriate resources to devote to such development, it makes sense that we should do so - preferably in co-operation rather than competition. When developments are taking place at this level, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish the investors from "the rest of the world". The dedication of sizable quantities of some nations resources to, say, a space programme, means that other areas in which they might otherwise have been able to satisfy their own needs are instead satisfied by the activities of others. For indirectly supporting our programme, we owe these others some of the fruits of our success. In short: as rational beings, we have certain rights. We must not forget that in possessing these rights, we incur responsibilities to that which enables us to possess such rights in the first place. This link between rights and responsibilities occurs at all levels - individual, collective, global and all points between and beyond. --Rick Innis ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #125 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16473; Thu, 5 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST id AA16473; Thu, 5 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST Date: Thu, 5 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702051102.AA16473@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #126 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 126 Today's Topics: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Re: How many shuttles can orbit at once? (and more) Re: Laser Launched Rockets Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info) Re: nuclear fission in space mars mission Re: mars mission Re: Laser Launched Rockets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jan 87 05:04:59 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > - you miscalculate the stability of an orbit and it starts to decay? So avoid orbits subject to serious decay. Skylab was not a case of an orbit suddenly "starting to decay", it was a case of miscalculating the rate of decay by a relatively modest amount. (Nobody thought Skylab would stay up to the year 2000 unaided -- a reboost by the Shuttle was in the plans from the very beginning, and would have happened had the Shuttle been funded well enough to stay on schedule.) Besides, as many people have pointed out, satellites falling out of orbit are not a symptom of an active space program, they are a symptom of a half-paralyzed space program. If the thing's orbit starts to decay, you don't sit around wringing your hands in anguish, you go up and reboost it. > - your solid boosters fail on launch and start rocketing the > payload toward (say) Miami? What do you do about the > contaminated areas of Florida when the RSO destroys the launch > vehicle? Let us not let our paranoia run away with us. As the man pointed out, a nuclear reactor is not particularly hazardous before it starts operation. The Soviets have lost *at least* one nuclear reactor into the ocean due to launch failures in their radar-satellite program; no serious damage done. If you're feeling fussy, insist that the reactor use uranium rather than plutonium, although it probably would anyway. A manageable problem. > - some part in the ion engines or the guidance system fails and > starts the reactor heading toward impact in New York or Moscow? Since it will take several months to get there in the sort of orbits an ion-propelled spacecraft can fly, you go up and fix it long before it gets far off course. > Let's face it, nuclear fission is dangerous. Moving it into space > isn't a cure-all. Let's face it, everything is dangerous, and just how much depends on what assumptions you make. If you make silly assumptions, you get silly answers. The idea does not strike me as particular wonderful, but it's not obviously ridiculous either. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jan 87 20:03:54 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: How many shuttles can orbit at once? (and more) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov >From: cdaf@iuvax.UUCP (Charles Daffinger) >Date: 18 Jan 87 22:28:20 GMT > >Should the need arise, either for rescue or for convenience of a >hypothetical mission, is NASA capable of tracking and maintaining two >or more shuttles in orbit at the same time? >-charles I checked all (over 50) articles for a followup (none)-- geez folks... At this time no. 1st, the major constraint is that LH2 stores at Kennedy are only enough for a single launch. This assumes you do not do something radical like use VAFB on a rescue mission. It takes about a week to replenish them. We did have two Gemini missions up in the 60s when there were more tracking stations (something like 22), but now there are less. This placed a big strain on facilities designed for one mission. This needs to change for the future. Anything can go (given time). On a different note. We held the first NASA Unix Users Group (I thought of a name: NUDGE) meeting at Usenix over two evening, talk about bureaucratic... Anyway, you will be able to seen other NASA people answer questions like this [refreshing] in the future. It's been about 8 years of pushing to get it out of the dark ages of computing. I've received two complaints (quite a contrast) in recent days about postings. Just to keep you informed. Again, please people, reply using mail rather than follow ups. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 87 04:54:03 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Considering the obvious potential here, I wonder why yet another > federal study is needed for this thing. If there is as much money > to be made in space as people like Heppenheimer claim, then why > isn't some venture capitalist sinking some bucks into the thing? > NASA obviously isn't interested, since the technology is too far > away from the conventional. Can you say "risk and uncertainty"? Sure you can. Especially when the time comes to ask for independent expert advice about the feasibility of the idea. Who does a venture capitalist ask about the feasibility of space-launch ideas? You guessed it: NASA. That nasty little problem is one that a lot of commercial-space-launch types are facing nowadays. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jan 87 16:56:05 GMT From: necntc!adelie!mirror!cca!lmi-angel!wsr@husc6.harvard.edu (Wolfgang Rupprecht) Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <> andrew@cadomin.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) writes: >There's one interesting quote in the article, made by the pilot of the >flight that set the World Absolute Closed Circuit Speed Record over a >1000 km course (2092 mph) : "The airplane flies best at maximum speed, >and doesn't seem to be really happy at any speed under Mach 3.0. >Because of the way the inlet system is designed, after accelerating >past Mach 3.0, it just wants to keep on accelerating, so the pilot has >to continually reduce power and climb to maintain his programmed >speed." >I'd really like to see the *classified* performance stats on this >plane. They are probably truly impressive. 120,000 feet and Mach 5.0 >anyone? I've always wondered if you could get get a rough idea of its top speed by measuring the angle on the intake cones on the engines. One would assume that they would be designed for best efficiency at max speed. Now, I'm not sure about the angle that would really be picked for best efficiency, but I assume that you would want the shock wave to propagate outward at the same rate that the cone gets larger at. Ie. Vsound / Vplane = tangent (cone_half_angle) Does anyone with real aero knowledge know if this analysis works? Wolfgang Rupprecht {harvard|decvax!cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!wsr ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 87 16:27:43 GMT From: columbia!lexington.columbia.edu!polish@seismo.css.gov (Nathaniel Polish) Subject: Re: nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov wr0m#@andrew.cmu.edu (Walter Henry Roscello) writes: > In Gary Allen's post on this subject, he mentioned that the >space fission plants could be aimed at Mars or Venus when they are >useless. Does anyone have any reasons not to send them to the sun? >Surely it can take care of vaporizing anything we send there, and >compared to it's mass, I can't see how we could do it any harm. >Certainly it is better than littering the landscape of other planets. >Walter Roscello >Carnegie Mellon University >wr0m#@andrew.cmu.edu Sending things to the Sun is in fact much harder than you might think. A ballistic trajectory from the Earth to the Sun requires an enormous amount of energy. Remember that you have to counter the orbital momentum of the Earth before the garbage will fall to the Sun. Since there is almost no friction the orbit will not decay. If you just reduce the orbital momentum a little, the garbage will settle into a lower orbit. Mars and Earth have similar orbital momenta so it is a bit easier to get there. Actually deep space disposal of garbage strikes me as a very bad idea. Infinite garbage cans are as much a myth in space as on Earth. Nat Polish@columbia.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 87 21:16:53 GMT From: dayton!umn-cs!stolaf!swansonc@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Christopher D. Swanson) Subject: mars mission Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Just to bring it to everybody's attention, NASA is trying to cancel the 1990 mars observer mission. This mission was was approved by Congress more than two years ago. This is the second time that NASA has tried to cancel this mission. The observer mission is America's only planned mission to Mars. It is also the only real mission we have commited to the joint Soviet-American space information sharing agreement. If NASA postpones this operation it will cost an additional $100 million. This mission can be launched either from an orbiter or from a Titan 3, so the problems with the shuttle could not be the reason. The Planetary Society sugests that letters should be sent to Congress as well as NASA. Chris Swanson Academic Computer Center, inhp4!stolaf!swansonc St. Olaf College, Northfield MN, 55057 ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 87 08:51:21 GMT From: news@csvax.caltech.edu (Usenet netnews) Subject: Re: mars mission Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <22@stolaf.UUCP> swansonc@stolaf.UUCP (Christopher D. Swanson) writes: > > Just to bring it to everybody's attention, NASA is trying to >cancel the 1990 mars observer mission. This mission was was approved >by Congress more than two years ago. This is the second time that NASA >has tried to cancel this mission. ... > This mission can be launched either from an orbiter or from a >Titan 3, so the problems with the shuttle could not be the reason. > The Planetary Society sugests that letters should be sent to >Congress as well as NASA. In fact, problems with the shuttle CAN be the reason. Where is the Titan/(Centaur, IUS) we're supposed to launch MO with? Equally, where's the money to pay for it? Certainly not in the planetary budget. There are a limited number of planetary & scientific launch slots in the 89-90 time frame. This is a combination of infrequent launch windows and the few shuttle flights being dominated by catching up on the military manifest. So what do we slip instead? Galileo - by 1989, 7 years past the original launch date, with RTG decay becoming a serious concern. Especially when added to the 6 year (aack, how disgusting) VEEGA trajectory now planned. Ulysses - also way overdue, and slipping it further is a fine way to antagonize ESA. Especially after we backed out of our half of the mission. ST - perhaps a case could be made for trading an ST launch with MO. But the scientific return from ST seems to be far greater to me, and starts soon after launch. And it should have been up by now also. Magellan - this project started before MO and so should get priority. Unless you're a Mars fanatic like Sagan. Fairness seems to dictate MO slips. Sadness. Perhaps a Proton launch could be arranged, however. The Soviets seem eager to sell us launch services, and it would certainly add a new aspect to the agreement (we build 'em - you launch 'em). Not that I think this is a good idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Planetary Society comes out in favor of it. Sure, it would be nice to bump a military payload. But it is NOT going to happen. Now, a type of lobbying that might really pay off is to convince Reagan and/or Congress to go along with Fletcher's request to keep NASA funding at the current level (inflated for shuttle recovery). Another productive avenue is to push for adoption of the Commercial Space Incentives Act (see Stine's column in the current Analog), so the NEXT time shuttle is down, we aren't confronted with a lack of launch vehicles. Just my opinions. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 87 03:15:56 GMT From: tektronix!orca!brucec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Cohen) Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <823@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes: > >The problem is that you need (I presume?) a reentry vehicle, which >means that you multiply that mass figure by a factor of 100 or more. >$10K one way, but $1M if you want the round trip. I don't see why the rentry vehicle needs to be so expensive. First, reuse the capsule you went up in. It needs to carry a heat shield for rentry and a parachute, and perhaps spring-loaded legs for landing on hard ground. Remember that Russian spacecraft have been landing on solid ground for decades. Get the rentry burn and the guidance the same way you went up also: refuel the capsule (you won't need as much fuel going down, the Earth loves you and wants to bring you closer), and aim the laser on the ground at the spacecraft. This obviously works in LEO, since your perigee isn't much higher than the altitude you had at thrust cutoff, and you can be in sight of the laser at perigee if you time things right. If you want to come down from a higher orbit, you may have to have someone give you a push to enter a low-perigee transfer ellipse which brings you within range of the laser. Come to think of it, you might be able to land under thrust at the laser site, rather than by parachute. It looks to me like the round trip might cost four or five times the one-way, but hardly 100 times. The biggest expense is probably the heat-shield, if it is a one-time-use item. By the way, the problem of being within line-of-sight of the laser for rentry and return guidance is a good argument for having more than one laser installation at widely separated locations. Bruce Cohen tektronix!orca!brucec M/S 61-028, Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR 97070 (503) 685-2439 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #126 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21156; Fri, 6 Feb 87 03:02:51 PST id AA21156; Fri, 6 Feb 87 03:02:51 PST Date: Fri, 6 Feb 87 03:02:51 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702061102.AA21156@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #127 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 127 Today's Topics: Fast shuttle launch Keith Lynch'es economic arguments Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Re: nuclear fission in space government coverups of UFOs Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Re: Laser Launched Rockets Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Re: government coverups of UFOs Re: mars mission ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jan 87 19:43:45 GMT From: cas@cvl.umd.edu (Dr. Cliff Shaffer) Subject: Fast shuttle launch Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov OK, while we are speculating about NASA's capabilities in an emergency, try this one. Suppose the Russians stranded a crew in space, or all our spy satellites went blinko, or perhaps The Comet is coming our way (or whatever emergency scenario you like). How long would it take to get a shuttle into space, starting today, if no expense or risk were spared? Cliff Shaffer ...!cvl!cas cas@cvl.umd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 87 13:03:46 pst From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum) To: ucdavis!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Keith Lynch'es economic arguments I have just finished reading Keith's response to Robert Mass, and would like to add one economic point, and a comment: First, regarding pollution and its control, and the related issue of conservation of resources - it is relatively easy to show that the assignment of property rights and a cost to pollution will result in the "best" control of pollution. (Best meaning the most efficient attainment of a given total pollution level...) The place of the committee mentioned would be to assign the cost or price of pollution output (eg, 5$ per 3ppm of NOx...), and allow simple supply and demand theory to work (this leaves people with the decision to trade off the cost of producing pollution against their other desires - the more they pollute, the less they can afford of their other desires...) It has been tried in practice, and works very well - better in fact than most of the systems that we have in general use today... (If you are interested, send me mail direct with LOTS of return address information, and I will send you some references.) Next: Keith's arguments are made from a free market economic viewpoint. Is there anyone on the net who could make the same arguments from a Marxist economic system's viewpoint. (This is not a challenge - what I would like to know is is there a reason for a purely Marxist economy to invest in space {ie, what would the USSR - if purely Marxist and not in competition with the USA - do on its own?}) Eric Hildum Preferred: dehildum@ucdavis (BITNET) Otherwise: hildum%ucd@relay.cs.net ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 87 20:25:43 GMT From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ed Post) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov in article <822@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) says: % ... % A nitpick: I think it is incorrect to describe the Range Safety system % as well-proven. It failed badly in the Challenger accident. The boosters % were destroyed despite the fact that they were no threat to any land area. % This is an understandable failure, and should cause no great consternation, % but it is nevertheless a failure of the system. % % -- David desJardins If I remember the testimony in the Challenger accident report, the range safety officer let the solids fly until one of them started to turn back towards land. At that point he hit the big red button. There was some difficulty interpreting the radar information in real time. I'll have to go look it up again, and make sure I remember it correctly. -Ed Post -- Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp American Information Technology (408)252-8713 ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 87 20:40:26 GMT From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ed Post) Subject: Re: nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov in article , wr0m#@andrew.cmu.edu (Walter Henry Roscello) says: > > In Gary Allen's post on this subject, he mentioned that the space > fission plants could be aimed at Mars or Venus when they are useless. > Does anyone have any reasons not to send them to the sun? In order to send something directly into the sun, its orbital velocity has to be killed relative to the sun. If I remember correctly, earth's orbital velocity is on the order of 17 miles/sec. The satellite is presumably in a low earth orbit, at about 5 miles/sec relative to the earth. You would have to supply on the order of twice that delta-vee to stop the reactor in space and let it fall into the sun. On the other hand, a gravity-whip orbit past Venus or the moon might do the trick at considerably less energy. The rock bottom case is that you must supply enough energy to move from LEO out of the Earth's gravity well. This takes about 2 miles/sec delta-vee. That's an awful lot of propellant to sit around doing nothing while your reactor is working. -- Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp American Information Technology (408)252-8713 ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 87 18:19:59 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!rjp1@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Pietkivitch) Subject: government coverups of UFOs Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Are there any enlightened readers out there who can clarify the debate of why governments keep such a tight lid on the UFO phenonmenon? I remember hearing on the radio (several years back) that someone had discovered a crashed UFO (in the USA) and that alien bodies were recovered from it. This was on the national news and was not some trick or prank by the local DJ. Then just the other night, I heard someone from the Aetherius Society (sp?) (of Calif) in an interview on WLS radio, AM-89, talking about this same event and about UFOs in general. I didn't hear the entire discussion (sleep overtook me). Thus, the posting. You may E-mail your response, or post to sci.space. Thanks in advance. Bob Pietkivitch (..!ihnp4!ihlpa!rjp1) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 87 08:42:10 GMT From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <437@lewey.AIT.COM> evp@lewey.AIT.COM (Ed Post) writes: >If I remember the testimony in the Challenger accident report, the >range safety officer let the solids fly until one of them started to >turn back towards land. At that point he hit the big red button. >There was some difficulty interpreting the radar information in real >time. This last sentence is the key. Certainly no one could blame the RSO for his decision. He was placed in a situation where it was essentially impossible to analyze all of the incoming data in real time and, quite naturally, made the decision with small cost rather than the one with extremely large potential cost. Any of us would do the same. But the point, nevertheless, is that the system did *not* function optimally. Later analysis makes it seem almost certain that the SRBs were no threat to land, and certain that they could safely have been detonated at a substantially later time if they did indeed begin to pose a threat. Detonation was not the correct decision. The original posting claimed that systems which give one individual ultimate responsibility work best, and gave the RSS as an example. It should be obvious that the RSS is an example of acceptable performance, but certainly not one of optimal performance. Could the system work better? Obviously an expenditure on better real-time information gathering, analysis, and prediction would have *some* benefit. But it certainly is not clear that such an expenditure is justified. I doubt that it is unless such a system would be useful in other ways (which seems possible). -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 87 19:54:55 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > >You betcha. Look at it this way -- assuming the accelerations are > >not too grossly prohibitive, $100/kg means it costs about $10,000 to > >put *me* into orbit with a bit of support gear. Load up my Visa, > >Mastercard, and personal line of credit and clean out my chequing > >account, and I have enough. Tomorrow. > > The problem is that you need (I presume?) a reentry vehicle, which > means that you multiply that mass figure by a factor of 100 or more. > $10K one way, but $1M if you want the round trip. I do need a reentry vehicle, but that does not mean multiplying the mass figure by a factor of 100 or more. Why should a reentry vehicle weigh ten tons? Look at some of the proposals for one-man space-rescue systems -- they weigh less than the occupant. All you really need is a few centimeters of heat-shield, retrorockets, and some bits of guidance, life support, and parachutes. I was assuming a multi-person vehicle in which some of the weight could be amortized over several passengers, too. I should probably have assumed, say, 100% overhead rather than the much smaller percentage I used; that means circa $20K and I have to save up a bit rather than being able to go yesterday. Grr. But I could manage it. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 87 19:40:02 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > A nitpick: I think it is incorrect to describe the Range Safety system > as well-proven. It failed badly in the Challenger accident. The > boosters were destroyed despite the fact that they were no threat to > any land area. This is an understandable failure, and should cause no > great consternation, but it is nevertheless a failure of the system. I fear I must disagree. The purpose of the Range Safety system is safety, not preservation of hardware. This DEMANDS that doubtful situations be resolved in favor of destruction, and that in turn implies that once in a while there will be an unnecessary destruct command. This is an inherent consequence of the system, not a failure in it. It is regrettable that it happened in a case where it would have been useful to have the boosters intact, but the system functioned properly (although over-conservatively, in hindsight) and did not fail. One thing Stine cited as a key feature of the RS system is that the Safety Officer's decision is FINAL and he cannot be disciplined for pushing the button under circumstances where later analysis shows it was unnecessary. (Or under circumstances where it offends people. Stine cites a case where, as Range Safety Officer at White Sands, he told an important and powerful scientist that high-altitude winds made a sounding-rocket launch unsafe. The scientist said he was running out of time and budget, and the launch would proceed. Stine said he would push the button the instant the rocket cleared the tower. The scientist launched anyway. Bang.) (The point to the story is that this did NOT require great courage on his part, since as the Safety Officer, he was immune to repercussions.) Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 87 06:34:46 GMT From: jade!ruby.berkeley.edu!jelkind@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (The Vermicious Knidd) Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <2799@ihlpa.UUCP> rjp1@ihlpa.UUCP (Pietkivitch) writes: >Are there any enlightened readers out there who can clarify the debate >of why governments keep such a tight lid on the UFO phenonmenon? >Bob Pietkivitch (..!ihnp4!ihlpa!rjp1) It's mind control, mostly. Although one of the tabloids (I think the "Weekly World News") has managed to break the story that the aliens have in fact already invaded, none of the invading aliens mind too much since no one REALLY believes what they read in the Weekly World News anyway. But the aliens have been keeping most of the world's major leaders under tight mind control so that they quash, deny, or cover up any of the evidence that the aliens are here. Actually, many of the world's leaders ARE aliens from outer space and just use their mind-control powers to make their populaces believe that there are no aliens. You may be wondering why I'm telling you this and how I know it. Well, since we'll be taking over next week anyway, I figured the readers of the net might as well be the first to know. "The Vermicious Knidd" (Actually D'thomas from the planet absorbitron) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 87 08:51:01 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: mars mission Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov >swansonc@stolaf.UUCP (Christopher D. Swanson) > >Just to bring it to everybody's attention, NASA is trying to cancel the >1990 mars observer mission. This mission was was approved by Congress >more than two years ago. This is the second time that NASA has tried >to cancel this mission. Chris Swanson No, NASA as a whole is not trying to cancel this mission. Maybe certain elements in NASA are trying to get it deferred. On a more philosophical level, I side with unmanned planetary missions {I realize the role of man in space: because we need the bucks}, but we get more real science from unmanned missions . THE POINT is there are many supporters of a Mars Orbiter mission in NASA. DO WRITE LETTERS, but not just to NASA: this will mostly fall onto the ears of the converted. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #127 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22873; Sat, 7 Feb 87 03:02:18 PST id AA22873; Sat, 7 Feb 87 03:02:18 PST Date: Sat, 7 Feb 87 03:02:18 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702071102.AA22873@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #128 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 7 Feb 87 03:02:18 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #128 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 128 Today's Topics: Apollo only left a few rocks behind! Re: mars mission Laser Launched Rockets TAU In defense of Chuck Yeager Re: Nuclear engines Re: mars mission Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info) Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST SR71 info ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 87 12:17:04 PST From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu To: ucbvax!s1-b.arpa!SPACE Subject: Apollo only left a few rocks behind! > So far, government has given us the Apollo program, which has left us > no worthwhile technology, no space infrastructure, no launch system, > and has served mainly to "prove" to people that space exploration > costs billions of dollars and produces nothing but a few common rocks > similar to those found on Earth and some pretty pictures that > Hollywood could have done better. The experience gained in the Apollo project has had many direct and indirect benefits. The hydrogen/oxygen engine technology from Apollo has led us to the current Space Shuttle Main Engine, a high-effeciency reusable engine. Some of the subsystems on Apollo (life support, fuel cells, etc) have also carried over in an improved form in the Shuttle. Apollo technology made Skylab possible, gaining us valuable experience in space station design and operations. It also allowed us to participate in the Apollo-Soyuz flight. The infrastucture left behind by Apollo was on the ground: the many facilities of the contractors and NASA centers, and the two main space centers, Johnson and Kennedy. In particular, the VAB and the Pad 39 complex are still very much in use. The knowledge gained by Apollo about the moon has taken many years to analyze, and has only recently began to affect current theory. The direct benefits of this knowledge may not be seen for many more years. The indirect benefits from the space program during the Apollo years can be found in the many issues of NASA Spinoffs, which detail the industrial, medical and scientific uses of Apollo technology. I agree in part with the above opinion of the Apollo project as a whole, which seemed to be a dead end in space development. The last three Apollo moon flights were cancelled, and many of the more ambitious plans after Apollo were ignored. If we still had the industrial base to produce Saturn-class boosters, I'm sure they would come in handy right now. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 87 18:25:07 GMT From: pyramid!amdahl!drivax!holloway@decwrl.dec.com (Bruce Holloway) Subject: Re: mars mission Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <1614@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@oddhack.UUCP (Jon Leech) writes: # Fairness seems to dictate MO slips. Sadness. Perhaps #a Proton launch could be arranged, however. The Soviets seem eager to #sell us launch services, and it would certainly add a new aspect to the #agreement (we build 'em - you launch 'em). Not that I think this is a #good idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Planetary Society comes #out in favor of it. I'd go for it. Not much chance of military missions being sent up via other space agencies, so our scientific packages would get up on some reasonable schedule. Just because we don't have a working space program doesn't mean everything has to just up and stop, right? ....!ucbvax!hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 87 06:19:26 GMT From: decvax!linus!axiom!adelie!necntc!cullvax!drw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dale Worley) Subject: Laser Launched Rockets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > o How do you persuade the existing space establishment to spend time and > > energy, let alone money, on something radically different from the > > standard technology? ... > > Multibillion-dollar > investments are not beyond private industry -- Boeing spent two billion > on the 757/767 development without even needing to take out a loan! General Dynamics (I believe) was going to build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarine LNG carriers to take LNG from the Alaska North Slope to Northern Europe (over the pole). The price tag was supposed to be around $30G, which they seemed to have no doubt that they could raise. The whole thing was canned when the price of oil went way down. Figure out how to turn a profit in space and things should really start to move! Dale -- Dale Worley Cullinet Software UUCP: ...!seismo!harvard!mit-eddie!cullvax!drw ARPA: cullvax!drw@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 87 01:52:38 GMT From: imagen!auspyr!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Rickel) Subject: TAU Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I saw something in the paper today about a probe planned to be launched around 2005, intended to cruise out to about 1000 AU to get a good baseline for parallax measurement. The article made it sound as if the expected cruise time would be in the scores of years range. This is a nifty idea, but there are aspects about it that bother me. The main problem is that it is likely that, while the probe is still heading out to its operational distance, a more effective drive will be developed--say something along the lines of a portable fusion plant. The probe could be obsolete before it ever gets used (well, maybe not obsolete, but fusion ought to give us exhaust velocities on the order of 10%c--it shouldn't be too difficult to make a probe that would hit 1%c. That would cut the transit time down to two years or so. So you get the situation that if you wait for a few more years to build the probe, you get your data back sooner). On the other hand, postponing something like this isn't really a good idea--if we decide to wait a few more years until interplanetary drive systems become a bit more mature, we might end up waiting indefinately to launch the device (especially if congress gets the idea that postponing the implementation of an expensive project is good--that it will get better data back sooner. That sounds to me like a good recipe for getting the space research budget axed altogether). david rickel cae780!weitek!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 87 23:04:52 GMT From: pesnta!valid!jao@hplabs.hp.com (John Oswalt) Subject: In defense of Chuck Yeager Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov re: > (not an exact quote): "What's so great about it? It's like adding extra > fuel tanks to a plane." Chuck Yeager is not the type to say "Gosh gee golly-willickers! Wow, that was really something!". He as always been one to belittle accomplishments. Break the sound barrier? "Ah, shucks," says Chuck, "'twernt nothin'". The point is that just because he said "What's so great about it?" doesn't mean that he didn't think it was great, it's just that saying so isn't his style. Now, the reason he has received so much flack from his comments is that, since the movie "The Right Stuff", he has become too famous for his own good. Maybe it's gone to his head and he's less self- depredating than he used to be. Its certainly gone to his agent's head. Famous people are envied, and envied people cannot get away with belittling others. But honestly, I think that General Yeager's comments were just the old country boy showing through. He knows the technical problems overcome by Voyager better than most people, and can appreciate what a feat it was. His sin is just a lack of PR-savvy. Fortunately for him, he never cared much about what the public thought about him, and I doubt he's missing any sleep because of this incident. -- John Oswalt (..!amdcad!amd!pesnta!valid!jao) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 1987 13:18-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Nuclear engines In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Thu, 29 Jan 87 03:16:44 PST For those interested in nuclear powered anything, please read the article about Dr. Moglich in this month's OMNI. Fascinating. And absolutely clean. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 87 22:27:17 GMT From: elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!chas2!carlos@csvax.caltech.edu (Carlos Carrion) Subject: Re: mars mission Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <22@stolaf.UUCP> swansonc@stolaf.UUCP (Christopher D. Swanson) writes: > Just to bring it to everybody's attention, NASA is trying to cancel >the 1990 mars observer mission... Almost right. NASA is proposing to POSTPONE the launch date from 1990 to 1992. The Mars Observer Project Science Group (those responsible for assuring the greatest science return from the mission) is very much opposed to it. They will make their opinions known, no doubt. But unfortunately, it looks gloomy for a 1990 launch. I suppose letters to NASA and Congress couldn't hurt. Public opinion can be very powerful. ---> ...cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!chas2!carlos Carlos Carrion Mars Observer Project Jet Propulsion Laboratory MS 233/208, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 87 23:35:19 GMT From: hpda!hpihoah!hpisof0!campbelr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Campbell) Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov You could not tell the top speed from the cones angle. The spikes move in and out to adjust the shock at different speeds. If you knew the cones maximum displacement it would make for an interesting calculation. Also the top speed may not have much meaning. The SR-71 was built to cruise at about mach 3. While I am sure it can go faster, it would be less efficient and not be able go as far or long. In my aero/astro classes at Purdue there was a visitor from the Skunkworks (Lockheed) who was asked how fast it *really* was . . . Q: Will it go mach 4? A: I'm sorry, that information is classified. Q: Mach 5? A: I can't say. Q: Mach 6? A: I cannot discuss classified information. Q: Mach 8? A: I'm sorry . . . Q: Mach ten??? A: Son, nothing goes mach ten . . . I think for it to go much past 5 it would have to be very high and probably glide back. But then I majored in propulsion and only got a B in aerodynamics. As for the story, my brother was the original teller. I have had similar 20 question conversations with several of my friends now in the land of government contractors. I tried to get it out of one of my professors but the guy kept drinking me under the table :-) Bob Campbell Hewlett (real world) Packard hplabs!hpdsd!campbelr ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 87 17:04:40 GMT From: decvax!wanginst!vilot@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Michael Vilot) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov (see also Henry Spencer's reply) In article <838@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes: >In article <437@lewey.AIT.COM> evp@lewey.AIT.COM (Ed Post) writes: >>If I remember the testimony in the Challenger accident report, the range >>safety officer let the solids fly until one of them started to turn >>back towards land. At that point he hit the big red button. There >>was some difficulty interpreting the radar information in real time. > > This last sentence is the key. Certainly no one could blame the RSO >for his decision. He was placed in a situation where it was essentially >impossible to analyze all of the incoming data in real time and, quite >naturally, made the decision with small cost rather than the one with >extremely large potential cost. Any of us would do the same. Alas, "any of us" do not have the training and experience of the Range Safety people. If we did, we'd realize that we'd make the same decision, but for a reason different than the one you imply. > But the point, nevertheless, is that the system did *not* function >optimally. Later analysis makes it seem almost certain that the SRBs >were no threat to land, and certain that they could safely have been >detonated at a substantially later time if they did indeed begin to >pose a threat. Detonation was not the correct decision. Actually, you've missed the point. Range Safety decisons are highly constrained. As part of the mission planning process, the agencies involved in the launch specfy the tolerances for deviations from the flight path quite unambiguously. If, for any reason, the vehicle departs from that envelope, the RSO must destroy the vehicle. Obviously, manned vehicles are given extensive consideration in their planning. The Range Safety people I had occasion to work with at ESMC were all experienced, mature individuals. They do not make their decisons hastily, nor (as Mr. Des Jardins implies) from a lack of information. Yes, they are conservative. They need to be. Michael J. Vilot ...!decvax!wanginst!vilot (UUCP) Wang Institute of Graduate Studies vilot%wanginst@CSNet-Relay (CSNet) Tyng Road, Tyngsboro, MA 01879 MVilot@ADA20 (ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 87 21:06:02 GMT From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!wb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: SR71 info Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > the Mach 5.0. It is known, however, that at least 150 attempts to > shoot it down have been unsuccessful. I am led to believe that part of the > trick is simply out-running the SAM. > > --Craig Another big part of the "trick" is just that, a trick. I remember reading of a incident in Asia (Korea?) where an SR71 was shot at. Several news reports indicated that the SR71 defence was to use electronic- counter-measures (ECM). Signals were returned to the missile to lead it several miles away from the real target. In effect the missile flew into an electronic image. Werner B. @ AT&T ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #128 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25193; Sun, 8 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST id AA25193; Sun, 8 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST Date: Sun, 8 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702081102.AA25193@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #129 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 8 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #129 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 129 Today's Topics: Re: ufo show References on laser-launched rockets - summary of replies Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Book: IN ADVANCE OF THE LANDING Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists Re: government coverups of UFOs Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Shuttle question Info request Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Re: Apollo only left a few rocks behind! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jan 87 18:25:48 GMT From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!joels@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Joel Swank) Subject: Re: ufo show Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In the past few weeks on The Discovery Channel I saw a program called 'The Cosmic Conspiracy'. It was about UFO sitings in general and had a section on the reported UFO crash in the Southwestern US. (I can't remember the exact location, wish I had recorded it.) They had interviews with people who were at the crash site. They said that the wreckage was spread over miles. The gave descriptions of the wreckage and the bodies of aliens that were recovered. They also had info on other encounters and presented a good case for a government coverup. They also indicated that the coverup was international in scope. The most convincing evidence is the 'Freedom of information act' papers that can be obtained on project Blue Book. It is convincing in its sparsity. They claim that all the information that exists is about 8 pages per year for the project. It is, of course, ridiculous that a 20 year government project could only generate 8 pages of paper per year. The are definitely hiding something. As for the reason for a coverup, they didn't give any. I suspect that the main reason is that this revelation would destroy the religious beliefs of many people, resulting in worldwide chaos. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 87 23:09:58 GMT From: tektronix!orca!brucec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Cohen) Subject: References on laser-launched rockets - summary of replies Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I promised in my initial article on this subject that I would summarize replies to my query about literature on the subject, so herewith I redeem my promise: ... Leik Myrabo and Dean Ing's book "The Future of Flight" is a good reference for more information on laser propulsion. I just got it, unfortunately, it is in a "popular science" style which seems targeted for an 8th grade audience, but the bibliography in the back is quite extensive and refers to a number of more technical sources (include a few which are classified). ... 1. Astronautics and Aeronautics May 1972 2. Progress in Astro. and Aero. v 61. Article by D.H. Douglas Hamilton et al. There was a workshop last summer on L.P. at Livermore. Proceedings will be published shortly .Contact Dr. Jordin Kare at LLNL, Box 808 Livermore CA 94550. ... Bruce Cohen tektronix!orca!brucec M/S 61-028, Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR 97070 (503) 685-2439 ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 87 05:59:57 GMT From: faline!ka9q!karn@bellcore.com (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > ... Who wants > to put [their payload] on the first Titan 4...?" AMSAT (the amateur radio satellite folks) would be MORE than happy to accept payload space on the first Titan 4, as we probably would on any vehicle with more than a single-digit probability of reaching orbit. People simply have no idea how valuable payload space is on a launcher, even a test flight with a higher-than-average probability of failure. Launch agencies NEVER have problems finding takers for free slots on test launches, as there are plenty of organizations (like us) who simply cannot afford to pay for the true cost of a launch. Yes, you dump a few in the drink (like Ariane L-02) but in the long run the gamble is more than worth it. There is simply no choice. The Japanese launched their first amateur satellite on the first flight of the new H-1 launcher. It worked perfectly. We're flying for a third time on Ariane, this time on the very first test flight of the Ariane 4. I don't worry about this one that much; I've learned to worry much more about the SECOND flight of a new launcher. But at least it's just money and hardware at risk, not human lives. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 87 10:39:54 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI To: sf-lovers@RUTGERS.RUTGERS.EDU, space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Book: IN ADVANCE OF THE LANDING I thought this book, which I just got from the St. Louis Public Library, might be of interest to both the SF-L and SPACE readership. IN ADVANCE OF THE LANDING: Folk Concepts of Outer Space, by Douglas Curran (Abbeville Press, New York, 1985, ISBN 0-89659-523-4, paperback, [price obscured by library sticker], large format [9" X 10"]) This is a pictorial and verbal look through the UFOlogists, saucerians, New Age and suchlike underground of North America. It includes a large number of interesting pictures of architectural spacecraft (houses and stores built to resemble flying saucers, rocket ships mounted on gas stations, etc.) and some interviews with and descriptions of people who claim to have been contacted by, travelled with, or be psychically attuned with aliens from outer space. My personal favorite is John Shepherd of Bellaire, Mich., who has turned his grandparents' small cottage into a lab filled with racks of electronic equipment designed to detect and contact UFOs: "Grandpa Lamb used to grumble at the growing incursion of paraphernalia into the living room. Eventually, he and Mrs. Lamb were left with only a small settee scrunched into a corner between whole walls taken up with John's consoles and oscilloscopes. Grandpa Lamb died two years ago. Now John and his grandmother make a good team. Together they built an addition on the house to allow space for John's burgeoning equipment and put a rocking chair in the living room for Mrs. Lamb." There's a nice picture of John amongst his gear; now THAT's my idea of high-class interior decoration! :-) Anyway, if you've ever wondered about the people who build flying saucers in their basements under the direction of mysterious voices, or those who claim to be the reincarnation of galactic emperors from the Orion Nebula, or who just think it is a neat thing to have a forty-foot sheet-metal rocket as a front-lawn decoration, this is a good introduction to the field. Did you know, for example, that the official community Bicentennial project of Lake City, Pennsylvania, was to build a UFO Landing Port, equipped with radio homing beacons and a fibreglass decoy saucer? Or that St. Paul, Alberta, built the world's first UFO landing pad, the territory underneath it being declared to be "international" and open to all visitors "from Earth or otherwise"? Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 87 12:04:55 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET Subject: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists I would like to raise a point that has been causing me some concern. It is possible that the Space Program may soon be the focus of opposition by anti-technology activists. A friend of mine (Bruce Hitson) recently informed me that during a visit he made to Cape Canaveral, he observed very tight security due to a political demonstration. The political demonstration was against a Titan-2 launch. Bruce was uncertain of his facts but believed that the demonstrators were primarily "Green Peace" people protesting an SDI related mission. Though I am very sympathetic to the cause of environmentalism, I've always thought that the Green Peace people were a pack of idiots. Also, while I'm **not** a supporter of SDI, I am strongly against political demonstrations or any other sort of political activity occuring at KSC during a launch. However what has got me spooked is since the anti-technology groups have more-or-less successfully driven a stake through the heart of the nuclear industry, they may be looking for a new high technology target to protest against. I know that the left-wing, "environmentalist" people in West Germany are violently opposed to the American Space Program, partialy because of the SDI connection, but mainly due to simple blind hatred against high technology. There must be active environmentalists subscribing to Space Digest. Question for one of these people: Has the Space Program been targeted by environmentalist radicals for political opposition? If so, what organizations are they employing to promote this opposition to the Space Program. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 87 03:53:53 GMT From: faline!ka9q!karn@bellcore.com (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Are there any enlightened readers out there who can clarify the debate > of why governments keep such a tight lid on the UFO phenonmenon? Basically, the reason why you think you see a "tight lid" on the "UFO phenomenon" is because there isn't any information to suppress in the first place. After the leaks of such things as the Iranian arms deal, do you REALLY think that something as spectacular as the military keeping an alien on ice could be kept this quiet this long? Use Occam's razor and a healthy dose of common sense, and get a subscription to the Skeptical Inquirer. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 87 17:07:52 GMT From: faline!ka9q!karn@bellcore.com (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov It's not clear that the firing of the range safety system after the Challenger explosion was the wrong thing to do even from the standpoint of preserving evidence for the investigation. Remember that the SRBs still had almost a minute of propellant left after the explosion, and this propellant was continuing to burn through the case of the right hand SRB. Firing the range safety system terminated the motor's burn without blowing the booster into tiny bits. The other night PBS Frontline showed some footage I don't remember seeing before that included what must have been the firing of the range safety system. As the boosters flew on there was a small puff of smoke around each one and their plumes stopped. There was no big fireball or debris cloud, so the boosters probably stayed more or less intact until they hit the water. I suspect fewer of the "smoking gun" pieces of the SRB would have been recovered if the boosters had been allowed to burn themselves out. Remember they were also heading for deep water at the time. Evidence preservation wasn't the range safety officer's primary concern. He was trained to push the button under certain circumstances. He did exactly what he was supposed to do given incomplete information and very little time. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri 30 Jan 87 12:55:47-PST From: John Sotos Subject: Shuttle question To: space@angband.s1.gov How many shuttles can orbit at once? ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 87 17:17:14 GMT From: milano!wex@im4u.utexas.edu Subject: Info request Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8701282017.AA24637@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, dcn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU@ihlpm.UUCP writes: > The indirect benefits from the space program during the Apollo years > can be found in the many issues of NASA Spinoffs, which detail the > industrial, medical and scientific uses of Apollo technology. Pardon my ignorance. Could someone tell me where one would write to request this publication? How about an index of past issues? Cost? Is it available electronically? Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!sally!im4u!milano!wex ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 87 18:56:46 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > > ... Who wants > > to put [their payload] on the first Titan 4...?" > > AMSAT (the amateur radio satellite folks) would be MORE than happy to accept > payload space on the first Titan 4... Okay, revise the statement to "Which paying customer wants to put their payload on the first Titan 4...?". Agreed that payload space on semi- experimental launches is very attractive to groups like AMSAT, who can't afford to pay for it and value the launch opportunity more highly than a modest chance of losing their payload. But you won't find commercial customers who'd be happy about the first Titan 4, I'd bet, and I doubt very much that it'll be carrying Galileo or the Hubble telescope. Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 87 18:50:57 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Apollo only left a few rocks behind! Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > I agree in part with the above opinion of the Apollo project as a whole, > which seemed to be a dead end in space development. The last three Apollo > moon flights were cancelled, and many of the more ambitious plans after > Apollo were ignored. If we still had the industrial base to produce > Saturn-class boosters, I'm sure they would come in handy right now. Precisely: Apollo was a dead end because it was not allowed/funded to be anything more. The launch systems and some of the infrastructure were lost not because they were incapable of anything but brief lunar expeditions, but because nobody felt like paying for anything else. The long hiatus in US manned spaceflight after Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz was most assuredly not the idea of Apollo's planners. Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #129 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA27299; Mon, 9 Feb 87 03:03:10 PST id AA27299; Mon, 9 Feb 87 03:03:10 PST Date: Mon, 9 Feb 87 03:03:10 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702091103.AA27299@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #130 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 9 Feb 87 03:03:10 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #130 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 130 Today's Topics: Re: Shuttle/Station dependency Goals for the space program... Earth's Mass and Grav Const Re: ufo show Re: government coverups of UFOs Re: ufo show Re: 'Men' vs. 'Mankind' Re: Laser Launched Rockets Re: government coverups of UFOs Re: Goals for the space program... Re: TAU ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Jan 87 18:46:29 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Shuttle/Station dependency Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Does anyone know if NASA has contingency plans for a shuttle > loss during Space Station assembly or operations? ... There is serious talk about an escape craft for the Station. One problem is that it won't be cheap and the budget is already tight. > It would be a true disaster to get people up there and > have no way to get them BACK if shuttle was grounded again. I suppose > the Soviets could supply a ride home, however. If the grounding were a repeat of the current one, there would be no real problem flying an emergency mission to bring the Station crew down. The Shuttle is not incapable of flying right now, it is merely perceived as being excessively risky for routine missions until changes are made. (Not everyone thinks the lengthy grounding is fully justified, in fact. Chuck Yeager is reported to have resigned from the Rogers Commission with the comment "hell, just don't launch when it's cold".) > I've seen no sign whatsoever that NASA is considering exactly > what they'll do in the next (unavoidable) shuttle loss. Is this fear > of acknowledging the facts, even to themselves? Perhaps an assumption > that the implications are so bad they cannot plan for it happening? Probably an assumption that they can't get money to do anything about it. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 87 15:11:28 GMT From: decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!duktip@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Guerry Anderson Semones) Subject: Goals for the space program... Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov As we all know, it has been a year since the shuttle disaster that grounded our space program. Perhaps one of the most prevalent questions being asked is: Where to now? Obviously the U.S. must get space-born once more, but what then? The space station plans move onward and there is the push for (sigh...) SDI. These are here and now items being de- veloped (along with several exciting unmanned programs, etc.), but what should follow the space station? Moon-base? Mars-mission? Other? I would be interested in seeing what all of you out there feel about the future of the space program, its objectives and goals. If the space program is to survive and get on its feet once more, it must have an objective to capture the imagination of the nation. So, how about it? Your feelings?..... -G. Semones Duke University ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 87 14:09:41 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Subject: Earth's Mass and Grav Const Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I'm in the process of debugging a n-body simulation program and I've noticed that in both LEO satellites and in the orbital motion of the moon I end up with an error in orbital period of 1.4%. Specifically, as I decrease the integration time step the error term decreases to 1.4% and I can't seem to get it any better. (There seems to be a good solid convergence to this value and I don't think I'm getting round off errors at this point.) I'd like this simulation to be as good as I can make it, and I believe that potential sources for these errors are in the values I'm using for the mass of the Earth or for the universal gravitational constant. The present values were found in the 1968 CRC. What are the current best values for these terms? I need as many digits of accuracy as I can get. Thanks Fred Mendenhall ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 87 23:10:51 GMT From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu (Ethan Vishniac) Subject: Re: ufo show Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > As for the reason for a coverup, they didn't give any. I suspect > that the main reason is that this revelation would destroy the religious > beliefs of many people, resulting in worldwide chaos. Ridiculous! The real reason is that we've paid them off. Every government official who convincingly lies on our behalf gets a 3 week, all expenses paid, vacation to the slime pits of Aldebaran. Besides, the Church of the Sacred Bleeding Heart of Ubizmo need fear no rivals. Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU University of Texas ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 87 16:16:28 GMT From: jade!ruby.berkeley.edu!jelkind@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (The Absorbitron) Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8085@tekecs.TEK.COM> kendalla@blast.UUCP (Kendall Auel) writes: >Well, when I was captured and held by the aliens for a while, I found out >all about this supposed "cover-up" and "mind-control". The aliens are >actually very sensitive and very intelligent beings. Thank you. >When that ship crashed in the desert, they were embarrassed because they're >not supposed to have accidents like that. But they don't care much about >what humans know or don't know. Just like we don't spend time worrying about >what a hamster knows or doesn't know. >Kendall Auel The explanation for the 'ufo crash' I gave in an earlier posting. There's one thing that you all should realize: ever since we 'abducted' Kendall, he's been under our mind control too. Therefore, anything he says is suspect, since it is probably us sending out disinformation. The Absorbitron ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 87 16:09:47 GMT From: jade!ruby.berkeley.edu!jelkind@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (The Absorbitron) Subject: Re: ufo show Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <959@tekred.TEK.COM> joels@tekred.TEK.COM (Joel Swank) writes: > > In the past few weeks on The Discovery Channel I saw a program called >'The Cosmic Conspiracy'. It was about UFO sitings in general and had a >section on the reported UFO crash in the Southwestern US. . . . >They also had info on other encounters and presented a good case for a >government coverup. They also indicated that the coverup was international >in scope. . . . As for the reason for a coverup, they didn't give any. >I suspect that the main reason is that this revelation would destroy the >religious beliefs of many people, resulting in worldwide chaos. I've already told the members of the net who we are and how we caused the 'international ufo coverup' through our advanced mind control ability. That ufo crash, by the way, was due to a drunk driver. Too many beers, and not even Buck Rogers could pilot a go140. Hope you earthlings enjoy your last week of freedom! Oh, by the way. If I were any of you, I'd be REAL careful about which walnuts I eat in the near future. "The Absorbitron" ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 87 09:11:36 GMT From: jade!topaz.berkeley.edu!newton2@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: 'Men' vs. 'Mankind' Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Further to the "irksome and tiresome" discussion about "what free men [like jeanna yeager] can do": I presume many people (er, I mean "men", in the well-known all-inclusive sense), saw the PBS Frontline program "The Real Stuff", in which the 51F abort-to-orbit joyride was described, and the almost insignificant role of one Ginny(?) Howard in saving the mission, vehicle and crew was mentioned. Way to go, free men!! Hubba hubba!!! Doug (are we not men?) Maisel P.S. Sorry if this is too noiselike for the free men at Nasa Ames. Keep those free noses to the grindstone, guys... ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 87 01:21:35 GMT From: tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!gssc!jdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John D. Miller) Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov okay, so i'm a little naive in this area. tell me why a re-entry vehicle cannot slow down sufficiently while re-entering the earth's atmosphere so as to not generate such immense heat from friction. how slow would this be? it seems like i used to know the answer to this, but i've been out of school for a while and my brain's since been cluttered with other things... -- jdm ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 87 22:40:01 GMT From: pyramid!prls!philabs!sbcs!sbstaff2!pmt@decwrl.dec.com (Tromovitch Philip) Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I don't remember the source (it wan't the National Inquirer) but the story went something like this: Farmer sees UFO land, goes over, meets two(?) aliens, who, in an apparent gesture of friendship give him some waffers and then eat one themselves (to show it is food), then ... left. He sent a waffer to some laboratory and they said it was made up of blah blah blah (all healthy, better than 100% RDA :)). The Air Force investigated the sighting (I think it was spotted on radar as well) and they took a waffer to analyse. All this could be bunk (although the farmer seemed to be avoiding the press, not in it for that) but the good part is that when he called back the Air Force investegators, they said that yes they had analysed the waffer but no, they couldn't tell him the results. Why? Because it was clasified. Now if this was a normal (Nabisco) waffer would they clasify it? -- Philip Tromovitch CSNET:pmt@sbcs.csnet Dept. Computer Science ARPA: pmt%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa SUNY at Stony Brook UUCP: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax}!sbcs!pmt Stony Brook, NY 11794-4400 Tussman's Law : Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come. Disclaimer : My opinions belong to others as well as myself. (If only I could find where these people are!) ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 87 16:06:35 GMT From: puff!schumann@rsch.wisc.edu (Christopher Schumann) Subject: Re: Goals for the space program... Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <2614@ecsvax.UUCP>, duktip@ecsvax.UUCP (Guerry Anderson Semones) writes: > I would be interested in seeing what all of you out there feel about > the future of the space program, its objectives and goals. If the > space program is to survive and get on its feet once more, it must have > an objective to capture the imagination of the nation. So, how about > it? Your feelings?..... > -G. Semones > Duke University What else? A man on Mars. (Sorry, Person on Mars) Ok, how about manned flights around Mars. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 87 04:35:43 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andrew Folkins) Subject: Re: TAU Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <987@sci.UUCP> daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes: >I saw something in the paper today about a probe planned to be launched >around 2005, intended to cruise out to about 1000 AU to get a good >baseline for parallax measurement. The article made it sound as if >the expected cruise time would be in the scores of years range. > >david rickel >cae780!weitek!sci!daver Check out February's "Sky & Telescope", there's a short note on TAU. Basically, "the mission would last 50 years and venture beyond Pluto to the fringes of the Oort cloud". "The probe design calls for a low-thrust, ion propulsion system to reach the great distance in an acceptable amount of time. Some 25,000 pounds of frozen xenon fuel would be slowly ionized and expelled, gently nudging the craft to a top speed of 225,000 miles per hour after 10 years. Once the fuel was exhausted, some 6 billion miles from Earth [...], the propulsion system would be jettisoned, leaving the 11,000 pound probe to continue." The probe will have various magnetic field and plasma experiments to study the interstellar medium, as well as a 1.5 m telescope for astrometric studies. The 1000 AU baseline should give accurate distances to objects 1.5 million light years away. One question I have about this : "by sending TAU opposite to the direction of the solar system's direction of motion, the craft will escape the Sun's influence in the shortest possible time." Doesn't the Sun have the solar equivalent of a magnetic tail, and wouldn't the probe then be travelling straight down it? It makes more sense to send the probe at right angles to the direction of the Sun's motion. You don't get any extra delta v from the motion of the solar system, but the heliopause is closer. -- Andrew Folkins ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew 53 24' N, 113 30' W The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Arthur C. Clarke's Law : It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #130 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00562; Tue, 10 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST id AA00562; Tue, 10 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702101102.AA00562@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #131 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #131 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 131 Today's Topics: 6th Space Development Conference program information Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists Re: government coverups of UFOs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Feb 1987 16:58-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: "/usr/amon/Email/Email.space" Subject: 6th Space Development Conference program information The following information is now available to the public, based on confirmations from track chairman and bios and letters recieved from speakers. If you are reading this on a bulliten board, you may request a registration form by 1) calling 412-351-4973 (conference committee) 2) calling Forbes Travel Service; Nationally at 800-345-2984; locally at 412-521-7300. 3) US mailing to the 6th Space Development Conference, PO Box 8391, Pgh PA 15218-0391. 4) If you wish to risk the vagaries of return mail and the busy schedule of a conference chair, you may request a form by Email from amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Please note that the biggest name speakers have not (as is usual) confirmed yet, so I cannot publicly release those names. ===================================================================== Seminars and Main Events FRIDAY 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Education Tracks Basic Spaceflight Seminar The Making of Space Policy Funding and Governing Space Settlements Invitational Artists Workshop 2:00 pm - 5:00 pm Space Defense Seminar 6:30 pm - 7:30 pm Reception 7:30 pm - 8:30 pm Opening 9:00 pm - 11:00 pm Performance Showcase SATURDAY 7:00 am - 9:00 am Breakfast Board Meeting 9:00 am - 10:00 am Keynote address: "The Vision" 10:00 am - 12:00 pm Return to The Vision: Lunar Ores for Solar Power 12:00 pm - 1:30 pm NCOS Luncheon 1:30 pm - 3:30 pm Pioneering: Orbital Shacks to Space Colonies 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm Breakouts Science, Technology, Arts, Commerce, Nanotechnology, Politics 5:30pm - 9:00 pm Reception and Banquet SUNDAY 8:00 am - 9:00 am Nondenominational Memorial Service 9:00 am - 11:00 am Technology Breakout 10:00 am - 12:00 pm Breakouts Science, Arts, Commerce, Nanotechnology, Women, Chapters, Computers 12:00 pm - 1:30 pm Space Activists Luncheon 1:30 pm - 3:30 pm Our Mission: The Breakout Into Space Begins Today 3:30 pm - 4:00 pm Closing: Return to the Vision TOURS AND SPECIAL ACTIVITIES FRIDAY Greeting of "Shuttle" from Philadelphia 12:00 pm - 1:15 pm Educators' Luncheon 12:00 am - 7:00 pm Art Show 1:00 pm - 7:00 pm Exhibits Films 9:00 pm - 12:00 am TOUR: Allegheny Observatory 11:00 pm - ? Filk Singing SATURDAY 10:00 am - 5:00 pm Exhibits 9:00 am - 12:00 am Art Show 1:00 pm - 12:00 am films 3:00 pm - 6:00 pm TOUR: CMU Robotics and Computer Science 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm Global Village 10:00 pm - ? Filk Singing SUNDAY 10:00 am - 3:00 pm Exhibits Art Show films 4:00 pm - 7:00 pm L5 Fund Raiser 8:00 pm - 12:00 am Fund Raiser Training EDUCATION TRACKS is a set of three programs in which attendees - from kindergarten students to educators - participate based on their interests and expertise. At noon, educators may gather for an Educators' Luncheon. Topics cover Young Astronauts, Teaching Resources, and Space Education as Daily Instruction. Moderators and speakers include: - Pat Palazollo and Walter Tremer, Pennsylvania Teachers in Space - Dick Methia, Teacher in Space Top 10 Finalist - Tom Becker, Center for Aerospace Education Founder - Charles Walker, McDonnell Douglas astronaut - Amy Grubb, Young Astronaut representative to USSR BASIC SPACEFLIGHT PROFESSIONAL SEMINAR is offered for the first time ever to conference attendees. Upon completing the four-session course, participants should be able to read, understand and complete NASA rendezvous and prox ops workbooks used to train astronauts. Workbooks and other materials supplied. Instructors are Greg Maryniak, Executive Vice President of SSI, and Captain Edward Daley, pilot for United Airlines. The special fee of $185 covers training in: - orbital mechanics - rendezvous and docking maneuvers - orbital transfer techniques - proximity operations THE MAKING OF SPACE POLICY asks what the critical US space policy issues are for 1987. Who are the players and where do they stand on the issue? This tutorial offers both historical background and coverage of today's events. - Dr. David Webb, Chairman, U of ND Center for Aerospace Studies, NCOS member - Dr. Richard Parker, U of ND Center for Aerospace Studies FUNDING AND GOVERNING SPACE SETTLEMENTS examines free market methods to finance and manage space settlements by contractual rather than legislative means. The discussion and panels are moderated by Paul McAvinney of CMU Ctr for Art and Technology. Topics include: - space colony cost and management - financial issues - independent colonies - contracts SPACE DEFENSE SEMINAR examines the technical pro's and con's of a space-based defense system. Participants include: - General Daniel Graham (ret) - Art Bozlee, expert on Soviet space doctrine PERFORMANCE SHOWCASE, the first of its type at a conference, offers the exploration and experience of space-related themes through dance and music. Participants include: - Julia Ecklar, filk singer - Don Slepian, electronic music composer - Sharon Took, dancer/choreographer, - Jenny Lindsey, Pittsburgh Rutgers University choreographer INVITATIONAL ARTISTS WORKSHOPS offer opportunities for artists to discuss and share techniques. Participants are selected based on samples of their work. Conducted by Chuck Divine, Kim Poor and Don Slepian, these workshops include: - Performance Art - Writing - Photography - Painting KEYNOTE ADDRESS: "THE VISION" will start off the Saturday main track. Dr. Gerard O'Neill is expected. RETURN TO THE MOON: LUNAR ORES FOR SOLAR POWER explores the use of lunar resources as a means to acquire energy. Expected participants include: - Dr. Peter Glaser, Powersat inventor, Arthur D Little Co Vice President - Bill Agosto, Lunar Industries Inc President NCOS LUNCHEON will explore the political ramifications of the National Commission on Space report. The current status will be examined by several commissioners and invited guests. PIONEERING: ORBITAL SHACKS TO SPACE COLONIES examines the technical aspects of evolving from small stations to large settlements. Expected participants include: - Tom Rogers, External Tanks Corporation Board Chairman - Alex Gimarc, Author of SSI External Tanks Study BREAKOUTS are one to two day sessions covering technical, artistic, social, and political subjects related to space development. Session members include: - George Koopman, AMROC President & CEO - Don Miller, WESPACE Mgr of Spacecraft - E. Doug Ward, fmr Astrotech President - Len Cormier, MMI President - K. Eric Drexler, Stanford AI - Dr. Hans Moravec, CMU Robotics - Dr. Marvin Minsky, MIT - Ben Bova, author and NSS President - James Bennet, AMROC VP - Kelly Freas, artist - James Muncy, fmr White House Consultant - Spacehab representative SATURDAY BANQUET, hosted by Ben Bova, will include the unveiling of the Mikkelson Award, created by the L5 Society for the first woman to set foot on the moon. Major speakers to be announced. NONDENOMINATIONAL MEMORIAL SERVICE honors those who have given their lives in pursuit of the high frontier. Rabbi Abraham Feffer of Akron, Ohio and representatives of other faiths will participate. COMPUTERS, COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKING explores avenues to establish and nurture contact among space activists. Subjects covered include amateur packet radio, amateur satellites, database resources and 'worldnet'. CHAPTERS WORKSHOP details methods and resources useful in the establishment and operations of an effective chapter. Discussion are led by Elisa Wynn, L5 Chapters Coordinator. WOMEN IN SPACE explores roles and contributions women can make to space development. Discussions are led by Cindy Reidhead. OUR MISSION: THE BREAKOUT INTO SPACE BEGINS TODAY examines the activities which must be undertaken today to ensure development tomorrow. The topic is examined by James Muncy, Dr. David Webb and Rick Tumlinson. CLOSING: RETURN TO THE VISION highlights the message of the previous three days. Speakers include: - Dale Amon, L5 Board member and 1987 Conference Co-chair - Morris Hornik, Main Track Program Chair for 1985, 86 and 87. - Jill Steele, L5 Board member and 1988 Conference Chair EXTERNAL EVENTS include a Friday Luncheon for Pittsburgh businessmen sponsored by the Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce and featuring an important NASA spokesman. Conference registrants are welcome and will be contacted by the Chamber. ART SHOW will include works of many well known artists of the space age: - Alan Bean - Kim Poor - Robert Rauschenberg - Chris Robinson - Kelly Freas - Karl Kofoed - Vincent Difate - Barbara Alpert - Carl Lundgren - Jack Olson - Don Maitz - Janny Wurtz - Chuck Divine ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 87 05:27:17 GMT From: faline!ka9q!karn@bellcore.com (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I believe the event in question was a test flight of a Minuteman missile, not a space launch of a Titan II. I'm sure that we would have heard about any orbital attempt from KSC. Because what people generally think of as "Cape Canaveral" is mostly an Air Force station, lots of military work goes on there. I see no conflict in supporting the peaceful use of space while also protesting the testing of weapons that perpetuate the arms race. Unfortunately, many people blur the distinction between a technology and the morality of a particular application when the technology is not something they use personally. For example, some people oppose civilian nuclear power production because of their justifiable fears of the military uses of nuclear energy. However, few of these people oppose the internal combustion engine just because gasoline is also used to make napalm. Similarly, because space technology is not personally familiar to most people, the increasing military infatuation with space-based weapons is likely to cause a large backlash against space applications of all kinds, including peaceful ones. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 87 01:08:33 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > ... the good part is that when he called > back the Air Force investegators, they said that yes they had analysed > the waffer but no, they couldn't tell him the results. Why? Because it was > clasified. Now if this was a normal (Nabisco) waffer would they clasify it? Sure they would -- this is the Air Force we are talking about! Those clowns would classify the color of the sky if they thought they could get away with it. Inferring sinister motives from the case you describe requires assuming that the USAF always has a rational reason for classifying something. This is verifiably false. Assuming that this incident really did occur as reported -- not a safe assumption, there is a lot of outright lying in UFO reporting -- the most probable reason for the results being classified is that somebody higher up noticed what was going on, screamed "why are you idiots wasting time and money on THAT!?!", and classified the whole thing to try to hide it from the press and Congress. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #131 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03643; Wed, 11 Feb 87 03:02:52 PST id AA03643; Wed, 11 Feb 87 03:02:52 PST Date: Wed, 11 Feb 87 03:02:52 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702111102.AA03643@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #132 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 132 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #122 Re: Goals for the space program... Women in Space Re: government coverups of UFOs NASA Summer positions (a thank you) Taking off from the moon Aluminum-powered rocket engines Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists Re: Goals for the space program... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Feb 1987 14:14-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #122 In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sun, 1 Feb 87 03:15:08 PST Gary Allen: I'd prefer if you didn't drop it on the martian ice caps. We might need them. I mostly agree with you. Jim Kempf: Heppenhiemers 40% is correct with the caveat that the experiment used a poorly collimated beam (for this purpose at least) so they used only the dense center portion. The overall efficiency was much lower in the test, but with a better beam they expect the total efficiency to be about the same as the beam core efficiency. See Science magazine article sometime in last couple months. Alan Wexelblat: Some people seem to have an anti-nuke religion... ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 87 02:28:12 GMT From: princeton!puvax2!6080626%PUCC.BITNET@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Adam Barr) Subject: Re: Goals for the space program... Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <2614@ecsvax.UUCP>, duktip@ecsvax.UUCP (Guerry Anderson Semones) writes: >As we all know, it has been a year since the shuttle disaster that >grounded our space program. Perhaps one of the most prevalent questions >being asked is: Where to now? Obviously the U.S. must get space-born >once more, but what then? ---- Well, I think you've answered it yourself....the US must start a program of having babies born in space...since babies born underwater can survive there, maybe babies born in space will not need oxygen!! Staggering. It's funny reading books published in about 1972 talking about the future of the space program. Fresh from the success of Apollo, I can remember one book which says "In the 1980s the US will certainly land on Mars...using an ion drive". Hmmmm. Actually I think that the next goal should be permanent stations on the moon. This may not be very useful itself, but the most important thing in the space program is something which captures the public's imagination. A manned moon base would involve as intermediate accomplishments many of the things which people are talking about now, such as a space station, and would certainly get people interested in space again. Actually I think NASA's goal should be to launch the national debt into orbit around the sun. Freed of this constraint, lawmakers would be happy to allocate money to funky things like space exploration. - Adam Barr, 6080626@PUCC ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 87 02:33:57 GMT From: princeton!puvax2!6080626%PUCC.BITNET@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Adam Barr) Subject: Women in Space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I was watching some TV show on the space program (I think it might have been the episode of "Frontline" recently mentioned) and they were interviewing astronauts from previous Shuttle flights. One of them was named Rhea Sheddon (I think) who among other things happened to be a woman (in fact she was married to another astronaut, that must be a first). This just got me wondering how many women had been in space. I can think of Sally Ride and Judy Resnik, and of course who can forget (much less spell) Valentina Tereshkova or Svetlana Savitskaya (or maybe she's the opera singer). Anyhow, just wondering if there were any more of these kind of men who had gone up. - Adam Barr, 6080626@PUCC ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 87 01:22:08 GMT From: decvax!cca!lmi-angel!wsr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Wolfgang Rupprecht) Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I am cross posting this to sci.physics. Hopefully this will improve the fact to fancy ratio. In article <> rjp1@ihlpa.UUCP (Pietkivitch from AT&T) writes: >Are there any enlightened readers out there who can clarify the debate >of why governments keep such a tight lid on the UFO phenonmenon? >I remember hearing on the radio (several years back) that someone >had discovered a crashed UFO (in the USA) and that alien bodies >were recovered from it. This must have occured during a summit conference or something, because the NY Times and the Boston Globe both missed the story. Perhaps the National Enquirer carried it. In a more serious vein, I recall reading a very interesting book on the subject back in high school (sorry it was too long ago to recall the author/title). Essentially the book tried to inject a bit of science in this field. To summarize, the largest class of confirmed sightings (after the obvious crackpots have been eliminated (*)), was the nebulous 'metallic object' (daylight), and the glowing pulsating object (nightime). These 'objects' tended to accelerate at bone-smashing rates, drown out AM radios with static, and even stall cars. The observers often noted a bright metallic look (even on the side away from the sun). A larger number of sighting were near high voltage power line. Some sightings were accompanied by radar 'bogies' in the area. The book proposed that these sightings were actually ball lightning, or something closely related. The apparent acceleration (from hovering here, to over the horizon in no-time flat), being caused by the phenomenon "petering out" and shrinking. The rapid directed motion was just an illusion. This also explained why there was never a sonic boom reported. The AM radio static, affinity for power lines etc, was due to its charged nature. The glowing or translucent nature of the sightings fits this model well also. Unfortunately, I believe that free floating ball lightning is still a contested phenomenon. Does anyone know of any studies on this beastie? Can it be generated under lab conditions? (*) I thought the funniest fraud case was a couple that claimed to be kidnapped by aliens. They sold a book, and went on a lecture circuit talking about their experience. The frosting on the cake was a claim that a shiny spot on the sheet-metal of their car had become temorarily radioactive from the exhaust of the UFO. They knew this because a compass held near the spot spun rapidly!!! -- Alison Chaiken {harvard|decvax!cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!wsr ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 87 11:43:01 pst From: Eugene Miya N. To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: NASA Summer positions (a thank you) I would like to thank those people who have sent requests for summer positions with NASA to me. I would also like to apologize for the coming paperwork you will receive or have received. Some of you have some impressive qualifications. I will do with I can with the Summer employment people to see that some of you get hired (the number of slots is small, obviously). At Ames, our period of openings has been extended to March 1, since we are using SJ State U as a middleman and not the Civil Service route. Best wishes. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 87 16:52 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: Taking off from the moon To: space@angband.s1.gov  Date: 2-FEB-1987 15:31 From: Dennis O'Connor Sender: OCONNORDM Subject: Taking off from the moon To: space@angband.s1.gov@smtp -------- If you want to get off the moon, and are willing to build a large industrial base to do it ( such as a high- volume rock cracker ) why not just throw dirt at yourself ? Have a large, slightly-steerable up-pointing mass driver that throws dirt, small rocks, large rocks, whatever. Throw the mass up towards the spaceship. On the bottom of the spaceship is a big ( optionally shock-absorbing ) plate. The rocks hit the plate, transfer momentum, and fall back down for re-use ( which is why small rocks or sand might be best : less dangerous ). With no atmosphere to slow the rocks down, and an aiming system that compensates for lunar rotation, this will work great. Dennis O'Connor -------- ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 87 17:06 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: Aluminum-powered rocket engines To: space@angband.s1.gov  Date: 2-FEB-1987 15:06 From: Dennis O'Connor Sender: OCONNORDM Subject: Aluminum-powered rocket engines To: space@angband.s1.gov@smtp -------- From a quick persual of the CRC Handbook, it appears that aluminum-oxygen burning would produce about 10% more specific impulse ( thrust per pound of fuel+oxidizer ) than hydrogen-oxygen burning. Adding inert fillers ( like extra oxygen ) would lower the specific impulse. Specific impulse ( correct me if I'm wrong ) is proportional to Sqrt( E/M ), where E is the energy input and M is the mass of the propelents. The problem with an Al-O rocket would be the combustion chamber. Either it would have to have a lining temperature in in excess of 2100 degrees Centigrade, or it would build up a ( thick ) crust of alumina within it. That's pretty hot! Dennis O'Connor -------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 87 17:53:59 EST From: Brent W Baccala To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space Brent Callaghan mentions that clouds could interfere with the laser beam. What if we combine two discussions on this group into one idea - laser launched rockets and nuclear reactors in space. I don't know that much about nuclear reactors, so will avoid safety considerations for now. Stick an unmanned (to avoid heavy shielding material) nuclear reactor in space and hook it up to a laser. Beam the laser down, and have the rocket ride the beam up. Since clouds are primarily a low-atmosphere phenomenon (and the ones higher up are thin), the rocket could be equipped with standard jets to get above the atmospheric junk. Then fire up the laser, and sail off on a light beam... - BRENT W. BACCALA - Aerospace Engineering Department U.S. Naval Academy Annapolis, MD ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 87 17:20:01 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov There are several groups that I am aware, but most of the opposition (as pointed out) are more SDI related. We came very close to be demonstrated by a group named Not Business as Usual. They were protesting a treaty about use of Easter Island as an abort landing site for a Shuttle payload which was to be launched from VAFB for SDI purposes. This amused our Navy neighbors since they were NOT being protested. As it turned out, most of the demonstrators were arrested at their first site: the Sunnyvale (now, the Onizuka) Air Force Station (our USAF neighbors). I believe Bill Pogue (astronaut) wrote a little book entitled something like: How Do You Go to Bathroom in Space? It covers a bit of the environmental consequences of launches. I think Phil Karn also did a service to point out the layout of the Cape. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 87 18:42:31 GMT From: cbosgd!gwe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (George Erhart) Subject: Re: Goals for the space program... Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <2614@ecsvax.UUCP> duktip@ecsvax.UUCP (Guerry Anderson Semones) writes: > Where to now? Obviously the U.S. must get space-born >once more, but what then? The space station plans move onward and there >is the push for (sigh...) SDI. These are here and now items being de- >veloped (along with several exciting unmanned programs, etc.), but what >should follow the space station? Moon-base? Mars-mission? Other? > -G. Semones Anything to steer the talk away from "sexist" language and slime creatures from outer space. (Hint: "idiot" is a non-sexist term... :-( ) As an amateur space nut, I would like to see the following (in about this order) 1) Earth-orbit space station 2) Personned (!) mission to Mars 3) Lunar base for manufacturing and interplanetary launch 4) Earth-orbit colony/manufacturing center 5) Asteroid mining I would also like (desperately) to see lots of cooperation between the US and the Soviet Union. Hopefully, by the time this is done, new technology will make further choices more obvious. I'm 25. I want to see Earth from space, with my own two eyes, before I die. ------------------------------clip and save---------------------------------- Bill Thacker cbatt!cbosgd!cbdkc1!serial!wbt DISCLAIMER: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't come back to you, track it down and kill it. -----------------------------valuable coupon--------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #132 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AB07356; Thu, 12 Feb 87 03:02:57 PST id AB07356; Thu, 12 Feb 87 03:02:57 PST Date: Thu, 12 Feb 87 03:02:57 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702121102.AB07356@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #133 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 133 Today's Topics: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST SRB Range safety Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Feb 87 08:15:54 GMT From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <257@ka9q.nnj.ampr.us> karn@ka9q.nnj.ampr.us (Phil Karn) writes: >It's not clear that the firing of the range safety system after the >Challenger explosion was the wrong thing to do even from the standpoint >of preserving evidence for the investigation. >Remember that the SRBs still had almost a minute of propellant left >after the explosion, and this propellant was continuing to burn through >the case of the right hand SRB. Firing the range safety system >terminated the motor's burn without blowing the booster into tiny bits. This doesn't seem right. I was under the impression that once the SRB fuel is ignited there is basically nothing you can do to extinguish it. I suspect that the firing of the RSS caused the exhaust to escape in all directions, and thus provide no thrust and no smoke tail, but I don't believe that it would extinguish the fuel. NASA spokesmen certainly have said on several occasions that the destruction of the SRBs was unfortunate (without, of course, implying any blame -- just as I have done). >Remember they [the SRBs] were also heading for deep water at the time. I thought that they had turned back toward land at the moment that they were destroyed. This is the rationale that others have given for the destruction... >Evidence preservation wasn't the range safety officer's primary >concern. He was trained to push the button under certain >circumstances. He did exactly what he was supposed to do given >incomplete information and very little time. Agreed. No one questions this. The RSO performed his function properly within the system. Thus, it is the system which produced the suboptimal result. Thus, the system itself is suboptimal. -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 87 08:09:11 GMT From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <786@wanginst.EDU> vilot@wanginst.UUCP (Michael Vilot) writes: > Actually, you've missed the point. Range Safety decisons are >highly constrained. As part of the mission planning process, the >agencies involved in the launch specfy the tolerances for deviations >from the flight path quite unambiguously. If, for any reason, the >vehicle departs from that envelope, the RSO must destroy the vehicle. >Obviously, manned vehicles are given extensive consideration in their >planning. Actually, this *is* *exactly* *MY* *point*. "Range Safety decisions are highly contrained." This is a *weakness* of the *system*. It may be a necessary weakness, due to the imperfection of the real-time information, but it is nevertheless a weakness. It means that *even* in a situation where the RSO *could* perhaps determine that the vehicle poses no threat, he may *nevertheless* be constrained to destroy it. All I have ever said is that the RSS has certain weaknesses. It does not produce optimal results. The Challenger accident is one example of a situation in which the RSS had no failure or malfunction but nevertheless produced a suboptimal result. *Therefore*, we conclude that the RSS is not optimal. Perhaps it is the best we can do. Perhaps it is the best that we can afford. Perhaps it is good enough. But none of these possibilities affect my central point. > The Range Safety people I had occasion to work with at ESMC >were all experienced, mature individuals. They do not make their >decisons hastily, nor (as Mr. Des Jardins implies) from a lack of >information. This is simply ludicrous. Either they lack some information, or they are omniscient. Since I don't think NASA can afford to hire God, the former seems a good bet. The value of the information that they lack, and the cost of providing it, may dictate that they are getting an appropriate amount of information. But it is clearly ridiculous to claim that they have perfect information. If they did, couldn't they have made the correct decision not to destroy the Challenger SRBs? -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 87 19:02:53 GMT From: ulysses!gamma!zeta!sabre!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > This doesn't seem right. I was under the impression that once the > SRB fuel is ignited there is basically nothing you can do to extinguish > it.... Solid rocket fuel isn't as unstable as you think. It burns rapidly only under pressure. Unconfine it and it's likely that it will "flame out" or at least stop burning so vigorously. This happened to the two PAMs that blew their nozzles off after being launched from the shuttle a few years ago. Solid motors with "thrust termination" features use this property. AMSAT-OSCAR Phase 3-A (the one lost in the Ariane L-02 launch failure) carried a Thiokol solid fuel kick motor. This unit was surplus from the Titan missile program, which used it for vernier thrusting. There was a fitting for an explosive bolt cutter to blow the nozzle off so that the total impulse could be controlled. (We didn't need that feature, so we didn't put a cutter on the bolt). The Rogers Commission report talks about SRB "thrust termination systems". They work, but the problem is the very sudden deceleration it would impart to the orbiter, most likely breaking it up. > I thought that they had turned back toward land at the moment that > they were destroyed. This is the rationale that others have given for > the destruction... From the film shown on Frontline they had swung around quite a bit, but at the moment the destruct command was sent they appeared to be headed away from the camera. The Range Safety Officer's decision was based on the SRBs being in "powered, stable flight" (but without guidance) which made the prediction of impact points impossible. He was also concerned about protecting ships outside the cleared area as well as people and property on land. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 87 02:28:28 GMT From: necntc!adelie!mirror!cca!lmi-angel!wsr@husc6.harvard.edu (Wolfgang Rupprecht) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <> desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes: > ... It means that *even* >in a situation where the RSO *could* perhaps determine that the vehicle >poses no threat, he may *nevertheless* be constrained to destroy it. It looks like the real problem in the Challenger case was that the RSO had a *binary* choice that he had to make: blow the boosters or leave them alone. Letting the boosters go could have easily lost them to deep water (as well as the danger of hitting a population center). Blowing them would pevent the recovery 'chutes from working. Even in 20:20 hindsight the correct action isn't clear. It appears that the real problem is that the RSO had too few options. He could only do all or nothing. Why not have the destruct charges separately detonatable? He could then terminated thrust (most of the way) by just blowing the charges at the nozzle end. This would have left the recovery chutes intact. It's clearly harder to make complex decisions under fire (then just yes/no ones). But then, that's what simulators are for... Wolfgang Rupprecht {harvard|decvax!cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!wsr ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 87 17:05:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: SRB Range safety Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Uh, I don't like that idea. The ``smarts'' of the SRB's (electronics and the like) is at the nose (of necessity; the rest of the booster is effectively a *very* sophisticated piece of pipe). If you blow the nose, you lose the electronics. If you then have to blow the boosters, you're out of luck. Moreover, the recovery 'chutes deploy from the nose also, for the same reason as the electronics are up there. And the rest of the booster practically *has* to be a pipe, to keep the aerodynamic loads balanced. Kevin Kenny UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign CSNET: kenny@UIUC.CSNET ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 87 04:21:39 GMT From: decvax!wanginst!vilot@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Michael Vilot) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov [ The original debate started over whether the Range Safety system was a "well-proven" one. ] In article <876@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes: > All I have ever said is that the RSS has certain weaknesses. It >does not produce optimal results. The Challenger accident is one ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >example of a situation in which the RSS had no failure or malfunction >but nevertheless produced a suboptimal result. *Therefore*, we conclude ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >that the RSS is not optimal. Perhaps it is the best we can do. Perhaps ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >it is the best that we can afford. Perhaps it is good enough. But >none of these possibilities affect my central point. >... >claim that they have perfect information. If they did, couldn't they >have made the correct decision not to destroy the Challenger SRBs? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I guess the "correct" and "optimal" outcome depends on your point of view. I agree with Phil Karn: > Evidence preservation wasn't the range safety officer's primary > concern. He was trained to push the button under certain > circumstances. He did exactly what he was supposed to do given > incomplete information and very little time. The purpose of the Range Safety organization is to help achieve the optimal result (putting payloads into orbit) in the complex and dangerous process of preparing and launching chemical rockets. Their primary concern is to achieve this result with a minimum risk to human life. If you stop to examine their track record, I think you will find that they have indeed established a well-proven system for achieving this end. The purpose of the (already extensive) design review and ground testing process is to anticipate and prevent failure modes in the flight systems. That portion of "the system" is responsible for the data collection and analysis necessary to answer questions about unexpected events. We certainly do NOT have an impressive record for designing and building large, complex, technology-intensive systems which are free from errors. The purpose of the pre-mission decision-making process is to commit to launch only when all of the factors we've been able to anticipate are within the tolerances set for them. It's clear from some of the testimony that the results in the Challenger case were "suboptimal." You can't blame Range Safety for not preserving all the pieces which might have given clues to the cause of the accident. It's not their job to do that. It can't be -- not when things have progressed to the point of having a vehicle fully fueled and in the air. When something goes catastrophically wrong, it's because of some error introduced much earlier. The only thing the Safety people can do is to contain it, and avoid letting things go from bad to worse. That's the "optimal" result under those circumstances, and I think they've got a well-proven system for achieving it. Michael J. Vilot ...!decvax!wanginst!vilot (UUCP) Wang Institute of Graduate Studies vilot%wanginst@CSNet-Relay (CSNet) Tyng Road, Tyngsboro, MA 01879 MVilot@ADA20 (ARPA) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #133 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10933; Fri, 13 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST id AA10933; Fri, 13 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST Date: Fri, 13 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702131102.AA10933@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #134 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 134 Today's Topics: starships ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 87 17:21:21 EST From: ST401385@brownvm To: space digest Subject: starships I'm getting bored with discussions about politics, Voyager etc. In a shameless effort to change the subject, I enclose here part 1 of a review I recently wrote about starship technology. (Readers of Space last year may find parts of it slightly familiar, and might want to skip parts of it.) Comments are welcome. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU: ucbvax!jade!BROWNVM.ST401385@jade.Berkeley.Edu PS: Brown was disconnected from SPACE from about the end of November through late January. Anything interesting posted in that time? Introduction to Starships for Amateurs. (or, There Must Be Fifty Ways to Leave Your Solar System) Introduction Einstein tells us that travellers who reach substantial fractions of the speed of light experience their motion differently, yet the equations of flight for relativistic starships are obscure and hard to apply. The purpose of this article is to present a basic introduction to some of the ways that a real starship might be built. Types of starships The stars are awfully far away. By discussing distances in terms of light years, we often tend to ignore or downplay this fact. A light year is six trillion miles. The nearest star (other than the sun, of course) Alpha Centauri, is one {million times further away than the distance to Mars. Achieving interstellar flight is a major undertaking. However, even without FTL travel (a longshot at best, at least in this universe) it is still possible to have starflight. In fact, there are so many possible ways of solving the problem of starflight that one can get lost in confusion just listing them! Starships can be basically divided into three groups: slow, fast, and FTL ("faster than light"). "Slow" ships travel between stars in times much longer than a single lifetime. The crew may be hibernating, or the ship may be crewed by several generations of starfarers, or perhaps a long-lived cybernetic brain guides the ship. All of these methods have their distinct problems and possibilities. FTL starships are a used transportation system in SF; the writer simply wishes away what we know of physics. The great advantage here is that travel times between stars can be anything that suits the plot. This allows the writers to explore questions of alien ecology, human sociology, etc. in arenas as large or small as desired. "Fast" starships are, at least to me, the most fascinating, because they are both possible (at least theoretically) and they allow star travel in a single person's lifetime, by allowing relativity to do the work of compressing time. They are the only ships for which relativity plays an important role, and thus the hardest ones to deal with. These are the starships that will be discussed at greatest length in this article. The One Gee Starship One gravity---"one gee", or 1 g---turns out to be a very convenient thrust for reference. By coincidence, an acceleration of one gee is quite close to one lightspeed per year (1.03, actually). At this thrust, within a year relativity begins to shorten your shipboard years compared to stay-behind years, and one can make the journey in less time than you'd expect. That's handy, because humans aren't good for more than one or two gee's for very long (certainly not for years), and anything less than about half a gee or so makes it take an awful long time to get there. So what's the problem? Just make a rocket thrust at one gee until we get halfway there, then rotate 180 degrees and thrust for the same amount of time to stop, and you're there. Simple. Actually, it's not so easy. The problem is fuel. Rockets are tremendous fuel hogs. A thrust of one gee on a reasonably massive starship is a huge energy use. A starship using hydrogen fusion, for example, even with perfect efficiency, eats its own weight of fuel in thirty days. And it has to {use fuel to carry fuel.) Starship Propulsion There are two approaches to fuel: either carry a lot of fuel and/or use fuel very efficiently, or don't carry your fuel with you. There's two approaches to not carrying fuel. Either use fuel available in interstellar space---not much!---or else send "fuel"---beamed power---from home. Starships that don't carry fuel: Bussard Ramrockets. Using interstellar gas as fuel leads to great possibliities: you can go anywhere! It has some hard technological problems---mainly, the stuff is pretty damn thin. As it turns out, the sun is situated on the edge of a cloud with a density of about 0.1 hydrogen atoms per cm3, in a bubble (courtesy of an ancient supernova) of ionized hydrogen of density 0.001 to 0.01 per cm3. (Ref NASA CP). That's not much. Bussard, for example, in his famous paper which first proposed using interstellar hydrogen for fuel, calculated that one gee acceleration requited a "scoop" collecting the hydrogen with an area of 10,000 km2 per ton of ship mass divided by the density in hydrogens per cm3. (The scoop would probably be a magnetic field, not a physical object). Other problems with such Bussard ramrockets include the fact that fusion must take place without accelerating the hydrogen up to ship speed, that neutral hydrogen must be ionized in order for an electromagnetic scoop to collect it, that pure hydrogen is an extrordinarily difficult fusion fuel to ignite (much harder than the DT reactions proposed for commercial fusion), and that there is a limit to how long such a ship can accelerate at one gee based on how much stress the materials that make the scoop fields can take (probably not important unless you are talking about intergalactic flights, though). However, I will leave detailed discussion of these points to the technologists. One final thought: the solar wind contains a lot more hydrogen than the interstellar medium. What if the ramrocket only accelerates at one gee across the solar system? Let's say, a hundred billion miles, six light days or 0.17 LY... at one gee this will get you up to 3 percent of lightspeed---pretty damn fast, although still squarely in the "slow" starship category. Hmmm. You go faster by cutting past more stars. A starship that only accelerates inside a solar system. Starships that don't carry fuel: Beamed power: In the case of a typical beamed power ship, a projector at the home star beams power to the ship. As discussed in detail by Forward (see ref.) this is a huge laser, which reflects off a very thin sail. Light pressure pushes the ship forward. The sail would be very thin (perhaps 100 atoms thick) aluminum. The power could also be beamed by a large microwave antenna reflecting off a metal mesh. The key word is huge. Forward, for example, envisions a a lense to focus the laser which is 1000 km in diameter, and a sail which is also 1000 km in diameter. A microwave pushed sail would have to be even larger. (The sails and lenses don't need to be nearly as big if they are for missions which don't need the laser power at the target star, such as flyby missions). Power required for this is tremendous---Forward's scheme uses 50,000 times as much as the entire Earth's current generating capacity. This is partly due to the fact that light pressure is a very inefficient way to use energy. Alternatively, the beam could be a neutral particle beam, such as is being considered for space defense. This could possibly be focussed tighter than a laser, allowing a smaller "sail" (ionizer and magnetic mirror, in this case), and the energy might be able to be used more efficiently. Stopping a sail is a problem, if you don't have another laser at the other end. It's not impossible---Forward discusses several methods. If necessary, the sail could even carry a fusion rocket for stopping---the fuel mass problem is much more tractable if the rocket is only used to decelerate. One can also think of "hybrid" systems. A fixed laser could be used to heat up a supply of hydrogen reaction mass carried on board the ship. Interstellar hydrogen can be collected by a ram scoop and then heated by a laser. Or, beamed power could be collected to run an ion engine. All of these have has the advantage of more efficient energy use than a pure laser sail, and the ability to thrust both ways. One last idea is to set out a "runway" of fuel pellets for the starship to gulp down as it accelerates. This is like a ramrocket, but the fuel is positioned beforehand, can be a fusion mixture instead of pure hydrogen, and can be denser than the interstellar gas, so a much smaller scoop is usable. (I think of this as the "pac-man" system...) Starships that carry fuel: the Problem of Mass Ratio What about starships that carry their fuel on board? Chemical rockets are out. Even nuclear fission reactors are too heavy and too inefficient to serve as engines for anything but very slow starships. In order to make a "fast" starship, we need efficiency at least as high as fusion. Preferably better. The problem is, always, mass ratio. Since rockets carry their fuel on board, you have to accelerate the fuel as well as the payload (crew compartment, cargo, life support, structure---all that stuff). The more efficient your engine, the less fuel you have to carry, and thus also the less fuel you waste carrying fuel. This is another way in which space ships are unlike cars or (ocean) ships. In a car, the gas tank is a relatively small (albeit important) component. In a spaceship, though, most of the mass of the ship is fuel. Empty fuel tanks are usually discarded as the voyage progresses. A convenient thing to measure for a spaceship is the "mass ratio". This is the ratio of the fueled mass (ship including payload and fuel) to the "burnout" mass (ship without fuel). The Apollo spaceship, for example, carried several thousand tons of fuel to propel a spacecraft of a few tens of tons, for an effective mass ratio of about 300. Fuel efficiency of a rocket engine is usually measured by the exhaust velocity, more conveniently expressed as Specific Impulse, or Isp. Specific impulse is a measure of fuel consumption rate: it is the length of time the engine can produce an acceleration of one gee at a mass ratio of e (2.7). The higher the specific impulse, the longer the engine can thrust and the more efficient the engine. (This is discussed further in an appendix) Fuel use depends exponentially on time. Thus, total mass is 2.7 times the empty mass if you thrust for t=1 times $I_{sp$, (2.7) squared for t=2 times $I_{sp$, (2.7) cubed for t=3 times $I_{sp$, etc. The moral is that the specific impulse is a measure of how long you can thrust your engines before your fuel mass begins to far outweigh your payload mass. And mass ratio is a lot worse---squared---if you need to carry the fuel you need to get home. The moral of that is that you'd better mine the fuel you need to get home at the target The Fusion Rocket Current fusion research is looking at two methods of confining and igniting the fuel mix. In magnetic confinement fusion, the fuel plasma is held in by magnetic fields. To make a rocket engine out of it, one simply needs to leak a little of the plasma out of a magnetic nozzle. In inertial confinement fusion, beams---electron, ion, or laser beams---compress and heat a small pellet of fuel until it explodes. To make a rocket engine one again confines the explosion to exit out the rear of the combustion chanber (in the extreme case of inertial confinement, the "Orion" engine, the "fuel pellets" are actually small hydrogen bombs that explode next to pusher plates behind the spacecraft.) In either case, the fusion reactor is likely to be rather heavy! It is not at all clear that such a reactor could ever be made light enough and powerful enough to accelerate itself, a payload, and a tremendous load of fuel at one gee.... but for the moment we'll wave those problems away and go on to looking at fuel problems. What kind of fusion? Current fusion research is almost entirely aimed at igniting the reaction of Deuterium (D, "heavy hydrogen") with Tritium (T, "super-heavy hydrogen"). This "DT" reaction has an efficiency of 0.4 percent (meaning that 0.4 percent of the fuel mass is converted into energy) and a specific impulse, if perfect combusion, of about 30 days. There are problems with using this reaction for a starship, including the fact that tritium is radioactive, and decays with a half-life of only 12 years. This means that you're either going to have to make it onboard (from lithium, probably), or use another reaction. This may not present much difficulties; in fact, tritium is not a natural element, and *all* tritium for fusion use would have to be manufactured. For comercial power production by fusion, this is often proposed to be done by capturing fusion neutrons in a lithium "wall" around the magnetic confinement system.) The deuterium-helium three (D-He3) fusion reaction is the one that the British Interplanetary Society proposed using in their study of a proposed fusion-powered interstellar probe called "Daedalus". This is almost as easy to ignite as DT fusion, and has the advantage that the energy mostly comes out in the form of energetic protons, which are easier to deal with than neutrons, since they can be magnetically confined. The problem is that Helium three is scarce (although stable). It is about 20,000 times rarer than ordinary helium four. The BIS proposed that helium three could be "mined" from of the abundant helium in the atmosphere of Jupiter. Another proposal for "mining" helium is to extract the parts-per-billion level of He3 trapped in the crust of the moon from the solar wind. It is also not impossible that He3 could be manufactured on Earth. Other reactions that might be considered include D-D, B-H, and H-D; any of which has some advantages. These are all slightly harder to ignite. The "big one" is the solar reaction, four H atoms fusing to one helium four (He4). This is hard to ignite--- about 1E19 times harder than the DT reaction (even in the sun, any given hydrogen ion is expected to only undergo fusion once in ten billion years or so!). But, we can postulate some sort of breakthrough. Perhaps it can be catalyzed by muons. And fuel is certainly plentiful---the most abundant stuff in the universe. And it's efficient, with a mass conversion efficiency of 0.7 percent, for a specific impulse of 42 days. Even if you could run the fusion chain right up to iron, you could only get an efficiency of 0.9 percent. In a real ship, we would not likely be able to get a fusion efficiency of the theoretical maximum. After all, if a well developed technology like cars did that good, we'd be getting 500 miles per gallon. Many technologists expect about 10 percent of the fuel to fuse; let's be optimistic and calculate for 50 percent. Mass ratios for missions with up to about a year of thrust are high, but not impossibly high---remember, we went to the moon with a mass ratio of about 300. Above a year or so of thrust, the mass ratios get to be literally astronomical. Fusion is good, but it is by no means perfect. Total conversion Now we're talking starflight! Take advantage of ol' Albert's equation, and convert matter directly into energy. But how? Total conversion achieved by using antimatter is the straightforward solution (and the only one that uses physics currently known). Add antihydrogen to hydrogen, and you get energy. With a 50-50 mix, much of the energy (2/3) comes out as charged pions, which can be channeled backwards with a magnetic field (before they disintegrate into gamma rays). Mass ratios for such an antimatter powered starship are very low. Problems with antimatter: It's hard to handle. It can't touch anything. However, it is (at least in theory) possible to levitate it with electric and magnetic fields. However, keep in mind that you'd better keep your antimatter in a very good vacuum, and it will still probably let off the occasional burst of gamma rays when stray matter atoms drift by. You have to make it. Antimatter does not exist naturally in the universe. It can be, and is, made in particle accelerators; but this is not easy, not very eficient, and takes a lot of energy. (The current world production of antiprotons comes up to about one one-trillionth of a gram.) Even one or two starships would require antimatter factories on a planetary scale. It's dangerous. An ounce of antimatter has about as much potential destructive power as a MX missle warhead. A fueled starship might need several hundred tons. Also, keep in mind that the matter-antimatter annihilation engine will emit hard gamma radiation---you'd better seperate the crew compartment from the engines, possibly with a kilometer-long tether; and shield it pretty well, too. Antimatter-powered starships are likely to be limited by the availability of antimatter rather than by the mass ratio limits. However, antimatter usage can be "stretched" by adding extra (normal matter) reaction mass to the exhaust. The specific impulse only decreases as the square root of the amount of added mass. For example, if we increase the matter to antimatter ratio from 1:1 up to 17:1 we increasing the total fuel mass by a factor of 9 (from 2 to 18), but we also increase the thrust by a factor of three, for the same amount of antimatter. For best antimatter utilization, we use a little bit of antimatter to hear a large amount of normal matter. Exotic TC Why can't you directly turn matter into energy? The problem is something known as the law of conservation of baryon number. (Antimatter protons have negative baryon number; that's why they can annihilate ordinary protons to produce energy). Since antimatter has such a high energy density, exotic means like these of performing total conversion have little advantage over antimatter in terms of mass ratios, but they may be easier and or safer to handle, or may provide a cheap way to manufacture antimatter. Many modern Grand Unified Field Theories ("GUTS", for short), however, suggest that this "law" is only an approximate law of nature, and can be broken in certain cases. Magnetic monopoles, for example, might catalyze protons (and neutrons) to turn into positrons, neutrinos, and lots of energy (a minor problem being that magnetic monopoles don't seem to exist.) Alternatively, it is conceivable that a topological "twist" in space could be able to convert ordinary matter into antimatter. A black hole also can convert matter into energy very efficiently (if we can get close enough to it*), small ones via Hawking radiation; large ones by simple mechanical processes**. Note that we wouldn't necessarily have to actually carry the black hole aboard the starship---if necessary, we could use energy from the black hole to make antimatter, and carry that. (*not necessarily an easy thing to do! A black hole of mass ten trillion tons is smaller than a proton! **as an object approaches the event horizon of a black hole, its rest mass is converted into kinetic energy, which can---theoretically---be extracted). ---END OF PART 1---- copyright 1987 by Geoffrey A. Landis ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #134 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13283; Sat, 14 Feb 87 03:02:21 PST id AA13283; Sat, 14 Feb 87 03:02:21 PST Date: Sat, 14 Feb 87 03:02:21 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702141102.AA13283@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #135 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 135 Today's Topics: Re: TAU space news from 3 Nov 1986 AW&ST Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists Space Program Priorities ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Feb 87 22:49:31 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: TAU Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Check out February's "Sky & Telescope", there's a short note on TAU. There is rather more detail in the January (?) issue of Spaceflight, from the British Interplanetary Society -- several pages of it. > ... Doesn't the Sun have the solar > equivalent of a magnetic tail, and wouldn't the probe then be travelling > straight down it? It makes more sense to send the probe at right angles > to the direction of the Sun's motion. ... Somebody may have goofed there. If one wants to get the probe out of the Sun's influence as quickly as possible, one launches it directly into the galactic wind (which may not be lined up with the Sun's motion... I don't remember for sure), since that's the direction in which the heliopause is closest. On the other hand, the magnetic tail may be a more interesting area to study... Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 87 00:10:28 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from 3 Nov 1986 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov About 1000 contractor employees at the Vandenberg shuttle facility laid off. Total contractor workforce thus declines to 1700; this will probably be 1300 by January and 1000 by September. Major NASA reorganization expected in December, in the wake of the Phillips report. Space science and applications may get separated. Headquarters authority will increase, including probable move of the JSC shuttle-program- manager position to Washington. Fletcher has also moved high management around a bit, including throwing out some political appointees. Australia's state of Queensland is studying establishing an international spaceport on Cape York Peninsula. USAF begins preparations for the possibility of an emergency Titan 34D launch, in case a spysat or early warning satellite needs replacing. The official schedule shows no launches until early 1987. The ten best Titan solid-rocket segments are being selected from inventory and will be shipped to Vandenberg in case they are needed for an emergency launch of an imaging spysat. They could be shifted to the Cape if an early-warning satellite needs replacing. Cape Canaveral launch of GOES-H weather satellite aboard Atlas-Centaur is postponed from December to February to permit engineering changes to the encoder system in the satellite's imager. The encoder system has been a major factor in limiting the lifespan of GOES satellites. The encoder aboard GOES-H is dual-redundant; it will be converted to triple-redundant to compensate for still more pessimistic estimates of component life. Cape Canaveral launch of FleetSatCom aboard Atlas Centaur postponed a week to permit re-doing tests after suspect electrical components were replaced. Vandenberg launch of the Polar Beacon / Auroral Research Payload satellite on a Scout is now set for Nov 13, postponed from Oct 10 due to gyro trouble. National Academy of Sciences Space Science Board concludes that manned missions beyond low Earth orbit make little sense unless they are part of routine manned operations in those regions. The SSB does not support manned bases on the Moon or Mars in the near future, although it agrees that they would be useful if they existed. The report will not recommend specific missions, but will push detailed objectives. Astronomy and astrophysics need larger telescopes, probably to be assembled in space; the Space Station will help. Microgravity work needs to focus on basic science before leaping into applications. Space medicine, which badly needs a manned space station, needs to study long-term effects of free-fall on humans in much more detail before a manned Mars mission can be planned. Earth scientists recommend a multi-satellite program with several large instrument platforms for continuous observations of the whole Earth. Solar and space physics hot spots are imaging of the Sun's magnetosphere, early exploration of the interstellar medium, and high-resolution solar imaging. Planetary exploration priorities are completing preliminary exploration of the solar system and beginning intensive study of Mars. Solid booster segments, in ground test at Morton Thiokol, duplicate the 51L black-smoke joint failure for the first time. This test used chilled joints plus blowholes in the putty (such as were probably induced by the pre-launch leak testing). Meeting the Feb 1988 launch target for the next Shuttle mission will require at least four full-scale full-duration booster firings in the next 11 months, a demanding schedule. NASA wants six such tests, which might mean postponing one until after the first real launch. Roald Sagdeev, director of Soviet Institute of Space Research, recommends renewed US/Soviet space cooperation despite squabbles over SDI. He also emphasized multinational, rather than binational, cooperation. This is a good sign, he's influential. British National Space Center signs cooperation agreement with Soviet Union, leading to British participation in Soviet planetary missions and possible development of a joint X-ray astronomy spacecraft. Scientists slam Reagan for leadership failure leading to the current sad state of US space science. "US space scientists... said that a strong space policy must be formed and visibly supported by the White House to regain the US capability that 20 years ago was preparing to put men on the Moon, but today cannot obtain boosters for the smallest satellites." Thomas Donahue, chairman of NAS's Space Science Board: "It's not enough to be favorably disposed -- we need some leadership." The scientists say there has been no such leadership or policy support from the Reagan White House, and that Fletcher is supportive but ineffectual. The scientific consensus is that NASA should regain control of its own expendables, and should be prepared to use them intensively. At present, NASA is mumbling about expendables, but little has been done. NASA accelerates efforts to identify early Space Station users and make sure that they are in the budget soon. Space station officials will soon report to Fletcher on use of expendables in Space Station assembly. Only existing expendables will be considered. [Boo hiss! -- HS] New vehicles will be considered for a possible role in Station logistics later, though; use of expendables for this is considered quite likely. Pictures of the Titan failure last April. Nothing very revealing; the problem happened very suddenly. First frame looks normal, next frame -- 42 milliseconds later -- shows flame starting to envelop the lower half of the left booster. US government to restart discussions with Europe about subsidies to commercial launch services. The original investigations ended last year when Arianespace was cleared of unfair pricing. Astrotech drastically curtails operations of its space subsidiary, General Space Corp, to stem continuing financial losses. This kills Astrotech's privately-funded orbiter project, likewise its development of an orbiting power station and a reusable upper stage. Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 87 16:58:08 GMT From: milano!wex@im4u.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8701301916.AA04966@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > ... I've always thought that the Green Peace people were a pack of idiots. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion(s). May I suggest learning a few facts before broadcasting those opinions to thousands of people around the world? > ... I am strongly against political demonstrations or any other sort > of political activity occuring at KSC during a launch. At UT-Austin, the administration has thoughtfully provided a "free speech area" in which (during the designated "free speech hour") students may openly express their opinions. Perhaps you think the US gov't should be so `thoughtful'? Could you perhaps explain why you are "strongly against" people exercising their First Amendment rights? (Clearly they were not interfering with the actual launch.) > However what has got me spooked is since the anti-technology groups > have more-or-less successfully driven a stake through the heart of the > nuclear industry ... Another case of opinion with no facts. I am more disposed to the view that the nuclear industry committed a form of suicide by: (1) not developing a disposal system for wastes it knew would be generated; (2) grossly underestimating the costs and times of building nuclear power plants; (3) depending on the continuation of the billions of dollars of subsidies that the Feds provided in the 50s and 60s; (4) grossly overestimating the demand for power in the US; (5) grossly underestimating the amount of savings available from promoting conservation. > I know that the left-wing, "environmentalist" people in West Germany > are violently opposed to the American Space Program, partialy because > of the SDI connection, but mainly due to simple blind hatred against > high technology. Simply false. To make it simple: cite your sources, please. (I assume that you are referring to the German Green party; if so, please remember that the party speaks with (at least) two voices, the Moderate and the Fundi. If you don't understand the differences between the two, then I suggest you are not competent to make the judgement you made above.) > There must be active environmentalists subscribing to Space Digest. I consider myself to be such. I am (for example) a member of Greenpeace, and I regularly contribute time and money to conservation-oriented groups. > Question for one of these people: Has the Space Program been targeted > by environmentalist radicals for political opposition? If so, what > organizations are they employing to promote this opposition to the > Space Program. I'll ignore the insults and say this: As far as I know, the civilian space program is, in general, not opposed by environmental groups. Some, such as Greenpeace, have expressed concern that potential hazards have not been adequately studied. (Of particular concern is the use of plutonium-isotope batteries; the scheduled payload after Challenger included about 43 pounds of plutonium. No one knows what would have happened had that payload exploded. Several people on this list have already pointed out how plutonium is chemically toxic as well as troublesome if absorbed into the body.) The main opposition centers on the military side of the space program, particularly the miltary takeover of the shuttle and (proposed) incursions onto the space station. Some international envorinmental groups are concerned that the US space program is too isolationist; it poses incredible roadblocks to foreigners wishing to participate. Other concerns: the classification of data from the space program; not sharing that data with countries that could benefit from it (particularly third-world countries in Africa and South America). Please note that I am in no way officially representative of *any* group, environmental or otherwise. The above is my collected impressions from reading the publications of many of these groups as well as listening to some of their speeches. Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!sally!im4u!milano!wex ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 87 02:40:15 GMT From: paulf@shasta.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) Subject: Space Program Priorities Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov A suggested logical order of events: 1) Personned Space Station. GOAL(s) a) To provide for the construction of a heavy earth - lunar transit system for use in (2) below. b) To provide a more stable lab platform for commercial firms developing space - based manufacturing techniques. Thus, when we reach step (3), we'll hopefully have paying customers. 2) Lunar base. GOAL: To provide raw materials for step (3). 3) REAL ESTATE SALE. GOAL: To foster development of the LaGrange points as commercial properties. Justification for the above three step plan: Historically, explorations of new territory have been for the expansion (exploitation?) of business. As business properties become more expensive (land has always been one of the biggest captial outlays for a new business), taxes increase, etc., businesses start looking to new frontiers to make a buck. Examples include the spice trade and the semiconductor market. Enter the new frontier real estate agent. Now, if the agent only has promises from a few leading authorities that his clients might break even by relocating...or even make a huge profit...most will politely decline, because there are too many unknown risks. Face it, relocating to space -- just putting something up there -- is not cheap. The perceived risk is much higer than the expected benefit. We need to give our agent a better offer. To reduce the perceived risk. By allowing the company to move on a trial basis. Get them hooked. And then offer them something concrete -- space is just that, and trying to sell a chunk of Ether is akin to the Florida swampland deal. Sell them some relocated moon chunks. Their own little island. No taxes. No environmentalists. No outside lawyers (for that matter, no unwanted laws). My point is that, as long as we continue to treat space as a neat scientific curiosity, it will remain just that -- curious. But if we really want to live in space, we have to have some reason for being there. Somebody has to pay the bills, and in case you havn't noticed, our government is going broke. I contend that the ONLY way into space is on the shoulders of business. We need a prospectus and a decent real estate agent. Any volunteers? -=paulf Paul A. Flaherty, N9FZX paulf@umunhum.Stanford.EDU ~ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #135 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14369; Sun, 15 Feb 87 03:02:26 PST id AA14369; Sun, 15 Feb 87 03:02:26 PST Date: Sun, 15 Feb 87 03:02:26 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702151102.AA14369@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #136 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 136 Today's Topics: Future of U.S. space program Re: Future of U.S. space program Re: Future of U.S. space program Battleships (was: Re: Future of U.S. space program) Re: The NEXT aviation record Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Re: Future of U.S. space program ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Feb 87 05:23:13 GMT From: grahamb@athena.mit.edu (Graham Bromley) Subject: Future of U.S. space program Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov There have been many articles in this group re. the space program and where it's going (or isn't). It seems to me that the entire problem lies with the politicians, and the higher you go, the worse it gets. Public opinion is way ahead of the powers that be in this. There seems to be quite a strong feeling of public support for invigorating space efforts, yet the powers that be (i.e. Reagan & Co.) are null and void on the subject. The most you can hope for under the current administration (or one like it) is that the need for launch capabilites to support militarization of space will prevent the program from complete oblivion. However I think you can forget grandiose missions of the Apollo type until the power structure is replaced by one with a non-zero vision quotient. Don't forget, in the age of jet airplanes and smart missiles, this administration allowed the shuttle program to disintegrate for lack of realistic funding while hundreds of millions were lavished on the restoration of WWII battleships. A military dinosaur is apparently more meaningful to the national interest than a vigorous space program. If NASA is closed down to pay for a new brigade of cavalry one should not be too suprised. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 87 00:32:53 GMT From: pixar!good@ucbvax.berkeley.edu ("It's kind of fun to do the impossible." -- Walt Disney) Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In all fairness it should be noted that the re-fitting and upgrading (not "restoration") of those battleships resulted in better ships than are being built new (inflammable Sheffield vs armor-plated New Jersey, for instance), and for a lot less money. It was a very efficient use of the taxpayer's dollar. The Pentagon should be so careful with *all* the money they get. I agree that NASA should get more money, but it's abundantly clear that first they need to get their house in order. --Craig ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 87 19:58:34 GMT From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Clayton Cramer) Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > There have been many articles in this group re. the space program and > where it's going (or isn't). It seems to me that the entire problem > lies with the politicians, and the higher you go, the worse it gets. > Public opinion is way ahead of the powers that be in this. There seems > to be quite a strong feeling of public support for invigorating space > efforts, yet the powers that be (i.e. Reagan & Co.) are null and void > on the subject. Maybe it makes you feel better to think this is the case, but my experience talking to people is that only a very few care strongly, one way or the other on this subject. In general, better educated people feel more strongly in favor of the space program, and there is so little strong opposition to it I can't think of any examples I've ever seen -- but most people in this country are AT BEST lukewarm about the space program. Perhaps they neglected the subject when you were in high school, but the level of funding for any particular program is MOSTLY under the control of Congress. That Congress has chosen to spend little money on the space program since Apollo ended can't be blamed on Reagan -- especially since the reductions in funding you complain about go back into the 1970s. > Don't forget, in the age of jet airplanes and smart missiles, this > administration allowed the shuttle program to disintegrate for lack of > realistic funding while hundreds of millions were lavished on the > restoration of WWII battleships. A military dinosaur is apparently > more meaningful to the national interest than a vigorous space > program. If NASA is closed down to pay for a new brigade of cavalry > one should not be too suprised. Come on -- are you really this ignorant of history? Most of the decisions about the shuttle predate Reagan. I'm getting really sick of this ignorant nonsense -- Reagan doesn't run this country in a vacuum. Congress doesn't just have the power to override him -- Congress has to set the funding levels by appropriating money. If you don't like the results of democracy, be honest with your- self and everyone else and admit it. Clayton E. Cramer ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 87 18:24:26 GMT From: kodak!sprankle@rochester.arpa (dave sprankle) Subject: Battleships (was: Re: Future of U.S. space program) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <523@pixar.UUCP> good@pixar.UUCP writes: >In article <975@athena.TEK.COM> grahamb@athena.TEK.COM (Graham Bromley) writes: >>Don't forget, in the age of jet airplanes and smart missiles, >>this administration allowed the shuttle program to disintegrate >>for lack of realistic funding while hundreds of millions were >>lavished on the restoration of WWII battleships. A military >>dinosaur is apparently more meaningful to the national interest >>than a vigorous space program. If NASA is closed down to pay >>for a new brigade of cavalry one should not be too suprised. > >In all fairness it should be noted that the re-fitting and upgrading >(not "restoration") of those battleships resulted in better ships >than are being built new (inflammable Sheffield vs armor-plated New Jersey, >for instance), and for a lot less money. It was a very efficient use of >the taxpayer's dollar. The Pentagon should be so careful with *all* the >money they get. I disagree. While battleships are certainly majestic, imposing, and beautiful ships, I see no position for them in the modern navy. Yes, Iowa-class ships are heavily armored. Such protection did not save the Bismarck, the Prince of Wales, or the Repulse in World War II--and they were done in by WWII aircraft, which were much slower and less heavily armed than strike aircraft are today. (Surface ships played a major part in the sinking of the Bismarck, but British carrier aircraft sealed her fate.) Also, one should remember that tactical nuclear weapons did not exist back then. These ships are as large, as psychologically valuable and as vulnerable as aircraft carriers. They require the same escorts and air cover as do carriers. Yet they fill no special role--naval aircraft can launch cruise missiles and perform ground-attack missions with much more versatility, and their 16-inch guns are easily outranged by anti-ship missiles. Dreadnought battleships have never played a decisive part in any major naval war; they have been obsolete weapons since the end of WWI. Their appeal lies in their propoganda value, not in their fighting strength. They have never, and will never, rule the seas. We need to spend our money on better ships, yes--small, well armed, fast, survivable ships, not crippled giants. The Royal Navy nearly lost two world wars because it prepared for them by building dreadnoughts when they needed escort craft. We need to spend our money on important things--on the weapons we need to guard ourselves from attack (but no more than that), and on things such as a sane and long-ranged space program to prepare for our future--not to waste it on the relics of the past. --drl ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 87 19:05:00 GMT From: sundc!nears!occrsh!occrsh.UUCP!QAOKIS.UUCP!authorplaceholder@seismo.css.gov Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I believe the gentleman's name was Jim Bede of the Bede 5 fame. He was going to do the trip in a modified glider. George ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 87 05:37:54 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov >> - you miscalculate the stability of an orbit and it starts to decay? In article <7555@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP the normally level headed (Henry Spencer) writes: >So avoid orbits subject to serious decay. Skylab was not a case of an >orbit suddenly "starting to decay", it was a case of miscalculating the >rate of decay by a relatively modest amount. (Nobody thought Skylab >would stay up to the year 2000 unaided -- a reboost by the Shuttle was >in the plans from the very beginning, and would have happened had the >Shuttle been funded well enough to stay on schedule.) Besides, as many >people have pointed out, satellites falling out of orbit are not a >symptom of an active space program, they are a symptom of a >half-paralyzed space program. If the thing's orbit starts to decay, >you don't sit around wringing your hands in anguish, you go up and >reboost it. We cannot afford "costly" technological fixes in the present economic situation. Let in fission reactors of uranium and SDIO will throw up plutonium reactors. Their efficiencies are horrible, and safety in that environ ( minimized weight, cooling reservoir, etc.) would be so poor that manned fixes would be sheer madness. Avoiding "decaying orbits" ain't that simple. If one of these things "ranaway", there is no borated sand to pile on it to shut it down, and to expect that it would NOT generate orbit disturbing gas jets is naive. Now you are seeing "paranoia" and that is just the type of reaction that many even avid supporters of the space program would have. Besides, this approach is just too damn expensive for the amount of reliable and safe power/mass you get for the return. >>.... What do you do about the contaminated areas of Florida when ..? >Let us not let our paranoia run away with us. As the man pointed out, >a nuclear reactor is not particularly hazardous before it starts >operation. The Soviets have lost .. one nuclear reactor into the ocean >.. If you're feeling fussy, insist that the reactor use uranium rather >than plutonium, although it probably would anyway. A manageable >problem. Nuts! Buried under the salt ocean? Hmmmm! .. how convenient. Try scattering that crap over a large low orbital envelope where planes or even satellites pick up the dusty fall-out for the next ... years. >> - some part in the ion engines or the guidance system fails and >> starts the reactor heading toward impact in New York or Moscow? >Since it will take several months to get there in the sort of orbits an >ion-propelled spacecraft can fly, you go up and fix it long before it >gets far off course. Not me, buddy; you can go, and don't bother coming back (the polluting afterglow, you know). Incidentally, due to the cost cutting necessary because the Japanese are supporting our debt spending less and less with each passing year, you will have to pay for this attempt yourself.. >> Let's face it, nuclear fission is dangerous. Moving it into space >> isn't a cure-all. It makes it MORE dangerous to put it into space, not less. We have made a presentation along with other FUSION concepts (some of which are not applicable to space) to the Air Force Studies Board Committee on Aneutronic Fusion Power, Phase I. If Phase II approves, modest funding would begin in 88. B/R values for PLASMAK(tm) exceeds other approaches by 10^4, so the development time will be quite short, notwithstanding the long term development and high capital cost difficulties with current (tokamak) type approaches. Such endeavors may prejudice my view of fission devices, and may have colored my comments above. .. . for sure! Sorry Henry. Ride Amtrak: America's first Super Collider! Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 87 21:05:00 GMT From: euler.Berkeley.EDU!dma@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Controls Wizard) Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <975@athena.TEK.COM> grahamb@athena.TEK.COM (Graham Bromley) writes: > >There have been many articles in this group re. the space program and >where it's going (or isn't). It seems to me that the entire problem >lies with the politicians, and the higher you go, the worse it gets. >Public opinion is way ahead of the powers that be in this. There seems >to be quite a strong feeling of public support for invigorating space >efforts, yet the powers that be (i.e. Reagan & Co.) are null and void >on the subject. >The most you can hope for under the current administration (or one like >it) is that the need for launch capabilites to support militarization >of space will prevent the program from complete oblivion. However I >think you can forget grandiose missions of the Apollo type until the >power structure is replaced by one with a non-zero vision quotient. I think you misstate the problem. I agree politics inhibits the space program but it does so on both the civilian and military sides. The fundamental problem is the impossibility of long range planning in a nation where the government changes every 2 - 8 years. NASA had its plans for Apollo but governments change and priorities change. The military has exactly the same thing happen, and it costs them even more. Every few years the Air Force is told to scrap everything they've been doing on some given project (having, thus, wasted a few billion dollars and gotten nothing for it) and do something else. Requirements for military space programs often derive from some general's wish list and mean redesigning the wheel so we can get a non-working, non-operational system (that may take years to make operational and will probably never meet spec) to replace one that did essentially the same thing but had fewer whistles and bells. The people who design spacecraft hardware often redesign things for no reason (or without looking for other solutions) and create problems which they look to spacecraft software people to solve (The satellite designers I know believe that software can compensate for any amount of bad design). There is little communication and no real "systems engineering." So projects run behind schedule, costs double or triple and 4 years later there's a new administration which throws away what little has been accomplished. What we need is a mechanism of long range planning that will be less "policy sensitive." (I have no idea of how that could be accomplished.) We need to avoid relying on a single system (e.g. using only the shuttle as a launch vehicle) while avoiding the proliferation of multiple systems that don't really meet any new requirements (we could get by with 3 or 4 types of launch vehicles, based on weight of payload.) One of the reasons military spacecraft are so expensive is that they are essentially "hand- crafted" not mass-produced and much of that is unneccessary. We also need to increase cooperation between the branches of the military and increase cooperation between NASA and the military. (Right now joint NASA/DoD programs tend to be DoD coercing NASA into bad decisions.) A lot of unnecessary systems are built because of jealousy between the services - if the Army gets 1, the Navy has to get 1 and the Air Force needs a dozen. If we want to make a real commitment to a space program, let's try to run it efficiently. Let's figure out what our goals are and not get sidetracked by governmental whims (To some extent, I would place SDI in the class of governmental whims although my opposition to SDI is based only on my doubt that it will get us anywhere useful. At any rate, I don't mean to single out any one program. Of course the programs I work on are the most essential and cutting them shouldn't even be thought of :-)) Miriam Nadel ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #136 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15990; Mon, 16 Feb 87 03:03:08 PST id AA15990; Mon, 16 Feb 87 03:03:08 PST Date: Mon, 16 Feb 87 03:03:08 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702161103.AA15990@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #137 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 137 Today's Topics: Re: Future of U.S. space program (Graham Bromley) Re: Women in Space Re: A use for nuclear fission in space SR-71 Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists antimatter propulsion Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? SRB parachutes SRB parachutes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eugene Miya N. Date: 3 Feb 1987 1440-PST (Tuesday) To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program (Graham Bromley) >From: grahamb@athena.TEK.COM (Graham Bromley) >Subject: Future of U.S. space program >There have been many articles in this group re. the space program >and where it's going (or isn't). It seems to me that the entire ^^^^^^ >problem lies with the politicians, and the higher you go, the worse it >gets. Public opinion is way ahead of the powers that be in this. There >seems to be quite a strong feeling of public support for invigorating >space efforts, yet the powers that be (i.e. Reagan & Co.) are null and >void on the subject. Let me give you and the Net a little inside perspective about the inner goings on in the White House. [Note: I do not necessarily argee with all of the Reagan Administrations policies, nor NASA'a policies]. The problem does NOT lie entirely with politicians. It turns out of the entire (that word again) Staff, only the President himself is really pro-space [his best comment being to Stockman about if he (David) were back in the time of Columbus .....]. The President wants to leave a real mark in history (like all do), and he realizes that it is not all economic policy and politics, but also science and technology. Many of the other staffers, Bush, Weinburger, Schultz are either cold or at best luke-warm to space development. A large part of the problem is that the companies, institutions, etc. who would be the targets of things like space manufacturing, mining, etc. are not interested. They have enough earth bound problems. Perhaps it's an extension of the Detroit syndrome [You can see the article in Science some months back about manufacturing compounds in space]. The only people who are really thrilled are the communications people. The earth sensing people have run into technical blocks not unlike the AI people of the 1960s. >The most you can hope for under the current administration (or one like >it) is that the need for launch capabilites to support militarization >of space will prevent the program from complete oblivion. However I >think you can forget grandiose missions of the Apollo type until the >power structure is replaced by one with a non-zero vision quotient. I would hope for more than the militarization of space, otherwise, I'll think about joining ESSA or JSA. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 87 13:40:52 GMT From: ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Roger J. Noe) Subject: Re: Women in Space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <1684@PUCC.BITNET>, 6080626@PUCC.BITNET (Adam Barr) writes: > I was watching some TV show on the space program (I think it might > have been the episode of "Frontline" recently mentioned) and they were > interviewing astronauts from previous Shuttle flights. One of them was > named Rhea Sheddon (I think) who among other things happened to be a > woman (in fact she was married to another astronaut, that must be a > first). This just got me wondering how many women had been in space. I > can think of Sally Ride and Judy Resnik In the U.S. space program there have been nine women on shuttle crews if one includes Christa McAuliffe, only eight if she is excluded. Three of them are married to men who are also astronauts. There are another five women astronauts currently in NASA, I think, awaiting their first flights. Both Ride and Seddon were among the first group of women selected by NASA back around 1978. Ride is married to astronaut Steve Hawley and Seddon to (oops, forgot his last name) Robert Gibson? Anna Fisher is married to Bill Fisher. The other women who have been to space on the shuttle are Shannon Lucid, Judy Resnik, Kathy Sullivan, Mary Cleave, and Bonnie Dunbar. Only the latter two were not in the 1978 group. The women astronauts awaiting assignment to their first flights were all selected with the 1984 and 1985 groups. The ones I can think of are Marsha Ivins, Ellen Shulman, Kathryn Thornton, Linda Godwin and Tamara Jernigan. Apologies if I've left anyone out. Sally Ride is the only woman to reach space twice; Judy Resnik would have shared that distinction on mission 51L. Roger Noe ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe Uniq Digital Technologies rjnoe@uniq.UUCP 28 South Water Street +1 312 879 1566 Batavia, Illinois 60510 41:50:56 N. 88:18:35 W. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 87 16:40:17 GMT From: milano!wex@im4u.utexas.edu Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <480@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: > >> Let's face it, nuclear fission is dangerous. Moving it into space isn't > >> a cure-all. > > It makes it MORE dangerous to put it into space, not less. We have > made a presentation along with other FUSION concepts (some of which > are not applicable to space) to the Air Force Studies Board Committee > on Aneutronic Fusion Power, Phase I. If Phase II approves, modest > funding would begin in 88. B/R values for PLASMAK(tm) exceeds other > approaches by 10^4, so the development time will be quite short, > notwithstanding the long term development and high capital cost > difficulties with current (tokamak) type approaches. I'm not sure if this belongs in this group, but I don't read *.physics, so please bear with me. I thought that fusion reactors also produced hazardous (radioactive?) wastes. Not in the same quantities as fission reactors, but still a problem to dispose of. Is this not true? What happens if we create a fusion reactor in space? Does the B/R value (to a site on Earth surface) increase or decrease? Are wastes a problem for a PLASMAK reactor in space (say, LEO)? Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!sally!im4u!milano!wex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Feb 87 06:56:29 EST From: Kenneth Ng Subject: SR-71 To: Space In a recent article someone mentioned that the SR-71 is refueled right after takeoff. I always thought this was to allow the plane to heat up, to seal the fuel tanks. Note: I have no contacts other than published material. About the altitude record, is it measured by level flight at that altitude, or just the top of a ballistic curve? I ask this because the F-15 Streak Eagle has a maximum altitude of 98,400 feet even though the engines flame out at 80,000 feet. (Source: McDonnel Douglas F-15 Eagle, by James Perry Stevenson, ISBN 0-8168-0604-7). If the record is for level flight, does anyone want to take a guess at the maximum altitude for a SR-71 on a ballistic curve? Does anyone know at what altitude the engines on the SR-71 flame out? Have the SR-71 engines EVER flamed out due to altitude? ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 87 21:30:58 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > classification of data from the space program; not sharing that data > with countries that could benefit from it (particularly third-world > countries in Africa and South America). Interesting, considering that some of those countries don't have too great a record themselves. I dimly recall an episode where Argentina refused to give Chile access to Landsat images (of Chile) from Argentina's Landsat receiving station. That one was resolved when NASA threatened to turn the satellite off during its passes over Argentina if a bit more cooperation wasn't forthcoming. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 87 23:56:36 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: antimatter propulsion Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Thought this might be of interest... The latest issue of Space World has an interview with Robert Forward, in which he mentions a proposal that he and some folks from Rand, JPL, Los Alamos, and the USAF Rocket Propulsion Lab made to SDIO to make antimatter-based space propulsion real. Given ample funding but not a crash program, it would take about 30 years. The first ten years gets you all the basic technology. The next ten years builds a big, specialized accelerator, useful for physics research but mainly aimed at making enough antimatter to test-fire a full-scale rocket engine. The last ten years builds an antimatter factory on the same scale as the Hanford uranium-enrichment complex, which makes enough antimatter to fuel a large, active space program. This was not a high-risk proposal, just a big and rather long-term one. SDIO decided it was too long-term for them, but the potential remains. "If we don't do anything, then all the people who say that antimatter is foolish and will never come to fruition are correct. Because if we don't do anything, of course nothing will happen and it will take 50 years or 100 years before we have it. But if we *do* something, then we can get it done in 30 years." Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 87 02:47:43 GMT From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ed Post) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov $>Remember they [the SRBs] were also heading for deep water at the time. $ $ I thought that they had turned back toward land at the moment that $ they were destroyed. This is the rationale that others have given for $ the destruction... I just watched the sequence on videotape again. The solids were indeed starting to point back to shore when they were destroyed (although the velocity vector must still have been out to sea.) You can clearly see the motors shut down when the charge goes off. According to some NASA materials I saw a while ago, the fuel in the solids continues to burn only in the presence of substantial pressure and heat. If the pressure is abruptly lowered, the fuel just stops burning. The range safety destruct mechanism is a linear shaped charge which opens the entire length of the engine, providing the pressure change needed to stop the burning. In the Rogers report, there was testimony about the possibility of shutting down the solids to allow abort during first stage firing. The problem was not turning them off (the range safety charge does it just fine), but doing so in a controlled manner so that the abrupt change in load on the stack would not rip it apart, or turn the orbiter into the wind and rip the wings off. -Ed Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp American Information Technology (408)252-8713 ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 87 20:04:51 GMT From: pyramid!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@decwrl.dec.com (Frank Adams) Subject: Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov >[KFL] > Not at all. It is only because individuals benefit from such a > freeway that it is built. I don't agree that it has to be done by > governments. Coast to coast railways were built by private companies. A point of historical fact: not a single transcontinental railway was built without government money. The Great Northern was the only North American transcontinental railway built without federal assistance, but it did get money from states and cities. (Note that, for purposes of this discussion, whose money was used is the relevant point, not whether the actions were taken directly by the government or by private companies.) Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Ashton-Tate 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108 ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 87 20:04:40 GMT From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Clayton Cramer) Subject: Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov This subsidy of transcontinental railroads played a major role in the rapid expansion of the West, dramatically speeding up conflict between whites and Indians. Without these subsidies, I expect there might well have been time for both the Indians to come to a better accommodation with the whites, and much of the wasteful exploitation of resources on the frontier that led to the National Forest system might well have been avoided. In space, there aren't any aboriginal peoples to worry about (yet), but I have uncomfortable feeling that accelerating free market levels of space development may come back to haunt us someday -- much as the subsidies to the railroads led to the accelerated problems with and for the Indians. Clayton E. Cramer ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 87 09:23:59 GMT From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: SRB parachutes Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Another question. If the SRBs had been allowed to burn themselves out, would the parachutes have opened and allowed them to fall into the ocean without sinking? I think it likely that the impact with the ocean and the period spent underwater did more damage to the evidence than either the detonation charge or the burning fuel could. -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 87 17:11:13 GMT From: amdcad!amd!pesnta!epimass!epiwrl!parker@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Alan Parker) Subject: SRB parachutes Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I doubt it. The top of the leaking SRB was damaged when it rotated into the ET (the lower attach points gave way first). [Also-From: oliveb!felix!fritz!bytebug@AMES.ARPA (Roger L. Long) -Ed] ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #137 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17633; Tue, 17 Feb 87 03:04:05 PST id AA17633; Tue, 17 Feb 87 03:04:05 PST Date: Tue, 17 Feb 87 03:04:05 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702171104.AA17633@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #138 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 138 Today's Topics: Re: SRB parachutes SRB Parachutes Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by 3rd world Goals for the space program... Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Feb 87 01:39:53 GMT From: sdcrdcf!lwall@hplabs.hp.com (Larry Wall) Subject: Re: SRB parachutes Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov You're forgetting that the booster in question had a big hole in its side. Trivia question: how high up does the hole have to be for the booster to sink? I suspect the answer is "not very". Didn't they lose one or two at the beginning due to smushing the nozzle on impact with the water? Or were they just damaged? In any event, they'd have had fun keeping it afloat while towing it. Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 07:10:38 GMT From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: SRB Parachutes Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <135@lmi-angel.UUCP>, wsr@lmi-angel.UUCP (Wolfgang Rupprecht) writes: > In article <> desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes: > > ... It means that *even* > >in a situation where the RSO *could* perhaps determine that the vehicle > >poses no threat, he may *nevertheless* be constrained to destroy it. > > ... Letting the boosters go could have easily lost them to > deep water (as well as the danger of hitting a population center). > Blowing them would pevent the recovery 'chutes from working. Even in > 20:20 hindsight the correct action isn't clear. > > ... He could then terminated thrust (most of the > way) by just blowing the charges at the nozzle end. This would have > left the recovery chutes intact. On the right SRB (which was the culprit), the recovery chute did in fact deploy -- when the nose of the SRB impacted the ET. (I don't know whether this was the one we saw floating down to the ocean; it's hard to imagine the chute surviving deployment at 2000 mph.) David Smith HP Labs ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 87 09:20:08 GMT From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <443@lewey.AIT.COM> evp@lewey.AIT.COM (Ed Post) writes: >I just watched the sequence on videotape again. The solids were >indeed starting to point back to shore when they were destroyed >(although the velocity vector must still have been out to sea.) You >can clearly see the motors shut down when the charge goes off. Yes, it is true that suddenly there is no more smoke pouring out of them. On viewing it myself I am not so sure anymore. Does anyone have *definitive* information (as opposed to the speculations we all have) on whether the detonation destroyed important evidence, and on whether the continued burn would have been likely to do so? -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 87 00:06:55 GMT From: rpics!yerazuws@seismo.css.gov (Crah) Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <886@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes: > have) on whether the detonation destroyed important evidence, and on > whether the continued burn would have been likely to do so? According to the Rogers report, there was no difficulty distinguishing between the linear cuts produced by the linear shaped-charge destruct charges, and the melted sections. The questionable areas of the SRB casing joint were not "near" the shaped charges. -Bill Yerazunis ------------------------------ From: Eugene Miya N. Date: 4 Feb 1987 1009-PST (Wednesday) To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by 3rd world >> classification of data from the space program; not sharing that data with >> countries that could benefit from it (particularly third-world countries in >> Africa and South America). > >Interesting, considering that some of those countries don't have too great >a record themselves. I dimly recall an episode where Argentina refused to >give Chile access to Landsat images (of Chile) from Argentina's Landsat >receiving station. That one was resolved when NASA threatened to turn the >satellite off during its passes over Argentina if a bit more cooperation >wasn't forthcoming. > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology I first encountered this problem in remote sensing classes years ago. The problem was first the country of Indonesia, and it stems from the concept of 3-D political boundaries and ownership. 2-D is okay, but how high is a country sovereign? The problem with the concept of "benefit" is that it is (from the 3rd world) as a naive "Peace Corps/Volunteers" perspective. 1) do I want my neighbors to peak over my fence? 2) What happens then the "Ugly American" oil man comes to my country with images in hand and my oil company can't afford such [also consider such images taken by a smart netter as proposed for the oil man]. 3) There is the problem of if the oceans are for all nations, what gives with a land-locked nation like Switzerland? You say I (3rd world) will benefit, but you really want those minerals for your high technology toys. Benefit is a dirt word in some cultures, especially when you give carrot/stick offers. Also, from the scientist's point of view, how can I get money for new projects if people take my data before I get a chance to analyze it. Touchy issues all. I hope you can appreciate these non-technical problems, and that you can see why we have to resolve them BEFORE we go into space. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 87 17:43:20 GMT From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Goals for the space program... Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Someone asked about space-related goals. The following represent the draft versions of the "executive summaries" of some position papers that the North Jersey L5 chapter is working on. Comments from readers of sci.space are welcome. If you are in New Jersey and want to come to the next meeting (at which we will be discussing the full text of the papers), please contact me for directions. (The meeting will be on February 11.) Comments can also be sent to North Jersey L5, P. O. Box 674, Holmdel NJ 07733. All papers and summaries are copyright 1987 North Jersey L5 and are not to be reproduced elsewhere, including other electronic bulletin boards, without explicit permission. ==================================== ACCESS TO SPACE A North Jersey L5 Position Paper Copyright 1987 North Jersey L5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proposed Fiscal '88 Actions: 1. Fund the Heavy-Lift Vehicle at $250 million as requested by DOD. 2. Fully fund the National Aerospace Plane effort at $335 million. 3. Fund preliminary Shuttle II design work. Proposed post-Fiscal '88 Actions: 1. Continue Shuttle II and NASP design work. 2. In 1991 make procurement decision for fifth shuttle orbiter. ==================================== AFTER THE SPACE STATION - WHAT THEN? A North Jersey L5 Position Paper Copyright 1987 North Jersey L5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We propose the following possible post-space station goals: 1. Establishment of a lunar oxygen mine. 2. Recovery of metals from a near-earth asteroid. 3. Recovery of resources from the Martian moons. 4. Orbital power station demonstrator. We urge there be NO Apollo style mission to Mars. ==================================== GOALS FOR THE `90S A North Jersey L5 Position Paper Copyright 1987 North Jersey L5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proposed Fiscal '88 Actions: 1. Fund the Space station at $715 million as requested. 2. Initiate funding for the Orbital Transfer Vehicle as a new start. 3. Begin definition work for Wrist Radio project that builds on the space station and the OTV. ==================================== PROSPECTING IN SPACE Robotic Exploration of Near-Earth Space in the 1990s A North Jersey L5 Position Paper Copyright 1987 North Jersey L5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Our top priorities include: 1. Missions currently underway (Galileo,Venus Radar Mapper, Mars Observer) should be completed as planned. 2. CRAF - Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby as the next new start. 3. LGO - Lunar Geoscience Orbiter follows CRAF in priority. 4. NEAR - Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous is of equal priority with LGO. 5. MAMO - Mainbelt Asteroid Multiple Orbiter is lower priority than NEAR or LGO. ==================================== COMMERCIAL SPACE INCENTIVES A North Jersey L5 Position Paper Copyright 1987 North Jersey L5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Our top priorities include: 1. Passage of a Commercial Space Incentive Act providing guaranteed markets for private launch services at a fixed price. 2. Allocation of research funds into a range of technologies that offer the promise of low-cost manned space transportation for development of a tourist industry within 20 years. 3. Guaranteeing a significant percentage of space research funds (at least 10%) be allocated to small research organizations to promote innovation and creativity in the space industry. February 3, 1987 Evelyn C. Leeper D R A F T (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 87 07:40:35 GMT From: dlb!auspyr!sci!daver@sun.com (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702021753.aa03258@CAD.USNA.ARPA>, baccala@USNA.ARPA (Brent W Baccala) writes: > ... Beam the laser down, and have the rocket ride the beam up. Since > clouds are primarily a low-atmosphere phenomenon (and the ones higher > up are thin), the rocket could be equipped with standard jets to get > above the atmospheric junk. Then fire up the laser, and sail off on a > light beam... Not a bad idea. There was some talk awhile back about the relative costs of getting into orbit. Getting above the atmosphere was cheap (relatively), getting the kinetic energy to get into orbit was a pain. So, use conventional methods to get to, say, 120,000 feet and mach 3.5, and then have an orbiting laser kick you in the ass. Oh well. Now for the hard part. Building and launching the laser booster and its power supply. What kind of a power supply do you need? I seem to remember reading that when the shuttle goes off (used to go off--grr) the energy consumption of the US doubles, or something like that. The power supply for your launch laser is going to have to be within a few orders of magnitude of the average power consumption of the US. nifty. that is a large reactor. And the laser--probably going to have to be a free-electron laser. At one time they were working on some sort of chemical laser (i don't remember the term. you generate the population inversion by combustion--essentially a rocket engine turned on its side with a funny shaped nozzle). i thought that supposed to show promise for high-powered lasers. Unfortunately, that technique is pretty clearly out for an orbiting laser. Kind of goes against the grain, considering chemical power plants to be high power-density devices, and nuclear reactors relatively feeble. Aiming ought to be fairly easy--you'll be out of most of the atmosphere by the time the laser is fired. Now for the capsule--umm. I guess this is no harder than for your ground-based laser launcher, other than that it must either be equipped with atmospheric engines or streamlined to the point where it can be carried by some suitably supersonic aircraft. Nova a while back was talking about using orbital lasers to improve the fuel economy of commercial aircraft. These aircraft would have some target on the back that the lasers would focus on; presumably to heat the air for the engines so the airliners wouldn't need to carry so much fuel. The orbital laser launcher might come about as an outgrowth of this technology. You could presumably use the same laser both as an airplane driver and as a launcher, although the power involved would vary by orders of magnitude. You'd want to be sure not to blast an airplane while in launch mode. All in all, it seems like it might be easier to mumble something like "*** the natives", and launch from Chile. What's the climate like in Somalia? The Seychelles? The Yucatan peninsula might be nice, but it looks awful rainy. Daedalus had a column about a laser rainmaker. Have a laser upwind that chops up the clouds? david rickel cae780!weitek!sci!daver ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #138 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02497; Wed, 18 Feb 87 03:02:47 PST id AA02497; Wed, 18 Feb 87 03:02:47 PST Date: Wed, 18 Feb 87 03:02:47 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702181102.AA02497@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #139 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 18 Feb 87 03:02:47 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #139 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 139 Today's Topics: UFOs, ball lightning Re: Women in Space Re: Women in Space Re: Women in Space Re: Women in Space Re: Women in Space Female Cosmonauts Re: Female Cosmonauts Re: Female Cosmonauts/Astronauts Re: Goals for the space program... Re: Shuttle/Station dependency Re: SR-71 Information about the SR-71 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Feb 87 00:51:35 GMT From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!joels@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Joel Swank) Subject: UFOs, ball lightning Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > The book proposed that these sightings were actually ball lightning, > Unfortunately, I believe that free floating ball lightning is still a > contested phenomenon. Does anyone know of any studies on this beastie? > Can it be generated under lab conditions? According to a show on TDC about Tesla, He was able to generate small short lived ball lightning. The photography of that time did not allow it to be photographed very well, but some photos were shown. Another show that I saw a few years ago was about efforts to explain some UFO sightings. The premise was that some rapidly moving lights were caused by energy given off by rocks under great pressure. First to show the validity of the theory they used a machine that squeezed a cylinder of rock to the breaking point and used high speed photography to see what happened. They captured small streaks of light that occurred just before the rock reached the breaking point. Next they tried to photograph an actual event occurring in highly stressed geologic zones. With a long effort they succeeded in capturing 'UFOs' on film. They were balls of light that appeared from nothing, moved erraticaly for a while and dissappered. This is the best hypothesis I've heard for explaining many UFO sightings. Joel Swank Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 87 07:41:23 GMT From: clyde!watmath!watnot!rcgood@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Rob Good) Subject: Re: Women in Space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Don't forget about female cosmonauts. There was at least one (whose name I forget at the moment.) rcgood@watnot.UUCP Rob Good University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 87 21:49:11 GMT From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ed Post) Subject: Re: Women in Space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Valentina Tereshkova. Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp American Information Technology (408)252-8713 [Also-From: bhaskar@cvl.umd.edu (S.K. Bhaskar) Also-From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) -Ed] ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 87 18:03:41 GMT From: hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com (Bruce T. Lowerre) Subject: Re: Women in Space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Was that her maiden name at the time of her flight or her married name? She later married a male cosmonaut and had a child, daughter I believe. Her child was of great interest as to the effects of space flight on procreation. Guess what? Her child was normal! ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 10:59:28 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!gareth@seismo.css.gov (Gareth Husk) Subject: Re: Women in Space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <3973@hplabsb.UUCP> bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) writes: >In article <1992@cvl.umd.edu>, bhaskar@cvl.umd.edu (S.K. Bhaskar) writes: >> >> Her name was Valentina Tereshkova ( if my memory serves me right ). > >Was that her maiden name at the time of her flight or her married name? She From what I remember of my Russian, and that was a long time ago, the Russians use a different naming convention to us. Whereas we name patrilinearly regardless of gender and typically women change their name upon marrying, although this is becoming less automatic. The Russians use two systems, all women are named matrilinearly and the men patrilinearly. What this means is that you don't change the name you were born with. I think this is right, but as I say its been a long time, so if any of you know better let me know. Gareth. UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!gareth DARPA: gareth%lancs.comp@ucl-cs JANET: gareth@uk.ac.lancs.comp ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 07:54:30 GMT From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: Women in Space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov She married Andrian Nikolayev, who flew 64 orbits in Vostok 3. (She herself flew 48 orbits in Vostok 6.) A book I have (Footprints on the Moon) says that "the pair produced healthy children, disposing of any concern that there could be radiation damage to genes in near-earth orbit." Well, I suppose it is hard to dispose of ALL concern; still, there were considerable (and in retrospect, puzzling) medical concerns about the effects of spaceflight/apparent weightlessness. Doctors expressed concern about astronauts' ability to eat in weightlessness, as perhaps the gravity is necessary to get the food down the esophagus. As a boy, I thought that was a weird concern, considering that I had no problem eating cookies while hanging upside down from a trapeze. But there is such thing as space sickness. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 87 00:22:50 GMT From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Yaron P Sheffer) Subject: Female Cosmonauts Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Valentina Tereshkova was, of course, the first woman to orbit in space. But just before the U.S. launched STS-7 (yep-- 'twas Challenger, sigh!) in June '83 with its first woman Sally Ride, the S.U. launched Soyuz T-7 in August '82 with its second female cosmonaut to Earth orbit: Svetlana Savitskaya, the 111th person to orbit Earth. She did it again, in Soyuz T-12 in July '84, while performing also the first feminine EVA ever. Yaron Sheffer Astronomy At Austin ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 87 11:07:01 GMT From: dayton!viper!dave@rutgers.rutgers.edu (David Messer) Subject: Re: Female Cosmonauts Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <1582@utastro.UUCP> yaron@utastro.UUCP (Yaron P Sheffer) writes: >the 111th person to orbit Earth. She did it again, in Soyuz T-12 in July >'84, while performing also the first feminine EVA ever. I seem to recall a female face, looking into the shuttle from outside, in the movie "The Dream is Alive" ... Disclaimer: | David Messer I'm always right and I never lie. | Lynx Data Systems My company knows this and agrees | UUCP: ihnp4!quest!viper!dave with everything I say. | ihnp4!meccts!viper!dave ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 87 17:25:17 GMT From: ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Roger J. Noe) Subject: Re: Female Cosmonauts/Astronauts Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > I seem to recall a female face, looking into the shuttle from > outside, in the movie "The Dream is Alive" ... That's correct, it was Kathryn Sullivan, the only American woman to participate in an EVA to date. But it was three months after the cosmonaut referred to above. Sullivan made her EVA with David Leestma on mission 41-G, October 1984. Roger Noe ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe Uniq Digital Technologies rjnoe@uniq.UUCP 28 South Water Street +1 312 879 1566 Batavia, Illinois 60510 41:50:56 N. 88:18:35 W. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 87 14:51:08 GMT From: cas@cvl.umd.edu (Dr. Cliff Shaffer) Subject: Re: Goals for the space program... Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Those interested in the future of the space program should look at the January 23, 1987 issue of Science. On page 426 is an article entitled "A crisis in space research". Two points may be of interest. The first is that, without any particular conscious effort on the part of NASA, space science projects (as apart from projects such as the Apollo program) are becoming bigger, much in the way of particle physics projects. This has serious repercussions for the support structure and the budget/management procedures. The second point is that, strictly due to slowing down projects for budgetary reasons, the cost of many projects has gone up dramatically. Add to this the down time due to the Challenger disaster, and we find that projects such as Gallileo and the Space Telescope can double in price. Simply by keeping to an originally agreed funding schedule, the federal government can save itself tremendous amounts of money. Cliff Shaffer cas@cvl.umd.edu ...!cvl!cas ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 87 05:27:41 GMT From: ulysses!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Shuttle/Station dependency Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <7578@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > (Not > everyone thinks the lengthy grounding is fully justified, in fact. Chuck > Yeager is reported to have resigned from the Rogers Commission with the > comment "hell, just don't launch when it's cold".) If Chuck Yeager resigned from the Commission, why does his name appear on the signature page of the report? If he had attended the Commission meetings, he would have known that there were plenty of instances of O-ring erosion and blow-by at temperatures as high as 75 deg F. Since Hollywood has seen fit to make this guy into an infallible hero, I wish he'd stop shooting from the hip. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 87 07:52:07 GMT From: amdahl!meccts!viper!dave@csvax.caltech.edu (David Messer) Subject: Re: SR-71 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702040414.AA13296@angband.s1.gov> KEN@orion.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes: >In a recent article someone mentioned that the SR-71 is refueled right >after takeoff. I always thought this was to allow the plane to heat >up, to seal the fuel tanks. Note: I have no contacts other than >published material. I was under the impression that it was because of the large amount of fuel burned at takeoff. Those engines aren't the most efficient at low speed/altitude. >About the altitude record, is it measured by level flight at that >altitude, or just the top of a ballistic curve? I ask this because >the F-15 Streak Eagle has a maximum altitude of 98,400 feet even >though the engines flame out at 80,000 feet. (Source: McDonnel Douglas The rate-of-climb record that the Streak Eagle holds is to 98,400 feet (i.e. 30,000 meters) but I think it coasted up to a much greater altitude. 113,000 feet sticks in my mind, but I could be far off. Anyway, it was over 100,000 feet. I wonder how high they could have gone if they were trying for an altitude record rather than a rate-of-climb record? David Messer Lynx Data Systems UUCP: ihnp4!quest!viper!dave ihnp4!meccts!viper!dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 87 15:14:12 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET Subject: Information about the SR-71 Technically everything about the SR-71 is supposed to be classified. In actuallity, almost everything about this aircraft is widely known in the aerospace community. I've taken more than one (unclassified) tour of Beale AFB where the SR-71s are based. After some poking around and a asking a few casual questions here are some answers: Maximum altitude: 110,000 ft. Maximum Mach number: 3.41 . Gee Wiz facts about the SR-71: The SR-71 was designed from one set of master plans by only 75 engineers in 1959 (yes, fifty-nine). It first flew in 1964. It's chief designer is one of America's greatest aeronautical engineers: Clarence L. "Kelly" Johnson, who was also chief designer of the U-2. The SR-71 is made almost entirely out of PLASTIC. I was told this by an SR-71 maintenance technician when I was leaning against an SR-71. I expressed disbelief, so he told be to "oilcan" the panels to see for myself. The leading edges and landing gear are made of titanium. The SR-71 has a window on the top for using a star-tracker for precise navigation. The SR-71 can hold only two people. One is a pilot and the other works the navigation and intelligence gear. The SR-71 leaks kerosene like a sieve (I saw this with my own eyes). However this is **designed** so the fuel tanks won't buckle due to thermal expansion. The windows are made of quartz to withstand the heat. The special silver painted tires of the landing gear are kept in a kerosene cooled container during flight. The SR-71 **cruises** on full after-burner. The SR-71 is one of the earliest examples of a variable cycle supersonic engine. The SR-71 uses a cone type supersonic inlet with a variable inlet area. This inlet cone is mounted on a central column and can be brought in or push out by a hydraulic actuator. At cruise mach number the shock wave in the inlet is detected by pressure taps. The data is used by an analog(?) computer for actuating the inlet cone. The turbojet engine is standard technology. However there is a bypass after the first two stages of the compressor. When the SR-71 is at cruise velocity, the turbojet is only **idling** with most of the air passing around the burner cans and turbine stage (passing only through the first compressor stages). After bypassing the turbojet, the air goes directly to the after-burner. The SR-71 launches with the turbojet and full after-burner. After being airborne it cruises to about 30,000 feet on only its turbojet with the afterburner off. The SR-71 must immediately refuel because it is very inefficient at subsonic Mach number. Upon refueling it then goes on after-burner to supersonic speed. At this point the turbojet is powered down and the SR-71 flies like a pseudo-ramjet. I was told that the faster the SR-71 goes the **more** fuel effiecent it gets. However it is limited to Mach 3.41 by temperature. This can be verified by calculating the stagnation temperature behind a 3.41 shock wave for 110,000 feet. Maximum allowable temperature is the melting point of titanium. I was told that the SR-71 is an absolute pig to fly and no fun for the pilot. It's all tightly controlled by checklists because excessive heating or cooling rates will damage the temper of the leading edges. Also the engines can "unstart" (swallow the shock). An unstart can result in immediate disintegration of the aircraft and death of the crew. Unstarts are virtually unpredictable. Many SR-71s have crashed. One last point, I was told that it costs $15,000 just to start an SR-71. None of the facts that I've provided can be verified (as far as I know). Believe at your own risk. Gary Allen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #139 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04490; Thu, 19 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST id AA04490; Thu, 19 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST Date: Thu, 19 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702191102.AA04490@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #140 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 19 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #140 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 140 Today's Topics: Dumping trash on Venus.... Will the Venusians object? Re: Future of U.S. space program Re: SR-71 (really U-2) Re: government coverups of UFOs Re: Goals for the space program... Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Re: SR-71 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 87 16:04:12 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET Subject: Dumping trash on Venus.... Will the Venusians object? In an earlier article to Space Digest I suggested disposing of old or defective ion engine propelled nuclear reactors by dumping them on Mars or Venus. There was (predictably) a whole chorus of cries from people saying "why not dump it on the sun?" Sorry guys, you swallowed that one hook-line-and-sinker. It requires **less** energy to fling something from Earth orbit into interstellar space than to dump it into the Sun. This can be demonstrated by calculating a Hohman transfer orbit to the sun's surface versus a solar escape parabola at 1 AU periapsis then add/subtract your initial kinetic energy from a 1 AU circular orbit. Actually dumping radioactive garbage on the ice caps of Mars might actually be a good way to terraform that planet. Venus on the other hand is the perfect garbage dump and good for nothing else. Although I was amused to read that at least one guy reading this on the net actually believes someone living on Venus might object. I hope he was joking. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 87 16:29:31 GMT From: trwrb!aero!aero2!zeus@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Suess) Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <17185@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> dma@euler.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Controls Wizard) writes: >In article <975@athena.TEK.COM> grahamb@athena.TEK.COM (Graham Bromley) writes: >>There have been many articles in this group re. the space program >>and where it's going (or isn't). It seems to me that the entire >>problem lies with the politicians, . . . >> >I think you misstate the problem. I agree politics inhibits the space >program but it does so on both the civilian and military sides. The >fundamental problem is the impossibility of long range planning in a >nation where the government changes every 2 - 8 years. . . . What if, on the other hand, it's not politicians per se, nor bureaucratic turnovers, but instead the people of the USA that are inhibiting the space program? If most people wanted a robust space program *and were willing to shell out bucks for it*, then the situation would be different. If people had been willing to pay for a safer shuttle, for more manned and unmanned missions, for a space budget ten times what it is now, things would look very different. People, unfortunately, have *not* been willing to pay the extra bucks that would make the space program better and stronger. I believe that attaching any blame to politicians or bureaucracy ignores the fact that government is we, and if we wanted it different, it would *be* different. (This "we" is, regrettably, not the "we" of this newsgroup, nor is it limited to academics, researches, engineers, and scientists. It is, sadly, the "we" of "We, the people...") Dave Suess zeus@aero2.arpa.org ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 87 22:00:24 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60sB) Subject: Re: SR-71 (really U-2) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702040414.AA13296@angband.s1.gov> KEN@orion.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes: > Does anyone >know at what altitude the engines on the SR-71 flame out? Have >the SR-71 engines EVER flamed out due to altitude? I once heard a talk about the U-2 from a former U-2 pilot. It seems that the U-2 does occasionally flame out and the pilot must descend below 60,000 ft. to restart the engines. (Gary Powers was shot down doing this.) I would assume that SR-71's are not immune to flame outs either. Another interesting story he told is about how the Russian interceptor pilots would attempt to shoot down the U-2. The U-2 would be cruising along at 70,000+. The interceptor would get a running start and climb towards the U-2. At about 60,000 ft. it would flame out. Since the interceptor's small wings were worthless at this altitude, it would essentially be on a ballistic path and as manoeuverable as a brick. The U-2 pilot would be watching this happen. As soon as he sees the flame out, he starts a slow turn (a U-2 can't turn quickly at that altitude). When the interceptor gets to the U-2's altitude, the U-2 is well off to one side, too far away for the interceptor's missiles to be any good. The U-2 pilots had fun watching these Soviet bricks go by. Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 87 07:29:38 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <126@lmi-angel.UUCP> wsr@lmi-angel.UUCP (Wolfgang Rupprecht) writes: >I am cross posting this to sci.physics. Hopefully this will improve >the fact to fancy ratio. I am cross postin this to rec.arts.sf-lovers to get some imaginative intelligence into the matter. >In article <> rjp1@ihlpa.UUCP (Pietkivitch from AT&T) writes: >>Are there any enlightened readers out there who can clarify the debate >>of why governments keep such a tight lid on the UFO phenonmenon? >In a more serious vein, I recall reading a very interesting book on >the subject back in high school (sorry it was too long ago to recall >the author/title). Essentially the book tried to inject a bit of >science in this field. One such book was by an editor of Aviation Week (now about 95% retired) - one Phil Klass, whose theory was that most of the unresolved cases could be explained by "ball lightning". Ball lightning research was being done by the Russians at the time as a possible weapon, and so a group of wild eyed optimists here, was able to get the Air Force interested for a while and also have it "protected" by classification. BUT.... NOBODY knew at that time what BL was. Then it was "proven" theoretically that it couldn't exist from general considerations. Of course, this was a very shorted sighted proof (based on miss applica- tion of the virial theorem (inward forces must balance outward forces on the average) which did not cover the concept of BL as we know it now. Correctly applied BL like the PLASMAK(tm) and the Spheromak magnetic topologies are ideally MHD stable and have a significantly higher internal energy. >.. >nebulous 'metallic' (daylight), glowing pulsating object (nightime). >These 'objects' .. .accelerate at bone-smashing rates, drown out AM >radios with static, and even stall cars. The observers often noted a >bright metallic look (even on the side away from the sun). A larger >number of sighting were near high voltage power line. Some sightings >were accompanied by radar 'bogies' in the area. In bright sunlight the dense energetic electron ionized plasma layer supported by the external vacuum poloidal field (omnigenous) is so dense it will reflect the radiation into the infrared and perhaps in special conditions it could reflect into the visible portion of the spectrum giving us a "metallic" looking skin in "bright" external light. >The book proposed that these sightings were actually ball lightning, >or something closely related. The apparent acceleration (from hovering >here, to over the horizon in no-time flat), being caused by the >phenomenon "petering out" and shrinking. The rapid directed motion was >just an illusion. This also explained why there was never a sonic boom >reported. The AM radio static, affinity for power lines etc, was due >to its charged nature. The glowing or translucent nature of the >sightings fits this model well also. It has little to due with a "charge" or even alternating voltages. What model?? The "true" explanation relates to a very powerful magnetoplasmoid with energetic currents. Plasma oscillations can, nevertheless, be set up which would interfere with both AM and FM broadcasts, and the CURRENTS in the high voltage lines will attract them up to the point where the conducting surface is within a few centimeters. BL's are often seen "skating" along transmission lines until they hit an insulator, explode, and many times shatter the insulator (about 8 inches by 6 feet). >Unfortunately, I believe that free floating ball lightning is still a >contested phenomenon. Does anyone know of any studies on this beastie? >Can it be generated under lab conditions? So contested that when we suggested doing a small experimental study for the Plasma Physics Divsion of the NSF, the junior contract manager became so disturbed that he threatened to call security if we persisted in discussing it. He made it evidently clear that Ball Lightning can NOT be explained and therefore CAN NOT exist! He didn't want to listen to anything that might shake up his concept that he had "the correct" solution to that problem. Further anyone who studies the phenomena is a "crackpot". "If it ain't in my textbook, it just ain't." "After all if it did exist then I would know what it is! And, don't bother me with your facts or hypothesis" >(*) I thought the funniest fraud case was a couple that claimed to be >kidnapped by aliens. They sold a book, and went on a lecture circuit >talking about their experience. The frosting on the cake was a claim >that a shiny spot on the sheet-metal of their car had become >temorarily radioactive from the exhaust of the UFO. They knew this >because a compass held near the spot spun rapidly!!! There have been a number of cases where ball lightning has strongly magnetized ferro-active materials and have even generated radioacti- vity in stones and bricks. The radioactivity is induced by an intense beam of five to twenty MeV energetic electrons which is released tangentially when the "mantle" of the Ball lightning ( field trapping conducting shell) becomes unstable or is "punctured" thus releasing the currents in a ballistic beam. IMPORTANT: We are currently seeking private funds to do these experiments and may go ahead just because of our curiosity. If there are any of you that have "personally" observed ball lightning please - MAIL - me a description of it. But PLEASE, do not fit it to any theory, just describe what you saw no matter how bizarre and seemingly inconsistent or contradictory. Timing, color, size, odor, noise, electrical or magnetic effects, shape, cause of formation, death (die with a whimper of a boom), motion, attachment or free floating, with air currents or "bucking them", bounce, damage, rays, feeling, (was it fearsome) and so forth. If you are in physics, electrical engineering, and the DC Washington area and would be interested in contributing to the experiment, give me a call. Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 87 04:21:48 GMT From: csustan!csun!psivax!nrcvax!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@lll-lcc.arpa (Mark Muhlestein) Subject: Re: Goals for the space program... Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I think that to really facilitate the breakout into space we need to establish a capability for manufacturing items outside of earth's gravity well. A lunar mining and materials manufacturing facility would seem to be a good choice. A first step might be a lunar polar orbiter to check for possible volatiles in the polar regions which might help get things rolling without having to bring so much stuff from earth. Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc. {ihnp4,decvax,seismo!ut-sally}utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 87 04:20:18 GMT From: csustan!csun!psivax!nrcvax!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@lll-lcc.arpa (Mark Muhlestein) Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > All this discussion about nuclear energy has reminded me of a crazy > idea. Construct a very large nuclear reactor to be placed into Earth > orbit. ..... It seems to me that if you're going to go to all the expense to build a reactor in space, why don't you build a solar power satellite? I know that Gerard O'Neil and the Space Studies Institute have done feasability studies based on using lunar materials, etc. which looked reasonable to me, at least. There would be no need to refuel it, maintenance would be much less, and much more energy could be generated for a reasonable cost. This over and above the obvious safety considerations. I am new to the net (this is my first posting). Has there been much discussion of solar power satellites? In particular, I am curious about people's ideas on the practicability of such a system. Are there any serious proposals? Are people afraid of relying on an energy source that could be relatively easily destroyed? Would we really have to use lunar sources for the materials? It seems to me that the potential benefits of a solar power satellite should at least stimulate some discussion by people in a position to further such an effort. Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc. {ihnp4,decvax,seismo!ut-sally}utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 87 20:37:52 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: SR-71 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702040414.AA13296@angband.s1.gov> KEN@orion.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes: >[Discussion of SR71 speed and altitude records]... > >About the altitude record, is it measured by level flight at that >altitude, or just the top of a ballistic curve? ... If the record is >for level flight, does anyone want to take a guess at the maximum >altitude for a SR-71 on a ballistic curve? Does anyone know at what >altitude the engines on the SR-71 flame out? Have the SR-71 engines >EVER flamed out due to altitude? While I do not know the altitude limit for the SR-71, its predecessor, the U-2 reconnaisance aircraft, was designed for level flight at extremely high altitudes. How high? Well, my thesis advisor, Richard Muller, did a series of microwave background measurements using detectors flown on NASA U-2's. On his office wall is a very nice color photograph, taken during one of the Apollo missions. In the foreground are the LEM and a space-suited astronaut, standing on a cratered Lunar plain. In the background, clearly visible, is a parked U-2... :-) :-) Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.s1.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #140 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07137; Fri, 20 Feb 87 03:02:41 PST id AA07137; Fri, 20 Feb 87 03:02:41 PST Date: Fri, 20 Feb 87 03:02:41 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702201102.AA07137@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #141 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 20 Feb 87 03:02:41 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #141 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 141 Today's Topics: Aluminum/oxygen rocket Al203 condensation Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket Re: Dumping trash on Venus.... Will the Venusians object? Re: Future of U.S. space program Art Contest Speaker (OKC) Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Re: Fast shuttle launch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Feb 87 21:38:39 GMT From: ulysses!gamma!zeta!mb2c!edsdrd!edstb!msudoc!crlt!russ@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Aluminum/oxygen rocket Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Thanks to all who have responded to the previous posts. Here I go with some actual real live figures. (Everything here is derived from information published in the _CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, CRC Press, 55th edition, or _Handbook of Tables for Applied Engineering Science_, CRC press, 2nd edition). The actual amount of energy released by aluminum/oxygen combustion sets a ceiling for the impulse obtainable from such a rocket. I checked the trusty CRC, and got a heat of combustion of 404,080 calories per gram-mole of products (about 102 grams). Assuming 100% excess O2, this gives an energy of combustion of 1.13e7 J/kg of combustion products. A 100% efficient nozzle would transform this into an exhaust stream with a velocity of 4750 m/sec. Since there is no such thing as a 100% efficient nozzle, here are the exhaust velocity, impulse and mass-ratio figures for efficiencies of 70% down to 25% (I have no idea what is typical, and it seems reasonable to be pessimistic). The assumed lunar orbit skims the surface and requires a delta-V of 1680 m/sec. Nozzle Exhaust Specific Mass ratio eff (%) vel. (m/sec) impl. (sec) (to lunar orbit) ------- ------------ ----------- ---------------- 70 3980 405 1.52 65 3830 391 1.55 60 3680 375 1.58 55 3530 359 1.61 50 3360 343 1.65 45 3190 325 1.69 40 3010 306 1.75 35 2810 287 1.82 30 2600 265 1.91 25 2380 242 2.03 By comparison, the LEM used nitrogen tetroxide/hydrazine fuel, which gives a vacuum specific impulse of about 320 with a nozzle throat/bell area ratio of 20. The corresponding mass ratio is 1.71, not much different from the above. This looks like it will fly! (The 20-megawatt light of Keith's would, using the 50% efficient nozzle, burn about 1.8 kg of Al and O2 per second and produce about 5950 newtons of thrust [about 1330 pounds].) Furthermore, even if it's made *horribly* inefficient (25%), it still works halfway reasonably. The ideal "energizer" gas for this reaction would be helium, but that's in rather short supply on luna, so we will just have to settle for oxygen. Life is tough, isn't it? ;-) !set flame=on Those persons who quibbled about oxygen being tied up in the products of combustion for other reactions also -- phooey. They don't yield solids at the typical combustion temperature. !set flame=off Please send reply mail to {online|ihnp4}!itivax!mnet!russ; I am using crlt temporarily until problems with M-Net's spool volume are fixed and I can get news there again. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. {online|ihnp4}!itivax!mnet!russ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 87 10:14:56 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov Subject: Al203 condensation > From a quick persual of the CRC Handbook, it appears > that aluminum-oxygen burning would produce about 10% more > specific impulse ( thrust per pound of fuel+oxidizer ) than > hydrogen-oxygen burning... > Specific impulse ( correct me if I'm wrong ) is > proportional to Sqrt( E/M ), where E is the energy > input and M is the mass of the propelents. > The problem with an Al-O rocket would be the combustion > chamber. Either it would have to have a lining temperature in > in excess of 2100 degrees Centigrade, or ... The formula for kinetic energy is E=1/2*mv**2 so clearly v=sqr(2E/m) where E is the energy released per reacted molecule and m is the mass of the reaction product. If this v were all directed out the back of the rocket, Isp=v(exhaust)/g. The question is, though, how much of this kinetic energy can be used as thrust? Remember, thermal energy is by definition random. To produce thrust we need to direct the momentum in one direction. This is the function of the nozzle, which adiabatically expands the hot gasses, lowering the pressure and temperature and converting this energy into directed energy. If Al2O3 condenses into a solid at 2100C, then the adiabatic expansion (neglecting supercooling) STOPS at 2100C (call it 2400 K). At this point, how much of the thermal (undirected) energy of the gas has been converted into (directed) kinetic energy? Since E(thermal)=(n/2)kT (where n is the number of degrees of freedom, depends on the gas), the formula for specific impulse including condensation is Isp=sqr[2E*(T(reaction)-T(condensation))/m]/g or, for the specific case here Isp (Al/O2) =sqr[2E*(T(r)-2400)/m]/g Because of the square root factor, you lose big. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU: ucbvax!jade!BROWNVM.ST401385@jade.Berkeley.Edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 87 22:14:12 CST From: Benjamin Chase Subject: Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket To: space-request@angband.s1.gov Putting aside the issues of thrust and exhaust velocity for just a bit, just what is the exhaust going to contain? Solid aluminum oxide (Al2O3)? Isn't that what sapphires are made of? Aren't they somewhat hard? Won't they be a little abrasive to the rocket nozzle when moving through it at high speeds? And do we end up with lots of aluminum oxide dust in orbit? Concerned, Ben Chase ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 87 00:58:38 GMT From: news@csvax.caltech.edu (Usenet netnews) Subject: Re: Dumping trash on Venus.... Will the Venusians object? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Organization : California Institute of Technology Keywords: From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) Path: oddhack!jon In article <8702051508.AA19382@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >Actually dumping radioactive garbage on the ice caps of Mars might >actually be a good way to terraform that planet. Venus on the other >hand is the perfect garbage dump and good for nothing else. Although I >was amused to read that at least one guy reading this on the net >actually believes someone living on Venus might object. I hope he was >joking. > Gary Allen Carbon chauvinism strikes again. More to the point, we may very well WANT the waste in a few decades. Venus is not too useful now, but who can say in a few centuries? We still treat the oceans and atmosphere as a garbage dump despite strong evidence we may regret it soon. I hope YOU'RE joking about dumping it on Mars. Dropping pulverized Phobos parts on the ice caps to raise the albedo was a more elegant method I've heard proposed. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 87 00:17:57 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <125@aero2.ARPA> zeus@aero2.UUCP (Dave Suess) writes: >If people had been willing to pay for a safer shuttle, for more manned >and unmanned missions, for a space budget ten times what it is now, >things would look very different. People, unfortunately, have *not* >been willing to pay the extra bucks that would make the space program >better and stronger. >I believe that attaching any blame to politicians or bureaucracy >ignores the fact that government is we, and if we wanted it different, >it would *be* different. (This "we" is, regrettably, not the "we" of >this newsgroup, nor is it limited to academics, researches, engineers, >and scientists. It is, sadly, the "we" of "We, the people...") The input 'we' have to government is generally limited to voting and letters to our congresscritters. People are usually not willing to vote for a pro-space candidate who violates their other ideological beliefs (Lyndon LaRouche presents material which is pro-space, but I'm not going to vote for him because of that!), which leads to problems for organizations like SpacePac trying to decide who to support. As I recall, they were giving money to both Glenn and Reagan during the primaries. I would be delighted if 10x the current amount of my taxes went to NASA instead of tobacco and dairy subsidies, military aid to Israel and Egypt, and the like [and even more delighted if they just gave the money to me so I could invest in space myself], but that's not going to change regardless of who I vote or don't vote for. It's sort of like having 20 people go out for dinner. 11 want to go to McDonalds and 9 to Burger King. But in politics the 9 are forced to go along regardless of how stupid they think it is. Followups to talk.politics.misc, please. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 87 00:49:00 GMT From: okstate!uokmax!rob@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Robert K. Shull) Subject: Art Contest Speaker (OKC) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The Kirkpatrick Planetarium in Oklahoma City is looking for a speaker for their Third Annual "Visions of the Universe" student art contest. The theme of the contest ranges from science fiction and fact to fantasy. We are interested in either a scientist or science fiction author. The speech is to be given at the banquet honoring finalists and winners at 7:30 PM on February 27th, 1987. If you are interested or have a recommendation, please send electronic mail, or contact the planetarium at: Kirkpatrick Planetarium Christina Reeves-Shull 2100 N.E. 52nd St. Oklahoma City, OK 73111 Phone 405-424-5545 405-321-3396 (After 5 PM and weekends) The planetarium may be able to cover some travel expenses and/or lodging. Thank you, Christina Reeves-Shull Education Specialist Robert K. Shull University of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network {bacyn,glmnhh,lll-lcc,occrsh,okstate,oktext,texsun}!uokmax!rob CIS 73765,1254 Delphi RKSHULL ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 87 19:38:14 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I thought this bit of news was of interest to the newsgroup: [Copied from the Illinois L5 Spacelines newsletter, February 1987] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- THE METALS FOUND IN ONE 5 KM ASTEROID ARE EQUAL IN VALUE TO THE U.S. NATIONAL DEBT. In 1984 the public debt of the United States was about 1,500 billion dollars. The volume of an asteroid 5 kilometers in diameter is roughly 65.4 cubic km. Common meteorites are 81% silicate rock (of little economic value on the Earth), and approximately 13% free metals. The most common metal is iron, but there are also significant quantities of nickel and cobalt: 11.65% iron worth $6,200 billion 1.34% nickel worth $11,400 billion 0.08% cobalt (a strategic material) and 4609 metric tons of gold, worth $60.8 billion, as an impurity. And there are 10,000 more asteriods out there waiting for us... Space Development - It's Worth It. [This message is brought to you as a public service of the Peoria Chapter of the L5 Society Promoting Space Development, 1060 E. Elm, Tucson, AZ 85719] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course, the startup costs for a venture of this magnitude is formidable, but maybe they would make a profit on the second or third asteroid? Any estimates? Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Feb 87 13:37:43 EST From: Brent W Baccala To: cas@cvl.umd.edu Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Fast shuttle launch > Suppose the Russians stranded a crew in space, or all our spy > satellites went blinko, or perhaps The Comet is coming our way (or > whatever emergency scenario you like). How long would it take > to get a shuttle into space, starting today, if no expense or risk > were spared? I doubt that we could move faster then the Russians. An SL-6 failed on Oct 3, putting its payload into a bad orbit. A replacement was launched 12 days later. - BRENT W. BACCALA - Computer Aided Design/Interactive Graphics U.S. Naval Academy Annapolis, MD ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #141 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08960; Sat, 21 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST id AA08960; Sat, 21 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST Date: Sat, 21 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702211102.AA08960@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #142 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 142 Today's Topics: Solar Garbage Re: Earth's Mass and Grav Const Re: nuclear fission in space Info request: Kline-Fogleman airfoil Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Migma Challenger Center for Space Science Education Re: TAU ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1987 22:52 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Solar Garbage In-Reply-To: Msg of 5 Feb 1987 06:28-EST from Ted Anderson Actually it would not be costly to drop garbage into the Sun - provided that it is in a LEO orbit sufficiently above the atmosphere. The trick would be to use a light sail system, first to slowly elevate the ship into much higher orbits and, eventually, use the moon to escape Earth entirely. After that, we use the sail to tack so as to reduce the solar orbit velocity. Then, we cleverly exploit Venus and Mercury to get below them, and continue to tack down until the sails start to melt. All this will take many years (but who cares) and require very little power and weight. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 87 17:54:02 GMT From: pur-phy!newton!clt@h.cc.purdue.edu (Carrick Talmadge) Subject: Re: Earth's Mass and Grav Const Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <965@inuxe.UUCP> fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) writes: >I'd like this simulation to be as good as I can make it, and I believe >that potential sources for these errors are in the values I'm using for >the mass of the Earth or for the universal gravitational constant. The >present values were found in the 1968 CRC. What are the current best >values for these terms? I need as many digits of accuracy as I can >get. > Thanks > Fred Mendenhall Since what actually enters in these equations is the product of G*M, where G is the universal gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the Earth, I would suggest using the measured value of G*M. For this you have your choice: From Earth-Moon laser ranging: G*M = 3.98600444(10) times 10^14 m^3/sec^2 From measurements of the trajectory of the LAGEOS satellite: G*M = 3.986004342(20) times 10^14 m^3/sec^2 The number in parentheses represents the error in the least significant digits, i.e., 1.002(10) -> 1.002 +- 0.010. Hope this helps! Carrick Talmadge clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 87 00:02:20 GMT From: well!msudoc!crlt!russ@lll-lcc.arpa (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <438@lewey.AIT.COM>, evp@lewey.AIT.COM (Ed Post) writes: > in article , wr0m#@andrew.cmu.edu (Walter Henry Roscello) says: > > Does > > anyone have any reasons not to send them to the sun? > > In order to send something directly into the sun, its orbital velocity > has to be killed relative to the sun. If I remember correctly, > earth's orbital velocity is on the order of 17 miles/sec. About 18, if memory serves. > On the other hand, a gravity-whip orbit past Venus or the moon might > do the trick at considerably less energy. Or a gravity-whip past Jupiter. This is exactly how the solar-polar missions were supposed to get there. Someone (obviously un-versed in orbital mechanics) said something silly about "unstable orbits". Unless someone is going to actually take aim with a self-propelled reactor and drop it someplace, a crash is a very remote possibility. First, a reactor is so dense that, even if it were parked in a *very* low orbit, the orbit would take a very long time to decay. Second, if the guidance system were to fail, you could detect this and simply shut down the propulsion system until it could be fixed. You just plot your orbits such that the reactor is never at risk of colliding with the earth should the power die at any time. (Very easy.) If the reactors were going to be used to provide power on Earth, they would be in geosynchronous orbits and thus a *long* way from the ground. Meltdowns would be harmless; escaping vapor would be scavenged by the solar wind and blown from the solar system. Possible use for a dying reactor: use it to push a one-way outer planets probe. (Or a solar probe?) This uses its last gasps in a productive manner. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. {online|ihnp4}!itivax!mnet!russ ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 87 17:42:44 GMT From: clyde!watmath!thunder!mjsamorodny@rutgers.rutgers.edu (mjsamorodny) Subject: Info request: Kline-Fogleman airfoil Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I am a mechanical engineering student doing my degree project on the Kline-Fogleman airfoil. It was featured as used in a paper airplane in the April 1984 issue of Omni Magazine and also in a book called "The Ultimate Paper Airplane" by Richard Kline [Simon and Schuster 1985]. The inventor has appeared on "60 Minutes" and "Letterman" as well. It is similar to a conventional symmetrical airfoil but with a notch or step in the bottom. What I'm looking for is sources for published windtunnel test data or any other type of information anybody has on it or where I can find some. I hear that NASA has done tests on it but are they published anywhere? An aircraft company called Amerijet in Ohio was supposed to build a small business jet using this concept. Did this happen? All I have is the book and the Omni article. Any news would be greatly appreciated. This is my first time on the net, so please forgive any faux pas. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 87 07:35:01 GMT Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? To: space@angband.s1.gov From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) In article <877@ihlpm.UUCP> dcn@ihlpm.UUCP (Dave Newkirk) writes: > THE METALS FOUND IN ONE 5 KM ASTEROID ARE > EQUAL IN VALUE TO THE U.S. NATIONAL DEBT. >... I think we need to be a little more sophisticated than arguments like this; there's no particular shortage of iron, nickel, cobalt etc. in the Earth's crust either. The same problem exists as with asteroids, however - it costs more to get than it's `worth'. It will require truly massive industrialization of space before we can introduce extraterrestrial resources in the supply chain in significant amounts (so you have a 5km asteroid in LEO - how do propose to land it in a useful fashion?), and I believe it will be much cheaper to develop techniques of getting the low-grade stuff here on Earth. Now, for use in space, lunar & asteroidal materials are going to be the way to go in a few decades - because they WILL be cheaper in space than sending it up from here. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Feb 87 13:03 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Migma There was some talk a few months back about fusion power for use in space, and recent talk about fission reactors for use in spacecraft and aircraft. Recently, someone mentioned the migma reactor. The migma reactor was invented by Bogdan Maglich, a former particle physicist, who has for years been trying to sell it to a largely unsympathetic fusion community. Migma is superficially similar to magnetic confinement plasma fusion, in which some configuration of magnetic fields is used to contain a relatively cool (about 10 KeV) H2/H3 thermaized plasma. In migma a magnetic mirror configuration is used to contain a highly nonequilibrium plasma in which MeV range ions are trapped on orbits that intersect at the axis of the device. This scheme has some advantages (if it works; that Omni article only grudgingly mentioned the possibility it would have insurmountable instabilities): (1) Ions are at much higher energies than electrons, so synchrotron radiation losses are reduced. The ions also create a diamagnetic well in which the magnetic field is greatly reduced, also reducing synchrotron losses. (2) The self-intersecting orbits make the ion density nonuniform, with a sharp density peak in the center. This increases the fusion rate over a uniform plasma. (3) Ion energies are higher than in conventional schemes, so one can burn advanced fuels. Use of advanced fuels can greatly reduce or possibly eliminate neutron production and induced radioactivity, and eliminates tritium breeding and storage simplifying reactor design and maintenance. (4) With low neutron production, more power is carried by fast ions, and can be converted to electricity in a direct converter (which has no moving parts, aside from the ions) at high efficiency. Fission and DT fusion must use thermal cycles, which are inefficient and/or bulky. (5) The concept would permit small reactor modules with power output of perhaps several megawatts. While I'm not sure the reactor will be able to economically burn exotic advanced fuels (He3+He3, H1+Li6, He3+Li6 or H1+B11), Maglich's group has presented simulations showing that a stable migma could easily ignite on H2+He3. 10% of the power would be carried by neutrons. The reactor would have an engineering Q of at least 45. Power density would be 20 MW(th)/m**3. Maglich's company, United Sciences, has looked at space applications of the migma reactor. It has a power/mass ratio an order of magnitude higher than fission reactors, and produces power in the form of high voltage DC, good for driving ion or colloid engines. A migma powered ion engine would have an Isp of 10,000 seconds and a mass/thrust ratio of 70 kg/newton, vs. 5000 seconds and 500 kg/N for fission-electric propulsion. Maglich's group has built four reactor models. Migma IV has reached (in 1983) a density of 10**9 to 10**10 deuterons/cm**3 and a confinement time of 20-45 seconds, at an ion energy of 700 KeV. I believe this was at the time the highest energy * density * confinment time product achieved in any controlled fusion device. They hope to increase the density in the next experiment by 1-2 orders of magnitude and the confinement time by 1 order of magnitude by switching to protons (to reduce charge exchange losses) and using electron cyclotron heating to reduce electron drag. A working reactor would have to increase the central density by four orders of magnitude, so don't bet your life it will pan out. Migma is apparently controversial in the fusion community. Lawrence Lidsky, who wrote that article in Technology Review ("The Trouble With Fusion") that was very critical of "mainline" DT fusion, supports Maglich (according to that Omni article he is on United Sciences' steering committee), and his article can be considered a thinly veiled pro-Maglich manifesto. Maglich himself has apparently been less than diplomatic in his criticism of mainline fusion, leading to problems with pillars of the fusion community who, unfortunately for Maglich, influence government funding through peer review, and have careers and prestige invested in tokamaks. At a plasma physics conference last May, Maglich gave a talk openly disparaging a peer review of his Air Force grant proposal (see the abstract in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., early 1986). ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 87 17:54:53 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (Rick Kolker) Subject: Challenger Center for Space Science Education Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov On the anniversary of the Challenger accident, the families of those aboard announced the Challenger Center as a continuation of the work left undone by the tragedy. The Center is the collective name for a series (the first two will be in Washington DC and Houston) of station sites and connecting infrastructure aimed at using space as a means to promote education in the sciences, math and communications. Any classroom in the country will be able to hook into the centers' computer system as an interactive source. Teachers and students at the station sites will live and work in a simulated space station environment. I pass this information (that many of you have undoubtedly already seen) on, because I will be functioning as the Center's interface with the various computer networks. Right now, that's onlyu Compuserve and (with my employers' cooperation) Usenet, but hopefully guest accounts on other nets can be set up soon. I solicit your ideas for the center, help in passing the word, (and help in getting in touch with other nets...anyone a sysop?) Let's keep the usenet discussion on sci.space. Thanks rich kolker Rich Kolker 8519 White Pine Drive Manassas Park, VA 22111 (703)361-1290 (h) (703)749-2315 (w) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 87 22:01:07 GMT From: mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@seismo.css.gov (Wayne Throop) Subject: Re: TAU Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > andrew@alberta.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) > Check out February's "Sky & Telescope", there's a short note on TAU. > Basically, "the mission would last 50 years and venture beyond Pluto to > the fringes of the Oort cloud". > [...] > One question I have about this : "by sending TAU opposite to the direction > of the solar system's direction of motion, the craft will escape the Sun's > influence in the shortest possible time." Doesn't the Sun have the solar > equivalent of a magnetic tail, and wouldn't the probe then be travelling > straight down it? It makes more sense to send the probe at right angles > to the direction of the Sun's motion. You don't get any extra delta v > from the motion of the solar system, but the heliopause is closer. The odd thing is, you don't get significant extra delta-V from the solar system by going "opposite" to its "direction of motion". It seems to me that one would want to go to where the solar magnetosphere and ion wind and so on fade into the galactic background as fast as possible. I'm not sure which direction that would be, but doubt it would be right angles, and I can't see any reason at all for it to be "opposite" to the "direction of motion". Can anybody else? Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #142 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10178; Sun, 22 Feb 87 03:02:20 PST id AA10178; Sun, 22 Feb 87 03:02:20 PST Date: Sun, 22 Feb 87 03:02:20 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702221102.AA10178@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #143 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 143 Today's Topics: Solar Garbage Re: SR-71 Hazards of Plutonium Re: SPACE Digest V7 #129 Re: government coverups of UFOs Propulsion with Metastable Nuclear Isomers UFO nonsense Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Re: Hazards of Plutonium Remarks on an N-Body code ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1987 10:37 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Solar Garbage In-Reply-To: Msg of 6 Feb 1987 23:17-EST from Mail Delivery Subsystem Actually it would not be so costly to drop garbage into the Sun - provided that it originates in a non-decaying LEO orbit sufficiently above the atmosphere. The trick would be to use a light sail system, first to slowly elevate the ship into much higher orbits and, eventually, use the moon to escape Earth entirely. After that, we use the sail to tack so as to reduce the solar orbit velocity. Then, we cleverly exploit Venus and Mercury to get below them, and continue to tack down until the sails start to melt. All this will take many years (but who cares) and require very little power and weight. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 87 04:10:52 GMT From: necntc!encore!linus!alliant!spain@husc6.harvard.edu (Dave Spain) Subject: Re: SR-71 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702040414.AA13296@angband.s1.gov> KEN@orion.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes: >In a recent article someone mentioned that the SR-71 is refueled right >after takeoff. I always thought this was to allow the plane to heat >up, to seal the fuel tanks. Although I'm just speculating, it may also be the case that the extra weight of a full fuel load just makes the thing too heavy to take off within a "reasonable" amount of runway. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 87 22:44:49 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Hazards of Plutonium Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The following information is taken from N. I. Sax, _Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials_, 2nd edition (New York:Reinhold), 1963, p. 1112. PLUTONIUM General Information Description: Radioactive metallic element Formula: Pu. Constant: At wt: 239 Hazard Analysis Toxicity: Highly toxic. The permissible levels for plutonium are the lowers for any of the radioactive elements. This is occasioned by the concentration of plutonium directly in the blood-forming sections of the bone, rather than the more uniform bone distribution shown by other heavy elements. This increases the possibility of damage from equivalent activities of plutonium and has lead to the adoption of the extremely low permissible levels given. Radiation Hazard (Section 5, p. 91): Artificial isotope Pu(239), half-life 2.4E4 years; emits alpha particles of 5.15 MeV and gamma rays of 40-50 keV. For permissible levels see table 5 on page 113. Other plutonium isotopes are similarly toxic. [What follows is my own interpretation, based on the above and on a longer analysis read a year or two ago; unfortunately, I couldn't find the longer analysis again.] 1. Chemical toxicity is not mentioned. I would expect it to be a bit worse than lead. 2. The radioactive hazard is minimal, _provided_ the plutonium is not inhaled or ingested. However, this proviso is impossible to guarantee in a present-day industrial setting. On the other hand, equally hazardous substances are routinely used in industry. 3. As with all radioactive materials, damage from contamination is normally not immediate but rather is in the form of increased cancer risk in later years. Thus young people should be more concerned and old people less concerned about radioactive contamination. I don't think existing standards take this age effect into account. 4. Some of the earlier discussion concerned the possibility of a reactor falling into the ocean. The allowed level for plutonium in water given by Sax is 5E-6 micro-curies per liter. (This is for soluble plutonium and for exposure to the general public. Insoluble plutonium can be a factor of 6 higher, and the occupational standards are about a factor of 20 higher. On the other hand, the standards might have become more stringent since 1963.) I'm guessing that a modest reactor for space applications might contain 10 kg of plutonium (Anybody have a better number?), which I calculate to be about 500 Ci. In order to meet the above standard, it would have to be diluted by cube of water 500 meters on a side. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 1987 13:00-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #129 In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sun, 8 Feb 87 03:16:15 PST Gary: I don't think that the main stream of environmentalists in this country are quite as ideologically oriented. There might be targeting of the space program, but I doubt we would get more than a lunatic fringe of the environmentalists. Over the last few years environmental groups have become mush more distanced from the left, as they realize that the left is no better than the right in protecting wilderness resources, air and water quality, and so forth. In fact, one of the more successful groups, the Nature Conservancy, uses outright capitilist methods: they BUY the land outright via donations. So does Audobon Society. Some of them even lease gas rights, under tighter controls than the government, and use the money to support wildlife preserves. We in the space movement actually feel that the pragmatic (ie save the environment and hang the ideology) environmentalists are a natural constitutency for us. But I will say that they are fairly anti-SDI, so I would expect that portion of space to be under fire. This doesn't matter to groups like L5 since we're neutral on the issue anyway. Summary: look for a fringe attack, but I doubt you'll see massive support behind it. And if it does, I'm sure L5 could mount counter demonstrations... Warning: We all have to make sure that regardless of our attitudes about military, SDI or whatever, that we don't allow space in general to become to closely associated with the military. There be dragons my friends... ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 87 08:08:35 GMT From: stride!tahoe!jimi!robert@UTAH-GR.ARPA (Robert Cray) Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <7597@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> the waffer but no, they couldn't tell him the results. Why? Because it was >> clasified. Now if this was a normal (Nabisco) waffer would they clasify it? > >Sure they would -- this is the Air Force we are talking about! Those clowns >would classify the color of the sky if they thought they could get away >with it. Inferring sinister motives from the case you describe requires Where I work at EPA, we have thousands of pictures of the sky at Edwards AFB used to determine the inherent contrast at a given moment. About a year ago, some big-shot at the air force heard about them, and sent about 5 guys down to confiscate them all. It was pretty funny, becuase no one was really sure where they all were, some where in desk drawers, in boxes here & there, in the wharehouse. They got about 4 months worth, and some poor sap at the AF had to go through each slide (one every hour every day) and make sure there were no pictures of B1 bombers or UFOs escaping from the hanger :-) or whatever is was they were afraid of. --robert CSNET: robert%jimi.cs.unlv.edu@relay.cs.net UUCP: {sdcrdcf,ihnp4}!otto!jimi!robert seismo!unrvax!tahoe!jimi!robert ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Feb 87 15:31 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Propulsion with Metastable Nuclear Isomers According to C. Collins at U.T. Dallas, energy storage in metastable nuclear states can approach 1E12 joules per liter for thousands of years [1]. Collins's group is looking into these materials for use in gamma ray lasers. Their approach is to pump the nuclei from the metastable state to a slightly higher unstable state using either x rays or intense lower frequency coherent radiation. Being able to build a gamma ray laser would be interesting, but there might also be a possibility of inducing incoherent emission with relatively little investment in pump energy. This could make an excellent source of energy for nuclear launchers and aircraft. Collins's energy density estimate of 1E12 J/liter means a specific energy of perhaps 1E11 J/kg, which is the kinetic energy of matter moving at about 400 km/sec. That is much more than enough for a launcher; several orders of magnitude less energy would still be superior to chemical fuels. Conceptually, a small pile of a metastable isomer would be pumped by a laser or an intense microwave source. Nuclei in the pile would decay, either by gamma emission or by internal conversion (ejection of an atomic electron). In any case, the decay energy would be absorbed locally, heating the pile. Hydrogen (or perhaps some denser gas, at the beginning of the launch) would flow through the pile, be heated and expelled at high speed. Part of the hydrogen outflow could be used to drive a turbine/generator, providing power for the pump laser. The advantage of this scheme over a fission reactor would be the reduced shielding requirements (no neutrons or high energy gamma rays) and lack of shortlived decay products and their troublesome afterheat. A properly chosen isomer would emit only low energy photons (10's of KeV) which could be easily absorbed. [1] C. B. Collins, Prospects for a gamma ray laser based on upconversion, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., 32(2), page 264, 1987. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 87 09:50:56 EST From: weltyc@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: UFO nonsense I'm not one to really debate UFO's with anyone - I find it interesting that most sighting are by "good ol' boys" who spend most of their time drinking 150 proof moonshine, however. I did see a show once, though, that looked into these supposed UFO coverup stories. The angle they used was US Govt testing of military technology that is illegal, in an international treaty sense. Therefore, they can not even admit that they were testing this stuff, and letting people think it was a UFO is easier. The angle worked, they seemed to explain all of the cases (they examined) using this theory. The crash in the southwest so many people are worried about was examined, too. They concluded that it was a test flight of a helecopter or something. Human bodies after being burned and mangled can look pretty alien... (was that convincing enough, commander, or do you think these humans will still be suspicious? Breep barglbloop) -Chris weltyc@csv.rpi.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 87 19:11:20 GMT From: milano!wex@im4u.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <877@ihlpm.UUCP>, dcn@ihlpm.UUCP (Dave Newkirk) writes: [list of other materials in asteroid deleted] > and 4609 metric tons of gold, worth $60.8 billion, as an impurity. Hmmm. I know that gold is an excellent conductor; Burroughs (where I used to work) used it in the edge connectors of circuit boards. The gold was valuable enough that they paid the cost of persons and machines to retrieve the gold from junk boards. If gold were significantly cheaper (or if you were building in space where copper et al are rarer) what would be the effect on computer technology? Can gold stand the heat? Does it give better performance? (I guess this is not exactly the correct group for this, but darned if I know what the right one is. This also may be relevant to discussions showing the profitability (or lack thereof) of mining asteroids.) Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!sally!im4u!milano!wex ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 87 19:30:20 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Hazards of Plutonium Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > 2. The radioactive hazard is minimal, _provided_ the plutonium is not > inhaled or ingested... My recollection is that ingested plutonium is actually not tremendously dangerous, because it is not absorbed well. Inhaling it is the big worry. I could be wrong about this. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 11:26:54 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Remarks on an N-Body code In Vol. 7, No. 130 of Space Digest, Fred Mendenhall asked for help in debugging an N-Body code. Fred, I am sorry to say that there is no easy fix for your problem. You assumned **falsely** that third body perturbations are dominant in low earth orbit. In actuality the oblateness terms, J2-J4 and atmospheric drag dominate until you have a gecentric radius of 1.1E8 feet. If you are only interested in the N-Body problem, then let me suggest that you investigate the orbit of the asteroid Toro. The orbital elements for Toro are tabulated in the "Astronomical Almanac 1986" on page G12. However if you insist on investigating low earth orbit trajectories, then I suggest that you read "Astrodynamics" by Samuel Herrick. Use the MSIS 1977 atmospheric model by A.E. Hedin. I've written such a code myself and it is over several thousand lines long. Good luck. Gary ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #143 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11625; Mon, 23 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST id AA11625; Mon, 23 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702231102.AA11625@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #144 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #144 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 144 Today's Topics: Space Enthusiasts as Environmentalists Re: TAU Re: SR71 info Re: Plutonium Daughters and Grand daughters! heat of spacecraft Re: Future of U.S. space program Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Feb 87 07:00:05 GMT Subject: Space Enthusiasts as Environmentalists Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) In article <539805656.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >We in the space movement actually feel that the pragmatic (ie save the >environment and hang the ideology) environmentalists are a natural >constitutency for us. Have there ever been any signs that they in the environmental movement agree? People have been saying this for over a decade but that doesn't make it true. If the Sierra Club started lobbying for the space station, I might believe it. And just how many environmentalists are ``pragmatic'' as opposed to ``ideological'' anyway? There are certainly a lot of ideologically pro-space people (as I understand the term). Talk about ``historical imperatives'' to go into space, analogies to the fate of China after they ceased exploring, and the like sounds real convincing to us but doesn't make much impression on the average person. > But I will say that they are fairly anti-SDI, so >I would expect that portion of space to be under fire. This doesn't >matter to groups like L5 since we're neutral on the issue anyway. True in theory, but so many prominent members of L-5 - particularly members of the Board(s) - are pro-SDI that we seem to be perceived that way anyway (at least by pro-space, non-L-5 people I have talked to). If you were present at the SF Conference straw poll conducted by Keith Henson, you will recall that 95% of the people present were in favor of L-5 taking no position on the issue; but >85% indicated they were PERSONALLY in favor of SDI. It is thus obvious why L-5 is seen as pro-SDI. Actions like inviting Gen. Graham to the Space Development Conference are not going to reinforce a neutral image in most people's mind (I am not objecting to it myself, just pointing this out). >Warning: We all have to make sure that regardless of our attitudes >about military, SDI or whatever, that we don't allow space in general >to become to closely associated with the military. There be dragons my >friends... Too late. Look at the current shuttle manifest once they start flying again; it may be a NASA vehicle but DOD is providing the payloads. They are also funding the only new expendable launch vehicles (Titan 4, Delta, and perhaps a heavy launcher for SDI), providing the majority of funding for the Aerospace Plane, and trying for more than a toehold on the space station (and if all of this doesn't bother you as much as it does me, you're probably wearing a uniform). Space IS closely associated with the military; all we can do is try to equalize the massive and growing imbalance between military and civilian space funding. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 07:30:42 GMT From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: TAU Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <987@sci.UUCP>, daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes: > ... a probe planned to be launched > around 2005, intended to cruise out to about 1000 AU... > > ... The main problem is that it is likely that, while the probe is still > heading out to its operational distance, a more effective drive will > be developed--say something along the lines of a portable fusion plant. > The probe could be obsolete before it ever gets used... So you > get the situation that if you wait for a few more years to build the > probe, you get your data back sooner). > > On the other hand, postponing something like this isn't really a good > idea--if we decide to wait a few more years until interplanetary drive > systems become a bit more mature, we might end up waiting indefinately... Just like I'll never buy a computer if I repeatedly decide to wait one more year for a model that's twice as fast. Just because TAU will be operating for 40 years doesn't mean that it will take 40 years to be useful. It will have become the farthest-out probe long before that. Even if a later probe takes over that honor, its data will still be useful, as it will be reporting on a different region of space. David Smith HP Labs ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 07:35:34 GMT From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: SR71 info Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > the Mach 5.0. It is known, however, that at least 150 attempts to > shoot it down have been unsuccessful. I am led to believe that part of the > trick is simply out-running the SAM. > Around 5 years ago, Flight International wrote that the SR-71 had been fired on by missiles over 800 times without taking a hit. The SR-71 model sold in toy stores carries the same claim on its box, but with the number put at over 900. David Smith HP Labs ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 10:22:35 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: Plutonium Daughters and Grand daughters! Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <7640@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >My recollection is that ingested plutonium is actually not tremendously >dangerous, because it is not absorbed well. Inhaling it is the big worry. >I could be wrong about this. Plutonium is a "super heavy metal" just rolling in electrons, and when you add in the sublevel transitional states then you have a a chemical nightmare. It does tend to precipitate protein (amino acids), but stomach acid can do the trick, and prepare it for digestion. The other problem is that one is stuck with it and all of its daughters, granddaughters, and whatever lovely little jaspers that the neutrons take a fancy to "activate". Sure, some of them have long life times.. You get the whole ball of wax... mother-in-law included! Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 13:05:31 PST From: mcgeer%ji.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer) To: space-request@angband.si.gov, space@angband.s1.gov Subject: heat of spacecraft okay, so i'm a little naive in this area. tell me why a re-entry vehicle cannot slow down sufficiently while re-entering the earth's atmosphere so as to not generate such immense heat from friction. how slow would this be? it seems like i used to know the answer to this, but i've been out of school for a while and my brain's since been cluttered with other things... -- jdm It takes energy for a spacecraft to change from a free-fall orbit to ground-level, no matter how slowly it descends. The energy of a K kg object in free fall at r km is always = -G Me K/2r (potential energy = -G Me K/r, kinetic energy = K v^2/2, v^2/r = G Me/r^2 => k.e. = G Me K/2r On the other hand, the energy of the object on the surface of the earth is: 2 -G Me K 1 |2 pi Re | K -------- + - |--------| = K * -6.2528E8 joules Re 2 |8.6E5 | For an object in orbit at R metres above the earth's surface, we have: -G Me K -------- Re + R Taking 200 km (= 2e5 metres), this works out to: K * -6.0728E+8 joules, which gives us a difference of about 1.8E7 joules for each kilogram of your spacecraft. Now, some (most) of that is generated by your engines; on the way up, all of it is. On the way down, you'd sooner use the atmosphere to absorb some of that energy you're shedding. But energy doesn't go away -- it's merely converted from one form to another. In this case, heat. The object heats both itself and the atmosphere. Actually, the way to generate the *least* heat is to descend very rapidly; blast once to kill of your excess velocity, drop like a rock, then blast again to kill your vertical velocity. Highly wasteful of fuel, but if you shape the ship for maximum terminal velocity you generate very little heat. -- Rick. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 04:03:40 GMT From: sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@hplabs.hp.com (Mark Muhlestein) Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > ... > I believe that attaching any blame to politicians or bureaucracy ignores the > fact that government is we, and if we wanted it different, it would *be* > different. (This "we" is, regrettably, not the "we" of this newsgroup, nor > is it limited to academics, researches, engineers, and scientists. It is, > sadly, the "we" of "We, the people...") > > Dave Suess zeus@aero2.arpa.org Would somebody please explain why it is that the creatures on this planet squabble endlessly over the puny resources of a tiny speck floating in the inconceivabe vastness of the universe? Everything humanity could ever want is available for the taking. Why do we continue to play this zero-sum game when the real sum is infinite (for all practical purposes)? For everyone a quality of life richer and more human than we can imagine is reachable, if only enough of the right people could realize it. Sometimes I just want to scream, "Get me of this **** planet!" Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc. {ihnp4,decvax,seismo!ut-sally}utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 03:38:52 GMT From: sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@hplabs.hp.com (Mark Muhlestein) Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <1519@sci.UUCP>, daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes: > In article <8702021753.aa03258@CAD.USNA.ARPA>, baccala@USNA.ARPA (Brent W Baccala) writes: > > ... Beam the laser down, and have the rocket ride the beam up. > > Since clouds are primarily a low-atmosphere phenomenon (and the > > ones higher up are thin), the rocket could be equipped with standard > > jets to get above the atmospheric junk. Then fire up the laser, > > and sail off on a light beam... > > ... > Oh well. Now for the hard part. Building and launching the laser booster > and its power supply. What kind of a power supply do you need? ... How feasable would it be to have a satellite in geosynchronous orbit either: 1) generate energy from a large array of solar cells to power a laser? or 2) build a really big solar reflector (dynamically focussable paraboloid) and power the rocket directly? I really don't have the background to do the relevant calculations, but it seems that if you had a manufacturing capability in space (probably lunar), either of these might be a cost-effective solution. They could be centered over the eastern coast of any equatorial area with lots of empty ocean to the east for minimum danger in case of mis-pointing. Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc. {ihnp4,decvax,seismo!ut-sally}utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #144 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00672; Tue, 24 Feb 87 03:02:37 PST id AA00672; Tue, 24 Feb 87 03:02:37 PST Date: Tue, 24 Feb 87 03:02:37 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702241102.AA00672@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #145 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 24 Feb 87 03:02:37 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #145 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 145 Today's Topics: Re: Fission, Fusion, Aneutronic Energy, Migma etc. Re: Solar Garbage Re: UFO nonsense Re: SPACE Digest V7 #129 Re: SR71 info Re: Earth's Mass and Grav Const ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Feb 87 10:44:26 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: Fission, Fusion, Aneutronic Energy, Migma etc. Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <480@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: . . ... ... . We have > made a presentation along with other FUSION concepts (some of which > are not applicable to space) to the Air Force Studies Board Committee > on Aneutronic Fusion Power, Phase I. .. .. B/R values for PLASMAK(tm) > exceeds other approaches by 10^4, .. . In article <3650@milano.UUCP>: WEX@MCC.ARPA (Alan Wexelblat) writes: >I thought that fusion reactors also produced hazardous (radioactive?) >wastes. Not the same ..as fission ,.. still a problem to dispose of... ? Yes and NO! The government (DoE) sponsored programs (obsolete technologies) will be very radioactive because of their pressure limitations and power constraints, easily ignited Deuterium Tritium fuel is the only one that might work -- even then not commercially. Two concepts claim to be capable of burning aneutronically -- no neutron production or other radioactivity. The Migma is a kind of a fire fly, delicately osculating rosettes of orbiting ions. By comparison, the PLASMAK(tm) microstar generator ejects a 60 hertz pulsed welders arc of liquid density gas that is fusion heated to drive inductively generated 10 gigawatt electrical AC power or to directly drive by expansion, boost phase propulsion engines. >What happens if we create a fusion reactor in space? Does the B/R >value (to a site on Earth surface) increase or decrease? Are wastes a >problem for a PLASMAK reactor in space (say, LEO)? It works as well in deep space as it does submerged deep in a massive planet's atmosphere. It is the ideal way with baggage to go to and fro and thither and yon. === In article <8702072035.AA23734@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >The Migma reactor was invented by Bogdan Maglich, a former particle >physicist, who has for years been trying to sell it to a largely >unsympathetic fusion community. ... >This scheme has some advantages (if it works; that Omni article only >grudgingly mentioned the possibility it would have insurmountable >instabilities): (1) higher [energy ions]..[and their] diamagnetic well >.. reduced, also [reduce] synchrotron radiation. (2) The self- >intersecting orbits make ..a sharp density peak in the >center...increases the fusion rate over a uniform plasma. (3) [Higher] >Ion energies ..so .. can burn advanced fuels.. ..[which] ..reduce or .. >eliminate neutron production and induced radioactivity, .. simplifying >reactor design and maintenance. (4) .. fast ions, can be converted to >electricity in a direct converter at high efficiency. Fission and DT >fusion must use thermal cycles, which are inefficient and/or bulky. >(5) The concept would permit small reactor modules with power output of >perhaps several megawatts. By comparison (1) the PLASMAK plasmoid's dense Mantle (plasma shell) reflects [about twenty harmonics] the cyclotron radiation emanating from the high field plasma Kernel (toroidal fuel cell) for reabsorption. (2) The maximum applied (partially inertial) compression of the gas blanket and the pressure leveraging effects of it toroidal field (Spheromak-like topology characteristic) can develop plasma densities of a few times 10^18 in HB yielding about 60 megawatts/cc at peak. (3) SAME as above (4) In PLASMAK(TM) technology the fusion energy goes to Bremsstrahlung and then to heating of the compression blanket. This causes expansion which drives "self compression heating" of the plasmoid to squeeze the last possible drop of recoverable aneutronic energy out of the remaining fuel. Releasing the blanket into inductive MHD devices generates electric power with conversion efficiencies up to 95%. (5) The aneutronic PLASMAK(tm) is very compact, indeed ( each burning PLASMAK(TM) Kernel is only 135 cc, and as pointed out above produces up to tens of gigawatts (average continuous power)! We haven't worked out any verified numbers for space applications at this time, and the "guesses" have a considerable range, but still it looks very, very good -- probably an order of magnitude better. D-He3 burning engines would be efficient and very robot friendly, and H-B11 would be human (men -- Heh! Heh!) friendly as long as you were more than 5 kilometers down range of the direct exhaust flame during take off. >Migma is apparently controversial in the fusion community. Lawrence >Lidsky, who wrote that article in Technology Review ("The Trouble With >Fusion") that was very critical of "mainline" DT fusion, supports >Maglich (according to that Omni article he is on United Sciences' >steering committee), and his article can be considered a thinly veiled >pro-Maglich manifesto. Actually, Larry likes Maglich's concepts BECAUSE it is ANEUTRONIC, BUT he likes the PLASMAK(tm) concept for this reason, too, but he likes it more because of its technique for solving the "wall" problem. Rosenbluth likes the PLASMAK(TM) concept because of it stability and its simplicity and elegance. That is said WITHOUT compensation. To say that Lidsky's article was a veiled pro-Maglich manifesto is *** B L O O D Y N U T S *** and quite exasperating!!!! As a matter of fact, both the fusion community and Maglich have yet to come to grips with the "Wall Problem", among other problems of a fundamental engineering nature. >Maglich himself has apparently been less than diplomatic ... Gee! What else is new. What entreprenuer isn't a bit of a dip? Fish school, and so do physicists and .. and .. Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 87 17:52:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Solar Garbage Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov /* Written 9:52 pm Feb 6, 1987 by MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU in uiucdcsb:sci.space */ /* ---------- "Solar Garbage" ---------- */ > After that, we use the [light] sail to tack so as to > reduce the solar orbit velocity. /* End of text from uiucdcsb:sci.space */ From what I've seen, ``tacking'' a light sail presents a problem. With a (water) sailing craft, a tack works because the keel of the craft exerts a force opposing any effort to move the craft perpendicular to its long axis. With a light sail, what serves as the keel? Tilting the sail reduces the applied force, by reducing the area exposed to the proton and photon flux, but it doesn't change the direction of the force vector. Since the fluxes of charged particles, neutral particles, and light all may impinge in slightly different directions (as they are affected differently by the electromagnetic environment in transit), a sufficiently clever sail can use this effect to gain a small amount of directional control. One can also get an applied force at a different direction by the expensive technique of deploying a reflector to give a light flux from another part of the sky. The latter technique seems awfully expensive for garbage disposal. Is there some method for tacking a light sail that I haven't encountered yet? Kevin Kenny UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign CSNET: kenny@UIUC.CSNET NSA line eater food: ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA) Bomb, secret, terrorist, cryptography, DES, assassinate, decode, CIA, NRO. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 17:42:18 GMT From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu (Ethan Vishniac) Subject: Re: UFO nonsense Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702091450.AA07689@csv.rpi.edu>, weltyc@CSV.RPI.EDU (Christopher A. Welty) writes: > > I did see a show once, though, that looked into these supposed > UFO coverup stories. The angle they used was US Govt testing of > military technology that is illegal, in an international treaty sense. > Therefore, they can not even admit that they were testing this stuff, > and letting people think it was a UFO is easier. I don't know whether this is a significant source of sightings in the US. However, this is certainly a major factor in UFO sightings in the USSR. It doesn't even involve the testing of weapons systems that are illegal in any sense. The Soviets have such a pervasive paranoia that virtually no military launches are supposed to come up for public discussion. Hence a series of "jellyfish" sightings received a fair amount of play before it was firmly established that they were unannounced launches. I think some American UFO cranks still bring up these cases. Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU University of Texas ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 20:31:32 GMT From: joel@media-lab.mit.edu (Joel Kollin) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #129 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov As an engineer and avid environmentalist who strongly supports space colonization, I am revolted by the narrow-mindedness shown by those who "oppose environmentalism because it is anti-progress". I think space colonization is essential if we want an Earth worth living in, and I reject the notion that Greenpeace people are a bunch of Soviet dupes who hate technology. Greenpeace opposes SDI on many grounds, most of them political, but I don't recall them badmouthing the civilian space program. I distrust ideology personally and tend to look at problems in tangible terms. Like 1 out of 4 Americans getting cancer. One ton (or is it more?) of TOXIC waste generated per person, per year in the USA. Irreplacable species being wiped out daily with no understanding of their impact on the biosystem. Let's face it - if the rest of the world had our standard of living with today's technology this planet would go to hell in a handbasket faster than you can say "James Watt". I can't understand how anyone who has ever thought about the phrase "quality of life" for any length of time can not support both space colonization and strict environmental controls designed to account for the hidden costs of resource use. Sorry for the rush job but I have work to do. Joel Kollin (joel@media-lab.mit.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 22:00:17 GMT From: panda!teddy!svb@husc6.harvard.edu (Stephen V. Boyle) Subject: Re: SR71 info Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <1275@hplabsc.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >> the Mach 5.0. It is known, however, that at least 150 attempts to >> shoot it down have been unsuccessful. I am led to believe that part of the >> >Around 5 years ago, Flight International wrote that the SR-71 had been >fired on by missiles over 800 times without taking a hit. The SR-71 model > > David Smith I remember reading an interview with an SR-71 pilot who had been engaged in overflights of the combat area during the Six Days War. When asked if he had encountered any trouble with the Soviet-supplied ground-to-air missiles (SAM-3s?) he replied "Nah, we saw 'em coming and just outran them." He went on to say that they had a few "interesting" moments with the hurriedly-supplied successor missiles, but that it had basically been no problem to duck them. Re: SR-71 info. An interesting article was written by Clarence 'Kelly' Johnson that appeared in the July 1982 issue of Popular Mechanics. This article has some interesting discussions of the design and operational problems associated with a Mach 3+, 80,000+ ft. operational ceiling aircraft. A couple of things that are mentioned are: Fuel: Kelly Johnson states that "The fuel had to be stable under temperatures as low as -90 deg. F. in subsonic cruising flight during aerial refueling, and to over 350 deg. F. at high cruising speeds when it would be fed into the engine fuel system. There, it would be used first as hydraulic fluid, at 600 deg. F., to control the afterburner exit flap before being fed into the burner cans of the powerplant and the afterburner itself." In Mark Meyer's book, "Wings", it states that "... The SR-71 leaks fuel badly" as a reason for the refueling after takeoff. Fuselage and wing skins: The Popular Mechanics article describes the problems encountered in designing and fabricating the titanium panels, including the longitudinal corrugations in the wing surface panels to allow for heat-induced expansion. It also states that there were problems encountered in the design of high-temperature plastics for radomes, etc. The article also has a surface temperature diagram of an SR-71 by way of illustrating the cooling load design problems encountered. The peak on the diagram is 1050 deg. F., apparently over the combustion chamber of the Pratt & Whitney J58 engines. Engine flameout: The article says that "With the engines located halfway out on the wing span, we were quite concerned with the very high yawing moment that would develop in an engine-inlet stall." It goes on to describe the installation of accelerometers in the fuselage to sense and trigger automatic 9 deg. rudder correction. "Thsi device worked so well taht our test pilots often couldn't decide whether the left or right engine had blown out. They knew they had a blowout, of course, from the bad buffeting they received with a 'popped shock'. Subsequently, an automatic restart device was developed which limits this engine-out time to a very short period." Performance: The most interesting comment on performance came by way of a statement on the design problems encountered in the design of the ejection system. "Special attention had to be given to the crew escape system to allow safe ejection from 0 mph at sea level to Mach 4 at over 100,000 feet." There's lots of other neat, interesting stuff in the article, including a comment that the J58 was tested by running the exhaust from another engine into it's inlet, by way of simulating the high-temperature ram-air inlet that would be encountered operationally. Steve Boyle {decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!svb svb@suntan ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 04:27:11 GMT From: well!msudoc!crlt!russ@LLL-LCC.ARPA (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Earth's Mass and Grav Const Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <965@inuxe.UUCP>, fred@inuxe.UUCP writes: > I'm in the process of debugging a n-body simulation program and > I've noticed that in both LEO satellites and in the orbital > motion of the moon I end up with an error in orbital period of > 1.4%. > I'm using for the mass of the Earth or for the universal gravitational > constant. The present values were found in the 1968 CRC. > Fred Mendenhall Have you also corrected for the 2000-mile difference between the earth/moon distance and the moon/center of mass distance? This would give you about a 1% error in the value R, and about 1.5% error in orbital period. Good luck. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax!mnet!russ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #145 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03031; Wed, 25 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST id AA03031; Wed, 25 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST Date: Wed, 25 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702251102.AA03031@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #146 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 25 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #146 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 146 Today's Topics: Re: Goals for the space program... Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space Re: Solar Garbage Re: Future of U.S. space program Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Re: Solar Garbage ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Feb 87 05:01:35 GMT From: well!msudoc!crlt!russ@lll-lcc.arpa (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Goals for the space program... Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <2614@ecsvax.UUCP>, duktip@ecsvax.UUCP writes: > ... Where to now? > ... but what > should follow the space station? Moon-base? Mars-mission? Other? > -G. Semones > Duke University How about something that begins a money-making, self-sustaining venture in space, like powersats? One way to make certain that Congressional monetary concerns won't scuttle something is to make it be *lucrative*. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax!m-net!russ ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 18:09:45 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > If gold were significantly cheaper (or if you were building in space where > copper et al are rarer) what would be the effect on computer technology? > Can gold stand the heat? Does it give better performance? My understanding -- I'm not an expert on this -- is that gold is certainly useful in electronics but it's not a wonder metal. Cheap gold would be nice but would not produce a lot of changes. It's great stuff for connectors because it refuses to form much of an oxide film, and contacts to silicon are normally made using gold wires because the resulting bond has various good properties. It would be nice to be able to put a good thick gold coating on connectors so one wouldn't have to worry about second-rate substitutes or about wear on microscopically-thin gold plating, but this would be a convenience rather than a revolution. Doing without copper, on the other hand, would be rather more painful. It's everywhere in electronics and there isn't a particular good substitute that I know of. (If there were one, it would probably be in wide use by now, because copper is not cheap even on Earth.) Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 87 23:59:11 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > We cannot afford "costly" technological fixes in the present economic > situation... The original proposal clearly assumed a somewhat altered economic situation, notably a more vigorous space program -- one which does not let immensely valuable assets fall out of orbit through neglect! > Let in fission reactors of uranium and SDIO will throw up > plutonium reactors... After it's been cooking for a few months, there's not much difference: it's the fission products that are the real danger. By the way, since there are already a number of uranium fission reactors in orbit (Soviet ones), what do you mean by "let in"? > ... safety in that environ ... would be so poor > that manned fixes would be sheer madness... So you use remote-controlled maneuvering units instead, like the one TRW is building for the Shuttle only bigger (and, for this application, probably more radiation-hardened). Keep the human controllers a kilometer or two away so they are relatively safe but still on hand to change tools etc. > Avoiding "decaying orbits" ain't that simple. If one of these things > "ranaway", there is no borated sand to pile on it to shut it down, and to > expect that it would NOT generate orbit disturbing gas jets is naive... An orbit disturbing gas jet solid and coherent enough to de-orbit a large reactor in high orbit would be quite something to see. I wouldn't be surprised about small disturbances in its orbit, but changing it to an atmospheric-entry orbit is stretching things a bit. > ... Besides, this approach is just too damn > expensive for the amount of reliable and safe power/mass you get for the > return. The alternatives aren't cheap either. I agree that the economics need more study before the idea would look viable, but it's not utterly ridiculous. > >Let us not let our paranoia run away with us. As the man pointed out, a > >nuclear reactor is not particularly hazardous before it starts operation. > >The Soviets have lost .. one nuclear reactor into the ocean ... > > Nuts! Buried under the salt ocean? Hmmmm! ... Nuts yourself; the Soviet reactor is a matter of historical record. Reactors without built-up fission products just aren't that dangerous. > ... Try scattering that crap over a large low orbital envelope where planes > or even satellites pick up the dusty fall-out for the next ... years. If it's scattered over a large low orbital envelope, it isn't going to be especially dangerous. Not wonderful, no -- one would like to avoid putting us back to the days of the high fallout levels of the 1950s -- but not a terrible disaster. Incidentally, how would it get scattered that way? > >... you go up and fix it long before it gets far off course. > > Not me, buddy; you can go, and don't bother coming back (the polluting > afterglow, you know)... "Polluting afterglow"? What in the world are you talking about? And as you might suspect, I wouldn't go in with a wrench personally, but by mechanical proxy. My point was: if a chemical plant malfunctions, we fix it. If an oil tank farm malfunctions, we fix it. That sort of thing happens every day. Given a vigorous space program, what's so different about an orbiting reactor? > Incidentally, due to the cost cutting necessary > because the Japanese are supporting our debt spending less and less with > each passing year, you will have to pay for this attempt yourself.. Given the sort of orbital infrastructure implied by the original proposal, that shouldn't be any more difficult than paying for, say, getting an oil-well fire put out by professionals. > ... We have made a presentation along with other FUSION concepts ... > ... B/R values for PLASMAK(tm) exceeds other > approaches by 10^4, so the development time will be quite short, > notwithstanding the long term development and high capital cost > difficulties with current (tokamak) type approaches. When it's a sure enough thing that the SEC will let you sell stock in it, let me know and I'll probably buy some. Until then, please do not cite it as a reason not to pursue alternatives. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 87 06:25:55 GMT From: well!abd@lll-lcc.arpa (AbdulRahman Dennis Lomax) Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: abd@well.UUCP (AbdulRahman Dennis Lomax) Once again an idea is proposed involving generating a lot of heat at substantial distances from reflected sunlight. Not possible. Here's why: The *brightness* of reflected light can never be greater than the source. In order to produce an effect at earth surface equal to the effect of direct sunlight, the mirror would have to have an angular diameter as seen from the surface equal to the sun's (or about one- half degree). This presumes perfect focus and perfect reflection. At geosynchronous orbit, that mirror would be well over 300 km. in diameter. And that's just for one sun, hardly enough heating effect to explosively propel rockets. What burning mirrors do is increase the angular diameter of the image of the sun as seen from the object being heated. This works (as we all know from experience) with short focal length mirrors or lenses. But it is not a practical way to heat things at a distance. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 87 04:01:08 GMT From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Burch) Subject: Re: Solar Garbage Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov All of this assumes one rather unsupportable fact; That you would EVER want to totally lose something that you had boosted into orbit. Even reaction products and highly poisonous items might be of use some day. It might be a much better idea to pick a lunar crater to use as a waste dump. The crater should be large enough to be a good target, and large enough that any splattered material would be contained. It would be much much cheaper to mine the dumpsite for exotic materials than to carry them up from earth or to mine them from the lunar soil. Note that I don't want to hear any environmental arguments about this... You cannot damage an ecology which does not exist! -David B. (Ben) Burch Analysts International Corp. Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb) ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 87 12:35:09 GMT From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gene Ward Smith) Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <151@iconsys.UUCP> mmm@iconsys.UUCP (Mark Muhlestein) writes: >Would somebody please explain why it is that the creatures on this planet >squabble endlessly over the puny resources of a tiny speck floating in >the inconceivabe vastness of the universe? Everything humanity could >ever want is available for the taking. Well, since you asked: the resources are not here, but floating out in the inconceivable vastness of the universe you talked of. They are not developed, and not easy to develop. Your complaint sounds more like outright idiocy than naivety to me, since this is all so painfully obvious I really wonder why I am bothering. >Sometimes I just want to scream, "Get me of this **** planet!" Leave anytime you feel like it: I aint stoppin' you. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 87 18:02:56 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The L5 Society says (quoted by Dave Newkirk): > THE METALS FOUND IN ONE 5 KM ASTEROID ARE > EQUAL IN VALUE TO THE U.S. NATIONAL DEBT. That is a bit of an understatement. Say rather THE METALS FOUND IN ONE 5 KM ASTEROID ARE EQUAL IN VALUE TO AT LEAST 10 TIMES THE U.S. NATIONAL DEBT. Element market concentr. value/lb price/lb in aster. of aster. (A) (B) (C=AxB) ------------------------------------------------- silicates 0.00 0.87 0.00 iron 0.10 0.11 0.01 nickel 3.50 0.02 0.07 cobalt 15.00 0.0008 0.012 gold 5000.00 0.00000001 0.00005 --------- Elemental value of asteroid material (D) .............. 0.09 $/lb Blasting, collection, processing, separation, smelting, casting, launch, deorbit, recovery, remelting, refining, packaging, shipping, delivery, marketing, communications, development, management, insurance, capital, and other costs (est.) (E) ......... 0.12 $/lb Net profit per pound (F=D-E) ...... -0.03 $/lb Mass of asteroid (G) ................ 500,000,000,000,000 lb Net profit per asteroid (H=FxG) .... -15,000,000,000,000 dollars US national debt (I) ............... -1,500,000,000,000 dollars Ratio (J=H/I) ...................... 10 :-) ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 87 15:21:12 GMT From: gatech!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb@hplabs.hp.com (Random) Subject: Re: Solar Garbage Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <163400004@uiucdcsb> kenny@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >From what I've seen, ``tacking'' a light sail presents a problem. >With a (water) sailing craft, a tack works because the keel of the >craft exerts a force opposing any effort to move the craft >perpendicular to its long axis. With a light sail, what serves as the >keel? Tilting the sail reduces the applied force, by reducing the >area exposed to the proton and photon flux, but it doesn't change the >direction of the force vector. > A solar sail is tacked against GRAVITY. The craft is in an orbit around the sun. You then use the sail to apply either a push in the direction of travel to get farther out, or a push against the direction of travel to fall inward. For example, a craft orbiting clockwise when seen fromabove around the sun could do the following: SUN-----------/ SUN-----------\ v v Push in direction of Push against direction of travel, go faster. travel, go slower. -- Random (Randy Buckland) Research Triangle Institute ...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #146 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05845; Thu, 26 Feb 87 03:02:33 PST id AA05845; Thu, 26 Feb 87 03:02:33 PST Date: Thu, 26 Feb 87 03:02:33 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702261102.AA05845@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #147 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 26 Feb 87 03:02:33 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #147 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 147 Today's Topics: Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space Re: Solar Garbage Re: Solar Garbage Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Re: Aluminum-powered rocket engines ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Feb 87 04:47:00 GMT From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ed Post) Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov in article <149@iconsys.UUCP>, mmm@iconsys.UUCP (Mark Muhlestein) says: % %> > ... Beam the laser down, and have the rocket ride the beam up. %> > Since clouds are primarily a low-atmosphere phenomenon (and the %> > ones higher up are thin), the rocket could be equipped with standard %> > jets to get above the atmospheric junk. Then fire up the laser, %> > and sail off on a light beam... %> %> ... %> Oh well. Now for the hard part. Building and launching the laser booster %> and its power supply. What kind of a power supply do you need? ... % % How feasable would it be to have a satellite in geosynchronous orbit % either: % % 1) generate energy from a large array of solar cells to power a laser? % % or % % 2) build a really big solar reflector (dynamically focussable paraboloid) % and power the rocket directly? I'll try to tackle some of these questions. ================ First question is: how much power are we talking about? Answer: a whole lot. Using the space shuttle as a model, we can get some ballpark estimates. At takeoff, the shuttle weighs almost exactly 2.0e6 kg, including solids and fuel. A lot of this is just a crude way of getting it above the atmosphere, and not really accelerating it to orbital velocity. Assume for a moment that we have a nice friendly first stage that can get it up to 100000 ft and mach 3. We now drop the shuttle and fuel tank and let the orbital laser have at it. This gives us a starting mass something below 1.0e6 kg -- I used 640e3 kg for my analysis only because that's as much as the current main engines can push at 1g. (3 engines, 2091kNt vacuum thrust each.) By the time you reach orbital velocity, the reaction mass is all used up, and the shuttle (with cargo) masses about 165000 + 30000 = 195e3 kg. The average mass over the time of acceleration is therefore (195e3+640e3)/2 = 417e3 kg. We are trying to accelerate 417e3 kg to orbital velocity -- 7.6 km/sec. The energy needed to accomplish this is (m*v^2)/2, or about 12e12 joules. If we are doing the work at 3g, which is the top limit for the shuttle (due to cargo constraints), our time to orbit is 7.6 km/sec divided by 3*9.8 m/sec^2 or 259 sec: about 4.3 minutes. During this time, the average power is 12e12 joules divided by 259 seconds, or 46.4e9 watts. A typical commercial nuclear power plant generates one gigawatt -- we need 46 of them. As an aside, the laser beam generates some momentum itself. The momentum of a photon is equivalent to its energy divided by C, so the beam applies a total of 12e12/300e6 = 40e3 kg-m/sec of momentum to both the laser and the shuttle -- about 156 Nt (or 35 pounds) of thrust during the time power is supplied. Considering how much a 46GWt power plant must weigh, this is fairly small, but with continuous use it could cause major changes in the orbit. ================ Second question: how about solar power? The "solar constant" is the power density of solar radiation at the earth's orbital distance -- 1340 Watts/m^2. Assuming perfect conversion, you need 12e12/1340 = 8.96e9 square meters of collection area, or a circular collector 100km in diameter. Naturally, if you can find a way to store up 12e12 joules when you're not firing the laser, you can cut your power requirements considerably. (This is not an option if your collector is a simple reflector.) Again, the beam applies a small but significant thrust to the collector. In this case, since we are reflecting the light instead of generating it onboard, the momentum imparted is doubled. We have a fairly decent solar sail here (if it's light weight). ================ Enough ramblings. The point is, you need a whole heap of energy to get a shuttle into orbit -- a substantial fraction of the world's current energy generating capacity for a few minutes. If you ever get an opportunity to see a launch in person, you'll understand just how much power that amounts to. -- Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp American Information Technology (408)252-8713 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 87 05:38:52 GMT From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ed Post) Subject: Re: Solar Garbage Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov in article <163400004@uiucdcsb>, kenny@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu says: % From what I've seen, ``tacking'' a light sail presents a problem. % With a (water) sailing craft, a tack works because the keel of the % craft exerts a force opposing any effort to move the craft % perpendicular to its long axis. With a light sail, what serves as the % keel? Tilting the sail reduces the applied force, by reducing the % area exposed to the proton and photon flux, but it doesn't change the % direction of the force vector. If you slant the sail relative to the sunlight, the momentum imparted by the "photon" component stays perpendicular to the sail. The charged particles mostly don't bounce -- they stick to the sail, so their contribution is always directly away from the sun. All in all, if you have patience, you can get where you want to go. It requires a whole lot of sail area -- 100km diameter gets you on the order of 70 pounds of thrust around the earth's orbit (not counting charged particles). If your garbage weighs 10000 pounds and the sail weighs 90000, you get 0.0007 gees acceleration. It would take you 130 hours to get out of the earth's gravitational well from LEO assuming perfect conditions. Unfortunately, atmospheric drag is much greater than solar radiation thrust for thousands of miles away from the earth, so the use of sails below Clarke orbit is silly. Also, you only get to use the sail about half the time you're in Earth orbit -- the half of the orbit going towards the Sun is useless. Nonetheless, let's say we've eventually gotten into solar orbit. From there, you need to lose about 18 miles/sec to hit the sun. Here, the sail has to be tacked to get a force against the velocity vector. A 45 degree tack reduces the effective sail area by sqrt(2), and the force against the velocity vector is only sqrt(2) of the total force. Nonetheless, you get 0.00035 gees in the right direction. That takes 8.5e6 seconds to reduce the velocity to zero, or about 98 days. I hope someone who knows more about: 1) thrust to mass ratio of sails 2) atmospheric drag in LEO will get on the air with better numbers than these "back of the envelope" estimates. Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp American Information Technology (408)252-8713 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 87 05:00:10 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: Solar Garbage Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <163400004@uiucdcsb>, kenny@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >From what I've seen, ``tacking'' a light sail presents a problem. > With a (water) sailing craft, a tack works because the keel of the > craft exerts a force opposing any effort to move the craft > perpendicular to its long axis. With a light sail, what serves as the > keel? Gravity serves as a sort of keel. It always pulls you toward the star unless you are close to a planet or something (which makes it more complicated but not unmanageable), whereas the light pushes you in a direction perpendicular (well, not exactly if your sail is not a perfect reflector) to the sail (but always at least somewhat away from the star), as long as you are moving at non-relativistic speeds. > Tilting the sail reduces the applied force, by reducing the > area exposed to the proton and photon flux, but it doesn't change the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > direction of the force vector. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That (the under-carated part) is only true for a sail that absorbs all of the light, which would be only half as efficient as a sail that reflected all of the light (as well as not allowing you directional control). We don't know of any perfect reflectors, but something which reflects most of the light is good enough. Remember that you get more force from reflecting the light than from absorbing it, and that this force is directed opposite of half way between the direction of incoming light and the direction of outgoing light (that is, perpendicular to your sail), or closer to opposite of the direction of incoming light if your sail is not a perfect reflector. This isn't exactly the way gaseous wind works on a sail (because a gas interacts with itself, unlike a stream of photons), but it's close enough to make obtaining directional control quite similar. Again, you use the star's gravity for a keel. > Since the fluxes of charged particles, neutral particles, and light > all may impinge in slightly different directions (as they are affected > differently by the electromagnetic environment in transit), a > sufficiently clever sail can use this effect to gain a small amount of > directional control. The solar wind should work fairly similarly to the light (although you're right that magnetic fields will cause its direction to be slightly different; furthermore its velocity is much less than that of light) if the particles in the solar wind do not stick to (or lose most of their kinetic energy in collision with) the sail. > One can also get an applied force at a different > direction by the expensive technique of deploying a reflector to give > a light flux from another part of the sky. The latter technique seems > awfully expensive for garbage disposal. Don't need it. > Is there some method for tacking a light sail that I haven't > encountered yet? Yes -- see above. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 87 03:52:36 GMT From: pyrnj!mirror!cca!g-rh@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Richard Harter) Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <7650@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >My understanding -- I'm not an expert on this -- is that gold is certainly >useful in electronics but it's not a wonder metal. Cheap gold would be nice >but would not produce a lot of changes.... Actually gold is a wonder metal. It is more conductive than copper, it is almost completely corrosion resistant, it is highly malleable, and has a number of other useful properties. If gold were very cheap it would be the metal of choice for wiring (with copper added for hardening). It would also be the metal of choice for plumbing! Gold plating would be the natural choice for protecting metal surfaces (car bumpers for example) against corrosion. Copper cladding in ships would be replaced by gold cladding. Because of its softness gold is not useful as a structural metal. (Its weight is also telling.) However gold has a lot of neat properties which would be really useful if it were as cheap as aluminum or steel or even copper. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.] ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 87 17:34:15 GMT From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@AMES.ARPA (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Aluminum-powered rocket engines Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702022206.AA10355@angband.s1.gov>, OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes: > The problem with an Al-O rocket would be the combustion > chamber. Either it would have to have a lining temperature in > in excess of 2100 degrees Centigrade, or it would build up a ( thick ) > crust of alumina within it. That's pretty hot! > > Dennis O'Connor Not necessarily. Bleeding a layer of liquid aluminum over the combustion chamber and nozzle could prevent any buildup of alumina at temperatures far below 2100 C. Aluminum melts at 660 C. Using ceramic (even alumina or alumina/zirconia?) combustion chambers and nozzles, cooling by liquid aluminum and preheating the oxygen supply might well suffice, and the layer of bled aluminum would both protect the surfaces against abrasion (white-hot sandpaper grit streaming by, OUCH!) and buildups. (On the other hand, zirconium oxide melts at ~2700 C, which might make it a good material for chamber/throat sections in which the alumina is still hot enough to be fused, and thus not present an abrasion problem.) Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax!m-net!russ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #147 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07891; Fri, 27 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST id AA07891; Fri, 27 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST Date: Fri, 27 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702271102.AA07891@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #148 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 27 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #148 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 148 Today's Topics: Supernova of the century? (MORE) Re: Supernova of the century? (MORE) Re: A nuclear fission in space?? Re: A use for nuclear fission in space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Feb 87 04:55:57 GMT From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Yaron P Sheffer) Subject: Supernova of the century? (MORE) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov We are still baffled... For one thing, the object has reached a halt in the rise, standing at about 4.6-4.5 magnitude, still well below the expected brilliance from a normal Supernova. Secondly, there are new spectral features. If these are hydrogen lines, then the Supernova is of type II, i.e., a massive young supergiant undergoing a core collapse (underwent already...). Searching the field, astronomers have come up with a candidate precursor to the Supernova: a 12th magnitude B type supergiant which has been catalogued before. Its position agrees to within one second of arc with that of the Supernova, and if indeed this is the one to explode, that star SHOULD BE DELETED FROM SAID CATALOG DUE TO, ER..., DEATH BY NATURAL CAUSES... This agrees nicely with the extensive region of nebulosities mentioned before, i.e., an active star forming region filled with very massive young supergiants all heading towards Supernovae explosions at this time or another. Yaron Sheffer Astronomy At Austin ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 87 14:56:46 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Re: Supernova of the century? (MORE) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov From the Feb 25th IAU circulars 4317, 4318: the supernova is showing p-cygni profiles of Ha, Hb, and Hg. The blueshift of these lines are 17,400, 16,100, and 15,500 km/sec, respectively. Looking like a Type II, which should reach magnitude -1. Various observations show the SN still at magnitude 4.3 to 4.5. The position is extremely close to a B3 I (blue supergiant) previously seen at mag. 10.5. [blue supergiants are not supposed to generate type II SN!!, although type II's are not well known.] Bill UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu (or) wyatt%cfa.UUCP@harvard.harvard.edu BITNET: wyatt@cfa2 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 87 00:45:51 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: A nuclear fission in space?? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <7658@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >After it's been cooking for a few months, there's not much difference: >[uranium vs plutonium] it's the fission products that are the real danger. At launch time there is a difference. >By the way, since there are already a number of uranium fission reactors in >orbit (Soviet ones), what do you mean by "let in"? They and the Japanese hunt whales... I'm speaking USA.. SDIO needs are huge and it would be a mistake if they use fission to try to solve that problem (militarily as well as environmentally). >So you use remote-controlled maneuvering units .. bigger (and, for this >application, probably more radiation-hardened). >Keep the human controllers a kilometer or two away so they are relatively >safe but still on hand to change tools etc. Sounds so easy and so cheap. What's relatively? >An orbit disturbing gas jet solid and coherent enough to de-orbit a large >reactor in high orbit would be quite something to see. I wouldn't be >surprised about small disturbances in its orbit, but changing it to an >atmospheric-entry orbit is stretching things a bit. It is not as if this thing can't generate the pressure build up and catastrophic release to produce an eccentricity in its orbit capable of "catching" the exospheric edge at some point along its orbit. >Nuts yourself; the Soviet reactor is a matter of historical record. Reactors >without built-up fission products just aren't that dangerous. The mass of this stuff is an important consideration and also the number of pieces it comes back as. In the Soviet case, if memory serves, it came back pretty much intact. That won't always be the case. I would not exactly conclude very much from that "mouse" when it is "elephants" that are to be orbited (by comparison--analogously). >If it's scattered over a large low orbital envelope, it isn't going to be >especially dangerous. Not wonderful, no -- one would like to avoid putting >us back to the days of the high fallout levels of the 1950s -- but not a >terrible disaster. Incidentally, how would it get scattered that way? If it is bits and dust, it will be scattered by the general hemispheric churn as it settles in. If it is plasma, then it should be able to spread over the magnetic surfaces until it deionizes throughout the exosphere, and especially in the lower altitudes over the poles. >"Polluting afterglow"? What in the world are you talking about? And as >you might suspect, I wouldn't go in with a wrench personally, but by >mechanical proxy. My point was: if a chemical plant malfunctions, we >fix it. If an oil tank farm malfunctions, we fix it. That sort of thing >happens every day. Given a vigorous space program, what's so different >about an orbiting reactor? A bit over descriptive, as is my usual "cartoonish" style. The reactor at three mile island can be "fixed", once it cools down enough that humans can approach it. It is not inconceivable that these "beasties" could become so "hot" and remain so that even remote robotics (sensors) would have serious malfunctions. The question could be "is there enough time to analyze the problem, anticipate the state the device will be in during intercept and first aid, do something meaningful to stop the runaway and then stabilize the orbit?". >that shouldn't be any more difficult than paying for, say, getting an >oil-well fire put out by professionals. These days that could be a hell of a problem... well maybe not at eighteen bucks per.. but the perceived resource in space may not be that important compared to AIDS.. Central America . News gate. the SSC, Mars. GRH is an ongoing PROCESS -- it reaches all nooks. One never knows if his pile of "unspent" money will stay there or will be GRH'ed of existence. >> ... We have made a presentation along with other FUSION concepts ... >When it's a sure enough thing that the SEC will let you sell stock in it, >let me know and I'll probably buy some. Until then, please do not >cite it as a reason not to pursue alternatives. Since PLASMAK(tm) Aneutronic energy will prove to be viable, and is a much more desirable alternative, it is being presented to the USAF, not yet to the public sector. I, for one, will certainly not pass up the opportunity to encourage its funding over that of more limited technologies with serious side effects such as nuclear fission. To dump fission energy remnants into the sun Use PLASMAK(tm) Propulsion driven garbage scows. Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 87 23:20:03 GMT From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@ames.arpa (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <480@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (who is usually much more lucid) writes: >>> - you miscalculate the stability of an orbit and it starts to decay? Please, Paul, don't you know anything about orbital mechanics? Spare us this sort of thing until you do, okay? Orbits decay from air drag, which is quite quantifiable (especially since Skylab gave us such good measurements of atmospheric heating and expansion). >In article <7555@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP the normally level >headed (Henry Spencer) writes: >>So avoid orbits subject to serious decay. [...] >>[...] If the thing's orbit >>starts to decay, you don't sit around wringing your hands in anguish, you >>go up and reboost it. >We cannot afford "costly" technological fixes in the present economic >situation. Let in fission reactors of uranium and SDIO will throw up >plutonium reactors. Why? The whole point of nuclear ion engines is going to be for outer planets probes and space tugs. If one tug malfunctions, you can move it around with another one (you might as well have 2 or 3). > Their efficiencies are horrible... So? The concern is power/mass and energy/mass ratio. Concerns about thermal efficiency belong where you aren't paying $5000/kg to launch things. >... and safety in that >environ ( minimized weight, cooling reservoir, etc.) would be so poor >that manned fixes would be sheer madness. So build them as throwaways; if they malfunction, you simply forget them. Such a malfunction is not likely; except for the rod drives, the space based reactors would resemble the RTG's (Radioisotope Thermal Generators) which have powered our outer-planets probes for decades. These things run for many, many years. Further, they can survive an atmospheric re-entry without losing radioactives (they have to, they're "hot" from day 1), which a reactor would not have to worry about. > Avoiding "decaying orbits" >ain't that simple. Please, Paul, learn some orbital mechanics before you make assertions like this. A perigee over 150 miles is sufficient to keep even a satellite of low mass/area ratio (like Skylab) up for many years. >If one of these things "ranaway", there is no borated >sand to pile on it to shut it down, and to expect that it would NOT >generate orbit disturbing gas jets is naive. Now, exactly what would cause "orbit disturbing gas jets" from a reactor made of uranium carbide, graphite and some heat pipes? One could easily compute the maximum impulse from losing all the heat pipe working fluid (in *one* direction) and insure that it would not be sufficient to cause a re-entry. Or, one could have a small hydrazine-powered auxiliary attitude control system. These have also been around for decades. You have also not yet shown a mechanism for thermal runaway. Without a cooling system subject to breakdown or constriction (how can you break a heat pipe?), you cannot have a thermal runaway either. >Now you are seeing "paranoia" >and that is just the type of reaction that many even avid supporters of >the space program would have. Besides, this approach is just too damn >expensive for the amount of reliable and safe power/mass you get for the >return. Paranoia, yes. Rational, no. You're obviously a nuclear-phobe and unable to consider this rationally. If you were a judge in a case regarding a phobia of yours, would you not disqualify yourself? >Nuts! Buried under the salt ocean? Hmmmm! .. how convenient. Try >scattering that crap over a large low orbital envelope where planes or >even satellites pick up the dusty fall-out for the next ... years. If it can't re-enter after it's hot, what's the worry? Or suppose it's designed to survive re-entry and impact intact, just in case (this can be done, RTG's are designed to)? What dust? > [regarding fixing a broken spacecraft] >Not me, buddy; you can go, and don't bother coming back (the polluting >afterglow, you know). Incidentally, due to the cost cutting necessary >because the Japanese are supporting our debt spending less and less with >each passing year, you will have to pay for this attempt yourself.. Remember, these are throwaways. If it's not on course for Terra (and you don't put on one), you just turn off the ion thrusters and forget it if the reactor malfunctions. The spacecraft might even be designed to separate from a damaged reactor on command, allowing replacement by a human without radiation shielding. Plug a new (cold) one in and go. Use a robot tug (another cheap reactor and ion thrusters) to push the dead reactor into a nice, high parking orbit to cool off. >>> Let's face it, nuclear fission is dangerous. Moving it into space isn't a >>> cure-all. The dangers from nuclear fission are from human exposure to radioisotopes directly or through the food chain. The most dangerous isotopes, released into space, would decay long before they got down to us. Big deal. You just expose your paranoia here, Paul. What's your *rational* objection? >It makes it MORE dangerous to put it into space, not less. Backing for this assertion? What failure modes would cause a reactor to dump its isotope inventory onto people or their food supplies? (I think you have none.) >We have >made a presentation along with other FUSION concepts (some of which >are not applicable to space) to the Air Force Studies Board Committee >on Aneutronic Fusion Power, Phase I. If Phase II approves, modest >funding would begin in 88. B/R values for PLASMAK(tm) exceeds other >approaches by 10^4, so the development time will be quite short, >notwithstanding the long term development and high capital cost >difficulties with current (tokamak) type approaches. Please, Paul, by making irrational, unbacked arguments against fission, you prejudice your own case as well. How long will it take to get a good fusion reactor design up in space? How much does the smallest one weigh (BIG question)? Projected power/mass ratio? How many years until I can get one? How much more research is yet to be done? Has anyone, anywhere achieved net power return from a fusion plant? (Who did I just see complaining about costly technological fixes?) We can build fission reactors *now*, and we *know* that they work. They can also be built small enough to power space probes of reasonable mass. Can you say this? I think not. I don't want to bet any part of the space program on a dream when off-the-shelf technology is ready to do what needs to be done. >| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax!m-net!russ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #148 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10013; Sat, 28 Feb 87 03:03:54 PST id AA10013; Sat, 28 Feb 87 03:03:54 PST Date: Sat, 28 Feb 87 03:03:54 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8702281103.AA10013@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #149 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 28 Feb 87 03:03:54 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #149 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 149 Today's Topics: Re: Solar Garbage Re: Solar Garbage Re: heat of spacecraft Re: Battleships (was: Re: Future of U.S. space program) Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Range Safety SRB fuel burn rate (was: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST) Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Feb 87 14:44:36 GMT From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Subject: Re: Solar Garbage Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <163400004@uiucdcsb> kenny@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >>From what I've seen, ``tacking'' a light sail presents a problem. >With a (water) sailing craft, a tack works because the keel of the >craft exerts a force opposing any effort to move the craft >perpendicular to its long axis. With a light sail, what serves as the >keel? Tilting the sail reduces the applied force, by reducing the >area exposed to the proton and photon flux, but it doesn't change the >direction of the force vector. Tacking involves the use of two forces that can be made to act in different directions. When you tack a sailing ship, the forces are those of the wind on the sail and the water on the hull & rudder. When you tack a free balloon, similarly, the forces are the wind on the balloon and the wind at a lower altitude on the air anchor. Tacking with a light sail uses as the two forces the light pressure and gravity. Gravity always acts towards the star. Light pressure however can be made to act at any vector pointed at least a little out from the star. This is because the sail reflects the light, and so the force vector is always orthogonal to the angle of the sail (assuming a perfect albedo). With care, you can transfer from any direct closed orbit about the star to any other direct closed orbit, since you can gain angular momentum by tilting the sail and lose it by "backing" the sail: Primary way up here || \/ light goes that way ----------------/------> your orbit this way ^ your sail tilted thus (force acts down & to the right) and you are gaining angular momentum. Use a "\" sail to lose angular momentum. Rotate the "/" out of the plane of the VDU screen to change the plane of the orbit. Watch out for UFOs: a vessel under reactionless drive is supposed to yield to a sailing vessel but many don't. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 87 08:20:24 GMT From: ulysses!faline!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Solar Garbage Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov You're forgetting that solar sails are usually reflective, not absorbent. The total momentum imparted to the sail by a single photon is the vector difference of the photon's initial momentum (radially outward from the sun) and the photon's final momentum after being reflected. This vector can be steered around easily by turning the reflector at various angles to the incident sunlight. Since it is just as possible to get a momentum component that opposes the orbital velocity vector as well as aiding it, it is therefore straightforward to spiral toward the sun (i.e., "tack against sunlight"). Phil ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 87 09:23:49 GMT From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: heat of spacecraft Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov If you wanted to remove orbital energy by some means other than air friction, about the only way would be to do a "reverse launch" burn with an equal-but-opposite delta-v than you did getting into orbit in the first place, thus doubling your delta-v requirements. Since the fuel required goes up exponentially with total delta-v capability, this is clearly expensive. It's MUCH easier to dissipate that energy in air friction. As long as you can put most of this energy into the surrounding air instead of your spacecraft, you'll survive. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 87 20:06:56 GMT From: scw@locus.ucla.edu (Stephen C Woods) Subject: Re: Battleships (was: Re: Future of U.S. space program) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <695@kodak.UUCP> sprankle@kodak.UUCP (Daniel R. Lance) writes: >In article <523@pixar.UUCP> good@pixar.UUCP writes: >>In article <975@athena.TEK.COM> grahamb@athena.TEK.COM (Graham Bromley) writes: >>>Don't forget, in the age of jet airplanes and smart missiles, >>>this [...]. If NASA is closed down to pay >>>for a new brigade of cavalry one should not be too suprised. >> >>In all fairness [...] (inflammable Sheffield vs armor-plated New Jersey, >>for instance), [...] be so careful with *all* the >>money they get. > >I disagree. While battleships are certainly majestic, >imposing, and beautiful ships, I see no position for them in the modern >navy. > >Yes, Iowa-class ships are heavily armored. Such protection did not save >the Bismarck, the Prince of Wales, or the Repulse in World War II--and they >were done in by WWII aircraft, which were much slower and less heavily >armed than strike aircraft are today. (Surface ships played a major part >in the sinking of the Bismarck, but British carrier aircraft sealed her fate.) >Also, one should remember that tactical nuclear weapons did not exist >back then. It also didn't save the Yamamoto, however the cases are not the same any more. (1)Modern missiles don't have the capability to penetrate any substantial armour (say thicker that 3 to 4 inches). (2) Missiles don't carry as much explosives as earlier weapons (the 1500+ pound Exocet missile only has a 200 pound warhead). (3) Modern warships (Post 1940) have an anti-aircraft capability that is almost unbelieveable, the ships mentioned [Bismark, POW, Repulse etc.] had, by modern standards, no AA capability at all. >These ships are as large, as psychologically valuable and as vulnerable >as aircraft carriers. They require the same escorts and air cover as do >carriers. Yet they fill no special role--naval aircraft can launch cruise >missiles and perform ground-attack missions with much more versatility, >and their 16-inch guns are easily outranged by anti-ship missiles. Presumably they are not ment to operate as a substitute for the CVA(N) but rather as a suplement to them. As far as vunerability I recall seeing some movie footage of one of the early H-Bomb tests, in it you can see a warship being tilted up at about a 45 degree angle (pitching) by the surface wave caused by the detonation. This ship (Prinz Eugien(SP?)) was the same ship that accompanied the Bismark. She didn't sink until about H+40(hours), even though she was within 1/2 mile of the center of the blast. >Dreadnought battleships have never played a decisive part in any major >naval war; they have been obsolete weapons since the end of WWI. [... Here you are wrong, by its very presence, with out firing a significant shot in anger (bombarding a weather station isn't significant), the Tirpez(SP?) caused the lose of at least one convoy (PQ-17), and in fact put a cramp on the RN and USN until she was finally sunk. As an aside it took 3 direct hits with 20 (yes twenty) ton (tallboy) bombs to finally sink her. >]Their appeal lies in their propoganda value, not in their fighting strength. >They have never, and will never, rule the seas. We need to spend our money >on better ships, yes--small, well armed, fast, survivable ships, not >crippled giants. The Royal Navy nearly lost two world wars because it >prepared for them by building dreadnoughts when they needed escort craft. It is a reasonable assumption that the Germans refrained from attempting an invasion of England in 1940 because (1) the RAF was still around, and (2) because Raeder(SP?) [The CIC of the German Navy] told Hitler that the German fleet (mostly Large destroyers (actually small CLs{light crusers}), Pocket Battleships (actually Large CAs{heavy crusers}) and PT boats [e.i. small, well armed, fast and survivable]) could not keep the British fleet away from the (hypothetical) invasion fleet. > >We need to spend our money on important things--on the weapons we need to >guard ourselves from attack (but no more than that), and on things such >as a sane and long-ranged space program to prepare for our future--not >to waste it on the relics of the past. Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614 UUCP: ...!{inhp4,ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs!scw ARPA:scw@locus.UCLA.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 87 15:17:13 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpf!straka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Straka) Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > > If gold were significantly cheaper (or if you were building in space where > > copper et al are rarer) what would be the effect on computer technology? > > Can gold stand the heat? Does it give better performance? > because it refuses to form much of an oxide film, and contacts to silicon > are normally made using gold wires because the resulting bond has various > good properties. It would be nice to be able to put a good thick gold ^^^^ Actually, in the semiconductor industry, connections to actual silicon (on the topside of the wafer) is done with aluminum since it actually alloys with the silicon (sometimes this is good, sometimes bad). On the backside, gold is often used for good die attach, although many manufacturers use just plain Si. By the way, gold diffuses like hell through Si, so sometimes it is not good at all since it acts as a dopant. Anyway, (heat-based) gold ball bonding from the leadframe to the aluminum on the chip is common in the industry because it is less tricky than the other major competitor, aluminum (ultrasonic wedge bonding). Gold also is much better than aluminum in not breaking in plastic packaged devices during the molding process. HOWEVER, anyone in the semiconductor industry has heard of the dreaded "PURPLE PLAGUE", where the gold-aluminum interface (on the chip) deteriorates with time and heat, generating a purple-colored compound which insulates, not conducts. Failures can ensue. Some people do gold ball bonding better than others. All is not rosey. Sorry for the long relpy, but books can (and have been) written on the subject. Gold is NOT ideal for everything. By the way, I sort of assume that most people know that silver is actually a better electrical conductor than gold, anyway. Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 87 13:46:08 GMT From: cbosgd!gwe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (George Erhart) Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The properties of gold which make it most desirable (in non-decorative applications) are its conductivity (thermal and electrical) and corrosion 7resistance. Its conductivity is about midway between those of copper and aluminum, but as Henry pointed out, it does not readily oxidize, so that contact resistance is more stable for gold. The corrosion resistance is another point. A gold foil is typically applied to sattelites, Moon landers, etc; I would suppose this is because gold will provide an eternally reflective surface, for reliable heat radiation properties. Regardless, this is a rather minor use of gold (although, with a density of over 19 g/cm^3, it would be nice if we didn't have to lift so much of it into orbit). Gold melts at 1063 C, 20 degrees lower than copper. Naturally, alloying will change the melting point. Gold is frequently alloyed with silver, copper, nickel, and zinc; these alloys often have reasonably good mechanical properties (comperable to high-strength copper alloys). Other possible applications in space might be: reaction mass for ion engines, radiation shielding (how decadent ! I love it !), mirrors (esp. for lasers), projectiles (good enough to take out satellites; sorry, I just saw "The man with the Golden Gun")... I think a more pressing problem might be the effect of this newfound gold on the gold market, and possible repercussions in world economics. Of these matters, I am blissfully ignorant. Bill Thacker cbatt!cbosgd!cbdkc1!serial!wbt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 87 23:40:17 pst From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum) To: ucdavis!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Range Safety > This is simply ludicrous. Either they lack some information, or they >are omniscient. Since I don't think NASA can afford to hire God, the >former seems a good bet. The value of the information that they lack, >and the cost of providing it, may dictate that they are getting an >appropriate amount of information. But it is clearly ridiculous to >claim that they have perfect information. If they did, couldn't they >have made the correct decision not to destroy the Challenger SRBs? > > -- David desJardins What makes you so certain that they did not make the correct decision? At this point in time it is not possible to determine what the outcome might have been had the boosters been left intact - perhaps they would have landed on a vessel at sea - which would have killed somebody... Eric Hildum ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 87 17:52:11 GMT From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@ames.arpa (Russ Cage) Subject: SRB fuel burn rate (was: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <877@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes: > This doesn't seem right. I was under the impression that once the > SRB fuel is ignited there is basically nothing you can do to extinguish > it. I suspect that the firing of the RSS caused the exhaust to escape > in all directions, and thus provide no thrust and no smoke tail, but I > don't believe that it would extinguish the fuel. The SRB fuel burn rate is a roughly polynomial function of pressure (according to Jim Loudon). At sea-level, the fuel would burn slowly, much slower than a match head. At lower pressures, it will go out. This is exactly what happened after the booster destruct; unburned fuel was found inside some of the recovered booster segments. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax!m-net!russ ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 87 20:10:09 GMT From: sdcrdcf!lwall@hplabs.hp.com (Larry Wall) Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <710@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@jumbo.UUCP (Jorge Stolfi) writes: > THE METALS FOUND IN ONE 5 KM ASTEROID ARE > EQUAL IN VALUE TO AT LEAST 10 TIMES THE U.S. NATIONAL DEBT. > [and proceeds to derive a huge NEGATIVE value with a :-) ] Actually, we'd never find out what the actual costs of doing it are. We'd get the asteroid into orbit around Earth, start dumping metals on the market, the prices would drop, and the government would start paying the company NOT to mine the asteroid. We end up spending 10 time the national debt anyway, and don't get the metal to boot. C'est la government. Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #149 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12336; Sun, 1 Mar 87 03:02:22 PST id AA12336; Sun, 1 Mar 87 03:02:22 PST Date: Sun, 1 Mar 87 03:02:22 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703011102.AA12336@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #150 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 1 Mar 87 03:02:22 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #150 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 150 Today's Topics: Re: SR-71 Re: Taking off from the moon Re: heat of spacecraft mailing list removal Re: Range Safety UFOs and Ball Lightning gold Soviet Womens' Names in Space Re: SPACE Digest V7 #136 Re: Future of U.S. space program ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Feb 87 20:01:00 GMT From: decvax!ima!mirror!beldar!peterb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: SR-71 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov >In a recent article someone mentioned that the SR-71 is refueled right >after takeoff. I always thought this was to allow the plane to heat >up, to seal the fuel tanks. Note: I have no contacts other than >published material. The reason for this is that the SR-71 leaks like a sieve on the ground. Its tanks are of the wet seal variety, i.e. the heat and stress of flight cause the tanks to seal perfectly(or close enough...). So why top off a plane that'll lose it on the ground. Also, I don't think I would like to be around when a 71 has a hot start... There is enough fuel to get it off the ground, up to 10000 feet, and wait up to 15 minuites for a tanker. Beyond that it's a rock. Peter Barada Xyvision, Inc. (617)-245-4100 UUCP: ...!mirror!beldar!peterb ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 87 20:13:00 GMT From: decvax!ima!mirror!beldar!peterb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Taking off from the moon Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > > If you want to get off the moon, and are willing to > build a large industrial base to do it ( such as a high- > volume rock cracker ) why not just throw dirt at yourself ? > ... Discussion of vertical rock thrower at plat on bottom of ship... This is a great idea, but only works once. Not because the physics break down, but because the amount of material that is in orbit trash any further attempts to land in that area. Even if the rocket is travelling straight up, the material will arc off from the collision and fall further and further from the starting point, some of it eventually entering orbit. Just imagine the material that DOESN'T hit the plate... It will have an orbit that is HUGE, so large that approaching the moon would become a crap shoot. Peter Barada Xyvision, Inc. (617)-245-4100 UUCP: ...!mirror!beldar!peterb ------------------------------ Date: 13 Feb 87 19:53:25 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: heat of spacecraft Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > If you wanted to remove orbital energy by some means other than air > friction, about the only way would be to do a "reverse launch" burn with an > equal-but-opposite delta-v than you did getting into orbit in the first > place, thus doubling your delta-v requirements. Since the fuel required > goes up exponentially with total delta-v capability, this is clearly > expensive. It's MUCH easier to dissipate that energy in air friction. > As long as you can put most of this energy into the surrounding air instead > of your spacecraft, you'll survive. > > Phil This is an answer to half the original question. As for the second part, it is best stated as "Why can't I come down very slowly, so that I don't need to dump off all that heat in such a short time?" The answer to this part is that you can dump only a small amount of your orbital momentum before you've gotten into a path that intersects the earth's surface. At this point you still have a lot of velocity to dispose of. As a result, re-entry paths are limited to about half a revolution or less. Incidentally, this fact also explains why you can't parachute down from orbit and why whipping up asteroidal material into a "vacuum foam" wouldn't be workable. Both of these scenarios burn up during re-entry (unless you whip the asteroid up into space-shuttle tiles!) Dan Starr ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 87 13:01 CST From: Subject: mailing list removal To: space@angband.s1.gov X-Original-To: space@angband.s1.gov, WCE8760 Please remove user mcm9147@tamvenus from your mailing list. This user no longer has an account here. His node name might also be TAMSTAR. thanks WCE sysmgr ------------------------------ Date: 14 Feb 87 17:12:19 GMT From: rpics!yerazuws@seismo.css.gov (Crah) Subject: Re: Range Safety Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702130740.AA07400@clover.ucdavis.edu>, hildum@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU@clover.UUCP (Eric Hildum) writes: > What makes you so certain that they did not make the correct decision? > At this point in time it is not possible to determine what the outcome > might have been had the boosters been left intact - perhaps they would > have landed on a vessel at sea - which would have killed somebody... > > Eric Hildum Or worse yet - the SRB is no longer towing a heavy shuttle fuel tank. It might (barely) have enough propellant left to do something really bad, like get into near-orbit. Or orbit. In either case we never even get to see the pieces, hence Rogers commission would have nothing to go on except films and telemetry. As I understand it, the RSO did not fire the charges until the SRB's turned back toward land, since the test range does not extend far inland, this was a wise choice. -Bill Yerazunis ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 87 21:23 ??? From: KGEISEL%CGIVC%cgi.csnet@relay.cs.net To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: UFOs and Ball Lightning Wolfgang Rupprecht asks in Space Digest #132 about confirmed existence of ball lightning. A while back I attempted to research this phenomenon myself. There is very little on it and I can't remember much of what there was. It HAS been created under laboratory conditions, with strictly controlled conditions (perfectly mixed gasses, etc.). It is true plasma, but no one (that I know of) really knows what makes it tick. It does occure in nature. My father had a personal experience with ball lightning once (which is why I made a modest effort to check up on it.) He was walking home one night (Michigan - I understand it has been reported in limited geographical locations) right when a major thunderstorm was brewing and on its way. A single brightly glowing and crackling ball dropped rapidly from the clouds above. It hovered a few feet off the ground and made its way down the street in erratic motions, jumping between metallic objects. It "latched" on to a power line and moved rapidly down the line past my father. It then lept with unbelievable speed from the line to a nearby trashcan, setting off an explosion which destroyed the trashcan and knocked my father into a ditch! I saw a newspaper clip about an incident here locally just this summer. A man was living in an apartment or something that was a few stories up. He was sleeping with his window open during a thunderstorm. A lightning ball floated through his window. Its loud crackling awoke him just in time for him to see it jump to a lamp or something and destroy an entire wall in his apartment. It is a fascinating phenomenon! In any case, I can see how it could easily account for numerous UFO sightings. It can move very rapidly and seems to like metallic objects. It is very bright, makes a lot of noise, and has been reported to remain in existence as long as two minutes. If you have ever experimented with an old spark gap generator, you know it doesn't take much arcing to completely disrupt an AM radio. That amount of electrical energy has been known to magnetize objects. The UV emission could easily cause "sunburn" which is also often a claim of the sighters. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Feb 87 16:29:05 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Felton) Subject: gold Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The question of use of gold in circuits has many implications. Gold is the only highly conductive metal that can be layed onto materials in very thin coatings. Angstrons are used in some applications. Because it does not oxidize this makes it highly important for connective surfaces ... edge connectors, IC sockets etc. It is also of tremendous value in space antennas. Buckminster Fuller is purported to have stated "that all the gold should be used for coating antennas in space." ! The softness of gold is highly valued in making connections. When an IC is pushed into a gold alloy socket, the soft gold forms a mesh bond around the IC leg, this is less true with harder metals. Anyone who has been at a site where cleaning off the edge connector caused a failed circuit to be re-activated, realizes the importance of good electronic connections. The thickness of the gold is normally of little value. Only if the circuit is taken in and out several times (a bad practice under any circumstances) does the gold layer deteriorate. While gold is highly conductive, it is not the most conductive metal available. Silver is the highest conductor but has the additional property of oxidizing readily. Its use in high quality solders takes advantage of the added conductivity. For most low frequency circuits, these properties are of negligible value and tin is just as good, but for high frequencies, this ceases to be the case. In addition there are properties of various metals that enter into alloying during the production of specialized semi-conductors. (I have even less knowledge about this so I won't expound on this discipline). ------------------------------ Date: 14 Feb 87 03:16:00 GMT From: decvax!cca!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Soviet Womens' Names in Space Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov No, the usage is much like here. The Soviet law permits the new spouses to adopt either of the two surnames or to keep their old ones; but almost always it is the bride who takes the groom's last name. Tereshkova, being famous, is different: after she mar- ried Nikolayev, she has been usually referred to as Nikolayeva- Tereshkova. Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 1987 14:32-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #136 In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sun, 15 Feb 87 03:15:44 PST 1) Battleships: Iowa class is poorly armored on the relatively flat bottoms. A torpedo that explodes a set distance beneath the keel will cave the bottom in and sink it. Such did not exist in WWII. They are good only for museums and show the flag gun platforms. It IS a cost effective, accurate and deadly gun platform as long as no one REAL is shooting back. 2) Fission in space: I'm not terribly upset by it, but I do agree with Koloc that the Aneutronic idea, if it pans out, makes the argument moot. And ushers in a 'New Age' at the same time. 3) Reagan non-backing of space: Partially due to Donald Regan and the palace guard. Reagan basically likes space, but these turkeys have zeroed access to him on the subject. I think they're afraid he might try for a Kennedy instead of their fundamentalist agenda. Besides this, there has indeed been no direction or real policy in decades, as has been stated. 4) Method for less policy sensitive space management: Look to the infant private entrepreneurial space companies for your answer. NOTE: I recently heard on the grapevine that SDIO intends to do a feasibility test of the laser launch concept in ~1992. Tie this in with the NASP, which might already have it's airframe under construction, and the funding of the Moglich aneutronic energy source, and we might see some interesting things happening very soon. If these indeed come about, I promise to eat my prior words against 'dark' programs. I might even start waving a flag... ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 87 17:45:34 GMT From: uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@utah-gr.arpa (Mark Muhlestein) Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <934@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, gsmith@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) writes: > Well, since you asked: the resources are not here, but floating out in > the inconceivable vastness of the universe you talked of. They are not > developed, and not easy to develop. Your complaint sounds more like outright > idiocy than naivety to me, since this is all so painfully obvious I really > wonder why I am bothering. You appear to have missed the point I was trying to make. Of course it's true that the resources are not developed, and are not easy to develop. The real question is: given the benefits to humanity of a "breakout" into space, are we ("we the people") making the appropriate effort to utilize space resources? And if not, why? I agree that the problem is hard, as you say. But do you think it is insoluble? It seems likely that if enough grass-roots enthuasiasm existed, both in the East and the West, we could surely make more progress toward a solution than we are making now. It seems to me that if more people realized that it is possible to have an economy of plenty instead of scarcity, the ideological differences would lessen in importance. If half, say, of the resources (money, mental effort, etc.) currently directed to "defense" were available for R&D toward utilizing space resources, perhaps you (and, unfortunately, I) would not feel so pessimistic. I guess I was just curious (1) what others thought about the peculiar situation we find ourselves in, and (2) if anyone has any ideas on what can be done. -- Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc. {ihnp4,decvax,seismo!ut-sally}utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #150 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14203; Mon, 2 Mar 87 03:02:30 PST id AA14203; Mon, 2 Mar 87 03:02:30 PST Date: Mon, 2 Mar 87 03:02:30 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703021102.AA14203@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #151 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 2 Mar 87 03:02:30 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #151 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 151 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #118; sexist language Re: SPACE Digest V7 #118; sexist language Re: UFOs and Ball Lightning Star Travel Re: Solar Garbage send failed on enclosed draft ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Feb 87 04:54:26 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #118; sexist language Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov >In article <2492@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> don@opal.berkeley.edu (Don Curry) writes: >>[Koloc replies with a bunch of unadulterated etymological bullshit, trying >>In article <504@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes: >was "bause" not "boys" she heard. Now I guessed wrongly it would have Wrong again... What's new?? "Cow shit" should be: "bouse" NOT: bause, bois, ....etc. Yep... open mouth insert boot . ... damn plastic artificial soles! +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Feb 87 19:13:50 GMT From: jade!opal.berkeley.edu!don@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Don Curry) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #118; sexist language Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <517@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes: > >That doesn't change the fact that Curry is a persistent jaded >son_of_a_mick_trick as one could find in this fair_land. >+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ >| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | >| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | >| {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | >+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ Gee, thanks for the compliment, Paul! "Persistent" I'll buy, but "jaded" is far off the mark. As for "son_of_a_mick_trick," not close either. Just stop trying to win debates with obviously invalid arguments, and you might not get your ass nailed to the wall so often. And don't forget what happened to Prometheus! (Damned eagles, always coming around for a free meal!) don@opal.berkeley.edu Don Curry Computer Facilities & Communications, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720 (415) 642-0587 "Dh' aindeoin co theireadh e!" ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 87 22:55:59 GMT From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu (Ethan Vishniac) Subject: Re: UFOs and Ball Lightning Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702150249.AA14072@angband.s1.gov>, KGEISEL%CGIVC%cgi.CSNET@RELAY.CS.NET writes: > A single brightly glowing and > crackling ball dropped rapidly from the clouds above. It hovered > a few feet off the ground and made its way down the street in erratic > motions, jumping between metallic objects. It "latched" on to a power > line and moved rapidly down the line past my father. It then lept > with unbelievable speed from the line to a nearby trashcan, setting > off an explosion which destroyed the trashcan and knocked my father > into a ditch! There are other reports, including a famous one about a Russian contemporary of Ben Franklin's who died during an encounter with one. (He had tried to trap a large charge using a lightning rod and a Leiden jar.) Few such reports took place in front of a calm scientific observer which is why at least one group of researchers has persistently claimed that ball lightning is a fluorescence phenomenon involving very low energies. I think the documentation of such incidents is sufficient that few people believe this explanation. -- "More Astronomy Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy Less Sodomy" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan - from a poster seen ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU at an airport University of Texas ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 87 15:57:29 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Star Travel In Vol. 7, No. 134 of Space Digest, Geoffrey A. Landis, in a valiant effort to change the subject to something **other** than politics or Voyager (the airplane), brought up the subject of Star Travel. Thanks, Geoffrey for the summary on Star Travel. Also, you're **right**, the subject did require changing. One of the propulsion schemes that was listed has caused me some depression. Back in 1975, I was rummaging around the UC Berkeley engineering library and found an obscure paper by R.W. Bussard, entitled "Galactic Matter and Interstellar Flight", Astronautica Acta, 6, 179-194 (1960). In this paper, Bussard described the "interstellar ramjet". This is a device that collected interstellar hydrogen and then burned it in a nuclear fusion reactor. This marvellous machine could (according to his calculations) achieve **relativistic** velocities. At first glance this very original idea look like the key to opening up the entire galaxy to human exploration. I went through all of his math (it's modified special relativity) and the algebra was correct. However his idea had two killer bugs that were immediately apparent. One is, he assumned an interstellar hydrogen density of 1.0E3 particles per cubic centimeter. The other bug was he assumned **all** of the hydrogen could be burned in a fusion reactor. In actuality, interstellar hydrogen (as Geoffrey correctly pointed out) is only 0.1 particles/cc. Also most interstellar hydrogen is protium which is an isotope that will undergo fusion **only** within the core of stars through a nuclear catalytic cycle (the so called Bethe cycle). I then performed a calculation myself and determined that the electromagnetic field strengths necessary to attract the hydrogen would cause structural failure of the vehicle (by orders of magnitude) even if it was made out of diamond. These are the obvious killer bugs for Bussard's idea. Others are errosion of the vehicle by interstellar grains, drag on the vehicle from noncombustable hydrogen and the galactic magnetic field, the problem of converting the energy of the fusion reaction into thrust, and many others. Unfortunately we must assign the Bussard Ram Jet to that pile where one will find such other clever ideas like the perpetual motion machine, the FTL drive, and the anti-gravity drive. It is depressing to see that despite being able to rigorously prove the Bussard Ram Jet is unworkable, one will never the less find science fiction novels based upon this idea, (i.e. Larry Niven's novels) and articles written about it in professional journals, i.e. BIS and AIAA. Alot of people haven't gotten the word that this idea simply doesn't work. People have been kicking antimatter around for sometime. I'll let another reader of Space Digest attack this one since it's pretty easy to shoot down. I see only two hopes for star travel: One is through nuclear fusion to nonrelativistic velocities. The other is through some new "rabbit out of the hat" via a new unified field theory. Because of the "Fermi Paradox", I suspect that there are no new "rabbits" in the hat. The Fermi Paradox is: "We are on the verge of being able to travel to the stars. The sun is a common star and the earth is not unusual. Therefore life in the galaxy must be common. If we can travel to the stars then the bug eyed monsters must be able to do it also. However there are no bug eyed monsters, ergo the paradox." The Fermi paradox tells us that speeds of greater than 10 Psol (percent speed of light) are unobtainable for a manned vehicle. At nonrelativistic speeds one would **not** expect a civilization to expand beyond 50 light years from its home star (by galactic scales this is a tiny distance). With this sort of radius limitation, the entire galaxy could be filled with intelligent life but the various civilizations would never physically encounter each other except in rare cases. Unless "flying saucers" are real (which I seriously doubt), we may conclude that only through enormous nuclear fusioned propelled "Arks" can a species travel to the stars. I strongly suspect that only a fairly large and healthy interplanetary civilization could foot the bill for an Ark and even then for only two or three Arks. This *is* an argument for space industrialization. However I find it a rather depressing one. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 13 Feb 87 04:37:18 GMT From: ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!bonham@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Michael Bonham) Subject: Re: Solar Garbage Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article , MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU writes: (paraphrased somewhat) > Actually it would not be so costly to drop garbage into the Sun - > <...> The trick would be to use a light sail system from Low Earth Orbit, > elevate the ship into much higher orbits and use the moon to escape Earth. > After that, tack so as to reduce the solar orbit velocity. Then > cleverly exploit Venus and Mercury and continue to > tack down until the sails start to melt. <...> First of all, you can't use the light sail for propulsion after it melts ;-) You could spend half a century tacking the solar garbage scow (or for that matter, a scientific probe) down to a close solar orbit, but after the light sail melts away there is no mechanism for losing the remainder of orbital velocity, apart from solar atmosphere friction. Your hazardous material will sit there waiting to collide with somebody else's flame-proof sail. If you really want to dump radioactive waste into the sun with a solar sail you'll have to tack out to the outer planets (where gravity boosts are more effective) and then take a running dive precisely into the sun. Secondly, the solar sail and guidance mechanism is pretty expensive, couldn't you just aim the craft at Jupiter, release the pallet of waste on a trajectory to boost it into the sun, then put the light sail (it's much more manoevrable now) into a trajectory back to earth, or mars, or wherever the next load of garbage is? But then again, why waste a valuable resource such as heavy atoms by dumping them into the sun? Launch them into a cometary orbit and when they come back in a half a million years (or 2, or 10) they'll be decayed into useful metals Well, *somebody* may find them more useful as a lump than as vapor in a star. Eh?! _|_ __/__ __+__ /_ Mike Bonham /__ |__| /\./ /| ..!{ubc-vision,ihnp4}!alberta!calgary!bonham _/ \_ _/ |_| ------------------------------ To: Space@angband.s1.gov Date: Tue, 17 Feb 87 12:26:38 EST From: LT.Sheri.L.Smith@mitre.arpa, USN ------- Forwarded Message To: ltsmith@mitre Subject: send failed on enclosed draft Date: Wed, 04 Feb 87 13:35:41 EST From: LT.Sheri.L.Smith@mitre, USN : loses; [USER] 550 ... User unknown post: 1 addressee undeliverable Message not delivered to anyone. - ------- Unsent Draft To: space@angband.s1.gov cc:  Subject: Challenger Produces Swing in Attitudes - - -------- Washington Post, 2 Feb 87. Science Notebook. Reproduced without permission ____________________ Challenger Produces Swing in Attitudes The explosion of the space shuttle Challenger one yer ago produced a large and surprising change of opinion in favor of the space prgram, including a swing of attitudes toward more manned space flights, according to Jon D. Miller, director of the Public Opinion Laboratory at Northern Illinois University. Unlike other accidents of technology such as the chemical plant explosion at Bhopal, Inndia, and the nuclear power mishap at Three Mile Island that reduced support for the technology involved, the shuttle accident produced a sudden surge of support. (I'm a little skeptical of this analogy...SLS) Miller and his group polled 2,005 people in a random national sample on the subject of the space program two months before the accident. He quickly came back to sample the same people a few days after the accident, then five months later. Before the accident, 53 percent of thse surveyed said benefits of the space program were higher than its cost. Immediately after the accident, the same people had shifted their attitudes, with 64 percent saying that benefits were greaterthan the cost, Miller reported to the National Science Foundation. An even greater swing took place when the question was money. There was an "amazing swing" in which 57 percent of those interviewed just after the accident upgraded their willingness to spend more money to get the space program back on track as compared with what they had said before the accident. Before the accident most had favored holding the NASA budget constant, but the postacident swing left 48 percent asking for more spending, 32 percent asking for the same spending and 20 percent wanting less spending. The swing was so great, Miller said, that his group at first was not sure whether to believe the figures. But in the polling fivve months later, the stronger positive attitudes remained high. _______________ That narrowminded, dimwitted, diehard man-belongs-on-earth-or-God-wouldn't- have-put-us-here 20% should be the focus of a dedicated educational effort on the part of NASA and other space related groups. Are there any NASA types out there who could tell us just what part of the NASA budget goes towards propaganda...er, education of the public of the benefits (especially the tangible one) of our erstwhile space program???? How about you L5 and High Society types? Do you allot any monies towards the furtherance of our program through exciting and inciting John (Jane) Q. Stayhome into voting FOR rather than against??? What we need is a nice bit of verifiably alien manufactured something or other to wake people up. No live alien, though....At this stage in our "space program", it'd be too embarrassing. LT Sheri L Smith, USN ltsmith@mitre - - ------- Anyone who objects to the "man" in the second paragraph above can put a "wo" in front of it. Flames on this specific topic will be generously ignored. - - ------- - ------- End of Unsent Draft ------- End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #151 ******************* Version: 5 Labels: Note: This is the header of an rmail file. Note: If you are seeing it in rmail, Note: it means the file has no messages in it. 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17012; Tue, 3 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST id AA17012; Tue, 3 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703031103.AA17012@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #152 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #152 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 152 Today's Topics: What we should do in space during next 30 years? space news from Nov 10 AW&ST Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1987 February 15 05:58:36 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: What we should do in space during next 30 years? Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 01:43:51 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Reply to massive missive - part I of IV What IS your space development plan? If you mean a fully documented fully detailed professional report, it's not worth my time/energy since I don't have the power to get anybody important to seriously consider it. If you mean general ideas about what directions we should go: (1) Habitat in space, initially like the USSR is doing, but eventually like the new habitat in the "New World" (America) where people actually live there forever (have children there, grandchildren, ...) (2) Exploring: Moon, planets and their moons, asteroids, comets, interstellar gas, other stars and their planets etc. eventually. (3) Observing with various kinds of telescopes in space: everything there is to see out there; each new instrument discovers new kinds of objects which can then be studied in detail; we can't predict what we'll want to observe the way we can predict what we'll want to explore. (4) Science in absense of overwealming gravity, new subtle effects we can't observe on Earth because they are smashed by gravity, but in space we can perform delecate experiments where uncomputable effects from basic physical law causes previously unknown things to occur. Perhaps percolation, fractals, equilibrium, and other topics could be studied intensely looking for unexpected results. (5) Exotic (foreign = non-Earth) material usage. As we explore the material bodies in the Solar System in (2) above, we watch for any significant deposit of any material we might be able to process into useful form, then we develop the engineering and the logistics for preliminary use of these materials. Some will peter out, but others will become great mining operations like the Diamonds of South Africa or the coal of W.Va. (6) New propulsion and energy-conversion technologies. Even before we have an immediate practical use for antimatter or whatever, we should do preliminary development of the technology, including actual missions that use the newly-developed technology as an auxilary propulsion or energy system to evaluate it in use. Later when we need to divert an asteroid or comet from striking Earth or other populated area, or when we want to send a 0.5 C probe to Alpha Centauri, we'll have some technologies at hand to choose from instead of having to develop the technology as part of the mission (we still need to refine the technology, but if the basic technology is developed already we might be able to do the refining in just a couple years in parallel with the rest of mission planning). ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 87 01:18:17 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Subject: space news from Nov 10 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov [Well, I'm still further behind... Being away and being sick haven't helped. On the other hand, I'm making progress on going through the old Aviation Leaks, and it's just a matter of getting things typed. Cross your fingers.] Most striking thing in this issue: a two-page-spread ad, pages 6-7, from Gary Hudson's company, Pacific American Launch Systems. The vehicle this one is pushing is one I haven't seen before, the "Liberty". Private space launcher. "PAM-D2 class and larger spacecraft directly into geotransfer orbit... only two engine starts to successfully complete the mission." Laser ring gyros, cold gas thrusters. Transfer, LEO, or escape orbits. Ten tons to "polar sunsynchronous transfer", whatever that is. Payload diameter up to the diameter of the Shuttle cargo bay. "Simplicity... off-the-shelf avionics and propulsion technology... first launches in 1988... launch fee is highly competitive... your payload into the proper orbit or we will refund your fee and provide a free [reflight]..." Most interesting. The "Liberty IIa" pictured is a very plain vehicle, a cylinder with length about 7 times diameter, blunt nose taper, not enough detail to tell quite what the engine is. Spot Image Corp acquires in-house image processing in Reston, Virginia, using data fed from Spot's two Canadian ground stations. US customers previously had to rely on Spot's tape recorder, but North American images now go direct to stations in Alberta and Ontario, then by courier to Reston. China accelerates US marketing of Long March launch services. Xichang launch site to be expanded, including a second launch pad. FAA head Engen says satellites are attractive for tracking and communication for air traffic control, especially over the oceans. Final checkout of the Polar Beacon and Auroral Research Satellite, slated for launch Nov 13th. Mission is to study impact of solar flares and auroral activity on space communications. The spacecraft spent eight years in the Smithsonian before being refurbished for this mission. US and Soviet negotiators agree on new space-cooperation pact. Expected final signing early 1987. New agreement is much more specific than the previous one of some years ago. Soviets proposed to include a cooperative Mars sample-return mission, but US negotiators had to reject this since the US has no approved funding for it. Mars items which did make it in include joint selection of potential landing sites and coordination of existing missions. The new agreement includes careful limits on technology transfer, although some DoD factions are expected to oppose it nevertheless, since the Soviets might steal crucial information like which way is up. US negotiators were surprised and pleased that SDI did not come up during the talks, although its dampening presence was felt on the US end: one reason for the lack of major hardware cooperation was the US fear that such projects could later be held hostage to obtain concessions on SDI and such. Soviet negotiators clearly had much more flexibility to propose and discuss possible projects than the US team did. Participants (NASA, ESA, Japan's ISAS, and Intercosmos) in the Inter-Agency Consultative Group have agreed to extend its lifetime and to look for another major area of cooperation now that Halley work is winding down. Looks like it will be solar-terrestrial science, although other areas are being studied for longer-term work. Solar-terrestrial missions planned, in chronological order, are: Ulysses solar polar mission ESA, grounded since 51L, late 80s maybe Exos-D aurora and magnetism ISAS, 1989 Interbol magnetosphere Intercosmos, 1990, 2+2 satellites UARS upper atmosphere NASA, high-inclination polar orbit, 1991 Solar-A solar X-rays ISAS, 1991 CRRES chemical release NASA/DoD, 1992 Geotail magnetotail ISAS/NASA, lunar flybys for distant apogee, 1992 Wind upstream solar wind NASA, lunar flybys and/or halo orbit, 1992 Polar polar magnetosphere NASA, eccentric polar orbit, 1993 Relicht 2 solar wind Intercosmos, secondary mission on board radio-astronomy satellite, 1992-3 Soho solar astronomy ESA/NASA, halo orbit, 1994 Cluster magnetosphere ESA/NASA, one main and three subsatellites, maybe more if Intercosmos joins, 1994 Halley imaging teams agree to cooperate on developing an accurate 3-D model of Halley's nucleus. NASA accelerates SSME tests, including approval of another test stand. New rate will approach that early in the Shuttle program. Major issues are mostly component lifetimes and reliability. The meeting that approved the SSME test speedup also decided that the normal thrust rating for post-51L flights will be 104%, the level used most often in the pre-51L flights. The alternative was to hold things down to 100%, at least initially, for more safety margin (but less payload). Major shuttle management shakeup, new organization much more closely following that of Project Apollo. Most notable feature is more centralization in the Washington HQ, less autonomy for the individual NASA centers. In particular, top shuttle management is now in NASA HQ rather than JSC. United Technologies submits unsolicited proposal to NASA for shuttle-derived unmanned expendable. First flight would be about three years after approval. Discovery moved from VAB to OPF for a series of modifications to prepare it for STS-26 [oh no, they've changed their feeble minds AGAIN about mission numbering! -- HS] in Feb 1988. Fletcher will seek White House approval to hold NASA's budget at $10G or more, which would substantially expand the civilian space program from FY88 on. Budget for FY87 is $10.4G, up over 40% from FY86, although a big chunk of that is one-time funding for the Challenger replacement. Fletcher will claim that 51L was partly a result of many years of chronic underfunding. Fletcher would need direct White House support to pull this off, since the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting will *not* be pleased. Possible initiatives for the new funding include: - "Civil Space Technology Initiative", laying groundwork for some of the National Commission on Space's recommendations, $100M in FY88 rising to $300+M/yr by FY91. Seven areas of research and technology development, from propulsion to life support. - Global Geoscience System, $25M solar-terrestrial new start. - High Alpha, military aeronautics research on high-angle-of-attack aero- dynamics and multiaxis thrust vectoring. - Technology for the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility (big space X-ray telescope, proposed for later). FY87 $10.4G budget includes $2.4G in one-time funding grabbed from DoD: $2.1G for new orbiter, $36M for new IUS cradle, $265M DoD reimbursements for shuttle operations [?], and $33M to start on a new TDRS. The orbiter money cannot be obligated before August, although NASA hopes to get things rolling sooner by borrowing from other areas. NASA will run for FY87 on the FY87 continuing resolution; an authorization bill was passed just before Congress recessed, but Reagan is expected to veto it [he did -- HS] because it sets up a National Space Council to replace the dithering SIG-Space, a change the White House dislikes. Changes in NASA programs directed by Congress in the continuing resolution include reinstating the terminated Advanced Communications Technology Satellite ($77M), paying DoD shuttle reimbursements ($531M) half from the Defense budget and half from NASA's [??!!??], putting the last $150M of the $410M Space Station funding on hold until NASA addresses concerns about international participation and early science results, knocking $5M off the original $45M Aerospace Plane funding, rejecting a NASA request to transfer some of the $141M Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite money to other things, cutting Topex (ocean topography satellite) from $29M to $19M, adding $5M to space research and technology (now $185M total) to start work on a flight telerobotics system for the Space Station, killing $2M for studies of the Shuttle Infrared Telescope Facility, requiring a comprehensive SRB hardware acquisition plan (preferably with second sourcing) by 31 March, demanding competitive procurement of any upgraded SRB design NASA buys, requiring five-year plan for use of expendables for government payloads by Feb 15, and cutting commercial-use-of-space funding a bit. DoT's Office of Commercial Space Transportation gets major budget cut, almost 50% less than requested; impact not yet assessed. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 87 22:29:02 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space References: <149@iconsys.UUCP>, <450@lewey.AIT.COM> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Among all this talk about new and radically different ways of getting to orbit, I haven't seend any mention of an elevator. Arthur C. Clarke wrote a novel, _Fountains of Paradise_, about the building of an elevator to orbit. He didn't invent the concept, my apologies to the man who did, but I've forgotten his name. The raw material was an asteroid positioned in Clarke orbit. One big premise of the book was a big advancement in material science that allowed a vrey strong material to be made from the stuff of an appropriate asteroid. Nothing we can say will happen by a certain year, but we can always hope. Another big problem is making sure the orbit is very stable. Can't afford to have a tower like that tip over. They built the tower both up and down, keeping its center of mass positioned correctly. When it was done, they attached elevators and rode to orbit. Naturally they were fast elevators, with no air friction above a certain height. One other side effect of this really being a tower is that the only place you can step off the tower and be in a nice orbit is right at the asteroid. Below that you don't have enough velocity and will fall to Earth. Above it, your orbit will change, I'm not sure how much. The far end of the tower can also be used as a sling with a limited number of destinations. Could still come in rather handy. Fascinating concept, cheap on energy (well, you don't need it all at once, any way, it should still consume the same total amount), and environmentally it beats the hell out of some of the other schemes. Anybody have any numbers about necessary tensile strength and things like that? --Rod ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #152 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19891; Wed, 4 Mar 87 03:03:06 PST id AA19891; Wed, 4 Mar 87 03:03:06 PST Date: Wed, 4 Mar 87 03:03:06 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703041103.AA19891@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #153 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 4 Mar 87 03:03:06 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #153 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 153 Today's Topics: IHW poor amateur support Satellite Observing Made Easy Re: Supernova of the century? (MORE) Re: Re: Supernova of the century? (MORE) NASA Press Release on SuperNova Re: SR-71 (really U-2) Re: SR71 info ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Feb 87 13:42:40 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Organization: AT&T Consumer Products, Indianapolis Subject: IHW poor amateur support Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The new issue of Sky and Telescope (March?) covers a lot of the science that was conducted on comet Halley. I was very disappointed to learn that only about 500 amateurs, out of the several hundred thousand amateurs, even bothered to submit data to the International Halley Watch (IHW). I guess a lot of people like to dream but very few actually ever do anything about their dreams. Maybe that is why we are still stuck on this mudball. Fred Mendenhall ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 87 16:46:52 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Subject: Satellite Observing Made Easy Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Mr. Orbit will send you a list of all the satellites you can see, and when to look for them, for $10 a month. The listings tell what direction the satellite will be travelling and how high in the sky it will be, and its estimated magnitude. I have found the listings to be accurate unless the satellite maneuvers during the month, as Salyut 7 or Mir sometimes do. The address is: Mr. Orbit P.O. Box 12175 Orlando, FL 32859-2175 -- Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 87 01:48:03 GMT From: cbatt!cwruecmp!sundar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Sundar Iyengar) Organization: CWRU Dept. of Computer Engineering, Cleveland, Ohio Subject: Re: Supernova of the century? (MORE) Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I am reading with interest the news about the Supernova. Would someone please tell where one may find this in the sky with the aided/unaided eye? I am not an astro* [:-)] and I have very little [read zero] background in that area. I don't even know where most of the star groups [those with amusing names such as Big Dipper] can be found. So something like the following would be helpful. If the earth were a disc and one looked up lying down along the north-south axis, where would this Supernova be as seen from the Northen Hemisphere (I am by the Great Lakes) [do I hear some one say that it is visible only in the Southern Hemisphere? Oh well...]? Thanks. sundar r. iyengar arpa: sundar%case.csnet 531, crawford hall csnet: sundar@case case western reserve university uucp: decvax!cwruecmp!sundar cleveland, oh 44106 ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 87 14:32:24 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Ctr. for Astrophysics Subject: Re: Re: Supernova of the century? (MORE) References: <1893@cwruecmp.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > [...] Would > someone please tell where one may find this in the sky with the > aided/unaided eye? > [...] [do I hear some one say that it is visible > only in the Southern Hemisphere? Oh well...]? That's right - it's visible only well to the south, being almost -70 degrees declination. It would be visible if you went well south of 20 degrees N. -- Bill UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu (or) wyatt%cfa.UUCP@harvard.harvard.edu BITNET: wyatt@cfa2 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 87 12:23:37 PST From: aiz@jpl-vlsi.arpa Subject: NASA Press Release on SuperNova To: space@angband.s1.gov X-St-Vmsmail-To: ST%"space@angband.s1.gov" HDQ Release to SS RELEASE: 87-20 NASA SATELLITE WATCHES EXPLODING STAR A telescope aboard a 9-year-old orbiting satellite continues to monitor the intense emissions of ultraviolet radiation from a recently discovered exploding star, called a supernova, located 163,000 light years from Earth. Scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Md., say that the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) satellite has performed superbly since Feb. 24, when regularly scheduled operations were interrupted to focus IUE's 18-inch telescope, the largest now operating in space, on the supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a neighbor galaxy of our own Milky Way. Supernova 1987a, visible to the naked eye from Earth's Southern Hemisphere, is the brightest seen since the year 1604, and the first bright supernova since the invention of the telescope around the year 1609. "We have contingency plans on file for special events like the supernova," explained Dr. Yoji Kondo, IUE Project Scientist at GSFC. Kondo said interested scientists around the nation and overseas submit so-called "target-of-opportunity" proposals to use the IUE telescope on new exploding stars, comets and other unusual objects. Thus, the satellite operators have the necessary information on hand to plan the telescope operations when astronomers spot an event. Dr. Robert P. Kirshner, astronomy professor, Harvard University, is directing the IUE scientific observations of the new supernova. He earlier had submitted a target-of-opportunity proposal to study future bright supernovae with the IUE. "This is a real opportunity to explore a whole new region of a supernova's spectrum," says Kirshner, who explains that previous supernovae, since IUE was launched in January, 1978, were not bright enough to study at the shortest ultraviolet wavelengths accessible with the IUE telescope and spectrograph. "Earlier supernovae were studied at longer ultraviolet wavelengths with IUE, but the measurement data on those objects "only hint at" what is being recorded on the new supernova by IUE, since the new object is much brighter." The first observations of the new supernova, made with IUE on the afternoon of Tuesday, Feb. 24, revealed that it is an intense source of ultraviolet radiation. According to Dr. George Sonneborn, staff astronomer at Goddard's Observatory Telescope Operations Center, "although we made a very short time exposure, just 15 seconds, the supernova is so intense that the first spectrogram was overexposed." Dr. Sonneborn is with the Computer Sciences Corporation, which assists in operating the satellite under contract to NASA. Ultraviolet rays are a form of light with shorter wavelengths and greater energy than ordinary visible light. Because ultraviolet rays are absorbed in the Earth's atmosphere, the rays cannot be seen with ground-based telescopes. Astronomers must study these rays from space. Explaining the significance of the discovery of the intense ultraviolet radiation of the new supernova, Kirshner said, "the new supernova is believed to represent the explosion of a star much more massive than the sun. Earlier in the star's lifetime, according to current astrophysical thinking, it must have ejected a great deal of gas that still surrounds it. The intense ultraviolet light found by IUE will be energizing the circumstellar gas around the supernova, and IUE will tell us what happens under these circumstances." Astronomers believe that new observations from IUE, besides revealing the nature of ultraviolet radiation from a supernova and its effects on surrounding matter, will provide precious new data on the "galactic corona," a poorly-explored hot outer atmosphere of our own Milky Way. The Large Magellanic Cloud, the small galaxy where the supernova is located, is also thought to have a corona, which also will be explored thanks to the supernova. Dr. Sonneborn states, "the supernova is like a bright light bulb located beyond the galactic corona." By studying the absorption of ultraviolet light from the supernova that occurs in the gases of the galactic corona, investigators will learn more about the little-known region." Dr. Blair D. Savage, professor of astronomy at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who helped discover the galactic corona, explains the scientific importance of the IUE observations of the new supernova for exploring the galactic corona. "This spectacular event provides an unparalleled opportunity to study the physical nature and composition of the cool and hot gaseous matter situated in and around the Milky Way and the Large Magellanic Cloud." The observation of spectral absorption lines due to the galactic corona in the ultraograms obtained by IUE indicates the supernova is probably beyond the corona and indeed located in the Large Magellanic Cloud, as astronomers have generally assumed. However, further analysis is needed to confirm this deduction. "It should be noted," says Kondo, "that this satellite is 9 years old and is still operating without some of its original gyros and is long beyond its design lifetime. This shows we can still do first class space science with existing equipment." Observations of the new supernova will be repeated in coming days as the great stellar explosion begins to fade. The IUE is a joint project of NASA, the European Space Agency and the United Kingdom Science and Engineering Research Council. The satellite is controlled from the GSFC. - end - ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 87 06:43:05 GMT From: wdl1!mas1!gulvin@sun.com (Tom Gulvin) Subject: Re: SR-71 (really U-2) References: <13296@angband.s1.gov>,, <11000002@beldar> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov >>In a recent article someone mentioned that the SR-71 is refueled right >>after takeoff. I always thought this was to allow the plane to heat >>up, to seal the fuel tanks. Note: I have no contacts other than >>published material. > The reason for this is that the SR-71 leaks like a sieve on the >ground. Its tanks are of the wet seal variety, i.e. the heat and... The actual reason that the SR-71 is refuled immediately after takeoff is simple: with the engines spread so far apart and producing not-quite- enough-thrust-for-safety-at-low-altitude, a fully fueled plane would be in a very marginal condition if one of the engines failed. Rather than risk the plane or modify it for better low level performance (undoubtably at the expense of high level performance), they take off light and refuel up in the air, where performance is better and recovery options more available. Tom Gulvin - MAS - Cupertino, CA P.S., the engines are set far apart to be in clear air which allows them to receive undisturbed air flow. This is very important since the J-58's are one of the few (only?) engines that actively capture the supersonic shockwave inside of their inlet. P.P.S., when the SR-71 is hooked up to the KC-135Q tankers, it is most decidedly not 'warmed up' and the tanks are sealed. The fuel transfer takes place at 15-30k feet and between about 200-350 knots. Instead of the 400-1000 f. temp of recon-flight, the SR-71 is at about -40 f.. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 87 22:30:46 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Subject: Re: SR71 info References: <8701151854.AA00437@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > ... An interesting article was written by Clarence 'Kelly' Johnson > that appeared in the July 1982 issue of Popular Mechanics... The two most interesting things about that article were (1) I think it was the first open publication to even *hint* that the SR-71's design was driven as heavily by stealth requirements as by aerodynamics; and (2) the article was very disjointed, hopping from one topic to another and never delivering on some things promised earlier -- it appeared to have been quite heavily censored. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #153 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02204; Thu, 5 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST id AA02204; Thu, 5 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST Date: Thu, 5 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703051103.AA02204@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #154 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 5 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST From: Ted Anderson Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #154 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 154 Today's Topics: Reply to Klein-Fogleman airfoil question space news from Nov 24 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 10:09:41 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Reply to Klein-Fogleman airfoil question Key words: fluid dynamics, airfoils, aerodynamics To the student from Purdue to posted and asked about this (I've lost your return address). Sorry to take to take so long. Basically, you want to contact someone in the MIT Aero Department. There are written reports, but it was concluded that this was attributable as a low Reynolds number phenomena. Most of the reports were just a bit shy of ten years ago. The reason this answer took so long to find is that it was studied, found un-interesting, and the current generation of CFDers here know little if nothing about it. I had to get one of the more senior aerodynamics people to get me an answer. Interesting the difference between the analog aero people and the computational aero people ;-). Regarding the amount of money spent on the NASA PR/Education budget, we are still working on determining that. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 87 01:43:13 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Subject: space news from Nov 24 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov More concern that the Europeans will withdraw from the Space Station. After years of telling its international partners that their participation was vital, and telling Congress that international commitments prevent backing out of the Space Station, NASA is now telling the Europeans in particular that the Station is basically a US project and they can't expect much say in how it is run. DoD issues directive on commercial space launch policy, outlining procedures and responsibilities for DoD support of commercial launches. Eosat will halt construction of the next Landsat unless OMB approves the government subsidies earlier agreed on. Jarvis booster eliminated from USAF medium launch vehicle competition because, essentially, it's too good for the requirement. [Would the USAF reject a jet fighter because it exceeded all the specs? -- HS] Jarvis is still of more general interest, though. USAF is also talking to Arianespace about the possibility of Navstar satellites being launched on Ariane. Year-old confidential NASA memo reveals NASA accepting increased risk and reduced capabilities on Space Station to reduce budget estimate from $13G to the more politically-acceptable $8G. New estimates, due in January, are expected to again exceed the $8G estimate that NASA gave Reagan. NASA-ESA negotiations on Space Station deadlocked. ESA is concerned that the White House and the State Dept are playing no role, that ESA is not being treated as NASA's equal, and that the US has no national space policy. (Japan and Canada are not happy either, but their negotiations are at least making progress.) ESA is amazed that there is still no coherent policy on how the Station will operate, who pays for it, and who makes decisions. Particular sore points are Congressional decrees that the US reap 80% of the benefits from the station and that the Europeans build the life-sciences module since the US is building the materials lab. Reagan vetos NASA FY87 authorization act, as expected, because of its provision establishing a National Space Council to formulate space policy. NASA operations expected to be largely unaffected since it is operating on a continuing resolution. Scientists on NASA's Space Station science task force warn NASA that too much reliance on the shuttle, reductions in crew size, and lack of shuttle opportunities to prepare Station-related experiments are jeopardizing the Station's scientific utility. The reductions in Spacelab flights will be particularly troublesome, and NASA has been urged to add six Spacelab flights to the pre-Station shuttle manifest. There is concern that the Station will monopolize civilian shuttle capacity for a considerable time during Station construction unless expendables play a larger role than now planned. The payload capacity allotted to station science payloads is seen as inadequate -- 30,000-50,000 lbs of payload and support in the first 12 Station flights is not a lot. Reduction of the early crew to 4 will hurt. Lower shuttle launch-weight limits will mean much more in-orbit installation of equipment in the big modules, further reducing available man-hours. Scientists strongly recommend formation of an international science advisory group to coordinate Station science activities; at the moment, it's not even possible to determine whether duplicate experiments are being planned. NASA is taking this idea seriously and will probably do it. Draft RFPs for the four major US Space Station work packages scheduled for release Nov 26. China gets three (!) more US reservations for the Long March booster. Pan Am Pacific Satellite signs for launch of the refurbished Westar 6 on Long March in or before May 1988. Dominion Video Satellite signs for a direct-broadcast-satellite launch in Dec 1987 and another in March 1988. Iran also signed a letter of intent for a comsat launch on Long March 3. China is promising to do whatever is necessary to satisfy the US government on matters like security and transportation; they have already assured customers that satellites will be exempt from customs inspection. Preliminary assessments of the results of the Atlantis Pad 39B tests are underway. A number of minor changes to on-pad crew-escape procedures will be made as the result of an escape drill. The weather-protection system, which was the primary reason for the pad tests, checked out and will be installed on Pad 39A as well. A countdown demonstration test is still being analyzed; there were some software problems, thought to be related to the fact that Atlantis had no engines fitted. Measurements of the load on booster field joints during the rollout showed no flexing, which scuttles the theory that the sharp bend in the crawlerway to 39B was a factor in the Challenger disaster. NASA Ames seeks proposals for a reusable free-flying reentry vehicle which could carry 600-800 pounds of science payload and return it with a soft landing. Launch by shuttle or Delta, in particular. Must have own systems for retrofire and reentry. Initial launch 1988. [I wonder if one could win that contract with a refurbished Gemini capsule? -- HS] Johnson Engineering Corp. awarded crew-support-services contract for shuttle and Space Station training at JSC. JEC will design, build, and operate Space Station mockups and assist in crew training. Use of comsats over North Atlantic expected to decline unless Intelsat changes current policy of charging same price for satellite links in all regions of the world. The underlying problem is that heavy-traffic areas like the North Atlantic are cheaper to build for than light-traffic areas, and the undersea-cable operators are free to base North Atlantic prices on North Atlantic costs. They also have rights to retain improvements in efficiency that they accomplish, while Intelsat members must share them. Cables have a particular edge in the US because communications carriers must pass leasing costs of satellite circuits on to customers unaltered, while costs of cables owned by the carriers are part of the rate base used to calculate permissible profits. The actual costs of satellite circuits are still lower, for the moment at least, but that's not reflected in the bills. There are signs that Intelsat may get more flexible about prices when competition gets rough. Space Industries Inc considers some design changes to its Industrial Space Facility. A lower orbit than originally planned is being examined as a way to make shuttle visits easier and more frequent; the higher propellant cost of compensating for air drag may be worth it. Higher orbits remain of interest because of the notion of flying in the same orbit as the Space Station. SII is examining use of water from the shuttle as a propellant, since the ISF has plenty of electrical power to turn water into steam, and the lower orbit would benefit from cheap propellant. Larger hatches are also being looked at: the Shuttle docking hatch will probably remain as is, but the ISF's internal hatches will probably be the larger Space Station hatch. This will make it easier for customers to plan equipment for use on either. SII and its partner Westinghouse are starting a big push to get most of the engineering design done, with a little hardware testing thrown in. SII says that doing as much engineering as possible before starting to cut metal has always been the plan. NASA has assured SII that it will honor the commitment for 2.5 dedicated shuttle flights to deploy two ISFs, and will defer payment for the flights until the ISFs are generating revenue. But NASA has the flights listed for 1992, and SII would like 1989 or 1990. SII has no firm customers yet, but everyone is interested. The ISF has more time and power than Spacelab and shuttle missions, and a superior microgravity environment. NASA is particularly interested in that it may provide a small-scale advance test of various Space Station operational procedures. Pictures of United Technologies' shuttle-derived unmanned launcher. No big surprises. The propulsion/avionics module -- roughly, the tail end of an orbiter -- stays with the payload carrier until retrofire, after which the payload carrier burns up and the p/a module parachutes to a landing, either at sea or on land. Boeing wins minor NASA contract to study applications of automation and robotics to the Space Station, emphasis on what the Station can do for the technology rather than vice-versa. Congress's idea, naturally. [This is an idiotic waste of Space Station money. -- HS] [Well, this week's editorial was going to be a discussion of what needs to be done to save the Space Station project, but that will have to wait. An article in Spectrum has reminded me that it's time for an editorial on the first anniversary of the Challenger disaster. (Okay, okay, so it's a bit late, since when have my AW&ST summaries been on time?) The article is the cover article in the February issue of Spectrum (which is the all-members magazine of the IEEE). It is, surprise surprise, a post- mortem on the Challenger disaster. The technical discussion doesn't contain any surprises for those who read this newsgroup. However, Spectrum has a long-standing editorial interest in matters of engineering ethics, whistleblowing, etc., and they went into that side of things somewhat. Hans Mark: "The only cricitism that I have of the [Rogers] report is that they laid more blame on the lower-level engineers and less blame on the upper-level management than they should have. As with most of those commissions, the guys on the bottom took the rap. They quote Moore and Beggs and a few others saying they didn't know about the O-ring problems, which I find awfully hard to believe. I mean, hell, I knew about it two years before the accident and even wrote a memo about it. I just find it very hard to believe." Roger Boisjoly, Thiokol: "I had my say... So there was no point in me doing anything any further." Ben Powers, NASA: "You don't override your chain of command..." Spectrum: "At least two others, asked by the Rogers Commission why they did not voice their concerns to someone other than their immediate superior, replied in virtually identical language: 'That would not be my reporting channel.'"] [So... First anniversary editorial: What Happens Next Time? Those who were reading this newsgroup shortly after the Challenger disaster may remember me insisting that regardless of what organizational flaws were present, specific people were responsible for the disaster, and that they should be identified and punished. This wasn't a real popular viewpoint, especially when I pointed to the Morton Thiokol engineers as a probable case in point. I was roundly criticized for attacking people who were "just following orders" and covering up dangerous flaws in order to save their own jobs. Spectrum: "When no penalty is foreseen for being careless or doing wrong, the very behavior that should be prevented is actually enforced. Thus penalties have to be clarified and exacted, said attorney Robert Levin. 'One of the things that's clear to me is that engineers do not speak the same language as managers,' he said, 'and engineers as a group are not politically savvy. What I would very much like to come out of all this -- legislatively or otherwise -- is that the next time this kind of dispute comes up, one of those engineers can say "Damn it! Look what it *cost* Thiokol." Now you're talking the language those folks understand'." Well, it's a year later. Have the guilty been punished? Fat chance. The good little boys and girls, loyal to their organizations (instead of their professions, their country, and their species) have survived and even been rewarded. Myron Peretz Glazer, Smith College: "If one looks at the costs involved and the risks people took, it was the most disastrous thing that could have happened, yet they walked away okay." The most that has happened to the top people at NASA was slightly early retirement -- at full pension, naturally, since there was nothing wrong with *their* performance. By contrast, the people who made attempts -- however feeble -- to speak out have generally been punished for it. Boisjoly, the man who objected (at least, until he did as he was told and "put on his management hat") to the launch, is on "permanent leave" from his job at Morton Thiokol. Allan McDonald, the man at the Cape who tried to get the launch postponed, just missed losing his job with M-T, and his career prospects are doubtful at best. And Morton Thiokol, whose management deliberately overruled the judgement of its engineers that the launch was not safe, apparently mostly because they wanted to safeguard their position as the SRB supplier? They are fighting the payment of a $10M penalty required by their NASA contract. They are *receiving* million after million for the redesign and testing work to fix the problem. And to put the icing on the cake, the issue of alternate suppliers for the SRBs is now on hold, probably for five years or more. "Look what it *cost* Thiokol."??? Morton Thiokol is *PROFITING* *HEAVILY* from gross and willful negligence that killed seven astronauts, destroyed billions of dollars worth of equipment, and endangered the entire manned space program! What happens *next* time? When another engineer is asked to decide whether he should keep quiet when his management is making a terrible mistake? When another non-technical manager has to decide between backing his engineers and keeping his customer happy? I can't predict it for sure, of course. Courage and honor turn up in the most surprising places. Maybe even inside Morton Thiokol. But that's not the way it happened last January, and that's not the way to bet. The way to bet is that when -- not if -- such a decision comes up again, it will be made the same way. The engineer will shut up when his management tells him to shut up. The manager will keep the customer happy and to hell with whether he's doing the right thing. Both will cross their fingers and pray that what they know to be a wrong decision won't be a disaster. And if the praying and finger-crossing don't work, and the shit hits the fan, more astronauts will die -- and maybe the manned space program with them. Why? Because when Challenger and its crew disappeared into a ball of fire, nobody was to blame. -- HS] -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #154 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02361; Fri, 6 Mar 87 03:46:47 PST id AA02361; Fri, 6 Mar 87 03:46:47 PST Date: Fri, 6 Mar 87 03:46:47 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703061146.AA02361@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #155 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 155 Today's Topics: Want to bet he wins a Nobel Prize? Re: New Developments Re: Want to bet he wins a Nobel Prize? Superconductivity and SSC Re: Next 30 years in space (try this again) Fermi paradox Honest environmentalists should also support space industrialization SPACE Digest V7 #144; Space Enthusiasts as Environmentalists environmentalists, space, and getting off the planet Re: environmentalists, space, and getting off the planet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 22:05 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Want to bet he wins a Nobel Prize? X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.s1.gov", DIETZ Recent breakthroughs in superconducting materials continue. Paul C.W. Chu at U. Houston and coworkers at U. Alabama have now discovered a compound that becomes fully superconducting at 98 degrees K. Yes -- 98 K, 21 degrees above the boiling point of liquid nitrogen. The composition is not yet public because of patent applications. The paper will appear soon in Physical Review Letters. Tests are said to indicate the compound can withstand high magnetic fields at liquid helium temperatures, although less near the critical temperature. Chu is reported in Time magazine to think that 120 deg. K will be achieved in a few months, and does not rule out 300 deg K (!!) -- a room temperature superconductor (makes me think they've found a new mechanism causing superconductivity). If this stuff can be formed into wires (it's brittle), it will likely make extraordinarily powerful magnets possible. The SSC might shrink dramatically. Indeed, requiring the SSC to consider using this material might provide an extremely lucrative spinoff that could justify the whole project to Congress. Fusion would be helped, since the power density of a magnetic fusion reactor scales as the fourth power of the magnetic field, and high temperature magnets need less shielding because they're cheaper to cool. Then there are Josephson junctions. We already have CMOS chips working in liquid nitrogen, so there's the possibility of building CMOS chips with superconducting interconnects, or CMOS/JJ hybrid chips. This wasn't possible before because the transistors would dissipate too much heat to cool to liquid helium temperatures. Room temperature Josephson junctions would blow computing wide open. Lots of other applications: maglev, mass drivers, power lines, energy storage, NMR scanners, terahertz radar, MHD generators, augmented railguns, microwave pulse weapons, and I'm sure a whole lot more. My mind is now thoroughly boggled. Paraphrasing a certain president, this is truly a super conductor. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 87 23:39:34 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Subject: Re: New Developments References: <8702171753.AA01880@strange.SPAR.CAS.SLB.COM> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > I read in yesterday's paper that somebody had developed a superconductor > that worked at liquid nitrogen, rather than liquid helium, temperatures. > ... What was not mentioned... was that this > new development makes the price of the classic electromagnetic catapult > much much cheaper... Not necessarily. Superconductors are less popular in catapult designs than they were, partly because they look less necessary. The cooling problems caused by ohmic heating in ordinary coils are mostly manageable, because the duty cycle is low. I suspect the verdict is "helpful, but not really revolutionary". > P.S. Another implication of this new development was brought up to me > by a friend: Any high-school physics teacher can get liquid nitrogen. > That means that there will be much more of a chance for the "average tinkerer" > to play with superconductors in a meaningful way. Eventually, yes. Not right away. My impression is that the materials in question are very brittle and difficult to work with; it's not like it was copper wire. The delay between the discovery of high-field superconductors and the commercial availability of superconducting wire was a decade or so, as I recall. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 87 03:10:52 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Want to bet he wins a Nobel Prize? Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Then there are Josephson junctions... > This wasn't possible before because the transistors would dissipate too > much heat to cool to liquid helium temperatures. Room temperature > Josephson junctions would blow computing wide open. Well, maybe not. The cooling problem wasn't the only reason why JJs haven't swept the field. They are also fundamentally low-gain devices, which makes it very hard to build working JJ LSI -- the precise control of characteristics needed to make low-gain devices work well is nearly impossible in LSI. IBM concluded that the problem wasn't fixable. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 87 01:31:15 GMT From: princeton!phoenix!pucc!PCJEFFRI@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Paul Jeffries) Organization: Princeton University - Computing and Information Technology Subject: Superconductivity and SSC References: <8702240351.AA00239@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov A speaker (I cannot recall his name) address the topic of the SSC at the Princeton University Physics Colloquim last week. He said that the recent superconductivity breakthrough will not effect SSC because the refrigeration facility is only about $150 million (out of 5 or 6 billion $). Additionally, ths new material will probably be far more expensive than the $120 million cost of the current wire. I do not think he considered the prospect of a reduced radius due to a higher field strength. Paul C. Jeffries PCJEFFRI at PUCC.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 87 01:06:39 GMT From: sher@cs.rochester.edu (David Sher) Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY Subject: Re: Next 30 years in space (try this again) References: <8702231756.AA13693@ames-pioneer.arpa> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov This in response to a cogently worded desire by Eugene Miya for more funding for SETI. I always wondered though about SETI, since we are ignoring another intelligent species on Earth what we might expect to do about intelligent species in space. That is, we are happily ignoring the dolphins, a species far closer to our own than anything we can expect from another planet that is different enough from us to be interesting. Have the dolphins been proved unintelligent or is it just our racial biases against unhanded beings or what? In any case establishing communications with dolphins should be a good test case for establishing communications with alien life forms, I think. Ps: I've heard about the SF story about the alien race who demanded that we demonstrate our civilization by establishing communications with the dolphins. -- -David Sher sher@rochester {allegra,seismo}!rochester!sher ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Mar 87 13:13:13 PST From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa Subject: Fermi paradox I think that I have an answer for the Fermi paradox. Suppose that the universe is young, having originated in a big bang. Older civilizations tend to be further from the point of origin, and are more spread out than younger civilizations. The bug eyed monsters, although they can travel at .995 the speed of light, naturally want to explore all of the stars in their own neighborhood before wandering far afield. This is primarily because they age more slowly than their home planet while they are zooming around, and they don't want to come back to a planet that is so far advanced that it no longer cares what the explorers found out. If the monsters are sending out "Arks", as Gary Allen says, then they are few in number and the likelihood of one coming close to earth is very small. So the monsters may be on their way, probably by a combination of colonization and exploration. Once we make first contact with anyone, we may quickly learn about everyone. The reason that they haven't already been here is due to the finite age of the universe and the huge volumes of space that they have to explore. Does someone care to make an estimate of how long it should be before they get here? P.S. If they get here in time to read this, I apologize for calling them "bug eyed monsters". Stan Attenberger ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 15:48:42 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Honest environmentalists should also support space industrialization What confuses me is why "environmentalists" like Greenpeace should be involved with SDI. Opposition to SDI is supposably why they demonstrated against the Titan-2 launch. Greenpeace is not a pacifist group or a group concerned with the correct usage of Aerospace Technology. My impression is that they were mainly into whales, cute baby seals, and nuclear tests. I used to be a member of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club's big thing (at least under John Muir) was the preservation of wilderness. This is a very noble cause and one that I still believe in. However they got all wrapped up with the No-Nukes issue to the detriment of the far more important wilderness preservation tasks, (at which point I bailed out). I know from experience that there is a strong Luddite component in these "environmentalist" organizations. Will they seize upon the (unfortunate) SDI dominance of the space program as an excuse to oppose the space program? Die Gruenen (the Greens) in Germany started out as being simply against nuclear power, and for environmental protection. Their current platform is virulently anti-American. The Greens advocate unilateral disarmanent in Europe, and are quite Luddite in their attitudes towards all high tech, particularly space travel. Based on my experiences with Die Gruenen (I live in Germany), I am convinced that these people have a deep emotional hostility against any form of high technology. I think any **honest** environmentalist or person concerned with wilderness preservation has to also be an advocate for space industrialization. With the industrialization of space, the Earth can be excluded from all polluting commercial activity. I think the Earth should be a world of parks, farms and small cities. The bulk of the human population with all of its environmentally destructive (though wealth producing) activities should be moved off-planet. The main commerical activity of the Earth should be as a tourist resort for the rest of the human race which is living in space. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1987 23:57 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu To: Space@angband.s1.gov, minsky%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #144; Space Enthusiasts as Environmentalists In-Reply-To: Msg of 23 Feb 1987 06:21-EST from Ted Anderson As a board member of L-5 who is firmly anti-SDI, I wonder if Jon Leech might have overlooked the possibility that some of those members were pro-SDI not for reasons of military ideology but because it appear(ed) to be a device to enhance support for space activities in general. However, my impression agrees with Leech's: although the environmentalists might in principle be, as Dale.Amon suggests, a natural constituency for support of space activities, I suspect that they tend to lean toward the "fix up Earth first" position - and I don't see that first objective ever being accomplished thoroughly enough to allow them to go on to the second. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 87 14:44:57 GMT From: faline!thumper!daniel@bellcore.com (Daniel W. Nachbar) Subject: environmentalists, space, and getting off the planet Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov At the beginning of the industrial revolution the Earth's atmosphere was treated a vast, limitless dumping ground. That view prevailed until a few (~20) years ago. It is now suggested that we use space as our next "vast, limitless" dumping ground. Other postings suggest that we can escape current political insanity by fleeing into space much as our ancestors of the 1600's fled across Earth's vast oceans. Moving into space, as we must, will solve nothing. It will merely allow us to stall a little longer. You can not escape yourself. Dan Nachbar bellcore!daniel ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 87 03:46:51 GMT From: joel@media-lab.mit.edu (Joel Kollin) Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA Subject: Re: environmentalists, space, and getting off the planet References: <413@thumper.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <413@thumper.UUCP>, daniel@thumper.UUCP (Daniel W. Nachbar) writes: > It is now suggested that we use space as our next > "vast, limitless" dumping ground. Even if space isn't mathematically "limitless" at least we don't have to worry about destroying life (as we know it). Any objections to garbage are therefore reduce visual aesthetics. > Moving into space, as we must, will solve nothing. > It will merely allow us to stall a little longer. Not a panacea to be sure, but time is exactly what we need to survive. We need time for our society to catch up to our technology. I think it is beginning to, what with slavery and SOME other atrocites now nearly non- existant. Space colonization will also make us realize what sustaining life actually involves and force the development of non-polluting technologies. Also, I think there is something to be said about keeping your eggs in more than one basket. > You can not escape yourself. No, but we must always try to transcend our limitations. Frontiers bring hope, but it has been said that living in space can be a powerful reminder of how fragile life is. > Dan Nachbar > bellcore!daniel Joel Kollin joel@media-lab.mit.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #155 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05820; Sat, 7 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST id AA05820; Sat, 7 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST Date: Sat, 7 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703071103.AA05820@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #156 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 156 Today's Topics: Re: Honest environmentalists should also support space industrialization Re: Honest environmentalists should als Re: Honest environmentalists should als UFO Coverup Question Re: UFO Coverup Question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Mar 87 01:47:42 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Subject: Re: Honest environmentalists should also support space industrialization References: <8702231534.AA12233@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > ... With the > industrialization of space, the Earth can be excluded from all polluting > commercial activity. I think the Earth should be a world of parks, > farms and small cities... It is worth noting that there may be some difficulties getting from here to there. Assume space industrialization does catch on big. What happens to Earth's economy when its balance of trade goes permanently deep into the red? -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 87 14:52:00 GMT From: necntc!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Honest environmentalists should als References: <12233@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov [ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET.UUCP ] >I think any **honest** environmentalist or person concerned with >wilderness preservation has to also be an advocate for space in- >dustrialization. With the industrialization of space, the Earth >can be excluded from all polluting commercial activity. I think >the Earth should be a world of parks, farms and small cities. The >bulk of the human population with all of its environmentally des- >tructive (though wealth producing) activities should be moved >off-planet. The main commerical activity of the Earth should be >as a tourist resort for the rest of the human race which is liv- >ing in space. > Gary Allen I think it is an honest argument - also a *great* political argument! I am moderately conservationist, myself - the issue, however, seems to be politically sexy out of all proportion - far more than space exploration as such. So, if the two can be linked positively, that should give space expansion a boost. This is one thing that was left out during the discussion, in this group, of the profitability of space industry: it all depends on the zoning rules down on Earth! Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 87 02:37:00 GMT From: uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!hummel@a.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Honest environmentalists should als Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov /* Written by ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET (Gary Allen) in sci.space: */ > Gary Allen: > What confuses me is why "environmentalists" like Greenpeace should be > involved with SDI. Though it may seem too rhetorical, space IS an environment. How is it seriously threatened by SDI? It is threatened by the need to test anti-satellite weaponry, and the orbiting debris left behind. If, as you later argue, we are to move our "wealth producing" activities into space, it had better not be a gamble to pass through LEO. There is also the argument that the money that I would maintain is being WASTED on SDI could be used for costly reasearch that could benefit the environmentalists' causes (e.g., solar energy). > Greenpeace is not a pacifist group or a group concerned with the correct > usage of Aerospace Technology. My impression is that they were mainly > into whales, cute baby seals, and nuclear tests... The afternoon I spent a couple of years ago sifting through their low-budget office in downtown Chicago left me with the impression of their group as a clear-thinking bunch of folks whose formost concern is preventing the most(?) intelligent species on the planet from unwisely screwing over other species and more importantly, our descendants who will spit on our graves (ashes?) for the dirty, barren, expended world that we chewed up and spat at them down the years. > ...I know from experience that there is a strong Luddite component in > these "environmentalist" organizations. I don't see Greenpeace as a group directed by solely Luddite goals (see above), so if these "environmentalist" organizations do indeed have "a strong Luddite component", they have done an admirable job of enlisting their aid in a common goal without selling out to strictly Luddite concerns. > Will they seize upon the (unfortunate) SDI dominance of > the space program as an excuse to oppose the space program? On a soapbox: One of my congressmen (Rep. Terry Bruce, D-Ill.) has lacked amenability to the space program for fear that SDI is getting a ride on its coattails. It is up to you and I to convince elected representatives such as him of the alternatives they have. Alternatives such as supporting pro-space legislation, and becoming involved in efforts to lend governmental support to private space projects. Such as arguing in support of non-SDI ventures. And such as being voted out of office. Vote with care in 1988! > I think the Earth should be a world of parks, farms and small cities. Sounds like a Luddite talking, to me ;-) - Lionel D. Hummel Happy or witty quote? Sorry: | UUCP: ihnp4!uiucuxc!hummel "And even if we managed to get (to | ARPA: hummel%uiucuxc@a.cs.uiuc.edu Mars/the Asteroids) when the Pres. | CSNET: hummel%uiucuxc@uiuc.csnet Comm. on Space says it will be techni- | BITNET: last resort- CSOPC001@UIUCVMD cally feasible...the Soviets will be | VOX: (217)356-5696 waiting to welcome us and to stamp our passports" -G. Harry Stine (Analog, 2/87) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 87 11:56:28 GMT To: space@angband.s1.gov From: 52194052%NMSUVM1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: UFO Coverup Question > Are there any enlightened readers out there who can clarify the debate > of why governments keep such a tight lid on the UFO phenonmenon? >> Basically, the reason why you think you see a "tight lid" on the "UFO >> phenomenon" is because there isn't any information to suppress in the >> first place. After the leaks of such things as the Iranian arms deal, >> do you REALLY think that something as spectacular as the military >> keeping an alien on ice could be kept this quiet this long? UFO's (Unidentified Flying Objects) Late last year prople in New Mexico were treated to an unusual sight in the night sky. Many people observed the bright comet- like object as it burned upon re-entry of the earths atmosphere. This object was identified by NORAD (North American Air Defense Command) as a Soviet rocket booster. Again on on monday night of the next week U.S. citizens across the south reported an unusual sighting. This object was not identified by NORAD, but an air traffic controller in Tennessee said "It was probably a meteor." Some reports claimed that the object was a flying saucer. Throughout history there have been thousands of far more dramatic observations of UFO's, and some of the most provocative have been right here in New Mexico. Evidence suggests that some UFO's are alien spacecraft. There are some that do not agree with this particular analysis on UFO origin. First, they have examples of intentional hoaxes perpetrated by UFO enthusiasts. One example is the list of "Astronaut UFO Sightings", a collection of data listed in the book "Edge of Reality" by Dr. J. Allen Hyneck. Hyneck has after more careful research, disavowed the list. Of sixteen items on the list, most have been shown to be cases where astronauts were quoted out of context or cases of out right fraud. All of the items on the list were in some way discredited by James Oberg who works for NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), in his article "Astronaut UFO Sightings. Second, anti-UFO-ists say that there is no physical evidence to support the hypothesis that UFO's are alien vehicles; since UFO's have been studied for an extended period of time, there should be some physical evidence. Finally they say most sightings have been fully explained as "normal" occurences such as electro- magnetic field effects, weather balloons, and the like. While it is logically valid to hold this point of view given the type of information considered thus far, there is information that has been ignored up until this point. For over thirty years, government agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NSA (National Security Agency) and DIA (Defense Intelligence agency) have actively researched UFO's but because of national security considerations not all their findings have been released. ( One national newspaper ran the headline: "If there are no UFO's, Why All the Secrecy?" ) There have been over of 12,618 reports turned over to the Air Force for investigation with 701 remaining unexplained. IF JUST ONE OF THESE REPORTS CONSTITUTES A SIGHTING OF AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL VEHICLE THE IMPLICATIONS WOULD BE PROFOUND. Even skeptics admit that some UFO sightings are puzzling. One example of this exists in a CIA document written by Hector Quintanella Jr. (the figurehead of Air Force skepticism) relating to an incident observed by a Socorro police officer. The document stated: " There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object which left quite an impression on him. There is also no question about Zamora's reliability. He is a serious officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area. He is puzzled by what he saw and frankly, so are we. This is the best documented case on record, and still we have been unable, in spite of thorough investigation, to find the vehicle or other stimulus that scared Zamora to the point of panic.* Quintanella was head of Air Force "Project Blue Book" at the time the document was compiled. In another collection of 1018 incidents reported by at least two observers, 3.3 per cent (41) involved episodes where humanoids were seen with the vehicle or vehicles. Forty two cases included the observation of a landing. In addition, some notable people were recently asked to indicate where aliens would land and why. Nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman and Bruce Maccabee, a physicist specializing in laser optics, picked New Mexico because of the proximity of White Sands Proving Ground and since New Mexico is the location of the first atomic bomb test site. * more on this in the book "Clear Intent". bibliography; Clear Intent: Fawcett / Greenwood Paranormal Borderlands of Science": Kendrick Frazier Space Time Transients and Unusual Events": " Persinger / Lafreniere Las cruces Sun News ": nov 11 86 1b Omni (magazine): may 86 The Book of Lists": Wallechinsky / Eallace / Wallace M I C H A E L New Mexico State (AAXION) University (the final frontier) e_mail : 52194052@NMSUVM1 Phone: (505) 522-0147 "viva Las Cruces" ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 87 00:05:56 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question References: <8702221908.AA10865@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > ... Evidence suggests that some UFO's are alien spacecraft. What evidence? > ...national newspaper ran the headline: "If there are no UFO's, Why > All the Secrecy?" )... As I've said before, probably to cover up the waste of money in all those government UFO investigations. > ...Even skeptics admit that some UFO sightings are puzzling. There is a high correlation between inability to explain a UFO sighting and the lack of sufficient evidence to make any conclusions at all about what it was. "Unexplained" does not mean "unexplainable"; usually it just means that there are many possible explanations and no way to distinguish between them because there isn't enough information. > " There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object > which left quite an impression on him. There is > also no question about Zamora's reliability. He is > a serious officer, a pillar of his church, and a > man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles > in his area... None of which establishes that he wasn't lying. There are well-documented cases where there simply is no reasonable doubt that the witnesses, even responsible public officials, were lying through their teeth. In fact, I dimly recall the Zamora case being one of them, although I'm not sure of that. The possibility must *not* be dismissed solely on the assurance that the sole eyewitness is "reliable". Even assuming he was telling the truth, Zamora may simply have been mistaken. Being "well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles" does not equip one to report reliably on really bizarre atmospheric phenomena, which come in much greater variety than naive UFOlogists think. There was at least one major UFO sighting by airline pilots -- trained observers, surely -- which simply cannot have been anything other than a major meteorite. (The clincher is that the meteorite was big and spectacular and visible in the same part of the sky at the same time as the "UFO", and the pilots didn't see it.) > bibliography; For a more balanced treatment, add Philip Klass's two skeptical books about UFOs to the list. Even if you don't agree with all of his explanations, he does a devastating job of exposing lies, contradictions, and factual errors (e.g. a case where UFOlogists assure us that a fighter's radar "locked onto" the UFO, when the radar in question had no lock-on capability -- Klass is an avionics expert) in the UFO claims. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #156 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07643; Sun, 8 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST id AA07643; Sun, 8 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST Date: Sun, 8 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703081103.AA07643@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #157 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 8 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST From: Ted Anderson Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #157 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 157 Today's Topics: Re: UFO Coverup Question Update on Voyager. Re: Update on Voyager. NASA Propag (I mean PR) budget, I'll check interesting nasa screwup ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Mar 87 02:35:44 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question > It's interesting to see a scientific community assuming that some > phenomenon doesn't exist simply because there's no absolute proof > that it does... It's interesting to see the True Believers assuming the existence of some phenomenon when there is *no* trustworthy evidence for it. > ... In fact, in cases of UFOs and ESP, the scientific > community is quite willing to ignore evidence because the evidence > doesn't support the favored hypothesis. As Philip Klass has said (approximately): "I work for the world's leading aerospace journal. If it turned out that I had overlooked evidence of a real extraterrestrial landing because of my preconceptions, the LEAST that would happen would be that I'd lose my job and my career would be ruined. On the other hand, if I was the first to report a genuine extraterrestrial spaceship, I would be world-famous and my name would be in the history books for the next thousand years. I have every reason to be open-minded." > ... There certainly is evidence that our > government hides and distorts the facts about UFOs... Really? The government that couldn't hide Irangate has hidden and distorted the facts about UFOs so thoroughly that there has never been unquestionable evidence of it? I have my doubts. > > None of which establishes that he [Zamora] wasn't lying.... > > When one has evidence that doesn't fit one's hypothesis, then the > first reaction is to blame one's equipment. Of course. Maybe he > is telling the truth... Okay, it's time to kill this one dead. Consider the following: - Zamora claimed he heard a loud roar when the UFO landed, and another when it took off. He was about 3/4 mile away when it landed. There was a house barely 1000 feet from the site. Its owner and his wife were at home with windows and doors open, and heard nothing. - When Zamora reported the incident and called for assistance, he asked specifically for Sgt. Sam Chavez of the State Police, not for officers from the local police or the sheriff's office. He's never said why. - Zamora reported intense heat and flame on both landing and takeoff. There was no evidence of this at the site -- pictures taken the following day show only traces of burning on one bush and one clump of grass. Small twigs were undisturbed at the center of the landing site. - The four "pad-prints" on the site were of very different shapes and very unevenly spaced, not what one would expect for landing gear. - Zamora's sketch of the object shows only two legs, although he should have been able to see at least three from his position. - Zamora's account of the object's departure has it passing over a major highway in broad daylight. No motorist ever reported it. There is a secondhand report of *one* motorist seeing it, but the motorist has never been located and the secondhand report contradicts Zamora's story in several particulars. - Socorro (the town) was in an economic slump and badly needed tourist revenue. (Indeed, the local merchants rose to the opportunity offered by the UFO sighting.) The UFO came down in a very convenient place, between two major highways. Furthermore, it landed on property owned by the town's mayor, who was also the town banker. > ... Maybe instead of > dismissing the evidence, we should give it our scientific attention > with as little preconception as possible... Doing so in this case leads quickly to the conclusion that the Socorro UFO was a crude hoax, and Zamora was simply lying. "It is good to have an open mind, but not at both ends." One must not reject valid evidence just because it offends one's preconceptions, but on the other hand one must not fall into the trap of going to the other extreme. If we accept such grossly faulty evidence as the Socorro case just because it *confirms* our preconceptions, we will never understand anything. -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 87 19:55:20 GMT From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@ames.arpa (Russ Cage) Organization: CRLT , Ann Arbor, MI Subject: Update on Voyager. Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I recently got the 2/1/87 issue of _The Aviation Consumer_, which has a wonderful account of the flight of Voyager and some very thought-provoking information about the aircraft itself. If someone has posted this information already, please forgive me, but my newsfeed was down for two weeks and I missed it. Voyager, the aircraft. The Voyager was never intended to be more than an aircraft capable of circumglobal flight. In the quest for range, range and more range, handling qualities, structural margins (and, quite frankly, safety) were traded off. Among other things, the handling qualities were never meant to be more than "mission adequate". And they were, barely. One of Voyager's handling qualities is its porpoise oscillation. The wing is very, very flexible. The two fuel pods form nodes of the oscillation; thus, when the wingtips are bowed up by a gust, the aft of the fuselage is pushed down. This pitches the fuselage up, twisting the canard so as to increase the nose-up moment of the aircraft. When the wings bow down on the opposite side of the oscillation, the canard twists to push the nose down further. The effort needed to damp this oscillation manually is extreme; the flight could never have been made without the King autopilot. Voyager has two vertical stabilizers, but only the right one carries a rudder (the left one was sacrificed to save weight). When deflected, the rudder produces drag as well as side force. Due to this, the right-rudder authority (force and drag both working to produce a right turn) is about twice the left-rudder authority (force and drag opposed). For this reason, and the fact that Voyager is very difficult to recover from a "steep" bank (more than 25 degrees!), all patterns in Voyager are flown to the left. Due to Voyager's long wing, the adverse yaw of aileron application becomes "adverse roll"; if the aircraft is in a turn, applying opposite aileron steepens the bank. Lots of rudder is required to recover. The autopilot does not even use the ailerons. The porpoise oscillation is very evident on takeoff; in the words of Dick Rutan, it it a "yahoo" (as one shouts on a bucking bronco). Also, Voyager lacks a starter for the rear engine (when it died, it had to be restarted with the blast from the front engine), and has no lightning protection whatsoever. However, with Voyager's thin structural margins, the turbulence of a thunderstorm would be deadly in any case. The takeoff Voyager was filled with some 7000 pounds of fuel (400 more than planned). Total aircraft weight for takeoff was about 9700 pounds, of which 2250 pounds was the aircraft. Total power was 240 horsepower, or over 40 pounds of aircraft per horsepower (a Cessna 152 has about 15.5 pounds/HP). The added fuel, which went into the canard tanks, created trouble on takeoff. The flexibility of the aircraft caused the canard, and thus the fuel pods *and the wing*, to twist downward. Also, due to the heavy fuel load, the main gear struts were fully inflated, and Dick held down-stick during the roll to keep the airplane on the ground before reaching flying speed (the hobby horse oscillation could result in bending the nose gear and loss of mission, aircraft and maybe crew). Because of all this, the wingtips made their famous two-mile scrape on the runway of Edwards, causing the loss of the winglets, and the peeling back of a piece of skin fabric which acted as a drag brake on the right wing for 25,000 miles. The takeoff took 14,000 of the 15,000 feet of runway at Edwards. The runway overrun, which was being used as insurance in case the runway was not sufficient for takeoff, turned out not to have been usable; it had standing water. The landing gear is not stressed for heavy drag. Had Voyager run over the end, the fuel that burned for 9 days might well have done do in a few minutes at the end of the runway. The flight Fuel accounting would plague Voyager all around the world. First, the front engine was run a day longer than planned, because of difficulty in maintaining altitude on the rear engine alone. Next, Dick flew backwards some hundreds of miles because of turbulence. However, the fuel totalizers soon started showing considerably more fuel burn than planned. This was soon traced to the fuel injection on the rear engine. Its fuel return line, which was supposed to return fuel to the header tank, also dribbled fuel back into tanks which were supposed to be empty, which went backwards through a fuel flow meter. The flowmeter counts pulses, but cannot determine the direction of flow. The performance analysts quickly determined that they had no way of knowing how much fuel had actually been burned, so Voyager's fuel situation was a big question mark except for being better than the totalizer said. Once over Mexico, Voyager had two scares. The left tip tank, which had never been used and was supposed to have held 170 pounds of fuel, came up empty. The fuel had all leaked or siphoned away. Second, one of the fuel boost pumps failed, and the rear engine died while trying to draw fuel from the right canard tank using the engine-driven pump. Either the pump could not suck fuel that far, or that tank was empty also, and Voyager was suddenly a glider, over the ocean, at night. Dick sweated for 5 minutes while trying to start the balky front engine; using the prop blast, he was able to restart the rear engine also. Several days after landing, the fuel accounting was finally done. Voyager landed with 18.3 gallons of fuel on board; 9.2 in the header tank, and the rest in bits here and there all over, in tanks and lines. Voyager began with 1200 gallons, and landed with only a few hour's reserve. --------------------------------------------------------- Well, I hope you enjoyed my rendering of this as much as I enjoyed the article. Dick and Jeanna were very, very lucky to pull it off, but they did it. This has to be the greatest aviation "first" of recent memory. -- The above opinions and figures are mine; my employer endorses them implicitly. "They that can give up essential liberty to Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. gain a little temporary safety, deserve neither ihnp4!itivax!m-net!russ liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin (Do not reply to me at CRLT, it loses news and mail regularly. Use path above.) NSA food>terrorist DES RSA KGB cocaine cryptography RSA TEMPEST fnord Hail Eris! ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 87 21:21:06 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Organization: S-1 Project, LLNL Subject: Re: Update on Voyager. References: <666@crlt.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <666@crlt.UUCP> russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes: >I recently got the 2/1/87 issue of _The Aviation Consumer_, which >has a wonderful account of the flight of Voyager and some very >thought-provoking information about the aircraft itself.... > > The flight > >Fuel accounting would plague Voyager all around the world. First, the front >engine was run a day longer than planned, because of difficulty in maintaining >altitude on the rear engine alone. Next, Dick flew backwards some hundreds ^^^^^^^^^ >of miles because of turbulence. Well, with that rear-mounted engine and the forward-mounted tailfins, I suppose you _could_ fly Voyager backwards, but I don't really see how that would help with turbulence. The notion certainly is thought-provoking, though -- just imagine the savings in runway turnaround space if this technology were adapted to commercial airliners. And the air force is working on those "forward swept wing" fighters -- being able to fly them in either direction would certainly confuse the enemy. Of course, the pilots would have to remember whether they were coming or going... :-) :-) :-) Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.UUCP jtk@mordor.s1.gov . ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 87 21:05:15 pst From: Eugene Miya N. To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: NASA Propag (I mean PR) budget, I'll check >Are there any NASA >types out there who could tell us just what part of the NASA budget goes >towards propaganda...er, education of the public of the benefits (especially >the tangible one) of our erstwhile space program? > >LT Sheri L Smith, USN >ltsmith@mitre Okay, I'll check, see what I can do. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Return-Path: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 87 10:58:20 MST From: ted%nmsu.csnet@relay.cs.net To: AIlist%sri-ai.arpa@nmsu.csnet Subject: interesting nasa screwup Resent-Date: Wed 18 Feb 87 09:04:33-PST Resent-From: Ken Laws Resent-To: space@angband.s1.gov Nasa is apparently about to put all of the Voyager Uranus images on CDROM. Unfortunately, due to the way the universe (and the government work) they will only be making 200 copies. Because of commitments to make a larger than strictly necessary number of masters, there is potential for other planetary image sets to become available in the same group of disks. Since the mastering is already being paid for, increasing the number of copies made should be possible at just the marginal cost of making the disks (~ $5/disk). Since NASA is only allowed to count the planetary science community in their market calculations, they will be making a ridiculously small number of duplicates. At the prices involved, though, they should be making a fairly good sized pressing since there is considerable latent demand for these images in a wide range of areas. The format is that of the about to be commercially available CD-ROM disk format. Microsoft is rumored to have a driver ready for the devices. The group to contact to pressure to make more of the disks is the National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) at Goddard. They have a net address that I don't know. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #157 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09657; Mon, 9 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST id AA09657; Mon, 9 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST Date: Mon, 9 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703091103.AA09657@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #158 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 9 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST From: Ted Anderson Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #158 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 158 Today's Topics: '65 Scientist-Astronauts CDROM and NASA data Anniversary of NACA Announcement of Opportunity (Official NASA) Next 30 years in space (try this again) Re: 50 light years (newsgroup survey) Annual payload to LEO?? space elevators ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed 18 Feb 87 17:08:13-PST From: John Sotos Subject: '65 Scientist-Astronauts To: space@angband.s1.gov Someone mentioned to me that there was a recent article in Science about the first group(?s) of scientist astronauts selected in the mid-late 60s, and about how most of their scientific careers fizzled. Believe it or not, Science does not index by subject. Has anybody run into this article? John Sotos Stanford AI SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 87 00:54:47 GMT From: andy@shasta.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman) Organization: Stanford University Subject: CDROM and NASA data References: <8702181839.AA24877@ames-pioneer.arpa> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Is this in a format that "consumers" can use? If it isn't, are there plans for those of us who buy pretty pictures? (Some of my friends are serious amateurs, 15-18" reflector and all that, but I'm the one who bought videos of moonbuggies.) A friend has a Beta tape of plane pictures. Given the ability to single-step, that gives him a huge "collection". How about it NASA? What is the US Mail address of the NASA people who have forgotten that "consumers" love their results. Andy Freeman UUCP: ...!decwrl!shasta!andy forwards to ARPA: andy@sushi.stanford.edu (415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 87 16:12:18 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (Rick Kolker) Subject: Anniversary of NACA On this date in 1915, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was established. NACA was the precursor for NASA. Rich Kolker ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 16:43:57 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Announcement of Opportunity (Official NASA) Please forward to your astronomy and planetary sciences departments --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene Path: ames!telemail!hqnewsroom From: hqnewsroom@telemail (ED CAMPION) Subject: RELEASE/AO Date: 3 Mar 87 15:42:00 GMT Charles Redmond Headquarters, Washington, D.C. March 3, 1987 (Phone: 202/453-1548) RELEASE: 87-22 ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY ISSUED FOR SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL MISSIONS NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) issued an international announcement of opportunity (AO) on March 1, 1987, to solicit scientific investigations for two missions. The missions are: CLUSTER, a four spacecraft set to study basic plasma processes in the Earth's magnetosphere and the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), a spacecraft to study solar processes and solar-terrestrial relationships. This announcement for the CLUSTER and SOHO missions, known together as the Solar Terrestrial Science Programme (STSP), solicits investigations from the U.S., ESA member states and Canada. Proposals are due by July 15, 1987. Selections are expected by the end of the year. In 1984, NASA, ESA and the Japanese Institute for Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS) agreed to sponsor studies of an international effort in sun-Earth interactions for the 1990's known as the International Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program. Endorsed by the ESA Scientific Programme Committee, STSP is an important element of plans to implement such an effort. Another key element is embodied in the NASA Global Geospace Science program recently proposed to the U.S. Congress in the FY-1988 budget. The ISAS element, called the GEOTAIL mission, has been approved by the Japanese government. Both NASA and ESA have established high priority science objectives to address the outstanding scientific problems in solar, heliospheric and space plasma physics through a unified and coordinated approach. Committees of the U.S. National Academy of Science have stressed these objectives, for example, in the reports "An Implementation Plan for Priorities in Solar-System Space Physics" and "National Solar-Terrestrial Research Program." Similarly, the ESA Survey Committee identified these objectives for the Solar Terrestrial Physics cornerstone of the ESA long-term science plan in the report "Space Science Horizon 2000". Persons wishing to receive a copy of the complete AO package from NASA or ESA must forward their request to either: Dr. Stanley Shawhan Dr. V. Manno NASA Headquarters ESA Headquarters Code EPM-20 8-10 rue Mario-Nikis AO No. OSSA-1-1987 75738 Paris CEDEX 15 Washington, D.C. 20546 France Telex: 89530 Telex: 202145 This release and other NASA information is available electronically through ITT Dialcom. For access to NASA NEWS through this system, contact Jim Hawley, ITT Dialcom, Inc. at 202/488-0550. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 09:56:48 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Next 30 years in space (try this again) {Nice to see people start to summarize!} The person who suggest this topic did not summarize, but I can see I have a much different view, these are only my opinions, so send flak to me, not the space-digest. The thing I wish we could spend more money for would be a comprehensive SETI program. I think the biggest question we could answer about space is not how to go live it, but whether we are alone in the Universe or not. To learn we are not alone would overshadow any manned-space effort we could do in this solar system in the forseeable future including a manned landing on Charon (Pluto's moon). This would really have to be a long term effort, and not one which provide immediate spinoff, but I leave it for everyone on the net to imagine the consequences. (For those on the Usenet, I can point to the initial discussion on Carl Sagan's fiction in Contact and the discussion abotu Pi, a digression). A signal leaving (earth) right now will travel farther than any ship we could construct in the next hundred years (probably). I would like to see a greater unmanned program, both in the orbital and planetary (especially for the science) arena. Man-rate (people- rated?) flight systems are an order of magnitude more expensive than un-manned systems, and there's lots of work to be done. I know this argument has progressed on the net before, so I won't say anymore than it's amusing to see people who work on things like robotics/computers push for getting people into space (sort of cutting one's own throat in some ways). Lastly, I think we will continue to need a manned (person'ed) program to do those things which electronics can't provide. We should certainly explore our solar system (in crewed flight), have space stations, and so forth. Many excellent proposals out there. We should do so, however, thinking about the consequences of doing so, and not just wantonly dumping radioactive wastes, say on the poles of Venus, or what ever. The people who do this exploration will be a special breed. We will probably lose a few more, this is evidable, like colonizing the West, let's hope we don't make some of the same mistakes. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 87 14:39:15 GMT From: dayton!mmm!cipher@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Andre Guirard) Organization: Software & Electronics Resource Center/3M Subject: Re: 50 light years (newsgroup survey) References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov>, <1269@mmm.UUCP>, <4190@utcsri.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <4190@utcsri.UUCP> james@utcsri.UUCP (James P. Rowell) writes: >In article <1269@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes: >>In article <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >> >... Since these Arks would represent >> >virtually no financial return upon completion, the constructing >> >civilization would look upon making these ships as only a "luxury >> >activity" for disposing of surplus wealth. >> >>This assumes that financial return is the only "coin" for which a >>civilization considers projects worthwhile. I and, I'm sure, many >>others on this newsgroup have a much more important "payoff" in mind >>when we support space exploration: species survival. > >I don't believe that last statement reflects what "many others" think. >At least I hope not. Let's hear from some people in this newsgroup. Those of you who support space exploration, what are your main reasons? Send me mail and I'll post a summary. >What threatens our existence? **For now** it seems that we are really >the only threat to our existence here. You have named what I feel is the most serious short-term threat. As long as humans live on only one planet, it's possible for a single war to wipe out the entire species. However, there are other, long-term threats. The Earth could be hit by a comet or asteroid. Sol might flare up, bathing the Earth in radiation. A colony ship from another solar system might show up, carrying weapons that make ours look like toys, and wipe us out so they can have our planet. Things like that. > The kind of money involved >in building an "Ark" could much more effectively be used to help >fix our problems here on Earth. I admit there are more pressing concerns at the moment than interstellar colonization. And it would probably be worthwhile to first start self-supporting colonies elsewhere in our solar system. >After all, billions of people (and countless other species) stand >to benifit from the latter expenditure, and only hundreds with an >"Ark"... On the other hand, if we have two planets to live on, we can have twice as many people, yes? Billions of people (and countless other species) can live who would otherwise never have lived. Why should we only consider benefits to people already alive? Since you don't believe in altruism, I point out that a colony ship could carry the genetic material of billions of people. Besides, the building of an interstellar ship will advance science considerably. That's of benefit to everyone. > Furthermore if we can't make it work here on Earth what >makes you think that we can survive on any other planet? Let us suppose, for a moment, that we can't make it work here on Earth (not that I believe it). Does that mean we should give up and die without a struggle? Or should we try again somewhere else? -- /''`\ DISCLAIMER: Ideas should not be Andre Guirard ([]-[]) held responsible for the ihnp4!mmm!cipher \ o / people who believe in them. Ombro de Sro. Ed. `-' ------------------------------ From: bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa Date: 25 Feb 87 12:35:00 EST Subject: Annual payload to LEO?? Reply-To: Does anyone know the annual tonnage put into low earth orbit? Be generous, assume that it is 1.5 years ago, with the shuttle running as best it ever has. Also, does anyone know (both with and without the Shuttle running) how this breaks down by country? Also, does anyone know how much is spent to put these payloads up (total cost/year)? ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 87 23:42:21 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Subject: space elevators References: <149@iconsys.UUCP>, <450@lewey.AIT.COM>,, <2092@venera.isi.edu> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Anybody have any numbers about necessary tensile strength > and things like that? My recollection is that it's within the theoretical maximum strength of materials, but it is beyond the strength of anything actually made so far, and far beyond the strength of anything made in useful quantities. This is for a space elevator on Earth, mind you -- Mars is easier. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #158 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11711; Tue, 10 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST id AA11711; Tue, 10 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703101103.AA11711@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #159 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST From: Ted Anderson Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #159 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 159 Today's Topics: Latest info on 6th Space Development Conference dates MIR/Soyuz TM-2 Soviets send Progress 28 to Mir station Re: Annual payload to LEO?? Phoenix Re: space elevators used missiles Re: used missiles Space elevators on the Moon? Re: space elevators Re: space elevators Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Feb 1987 22:07-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: "/usr/amon/Email/Email.space" Subject: Latest info on 6th Space Development Conference 6th Space Development Conference Pittsburgh Hilton, March 27-29, 1987 One of the speakers at the NCOS luncheon on Saturday 3/28/87 will be Alan Ladwig. Mr Ladwig is currently working with Dr. Sally Ride on the writing of NASA's Space: 1995 report. He will discuss NASA's approach to implimentation of the NCOS recommendations. Alan is the NASA employee who appeared on the David Ledderman Show some 15 months ago. He also worked closely with the Teacher-in-Space program during the selection process. One of the two main speakers at the Saturday 3/38/87 Banquet will be Dr. Robert Forward. His topic will be "We CAN Go To The Stars". Dr. Forward is a retiring Senior Scientist with Hughes Research Laboratories, a former consultant to the Air Force, and the author of the novel "Dragon's Egg", as well as numerous peer reviewed papers on advanced propulsion concepts that have admittedly less interesting plots. Several other major speakers remain to be confirmed and will be announced as they are closed. If you are reading this on a bulliten board, you may request a registration form by 1) calling 412-351-4973 (conference committee) 2) calling Forbes Travel Service; Nationally at 800-345-2984; locally at 412-521-7300. 3) US mailing to the 6th Space Development Conference, PO Box 8391, Pgh PA 15218-0391. 4) If you wish to risk the vagaries of return mail and the busy schedule of a conference chair, you may request a form by Email from amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Please feel free to repost this to other systems, public private and commercial. Pass it around to your friends. And keep in mind that time is running short. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 87 00:17:24 GMT From: imagen!auspyr!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Rickel) Subject: dates I'm adding some space-related dates (firsts and lasts) to my calendar file, and i've noticed that i have some holes in my data. In particular, I'm missing the dates for the LAST moon landing, and the first spacecraft to orbit Venus. I notice that i don't have any dates for non-american space-related deaths. If you have any other dates that might be interesting, you might send them to me. If there is sufficient interest, i can summarize and post to the net. david rickel {decwrl,cae780!weitek}!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 87 00:58:08 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Organization: InterComeX/Star Net, Denver Subject: MIR/Soyuz TM-2 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Has anyone (Henry?) been keeping up with the MIR/Soyuz TM-2 complex? I haven't heard anything since the Soyuz launch on 5 Feb. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 87 11:59:01 est From: glenn@ll-vlsi (Glenn Chapman) Subject: Soviets send Progress 28 to Mir station The Soviet Union announced today (Mar 3) that a Progress 28 cargo craft had been launched to their Mir space station. The craft contains about 1.5 tonnes of fuel, air, water, supplies and instruments. Progress 27 was just undocked last week after the current Soyuz TM-2 crew had been unloaded it. This means in the last year Mir has been visited by 4 Progress vehicles, two space crews (with the previous set leaving the station to visit the Salyut 7 station, then returning), and one unmanned test vehicle (Soyuz TM-1). I suspect that this current crew will still be in orbit for the Oct 4th date of the 30th anniversary of Sputnik 1. It has been announced that they will be visited by an intercosmos crew containing a Syrian cosmonaut on July 22. Also the West Germans have just signed an agreement with the Russians that includes preliminary preparations for them flying a cosmonaut to Mir. It certainly appears that the Soviets are not standing still in space. Meanwhile we have the Congressional Budget Office wanting to kill both the space station and the replacement orbiter. Even those that are supporting the NASA station are talking about a man tended system now to keep the cost down (they will have to spend 2-3 billion to develop a safety capsule otherwise, which of course the Russians do not have to worry about - they already have one). Just ask yourself this - which nation is showing itself to be a truly space faring civilization at the moment? Hopefully that will change in the near future. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 87 03:31:01 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Subject: Re: Annual payload to LEO?? References: <8702260239.AA05104@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Does anyone know the annual tonnage put into low earth orbit? Be > generous, assume that it is 1.5 years ago, with the shuttle running as > best it ever has. Also, does anyone know (both with and without the > Shuttle running) how this breaks down by country? ... The Soviets launch about a million pounds a year. In a good recent year (1986 wasn't a good year...), I'd guess that the US total might be about half that, mostly in the shuttle missions just because it's so much heavier than everything else. (I assume we don't count the Shuttle orbiter as tonnage, since it doesn't *stay* in orbit.) ESA isn't in that league yet, I don't think, and the other satellite-launching nations are insignificant by comparison. The all-time record holder is probably the US in 1969, with four Apollo missions (at something like 300,000 pounds per Saturn V launch) and lots of other activity. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 87 09:16:40 GMT From: elroy!jplpub1!jbrown@csvax.caltech.edu (Jordan Brown) Subject: Phoenix Anybody heard anything about Gary Hudson lately? Where is he based? ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 87 12:21:40 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: space elevators > ....... This >is for a space elevator on Earth, mind you -- Mars is easier. and the Moon is even easier >Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry Bob. ERCC. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Mar 87 19:50 EST From: Mark Purtill Subject: used missiles There's talk of some kind of deal with the soviets about limiting Medium Range Missiles in Europe (and please lets not have any discussion about whether such a deal would be good or not.) If this came about, and there were a hundred army surplus Pershing II missiles available, does anyone know if they could be used for something useful, like putting things in orbit? The questions are: 1) How much weight could one put in LEO or in geosyncrous orbit. 2) If the answer to (1) is too small, could they be bundled somehow. 3) What launch facilities do they need? Could they be used as is, in Europe (assuming this wouldn't be politically unfeasible)? Could they be launched from any existing sites? Mark Purtill at Multics.MIT.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 87 04:19:48 GMT Subject: Re: used missiles From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) Path: oddhack!jon In article <870306005020.778982@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA> Purtill@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Mark Purtill) writes: >[Referring to potential surplus Pershing IIs] >1) How much weight could one put in LEO or in geosyncrous orbit. The Air Force is supposed to be converting some of the ~50 Titan ICBMs that are being (have been?) phased out (after one of these liquid-fueled monsters blew up in the silo) into launchers. Their payload to LEO is only a few thousand pounds. Since the Pershings are intermediate-range missiles, I imagine their LEO capability is very low (probably 0, in fact). -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 87 07:22:31 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60sB) Subject: Space elevators on the Moon? In article <301@its63b.ed.ac.uk> bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes: >> ....... This >>is for a space elevator on Earth, mind you -- Mars is easier. > > and the Moon is even easier There a few slight problems with a space elevator on the moon. The principle one is that a lunar synchronous orbit is about 400,000 Km. which is the distance from the Earth to the Moon. This would be a hell of a long space elevator. In most directions from the moon a space elevator would be in a unstable position (orbit) because of the gravitational effects of the Earth. Perhaps directly away from the Earth might be stable. The moon's libration would probably make this unstable too. Two other possible positions would be to put them to the L4 and L5 points. Again libration may cause problems, but if you put enough stretch into them, they might work. Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 87 18:05:36 GMT From: amdcad!amdahl!meccts!viper!dave@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David Messer) Subject: Re: space elevators In article <301@its63b.ed.ac.uk> bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes: >> ....... This >>is for a space elevator on Earth, mind you -- Mars is easier. > and the Moon is even easier No, it doesn't rotate fast enough to provide enough force to hold it up. Mars provides low gravity, combined with a moderately fast rotation rate. Too bad we aren't there to take advantage of it. David Messer - Lynx Data Systems ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 87 05:53:02 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: space elevators In article <634@viper.UUCP>, dave@viper.UUCP (David Messer) writes: > In article <301@its63b.ed.ac.uk> bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes: > >> ....... This > >>is for a space elevator on Earth, mind you -- Mars is easier. > > > > and the Moon is even easier > > No, it doesn't rotate fast enough to provide enough force to > hold it up. Just extend the space elevator towards the Earth beyond the point where Earth's gravity is stronger than the Moon's. Only spin needed is that of the Moon around the Earth, to keep those apart (now that would stink if that quit on us, wouldn't it. . .). -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 87 06:15:16 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? Setting up a space elevator on the Moon by the analog of the geosynchronous satellite method would be harder than setting it up around Earth for a given difficulty of obtaining the materials because you would have to have your satellite at one of the unstable libration points (I don't remember the numbers, but they are the one between the Moon and the Earth and the one on the other side of the Moon from that) and then remove it, move it considerably further away from the Moon, or install something heavier than it on the outer end of the elevator to keep the instability of those libration points from trashing the elevator. On the other hand, setting it up by the wire-towing rocket method would be easier because the rocket (or mass-driver) has to fight much less gravity and need not go as far, and does not have to contend with an atmosphere. Coriolis effects would be less of a problem with a Lunar space elevator because the rotational period is 29.5 days instead of 1 day, and the elevator is shorter. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #159 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13592; Wed, 11 Mar 87 03:03:22 PST id AA13592; Wed, 11 Mar 87 03:03:22 PST Date: Wed, 11 Mar 87 03:03:22 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703111103.AA13592@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #160 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 11 Mar 87 03:03:22 PST From: Ted Anderson Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #160 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 160 Today's Topics: Josephson junction chip exists (was Re: Want to bet ...) Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? Space Elevators Re: Star Travel Re: Star Travel Re: Star Travel Re: Star Travel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 9 Mar 87 18:33:40-CST From: Larry Van Sickle Subject: Josephson junction chip exists (was Re: Want to bet ...) > > Then there are Josephson junctions ... > [it is] very hard to build JJ LSI ... IBM concluded that > the problem wasn't fixable. See Electronics, February 19, 1987, page 49 for several articles on a working Josephson junction signal processing computer. The machine is build by Hypres Inc. and cools just a portion of a chip by spraying liquid helium on it. Larry Van Sickle cs.vansickle@r20.utexas.edu.#Internet Computer Sciences Department U of Texas at Austin ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 87 17:52:21 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? > LUCIUS CHIARAVIGLIO: How do you get a space elevator > started?... 1. Launch a very powerful rocket towing a very > long wire spun out from a spool on the rocket; the rocket would > proceed to a circular geosynchronous orbit larger than the > standard geosynchronous orbit, ... so that things could climb > up or be hauled up the cable without pulling the rocket down. > 2. Put a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, and have it spin > out cables both toward and away from Earth... Huh? There seems to be something fishy here. 1) When you use the elevator to lift a payload to orbit, its angular momentum cannot come from the radial pull of the cable. Indeed, that is what the Coriolis force is all about. The angular momentum will eventually come entirely from the "small correcting rockets" (either on the car or on the cable) neede to counterbalance the Coriolis force. The impulse will be spread out over a longer period (several weeks to GEO), but would that make a difference in terms of fuel? 2) My limited knowledge of physics tells me that a space elevator would be in an unstable equilibrium: any small motion towards the Earth (e.g. if the cable stretches down a little bit) will increase the gravitational pull. If the cable were unconstrained, that would make it turn faster, and the increased centrifugal force would throw it back to the original height, as happens to any satellite. However, if the angular velocity is kept fixed by correcting rockets, the centrifugal force will DECREASE, and the whole thing will fall back to Earth. Is that so? 3) The same observation applies when you start lifting a mass with the elevator. Since the pull on the cable got bigger, you must increase the centrifugal force to keep the elevator up. That means you need a RADIAL "correcting rocket" to lift the the elevator a little bit. Also, before the cable adjusts to the load, it probably will stretch down a couple of kilometers. It seems you will need such rockets everywhere along the cable. How much thrust do you need to lift the car and restore the elevator to its original state? Why is that less than the thrust you would need to lift the car without the elevator? I can believe that a space elevator would be a good way to trade an existing mass in orbit (e.g., an artificially captured asteroid) with mass on Earth. However, if you launch the whole thing from Earth, can you still make it work? I.e., can you use it to pull more mass up, without pulling the elevator down at the same time? Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decvax!decwrl!stolfi) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 87 19:05:11 GMT From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov (Dave Chassin) Subject: Space Elevators I may be wrooooooong but I would think that for any usual distance the weight of the cable itself would be far greater than the way of whatever your lifting, meaning it would have to be HUGE at the station. Maybe someone has done this calculation. I'd be curious to see how it turns out. DPC ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 87 01:20:04 GMT From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research - CASLAB Subject: Re: Star Travel References: <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov With respect to the usefulness of the Bussard ramjet, one interesting point is that interstellar matter is highly inhomogeneous. The too-low-density bug might better be reinvestigated as "how far is the nearest high-density region of the interstellar medium?" No, I don't know either. About seven years ago, there was some stuff in the professional astronomy literature that suggested that perhaps the solar system was not too far from a dense region. However, I have not kept track of the issue. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 87 07:55:09 GMT From: dayton!viper!dave@rutgers.rutgers.edu (David Messer) Organization: Lynx Data Systems, Minneapolis, MN Subject: Re: Star Travel References: <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > Back in 1975, I was rummaging >around the UC Berkeley engineering library and found an obscure paper by >R.W. Bussard, entitled "Galactic Matter and Interstellar Flight", >Astronautica Acta, 6, 179-194 (1960). In this paper, Bussard described >the "interstellar ramjet". . . . > However his idea had two killer bugs that were >immediately apparent. One is, he assumned an interstellar hydrogen >density of 1.0E3 particles per cubic centimeter. The other bug was >he assumned **all** of the hydrogen could be burned in a fusion >reactor. The first "bug" is a real problem. Of course, there is always the possibility of denser clouds of matter that the ship can fly through. The second "bug" may be have a solution. Just because "protium" only undergoes fusion naturally in the core of stars doesn't imply that it is impossible to do it any other way. Muon catalyzed fusion is one possibility. >I then performed a calculation myself and determined that the >electromagnetic field strengths necessary to attract the hydrogen would >cause structural failure of the vehicle (by orders of magnitude) even if >it was made out of diamond. Depends on the design. You don't have to assume that the vehicle is enveloped by the field. >These are the obvious killer bugs for Bussard's idea. Not obvious. Certainly problems to be solved. >Unfortunately we must >assign the Bussard Ram Jet to that pile where one will find such other >clever ideas like the perpetual motion machine, the FTL drive, and the >anti-gravity drive. Hardly. There is nothing in THEORY that makes Bussard's idea impossible -- only engineering problems. It may well be impractible to do, but there is nothing (except possibly the low density of hydrogen) that makes it impossible. >It is depressing to see that despite being able >to rigorously prove the Bussard Ram Jet is unworkable, ... Many other things have been "rigorously" proven to be unworkable -- such as flying past the speed of sound. >People have been kicking antimatter >around for sometime. I'll let another reader of Space Digest attack >this one since it's pretty easy to shoot down. What is wrong with anti-matter? Certainly if one had a supply of anti-matter, it would be a very consentrated source of energy. Since we know how to make anti-particles, and we can have an almost unlimited supply of energy (solar-power) to make them with, the problem really is only in storage; and there are several possible ways to do that. >Because of the "Fermi Paradox", I suspect >that there are no new "rabbits" in the hat. The Fermi Paradox is: "We >are on the verge of being able to travel to the stars. The sun is a >common star and the earth is not unusual. Earth is unusual in at least two ways: it has a huge moon, and it is the only planet we know that has life on it. The later may be a circular argument, but there may be some other factor that we haven't discovered yet that makes life unusual. >The Fermi paradox tells us that speeds of >greater than 10 Psol (percent speed of light) are unobtainable for a >manned vehicle. I don't know where you got that figure, but there are other reasons to think that there are no other intelligent species nearby. For instance, we are capable of communicating by radio out to several hundred light-years and yet we haven't picked up any signals. Why is this? It has nothing to do with the possibility of star-travel. >At nonrelativistic speeds one would **not** expect a >civilization to expand beyond 50 light years from its home star Why is that? If the species survives it will keep on expanding. Of course there is the argument that no species ever, or rarely, survives developing the ability to destroy itself. If so, let us hope that we are a rare species. David Messer - Lynx Data Systems ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 87 06:27:50 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Ctr., Cambridge, MA Subject: Re: Star Travel References: <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov>, <551@viper.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <551@viper.UUCP>, dave@viper.UUCP (David Messer) writes: [Name of "> >" person lost] > > . . .Also most interstellar hydrogen > >is protium which is an isotope that will undergo fusion **only** within > >the core of stars through a nuclear catalytic cycle (the so called Bethe > >cycle). . . . > The second "bug" may be have a solution. Just because "protium" > only undergoes fusion naturally in the core of stars doesn't > imply that it is impossible to do it any other way. Muon > catalyzed fusion is one possibility. Unfortunately, research to date has shown that with the exception of deuterium-tritium mixtures, muon-catalyzed fusion will not work because the muon tends to get trapped in orbit around the fusion product before it has catalyzed enough fusions to pay for itself. Additionally, I think it also showed that it won't work period for pure hydrogen-1 (makes sense -- helium-2 is unstable, and probably won't decay to deuterium unless the protons are pulled even closer together than a muon could achieve). Additionally, muon- catalyzed fusion requires low temperatures (1500`K is optimum -- above that the muonic molecule-ions begin to not be able to hold together), and in an interstellar ramjet the captured hydrogen would certainly be very hot due to the high speed of the ship; in order to capture it without heating it you would have to extract its relative kinetic energy, do the fusion, and then somehow put the extracted kinetic energy back into the exhaust without losing too much due to various inefficiencies. The source for all of the information in this paragraph not directly related to the interstellar ramjet is an article in the issue of Nature early in the fall that had a picture of bubbles or bits of styrofoam circulating in air vortices (can't remember the exact date of the issue, although if someone really wants I suppose I could dig through all those back issues). > >It is depressing to see that despite being able > >to rigorously prove the Bussard Ram Jet is unworkable, ... > > Many other things have been "rigorously" proven to be unworkable -- > such as flying past the speed of sound. Hear, hear! So has FTL travel, for that matter. . . . > >People have been kicking antimatter > >around for sometime. I'll let another reader of Space Digest attack > >this one since it's pretty easy to shoot down. > > What is wrong with anti-matter? Certainly if one had a supply > of anti-matter, it would be a very con[c]entrated source of energy. > Since we know how to make anti-particles, and we can have an > almost unlimited supply of energy (solar-power) to make them > with, the problem really is only in storage; and there are > several possible ways to do that. Exactly. An antimatter/matter reaction system is an excellent battery. Of course, if we could find some way to catalyze proton decay or do something like that we might not even have to settle for a battery. . . . -- -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out of this system is unreliable). Please send only to the address given above. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 87 06:10:40 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!bpdickson@seismo.css.gov Subject: Re: Star Travel In article <551@viper.UUCP> dave@viper.UUCP (David Messer) writes: >In article <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > > >In actuality, interstellar hydrogen (as Geoffrey correctly > >pointed out) is only 0.1 particles/cc. > >The first "bug" is a real problem. Of course, there is always the >possibility of denser clouds of matter that the ship can fly >through. The density of hydrogen is greater very close to stars :-). But seriously, while passing a star (not too close), one could conceiveably collect hydrogen for fuel, or even modify the magnetic field so as to drastically increase the energy output, and convert energy to antimatter (as previous poster made reference to). > >... if it was made out of diamond. This idea appeals to me $-). Also has many nice properties. >Since we know how to make anti-particles, and we can have an >almost unlimited supply of energy (solar-power) to make them >with, the problem really is only in storage. Yeah! Presumably, with the technology for creating the Bussard field, one could create a very good magnetic bottle for the antimatter (and keep it far away from the crew :-) and create a magnetic shield for the crew. (See some of Larry Nivens stories for related stuff). By the way, Bussard was smart enough to patent his design. That's why Niven refers to it as a Bussard ramjet. Keep this in mind if you plan on building one of your own (no smiley face; they have made alloys which become superconductors at liquid nitrogen temperatures). Brian Dickson (BiPeD) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #160 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16418; Thu, 12 Mar 87 03:03:36 PST id AA16418; Thu, 12 Mar 87 03:03:36 PST Date: Thu, 12 Mar 87 03:03:36 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703121103.AA16418@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #161 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 161 Today's Topics: Re: Where is Gary Hudsen? Re: SPACE Digest V7 #151 Star Travel Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter Re: How Close Has Fusion Come to Breakeven? Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter Laser Sails, Antimatter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Mar 1987 01:06-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Where is Gary Hudsen? When I talked to him yesterday he was in California :-) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 1987 21:23-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #151 Gary Allen: If you want to feel less depressed about star travel ideas, please come to our conference and listen to Dr. Forward talk about "We CAN go to the Stars." Then you can have fun disproving it all. Ought to keep the star travel topic going for a few months, at least... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 87 22:27:43 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Star Travel To: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov I am nowhere near as pessimistic about star travel. It is true there are problems with Bussard's ramjet ideas, but that only explains why we haven't built it already. It is not true that hydrogen 1 will fuse only in the core of stars. It does take higher pressures and temperatures, but we may be able to achieve them someday, or avoid the necessity via fusion catalyzed by muons or monopoles or quantum black holes or something. Regarding electromagnetic field strengths destroying the starship, it depends on how they are applied. Laser beams, for instance, are electromagnetic fields that are highly directional. This month's _Scientific American_ has an article in which laser cooling of low density gas is described. It is also mentioned that the gas is stored with electromagnetic fields, which until recently was thought impossible for NON-ionized gas, which is what they are using, and which is what interstellar space is believed to be filled with. I suspect that your calculations assumed an omnidirectional electromagnetic field. Even that would not necessarily wreck the ship. Fields can be held with other fields, etc, until you get one that can be held with mere steel. Sound impossible? If I knew all the details I wouldn't be discussing it, I would be building it or flying it. But your argument sounds about as valid as arguing that people can never create arbitrary and large shapes out of steel and titanium because we are small and soft and intolerant of extreme temperatures and pressures. Nobody knows the density of interstellar dust grains. It might be small enough that we needn't worry. Or the same fields which put hydrogen where it is needed might push aside the dust as a side effect. Or the dust might go in with the hydrogen and be burned up in the fusion flame. Or a protective hull might be used, that we don't mind eroding away, perhaps an iceberg. Bussard's idea may never be practical. But it does not belong on the same pile with perpetual motion and FTL travel, which, unless we are extremely mistaken about the nature of the universe, are truly impossible, impossible like adding two odd numbers to get an odd number. I don't think Bussard ramjets are in that class. I would like to hear your critique of antimatter, since I don't think it is "pretty easy to shoot down". There are plenty of other promising approaches to star travel besides the Bussard ramjet, without requiring FTL or tachyons or anti-gravity or negative mass or even monopoles. The Fermi paradox is not a good argument against the possibility of star travel. This was discussed a few month ago on this list, and people came up with many possible reasons why we haven't been visited. I won't describe them here, except to mention that we might be the "elder race" (SOMEONE has got to do it), and to argue that since nobody has ever (that we know of) invented star travel that star travel is impossible, is as silly as making the similar argument, restricted to earth, against all proposed new inventions and discoveries. Didn't they tell Columbus that if there was another continent, someone else would surely have discovered it by now? (In fact, someone else HAD, but that's not the point). I don't see why non-relativistic space flight precludes colonies more than 50 light years from home. Life has been on Earth for 3500 million years. If life started elsewhere one percent sooner, or developed one percent faster, the aliens would be 35 million years ahead of us. Had they started non-relativistic colonization in their equivalent of the 21st century - or 91st century for that matter - and had they spread no faster than our own space probes now leave the solar system, they would now have colonies thousands of light years from home. There are good arguments against star travel ever being possible. I might be swayed by them if not for the fact that I have read equally persuasive arguments against travel to the moon and against manned flight through the air. Obviously, these arguments had flaws. But it often wasn't possible to spot the flaws until shortly before the "impossible" technology was developed. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Mar 87 09:44:24 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter In an earlier posting I claimed that there are only two hopes for star travel, namely: nuclear fusion (IFR systems), or a Grand Unification Theory "rabbit out of the hat". Paul Dietz raised a third possibilty: Light sails propelled by a laser. This is an idea Robert Forward has been promoting. However I don't think it'll work for two reasons: 1) The laser light will red-shift as the light sail accelerates away from the laser. Since light momentum is inversely proportional to wavelength, then as the light red-shifts it will be delivering less momentum to the vehicle. 2) Beam divergence is dependent on laser rod width divided by length. Therefore the light beam from a finite laser **must** diverge. All you can do is minimize this divergence. Your laser will probably be throwing out terrawatts in order to have any effect. Let's assume a laser rod diameter of one meter and a sail diameter of 10 km. Assume the light sail is one light year away (Alpha Centuri is a little over 4 l.y. away). How long must the laser be to illuminate only the sail and not empty space? Answer: The laser must be 1.0e9 km long. The other obvious problems are: How would you construct such a laser? Where would you get the energy? How do you build the sail? How do you accurately track the sail when it is over a light year away? I'm afraid this idea can be set next to the Bussard ramscoop as a no-starter. By the way, I really do believe in solar sails for travel **within** the orbit of Jupiter. With one solar sail you could fly back and forth to Mars as many times as you like since it consumes no fuel. However solar sails are limited by a dimensionless number called "lightness number". This puts a definite upper bound on payload. Paul commented briefly on antimatter. Paul surprized me by not examining the problem of the high energy gamma rays that are produced by antimatter reactions. This is only the number three problem. Number one: How do you make the stuff? Number two: How do you store the stuff? (remember quantum theory proves that no container is 100% effective). The problem with the gammas strikes me as an absolute show stopper. Not only will you be required to have tons of shielding but you'll have to somehow convert this deadly energy into useful thrust. On top of that you'll have vigorous photon disintegration occuring within the thrust chamber. The gammas will be literally eating away your starship. I'm still convinced that nuclear fusion is the only currently viable means for getting out of the solar system and for economicly industrializing the solar system. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 87 08:36:29 GMT From: dayton!viper!dave@rutgers.rutgers.edu (David Messer) Subject: Re: How Close Has Fusion Come to Breakeven? In article <8703082041.AA08372@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >Suprisingly, this is not the best. That honor goes to a dark horse -- >muon catalyzed fusion. Recent measurements in hot compressed DT >gas show that one negative muon catalyzes about 150 to 170 fusions >before it decays. Each negative muon costs about 5 GeV to produce; at >about 20 MeV per fusion (counting heat generated in the lithium blanket) >this gives a Q of between .6 and .7. It will be necessary to reach ~1200 >fusions/muon to make a pure fusion reactor economical, but even at current I had an idea about the losses associated with the generatation and eventual capture of the muon's in muon-catalyzed-fusion. (As I understand it, the principle loss with this method is that the muons eventually are capture by the helium nucleouses which are the product of the fusion reactions -- thus preventing the muons from participating in further fusions.) In any event, wouldn't it be possible to save the anti-muons which are created along with the usable muons, and inject them back into the reaction to anhilate those muons? This would allow recovery of at least some of the energy that was used in creating the muons. (If this is a usable idea -- doubtful since physics isn't even remotely my field -- I give it away freely. I WANT fusion.) David Messer - Lynx Data Systems ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 87 18:17:46 GMT From: amdcad!amdahl!meccts!viper!dave@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David Messer) Subject: Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter In article <8703090847.AA09338@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >In an earlier posting I claimed that there are only two hopes for star >travel, namely: nuclear fusion (IFR systems), or a Grand Unification >Theory "rabbit out of the hat". Paul Dietz raised a third possibilty: >Light sails propelled by a laser. . . . You make two assumptions here that may not be valid. 1) That the light-sail system needs to be useful at light-year distances, and 2) That it needs to illuminate only the sail. The first assumtion is invalid if enough acceleration can be obtained at a closer distance. The second assumtion is simply invalid; given power to spare (and we have that with solar-power) you can simply build enough lasers so that the amount of light falling on the sail remains useful. This also handles your objection to the red-shifting of the laser light. >The other obvious problems are: How would you >construct such a laser? Where would you get the energy? How do you >build the sail? How do you accurately track the sail when it is over a >light year away? If all the problems were solved, there wouldn't be any need to discuss it. If ideas could be dismissed because they have unsolved problems then we wouldn't get anything done. >I'm afraid this idea can be set next to the Bussard >I'm still convinced that nuclear >fusion is the only currently viable means for getting out of the solar >system and for economicly industrializing the solar system. I am surprised that you feel this way -- after all, there are problems with fusion as well. David Messer - Lynx Data Systems ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 87 18:17 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Laser Sails, Antimatter Response to Gary Allen: > The laser light will red-shift as the light sail accelerates away from > the laser. Since light momentum is inversely proportional to > wavelength, then as the light red-shifts it will be delivering less > momentum to the vehicle. But more energy. A photon reflected off the sail is red shifted twice, so it ends up with only (1-b)/(1+b) of its original energy, b = v/c, v = speed of the sail. The fraction of energy transfered to the vehicle is 2b/(1+b), which approaches 1 as v --> c (assuming all photons are reflected at 180 degrees; photons reflected at slightly lower angles in the sail's frame of reference get abberated forward in the laser's frame of reference, as does radiated waste heat). Thrust does go down. This is a consequence of the fact that it takes more energy to accelerate a fast moving object than a slow moving one. However, since thrust is typically limited by sail heating, we can increase laser power as b increases. If the sail is always kept at its maximum temperature, beam power in the sail's frame of reference will be constant, so thrust will be constant (assuming sail reflectivity is independent of frequency; I think (?) reflectivity typically increases with increasing wavelength.) > Beam divergence is dependent on laser rod > width divided by length. . . . Gary's beam divergence analysis is totally wrong (I suggest he apply the same reasoning to radar antennas). Gary's 1 meter aperture would suffer extreme diffraction spreading. The transmitter will likely use a phased array of smaller lasers. The lasers beams might be put in phase by using a remote reference laser placed perhaps 1000 AU downrange from the transmitter. It transmits a reference beam that is phase conjugated and amplified. This is similar to the scheme proposed for aiming microwaves from a powersat. The sail is perhaps 300 km wide, as is the laser array. With a wavelength of .3 microns, the beam can in principle be focused out to about eight light years. > The other obvious problems are: How would you > construct such a laser? Where would you get the energy? How do you > build the sail? How do you accurately track the sail when it is over a > light year away? I'm afraid this idea can be set next to the Bussard > ramscoop as a no-starter. These are difficult problems, but they are not obviously impossible. Certainly they are not in the same league as the problems with the original Bussard ramjet, where theoretically impossible material strengths and nuclear reactions are required. Tracking can be done by flying the vehicle on a preplanned course with active self guidance (tiltable sections in the sail provide maneuvering). This only requires that the beam not change direction suddenly, not that it track a distant target. Energy can be supplied by many very large solar powersats, or by something better if it is developed. This requires a large investment, but no rabbit tricks. Other problems I mention for sake of honesty: mechanical coupling of thrust from the sail to the vehicle, stiffening the sail, destruction of sail components by sputtering, deflection of the beam by the gravity of planets in near-solar space, security (that laser could do major damage anywhere in the solar system if used as a weapon) and, of course, deceleration at the end. The last probably imposes the strictest upper limit on speed, although for long trips one might coast most of the way at high speed then slow down gradually by deploying a thin mesh plasma brake. Travelling to Alpha Centauri, it may be possible to slow down in Alpha C's plasma tail, since the interstellar wind is coming from Centaurus and the plasma tail should be pointing nearly in our direction. Gary also commented on antimatter: > Paul commented briefly on antimatter. Paul surprized me by > not examining the problem of the high energy gamma rays that are > produced by antimatter reactions. Clearly, these can be stopped by shielding. This imposes a limit on the power density of the engine, since waste heat will have to be expelled, but imposes no crippling limit on exhaust velocity (if one is willing to tolerate low thrust). Gary may not realize that most of the energy produced in antimatter annihilation comes off as charged particles (pions mostly) or neutrinos, with only a fraction as gamma rays from neutral pion decay and positron annihilation. > This is only the number three > problem. Number one: How do you make the stuff? Number two: How do > you store the stuff? (remember quantum theory proves that no container > is 100% effective). Antimatter is made in accelerators, by bombarding targets with energetic protons. Much cleverness is needed to collect, sort and cool the antiprotons that are produced, but this is only (!) an engineering problem. Efficiencies of up to .1% have been talked about (this is far above current efficiencies, but current antiproton factories are not designed with very high efficiency in mind; an efficient factory would use a superconducting linac rather than a synchrotron to produce the primary beam, and would capture many more of the antiprotons). Whether these factories will have exorbinant capital costs is not clear. How do we store antimatter? Neutralize the antiprotons with positrons and collect the atoms to form solid antihydrogen. Suspend and move the antihydrogen by its diamagnetism (all this in microgravity anyway). Very good vacuum and low temperatures are required, but I don't see why (perhaps bulky) containment chambers cannot be designed. Gary's final comment aside, 100% effective confinement is not needed -- only 99.99...% effective confinement. How many nines we need will tell us how hard the task will be. For a starship, antilithium hydride is probably needed to reduce tank mass. > The problem with the gammas strikes me as an > absolute show stopper. Not only will you be required to have tons of > shielding but you'll have to somehow convert this deadly energy into > useful thrust. (And I suppose the radiation from a fusion rocket is not "deadly"?) Energy from photons escapes to space or gets radiated as waste heat. One uses the charged particles produced to heat larger quantities of normal matter, which is expelled as a plasma. The hard part is getting the antimatter to react fast enough before it gets blown out the nozzle. > On top of that you'll have vigorous photon > disintegration occuring within the thrust chamber. The gammas will be > literally eating away your starship. Photons will cause some transmutation in the reaction chamber, but with low aspect ratio shields the rate of such reactions should be much lower than the rate of fuel consumption. Carry several changes of shielding mass, if necessary; the mass wouldn't be that great. I personally feel light sails are more feasible than antimatter rockets (if only because they are much more efficient, when antimatter production efficiencies are included). Neither concept can be judged to be obviously impossible at this point. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #161 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19208; Fri, 13 Mar 87 03:03:23 PST id AA19208; Fri, 13 Mar 87 03:03:23 PST Date: Fri, 13 Mar 87 03:03:23 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703131103.AA19208@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #162 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 162 Today's Topics: Space Travel Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter Some comments on anti-matter storage Star Drives UFOs and other Unproven Fictious Objects Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter Re: Star Travel Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Mar 87 18:33:43 GMT From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov (Dave Chassin) Subject: Space Travel I've been watching the discussion about space travel and the Fermi Paradox for a while now, and I would like to make some points. I see a serious lack of 'scientific method' here. Many people have been basing arguments solely on plausibility. This is ridiculous reasoning, and I think it achieves nothing. I would and do reject any line of reason which concludes: 'and this seems plausible'. It seems to me like science has become counter-cultural and has to turn to belief for a basis. This rings strangely like the Weimar period in German physics. We must reason based on evidence gathered in the past years. I believe there is plenty of evidence to back both sides of the argument, making it unnecessary to rely on plausibility. Please let's be more rigorous, and forget the rhetorics... the content is what's really important. David P. Chassin ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 87 03:46:58 GMT From: cbatt!gatech!hubcap!beede@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Michael Beede) Subject: Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter in article <8703090847.AA09338@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET says: > . . . . 2) Beam divergence is dependent on laser rod > width divided by length. Therefore the light beam from a finite laser > **must** diverge. . . . . > . . . . Let's assume a laser rod diameter of one meter and a sail > diameter of 10 km. Assume the light sail is one light year away (Alpha > Centuri is a little over 4 l.y. away). How long must the laser be to > illuminate only the sail and not empty space? Answer: The laser must > be 1.0e9 km long. . . . I am not a physics type, but is there a fundamental reason that we need to use a single large rod? E.g., a bundle of .1mm rods 1e5km in length (long, but not any billion K) would have a length to width ratio equal to that in the example. Surely the engineers could overcome a minor difficulty such as stiffening such a beastie {-:, and keeping it oriented. Mike Beede UUCP: . . . ! gatech!hubcap!beede ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 12:29:19 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Some comments on anti-matter storage In an earlier posting I attacked Paul Dietz's idea of a laser propelled light sail by going through a beam dispersion analysis based on a single rod laser. Paul correctly pointed out that this analysis was wrong since the laser light would come from a phased array of lasers and not from a single rod. However Paul then went on to say that this array could be focused to 8 light years (which I find very hard to believe). Electrical engineers out there in ARPA-Land a question for you: Is such a tight beam possible? Since Paul has fair-and-squarely shot me down on my single rod analysis I shall counter-attack in another area. Paul claimed that anti-hydrogen could be stored in a vacuum container by being suspended through paramagnetism. I will not address the question of heating and melting of the anti-hydrogen by magnetic eddy currents (though this is a problem). Instead I'll show that this is impossible due to vacuum constraints. The best vacuum known is in interstellar space which is 0.1 particles per cubic centimeter. The interplanetary vacuum is 1000 particle/cc. Low Earth orbit vacuum at 120 km is 1.0E11 particles/cc. The best current artifical vacuum is at about 1.0E10 particles per cc. Let us assume that through the marvels of technology an artificial vacuum of 1000 particles/cc is possible (a seven orders of magnitude improvement). One **might** achieve such a vaccum inside a diamond container heated to several thousand degrees and then cooled to near zero degrees kelvin. One could take this container to interstellar space, open-and-close it and then bring it back to Earth (I don't think it's possible to artifically pump it down). The 1000 particles/cc would represent a free molecular carbon gas. Now let us place a tiny dust mote of frozen anti-hydrogen into this container and suspend it in the center. Let the anti-hydrogen have a surface area of 1.0E-11 square meters. Assume that the carbon gas is at 1 degree Kelvin (in truth it will be much hotter). The thermal velocity of the gas will be 1 meter/sec. From this we calculate that 1.0e-3 particles/sec will impact the anti-hydrogen delivering 1.0e-5 ergs/sec. Assume that most of the heat is absorbed in the anti-hydrogen. The only means of dumping the heat is through black body radiation. Assume that the hydrogen is a perfect black body (a generous assumption). By Stefan's law the hydrogen must have a temperature of greater than 50 degrees kelvin in order to reject the accumulating heat from the matter/anti-matter reactions. The boiling point for hydrogen is 21 degrees kelvin. Of course the paramagnetism will have been lost when the anti-hydrogen melted. We observe that a thermal runaway will occur in this problem. The black body radiation must impinge on the walls of the vacuum container which will liberate even more carbon. Also there will be outgassing of the anti-hydrogen which will heat the walls of the container and liberate even more gaseous carbon. In summary the idea doesn't work because a perfect vacuum in a closed container is impossible. Possible fixes for this problem would be to make a hunk of anti-aluminum and suspend that in the center (it is also paramagnetic and has a much higher melting point). How do you make anti-aluminum? Answer: I don't have a clue. Another fix is to suspend the antimatter in front of the spacecraft and insist that the spacecraft doesn't leave interstellar space. However this seems rather silly to have a spaceship that can't leave interstellar space. Apologies to Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, but it looks like antimatter storage doesn't work. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 09:11:29 PST From: ota@galileo.s1.gov Cc: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu, DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net Cc: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu, ota@angband.s1.gov Subject: Star Drives I'm a bit surprised that neither Paul Dietz nor Gary Allen appear to have read Robert Forward's work on either anitmatter drives or lightsails. I must agree with Dale Amon that you read his work. I have two old papers on this subject, but I have seen a recent Air Force study that Forward wrote on antimatter and "The Flight of the Dragonfly" covers the lightsail idea and is also more recent. I'll summarize some of the interesting tidbits from these old papers. Robert L. Forward, "Antimatter Propulsion", Hughes Research Laboratories - Malibu, Research Report 549, November 1981. The main trick with avoiding gammas is to have the magnetic nozzle do most of it work before the charged pions decay. You have 70 nsec of time to do this which means about 21 centimeters of space. The technique for cooling and storing the neutral antihydrogen is to use what Forward calls "resonant radiation cooling and capture". This is discussed in the March 87 SciAm. Forward, "Roundtrip Interstellar Travel using Laser-Pushed Lightsails", Hughes Research Laboratories - Malibu, Research Report 550, January 1982. The basic idea here is to put the laser near the sun, perhaps pumped directly with solar radiation. The diameter of the actual laser is not critical. This laser could use a laser from the lightsail as a guide beam for tracking and distortion correction. A similar scheme is being investigated for the SDI using phase conjugation to correct for atmospheric distortion. The laser beam is directed to a final transmitting lens between the orbit of Saturn and Uranus. This lens is a Fresnel zone plate which alternates zones of vacuum (index 1) and plastic (index ~ 1.5). This lens has a diameter of 1000km and masses 560,000 tons, assuming a wavelength of 1um. This combination has a spot size of 98km at 4.3 ly. To accomplish the deacceleration at the other end the lightsail is cut 1/3 of the way out from the center to leave two sails. The inner one has an area of 1/10 and deaccelerates in the light reflected by outer part. The outer ring has 9/10 the original area and continues accelecerating. Because of the ratio of areas and masses the inner sail deaccelerates at 10 times the rate that the outer reflector accelerates. The two stage system only works one-way. A three stage system would allow a round trip mission. Anyway, this is a very brief summary. You are encouraged to go out and check the original material. "The Flight of the Dragonfly" has a technical appendix and should be available in most bookstores. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 21:56:42 PST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: UFOs and other Unproven Fictious Objects Date: 3 Mar 87 02:35:44 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question > It's interesting to see a scientific community assuming that some > phenomenon doesn't exist simply because there's no absolute proof > that it does... It's interesting to see the True Believers assuming the existence of some phenomenon when there is *no* trustworthy evidence for it. I second that reply, and want to add to it: There are innumerable random ideas people come up with. Mathematicians come up with abstract groups and fields etc. Physicists come up with guage theories etc. Science fiction writers come up with totally off-the-wall ideas. Theologians come up with some pretty off-the-wall ideas too. In the absense of evidence, there is nothing to select among these ideas. Either we act like they are all just ideas, until we get evidence that one of them may be true in the physical world, or we act like they are all true until they are one by one refuted. So the choice is whether to spend lots of energy worrying about angels dancing on heads of pins, kharma, Conway's LIFE automaton, all the groups of order 64, little green men from Mars, faster-than-light travel, time travel, wormholes, ... as if they were all equally real and all equally important to know about lest we be defeated by some enemy which has spent more energy investing in practical development of those facts of the Universe? Or whether to dismiss them all as just ideas, not crucially important unless and until we get some solid evidence that one of them is real. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 87 22:44:35 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter > The laser light will red-shift as the light sail accelerates away from > the laser... This demonstrates that lightsails have problems when velocities start to get up to a substantial fraction of the speed of light. True, but there is a lot that can be done at velocities where the losses are modest. > ... 2) Beam divergence is dependent on laser rod > width divided by length. Therefore the light beam from a finite laser > **must** diverge. All you can do is minimize this divergence... As Forward has pointed out, you use a lens. (In any case the issue is complicated because you probably use multiple lasers.) His calculations were for a Fresnel zone plate made out of -- as I recall it -- quarter- wavelength plastic and vacuum. It's 1000 km across and spins slowly to retain its shape. It will focus most of the beam energy onto a 1000-km sail out to about 40 light-years. All errors are inversely proportional to the focal length, which is monstrous, so the lens does not need to hold its shape with high precision. > ... Where would you get the energy? Presumably solar energy. Mercury is valuable territory. > How do you build the sail? Presumably robotic construction, it will be too big and too flimsy to use human labor efficiently. If you postulate self-reproducing machinery, in particular, a 1000-km sail is trivial. > How do you accurately track the sail when it is over a > light year away?... You don't. All you do is keep the beam pointed in pretty much the right direction, with maybe an occasional correction. The spacecraft moves to stay in the beam, not vice-versa. The key problem is not sail tracking but pointing stability. > ... the problem of the high energy gamma rays that are > produced by antimatter reactions... Troublesome but solvable, probably. The engine itself will need a pretty heavy-duty cooling system. The crew quarters will quite simply need shielding. A combination of a long ship and shadow shielding can get the mass down to where it's manageable. I've seen a properly-shielded proposal for an antimatter-powered ship capable of 90+% of the speed of light, and the shielding problems of more modest vessels pale beside that one. > ... Number one: How do you make the stuff? To get enough for in-solar-system work and the beginnings of development for interstellar spacecraft, a factory with the size (and power demand) of the Hanford uranium-enrichment complex will do. For serious interstellar work, you probably want large, specialized power satellites in solar orbit. It sure would help if somebody could come up with a really efficient way of making antimatter, but the ways we've got will do in a pinch. It just needs a pretty large-scale effort. (Again, self-replicating machinery would make an enormous difference.) > Number two: How do > you store the stuff? (remember quantum theory proves that no container > is 100% effective)... Quantum theory turns up other interesting things, too. There has been a suggestion that at really low temperatures -- like 0.0001 K -- antimatter could be handled with normal matter, because the wave functions don't overlap enough to produce a reaction. I'm not enough of a physicist to check that one. The studies funded by outfits like the USAF have concluded that storing the stuff is not an insuperable problem; low temperatures, hard vacuum, and handling by magnetic or electric fields will suffice. > The problem with the gammas strikes me as an > absolute show stopper. Not only will you be required to have tons of > shielding but you'll have to somehow convert this deadly energy into > useful thrust... The gammas are sheer waste, nothing can be done about them. But in case you're not aware of it, the proton-antiproton reaction does *not* yield gammas immediately. A large fraction of the energy is temporarily in the form of charged particles, which a magnetic nozzle can handle. Please read some of the work that has been done before denouncing it as impossible. -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 87 21:34:45 GMT From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu (Ethan Vishniac) Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Subject: Re: Star Travel References: <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > At nonrelativistic speeds one would **not** expect a > civilization to expand beyond 50 light years from its home star (by > galactic scales this is a tiny distance). You`re going to have to help me with this one. Why 50 light years? After all, a generation ship going 1% of light would cross the galaxy in 4 million years. The universe is about 10 billion years old so this seems like a workable speed. I assume you've factored in something you haven`t been explicit about. -- "More Astronomy Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy Less Sodomy" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan - from a poster seen ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU at an airport University of Texas ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 87 11:34:07 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years In a previous posting I made the assertion that one would not expect an interstellar civilization to expand beyond 50 light years radius from its home star. This caused some readers to ask the obvious question, "Why?" Unfortunately the argument supporting this assertion is complex. The basic assumptions are that starships can never travel faster than ten percent of the speed of light, and are enormously expensive. I'm assumning that the only way one could get men to another star would be through a nuclear fusion propelled "Ark" which was about the size of an L-5 type colony, and required over a hundred years to complete one voyage. Such a vehicle would probably cost over a trillion dollars to make and could be constructed or serviced only by a large and vigourous **interplanetary** civilization. Since these Arks would represent virtually no financial return upon completion, the constructing civilization would look upon making these ships as only a "luxury activity" for disposing of surplus wealth (like the Egyptians building the Great Pyramid or the Athenians building the Parthenon). It is doubtful that any single civilization could justify building more than three of these ships. There are many stars in the galaxy. Within a twenty light year radius around the sun there are 88 stars. However stars of spectal type K5V up to M stars are unable to support life, ref: Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 39, No. 9, pg. 416. This leaves only six stars that **might** support life. Chances are even if they do have life, the planet might be an ocean planet, or a dinosaur planet, or with terrestrial incompatible life, i.e. left handed helix versus right handed helix protein molecules. Based on this we may optimistically assume a sun-like star density of 1.8e-4 stars/cubic light year. For a 50 light year radius this means 94 stars, that **could** have "earths" which **might** have life which **maybe** interesting. Here comes the punch line: Interstellar expansion is a process limited by laws-of-scale. If a healthy interplanetary civilization is only capable of making three Arks then only civilizations on the frontier of the interstellar expansion will be in a position to produce Arks. The stars within the volume of the interstellar expansion will already be several centuries old and have depleted their interstellar capacity. The volume of a sphere grows as a cube of the radius, but the surface only grows as a square. Therefore the surface-to-volume ratio of the interstellar expansion will diminish with radius. If we assume that each hop from star to star takes a century and it takes another century before another hop is possible then it will be 800 years before humans are 50 light years away. However within 800 years the inner home worlds will have changed totally. The typical life span for a nation or empire is about 500 years. If you have a frontier thickness of 1 light year then there will be about 6 frontier stars to service 94 interior home systems. The trillion dollar cost will cause much controversy on where to send the Ark. It will become more and more tempting to send the Ark **back** to the ancient home worlds than to send it outwards to some world that probably is a dead loss. With 94 known stars to choose from, it is much more likely that the cost of your Ark will be justified by going *in* than by going out. It is this basic scaling law, coupled with the slowness and extreme cost of interstellar travel that will limit outward expansion. Of course this whole argument is false **if** you can travel fast enough that relativistic time dialation is possible. Then the "Fermi Paradox" really is a paradox. Gary Allen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #162 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21473; Sat, 14 Mar 87 03:02:54 PST id AA21473; Sat, 14 Mar 87 03:02:54 PST Date: Sat, 14 Mar 87 03:02:54 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703141102.AA21473@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #163 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 14 Mar 87 03:02:54 PST From: Ted Anderson Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #163 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 163 Today's Topics: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Feb 87 15:19:10 GMT From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu (Ethan Vishniac) Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I don't want to beat this to death, but I think this argument is rather unlikely. In article <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: First a section which sounds plausible about the expense involved in building hundred year ships. Then a claim that this limits the total number of ships built per system to an arbitrary number i.e. 3. I find this possible but unconvincing. Then a not unreasonable argument which concludes: > For a 50 light year radius this means 94 > stars, that **could** have "earths" which **might** have life which > **maybe** interesting. Of course, if you can build interstellar ships then you don't need life on a planet to refuel the ship and restock its supplies of vital gases and minerals. > If > we assume that each hop from star to star takes a century and it takes > another century before another hop is possible then it will be 800 > years before humans are 50 light years away. However within 800 years > the inner home worlds will have changed totally... > If you have a frontier > thickness of 1 light year then there will be about 6 frontier stars to > service 94 interior home systems. The trillion dollar cost will cause > much controversy on where to send the Ark. It will become more and > more tempting to send the Ark **back** to the ancient home worlds than > to send it outwards to some world that probably is a dead loss. I don't believe this at all. Given the unlikely nature of *any* direct payoff to interstellar travel (as opposed to communication) with a system peopled or not this decision seems completely irrational to me. Also the "frontier" thickness seems wrong. The width of the frontier will always be comparable to the separation between habitable systems. "More Astronomy Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy Less Sodomy" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan - from a poster seen ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU at an airport University of Texas ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 87 15:37:25 GMT From: dayton!mmm!cipher@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Andre Guirard) Organization: Software & Electronics Resource Center/3M Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > The basic assumptions are that starships can never travel faster than >ten percent of the speed of light, and are enormously expensive. I'm >assumning that the only way one could get men to another star would be >through a nuclear fusion propelled "Ark" which was about the size of an >L-5 type colony, and required over a hundred years to complete one >voyage. There's one more assumption you're making, which appears unjustified. You assume that the Ark ships can't be re-used. The cost of refitting and launching an existing vessel is surely much less than the cost of constructing a new one. >... Since these Arks would represent >virtually no financial return upon completion, the constructing >civilization would look upon making these ships as only a "luxury >activity" for disposing of surplus wealth (like the Egyptians building >the Great Pyramid or the Athenians building the Parthenon). It is >doubtful that any single civilization could justify building more than >three of these ships. This assumes that financial return is the only "coin" for which a civilization considers projects worthwhile. I and, I'm sure, many others on this newsgroup have a much more important "payoff" in mind when we support space exploration: species survival. >... If >we assume that each hop from star to star takes a century and it takes >another century before another hop is possible then it will be 800 >years before humans are 50 light years away. However within 800 years >the inner home worlds will have changed totally. The typical life >span for a nation or empire is about 500 years... It will become more and >more tempting to send the Ark **back** to the ancient home worlds than >to send it outwards to some world that probably is a dead loss. With 94 >known stars to choose from, it is much more likely that the cost of your >Ark will be justified by going *in* than by going out... Sending the Ark to an inhabited world _is_ a dead loss. And uninhabited worlds are likely to be uninhabitable, so that would be a dead loss too. Consider that the only catastrophe likely to destroy an entire interplanetary culture is a nova. Consider that should all life on some world be destroyed by some catastrophe, the other inhabitants of that system can reconstruct and recolonize much faster than people can come from another system to do it. -- /''`\ DISCLAIMER: Ideas should not be Andre Guirard ([]-[]) held responsible for the ihnp4!mmm!cipher \ o / people who believe in them. Ombro de Sro. Ed. `-' ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 87 05:08:04 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Ctr., Cambridge, MA Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov When calculating how far somebody would be likely to get with a given star travel technology, don't forget that aliens are not humans, and may have quite a number of differences with respect to us that could make very long term projects considerably more attractive to them. Lack of aggression and much longer life-spans are possible differences; more worrisomely, if they're like us, maybe they have to keep moving out because they eventually trash every planet they land on, by nuclear war or other irreparable (within tens of thousands of years) ecological damage, or maybe they have this religion that tells them they have this manifest destiny to move out to other stars no matter what the cost -- yecch either way (but neither is necessarily the case). As for the technology, remember that technologies more advanced than ours are possible. As for the Fermi paradox, it is based on others being likely to have developed star travel if such is possible. Well, maybe someone has and just hasn't shown up here, or maybe they have but have been concealed (-: say, just where have all the religious fanatics on Earth been coming from, anyway? :-) -- but also remember, somebody has to do it first. . . . -- -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out of this system is unreliable). Please send only to the address given above. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #163 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23743; Sun, 15 Mar 87 03:02:53 PST id AA23743; Sun, 15 Mar 87 03:02:53 PST Date: Sun, 15 Mar 87 03:02:53 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703151102.AA23743@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #164 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 164 Today's Topics: Starships, 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 87 09:05:15 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu To: space-incoming@angband.s1.gov Subject: Starships, 2 Timetables One of the most important factors about a starship is how long it will take to get there. Many analyses tacitly assume that a starship will keep accelerating until it gets halfway to its destination, then turn around and decelerate the remainder of the way. While this is a possible way to operate, the portion of the thrust just before turnaround (and just after) is pretty much wasted, and gains you very little in terms of shortening the trip time. It is much more efficient to stop accelerating well before midpoint, and coast. Table 1 shows timetables for one-gee acceleration (the equations from which these tables were derived are given in appendix 2). The first column is the length of time the engines thrust at one gee in the ship's frame of reference, assuming that the ship started with zero speed. The next column shows how long this is to outside observers. When the ship starts moving at an appreciable fraction of c, more time passes in the "stationary" frame than the ship's frame of reference. The third and fourth columns show how fast the ship is moving at the end of the period of thrust. Velocity in the stationary frame is distance traveled per unit rest frame time. Velocity in the "ship" frame is what is known as "proper velocity": the distance traveled per unit ship time. Within a year, this easily surpasses the speed of light. The time dilation factor---"gamma"---shows how much the time in the ship is slowed down compared to rest frame time due to relativity. This starts getting significant for acceleration times over about six months. For most of the nearby stars, at most a few years of (ship time) acceleration will suffice. You can go a thousand light years, visiting about ten million stars, with fourteen years ship time of acceleration (seven years accelerating, seven decellerating). For those of you with even more distant visions, you can travel the twenty thousand light years to the center of the galaxy in only 21 years ship time, and the two million light years to the Andromeda galaxy in 30 (much less, of course, if you don't stop.) Table 1: Distances and Velocities at One Gee Ship Earth Velocity Velocity D Dilation Time Time (E frame) (S frame) factor (yrs) (yrs) (/c) (/c) (LY) ______________________________________________________ 0.1 0.10 0.103 0.10 0.01 1.01 0.2 0.20 0.203 0.21 0.02 1.02 0.3 0.30 0.300 0.31 0.05 1.05 0.4 0.41 0.390 0.42 0.08 1.09 0.5 0.52 0.474 0.54 0.13 1.14 1.0 1.19 0.774 1.22 0.56 1.58 1.5 2.17 0.913 2.24 1.41 2.45 2.0 3.75 0.968 3.86 2.90 3.99 2.5 6.34 0.988 6.53 5.44 6.60 3.0 10.65 0.996 10.97 9.72 11.01 4.0 29.88 0.999 30.77 28.92 30.79 5.0 84 (1) 86 83 86 What would a Starship be Like? The ship will require a closed environment which can sustain life for years, without use of natural sunlight. Mass will be at a premium. Everything will have to be as light as possible In order to shield the passenger compartment from radiation from the engines, the ship may be made on the "tether" principle, with the engines in front (with exhausts aiming very slightly off-axis), pulling the crew compartment on a several kilometer long tether. In this configuration, a very small shield partway along the tether can shield a large area of crew compartment. Dangers Meteor Danger: This is trivial. 1930's SF to the contrary, space isn't full of meteoroids. However, if you did happen to hit even a small rock while travelling at 90 percent of the speed of light, the results would be spectacular. Interstellar dust: the spaces between the stars do contain small amounts of very fine dust. (The word "dust" is misleading, since the particles are actually much smaller than ordinary dust particles, typically 200-2000 angstroms across.) This dust is very sparse---on the average, one particle per million cubic meters in the galactic disk, according to Zeilik. However, even this small amount of dust means that a starship will hit a million dust grains per square centimeter for each light year of travel. Fortunately, most of the dust is concentrated in dust clouds (which should be avoided at all costs by the typical starship pilot!) It's not clear how much of a problem the remaining dust will be. A starship will need some sort of a dust shield to prevent the dust, impacting at hypersonic velocities, from eroding away the surface; this may need to be little more than a thin `parasol' of aluminum foil a couple of hundred angstroms thick, which will vaporize the dust on impact. Radiation. Interstellar hydrogen will also impact the ship. At high velocities, this will be rather like a barrage of low-energy radiation (or not so low energy, if the ship reaches a high percentage of the speed of light). The dust shield will effectively screen most of these hydrogen impacts if it is sufficiently far in front of the crew compartment. More important, high energy cosmic rays which are blocked by the Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field will strike the ship and its inhabitants unless it is shielded. For reasons of mass, this would probably have to be done by use of a magnetic field (created by large superconducting magnets) rather than by a material shield. Alternatively, if medical science is advanced enough, the crew could simply accept the radiation dose and the resultant higher cancer rates of the ship. The impact of both dust and interstellar hydrogen can be minimized by making the ship, as much as possible, in an extremely long and slender pencil-like shape, to minimuze the frontal area. For fusion ships, the fuel supply will probably be the frontmost part of the ship, since it is least liable to damage. Alternatively, the fuel may be stored in shells around the crew compartment, in order to use it as a partial shield against cosmic rays. The time scales of these voyages---typically years---will make the interpersonal interactions on the ship very important, and another possible source of danger. The crew will be packed together in extremely close living quarters, and will be subjected to long periods of time with nothing to do (relating to the trip, anyway). For most cases, the trip will be one-way. Chosing the crew will be a very important element in the success of the journey. Worked out-examples: Here to alpha-Centauri (4.3 LY); here to epsilon-indi (11.2 LY) Fusion: Imperfect D-He3 fusion: The mass ratios are all between the times on the charts, so we interpolate and estimate where necessary. A mass ratio of 300 allows the ship to thrust at one g for between .3 and .4 years. Allowing half of this for acceleration and half for deceleration at the target, that's .15 to .2 years each. In the ship's frame, the ship reaches about 0.18c. The distance travelled during acceleration and deceleration is under .02 LY each, which is almost negligible compared to how far the target is. The trip to alpha-c will take (4.3LY/0.18c), or about 24 years. The trip to epsilon-indi takes (11.2/.18), or 63 years. A mass ratio of three thousand gives almost 0.5 years of thrust, 0.25 each starting and stopping. Velocity reaches 0.25 c, d during acceleration is again negligible, so we get to Alpha C in about 17 years plus the half year of thrust, and to Epsilon Indi in 45 years. Perfect H-H fusion: Mass ratio 300 allows the ship to thrust at one g for almost .7 years, which is .35 speeding up and .35 to slow down. The ship travels .14 LY during thrust, and reaches a maximum speed of .35 c. Again the distance travelled under thrust is neglible. To alpha C takes about (4.3/.35), or 12 years, the trip to epsilon indi takes roughly (11.2/.35), or 32 years. If we increase the mass ratio to 3000, we can get nearly a full year of thrust, 0.5 years each accelerating and decelerating. Distance traveled during thrust is .13 LY and maximum velocity is .54 c, so the total trip takes 8 years ship time to Alpha C, and 21 to Epsilon Erindani Antiproton Annhilation: A mass ratio of 300 would allow an antiproton annihilation starship to thrust for over 3.6 years, exactly enough to thrust the entire trip to A-centauri: accelerate for 1.8 years, travelling 2.2 LY, at which point the ship has reached a velocity (ship frame) of 2.94 c. Decelerate for same; total trip time, 3.6 years. For the trip to e-indi, we need to coast an additional (11.2-4.3) = 6.9 LY at 2.94 c, or 2.3 years, for a total trip time of 5.9 years. If we decrease thrust time to 3 years(1.5 accelerating and 1.5 decelerating), leaving a slight coast period on the trip to a-centauri, the mass ratio decreases dramatically, from 300 down to 90. The ship travels 2.7 LY during thrust and reaches a speed of 2.13 c. This leaves (4.2-2.7) = 1.6 LY of coast, which takes .75 years for a total trip time of 3.75 years. The last little bit of thrust before turnaround costs a lot of mass ratio, but decreases the trip time by very little. Lowering the thrust times to 1 year each decreases the mass ratio to 20, and gives us 1.1 Ly during thrust, a peak speed of 1.18 C, and a trip time of 2+(4.3-1.1)/1.18 = 4.7 years. That savings may not sound like much, but keep in mind that even for a tiny ship---say, five tons, which was the mass of the Apollo capsule---the fuel saved (compared with 3 years of thrust)is 175 tons of antimatter Appendix 2: Equations from Relativity For those of you who want to do your own calculations, or want to calculate what happens for ships that travel at accelerations other than one gee, I will present the most useful formulae here, without attempting to derive them. For derivations and fuller explanation, see the references or consult any of the many excellent textbooks on special relativity. Note: all velocities ("v") here are expressed as a fraction of the speed of light; accelerations a are measured in lightspeeds per year (for accelerations in gravities, use 1 g=1.034 c/yr) Time Dilation Time inside a moving spacecraft is slower than time measured by a stationary observer by a factor gamma, where gamma=1/sqrt[1-v**2] This effect is known as relativistic time dilation. Note that this factor gamma is very close to one for velocities which are small compared to the speed of light. Acceleration If the acceleration inside the ship is a, the acceleration measured by a stationary observer is a{earth}=a/{gamma**3} So if a ship accelerates at what the crew inside inside the ship perceive as a constant acceleration, Earthbound observers will see the acceleration as decreasing dramatically as the speed approaches lightspeed. Proper Velocity Proper velocity (which I refer to as $v_{ship,$ the distance traveled per unit ship time) is related to the commonly defined velocity (v, the distance traveled per unit outside time) by: v{ship}= gamma*v(outside) Note that v{ship} can exceed c, and does so when v exceeds 0.71 c. Distance Traveled during Acceleration If the ship accelerates for a time t (in ship time), at the and of that time it has traveled a distance d=[cosh(at)-1]/a Final Speed after Acceleration and reached a speed (earth frame) v=tanh(at) (the proper speed is gamma times this) Time in Earth Frame meanwhile, in the stationary frame, a time has gone by t(earth)= [sinh(at)]/a Specific Impulse If a rocket engine has an exhaust velocity v(exhaust), the specific impulse is defined as Isp=v(exhaust)/g where g is the acceleration of gravity. For I(sp) in years and v expressed in fraction of c, Isp=v(exhaust). If we define energy efficiency E as the fraction of the rest mass of the fuel converted into energy, and assume that the reaction products all exit the engine with the same velocity, then the exhaust velocity is v(exhaust)=sqrt(2E-E**2). For total conversion of matter into energy, the exhaust velocity is 1, ie., the speed of light, and thus the specific impulse is 1 year. If only a fraction of the propellant mass contrubutes to thrust, the effective exhaust velocity must be multiplied by this fraction. Mass Ratio The mass ratio, Mf/Mi, is the ratio of the mass of the rocket with fuel to mass of the vehicle without fuel. If the rocket thrusts with constant acceleration a, for a time t, with a specific impulse Isp, the mass ratio is (Mf/Mi)=exp(at/Isp) This equation is relativistically correct when t is the time measured in the ship frame. The more commonly used version of the rocket equation, V=V(exhaust) * log(Mf/Mi), is not, because in relativity v is not equal to at. The equation at= V(exhaust) * log(Mf/Mi) is still correct. Finally, the proper velocity of the ship is: V(ship)=a(ship)*t(earth). For small distances, d=1/{2 a t**2} . (note that for small distances, t(earth)is about equal to t(ship)) For large distances, d=t(earth)-1. As always the hyperbolic functions are defined: sinh(x)=(EXP(x)- EXP(-x))/2 , cosh(x)=( EXP(x)+EXP(-x) )/2, and tanh(x)=sinh(x)/cosh(x). Appendix 3: Where to Go Stars are classified by their spectrum, which is an index of how hot they are. The classification, from hottest to coldest, is O-B-A-F-G-K-M, which has been immortalized by countless astronomy students with the mnemonic "Oh, Be A Fine Guy*, Kiss Me" (to which is occasionally added a final line "Right Now Sweetheart", to account for the (usually cool) peculiar spectrum stars R, N, and S). (*or Girl, depending on your preferences.) Within this letter sequence, stellar spectra have numbers; 1 being the hottest and 9 the coolest. The sun is a type G2 main sequence star. The hot, bright stars, types O, B, and A, are relatively rare, but they burn so hot and fast that it is unlikely that they would have planets that would have had time to evolve life anyway. The cool dwarf stars, later K and M types, are so cool that most astronomers believe that any planet close enough to be warm enough for liquid water would probably be tidally locked into always facing one side to the star. Likely destinations would be best found among the main sequence stars of late F, G, and early K types---in short, stars much like the sun. The following list shows some selected stars. G type: Sigma Draconis, 18.2 LY Delta Pavonis, 19.2 LY 82 Eridani, 20.9 LY Beta Hydri, 21.3 LY Zeta Tucanae, 23.3 LY K type Epsilon Eridani 10.7 61 Cygni (nb: binary) 11.2 LY Epsilon Indi 11.4 LY Tau Ceti 11.9 LY (flare star?) 70 Ophiuchi (binary) 16.4 LY Eta Cassiopeiae (Binary, F) 18 LY 36 Ophiuchi (Trinary) 18.2 LY Selected References More complete references are given in the bibliography by E.F. Mallove et. al., {Journal of the British Interplanetary Society vol. 33, p 201 (1980), with supplements in vol. 36, p 311 (1983) and vol. 37, p. 502 (1984) "Antiproton Annihilation Propulsion", Journal of Propulsion and Power, 1:5, 1985, p. 370 R. Forward, "Feasability of Interstellar Travel: a Review", Acta Astronautica, 14, 1986, p. 243. Anderson and Greenwood, "Relativistic Rocket Flight with Constant Acceleration", AIAA Journal Vol. 7 No. 2, Feb. 1969. Freeman Dyson, "Interstellar Transport", Physics Today, Oct., 1968. R. M. Powers, The Coattails of God, Warner Books, 1981 Gordon Woodcock, "To the Stars!", Analog, CII:6, June 1983, p. 38. R.W. Bussard, "Galactic Matter and Interstellar Travel", Acta Astronautica Vol 6, No. 4, 1960 NASA Conference Publication CP-2345 (1984) Stephen Dole, Habitable Planets For Man, Second Edition, Elsever, NY 1970. Poul Anderson, Tau Zero (note: Anderson uses an unusual notation; what he calls "tau" is more commonly refered to as 1/gamma.) Allan H. Bates, "The Nearest Stars", Observer's Handbook 1984, Royal Astronomical Society Canada Analog, "Project JEDI", 1986 Bruce N. Cassenti, "A Comparison of Interstellar Propulsion Methods", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. L.R. Shepard, "Interstellar Flight", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 11, Feb. 1952, reprinted in Realities of Space Travel, Garden City Press, London 1957. British Interplanetary Society, Project Daedalus, (A.R. Martin, ed.), supplement to the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 1978. Michael Zeilik, Astronomy: The Evolving Universe, Third Edition, Harper and Row, NY, 1982. Table 2: Mass Ratios as a function of acceleration duration (at one G) for Perfect fusion, imperfect fusion (50% eff D-He3), and antiproton annihilation propulsion Time Perf. Imperf Antiproton (yrs) H-H D-He3 Annih ___________________________________________ 0.1 5.2 2.4 1.17 0.2 26.5 5.6 1.36 0.3 136.7 13.1 1.59 0.4 704.4 31.0 1.86 0.5 3629.0 73.1 2.17 1.0 1.3E07 5.3E03 4.7 1.5 4.8E10 3.9E05 10.3 2.0 1.7E14 2.9E07 22 2.5 6.3E17 2.1E09 49 3.0 2.3E21 1.5E11 105 4.0 3.0E28 8.2E14 498 5.0 4.0E35 4.4E18 2354 Table 3: ISOLATED TYPE G MAIN SEQUENCE STARS WITHIN 50 LIGHT YEARS OF THE SUN List compiled by GL using data from Gliese Catalog 1969 List includes all stars of main sequence types F8 through G9; members of multiple star systems excluded. Glie. Name Spectral Distance Lum. Mass Comments No. type (LY)(error) (Suns)(Suns) ____________________________________________________________________ 17 Zeta Tucanae G2V 26 (1) 0.86 0.96 67 DM+41 328 G2V 42 (3) 1.14 1.03 71 Tau Ceti G8Vp 13 (0) 0.43 0.80 92 Delta Triang. G0Ve 37 (3) 1.00 1.00 spect. bin. (10 days) ) 97 Kappa Fornacis G1V 47 (5) 1.20 1.05 124 Iota Persei G4V 42 (3) 2.70 1.30 136 Zeta(1) Retic. G2V 41 (4) 0.64 0.89 Com. mot. w/138 137 Kappa Centauri G5Ve 34 (2) 0.84 0.96 138 Zeta(2) Retic. G1V 41 (4) 0.85 0.96 Com. mot. w/136 139 82 Eridani G5V 22 (1) 0.64 0.89 e Eridani 177 58 Eridani G1 47 (4) 0.90 0.97 DM-17 954 189 Zeta Doradus F8V 48 (5) 1.91 1.18 214 DM-14 1126 G5 45 (7) 0.14 0.60 222 Chi(1) Orionis G0V 36 (2) 1.41 1.09 Ursa Major group 231 Alpha Mensae G5V 31 (2) 0.58 0.87 302 DM-12 2449 G8V 46 (3) 0.53 0.85 327 DM- 4 2490 G3 43 (3) 0.46 0.81 395 36 Ursa Maj. A F8V 44 (3) 1.39 1.09 DM+56 1459 w 407 47 Ursa Maj. G0V 49 (5) 1.45 1.10 DM+41 2147 434 61 Ursa Maj. G8Ve 33 (2) 0.50 0.83 DM+35 2270 449 Beta Virginis F8V 36 (2) 3.02 1.34 475 Beta Canum Ven. G0V 33 (2) 1.37 1.09 501.2 DM-37 8437 G3 41 (6) 1.20 1.05 dist uncertain 502 Beta Comae Bern.G0V 30 (2) 1.14 1.03 503.1 55 Virginis G6 41 (-) - - DM-19 3651; r mag and dist. uncert 504 59 Virginis G0V 47 (4) 1.15 1.04 DM+10 2531 506 61 Virginis G6V 30 (2) 0.74 0.93 DM-17 3813 534.1 DM-54 5466 G8V 45 (5) 0.52 0.84 companion 598 Lambda Serpen. G0V 39 (2) 1.58 1.13 611 DM+39 2947 G8V 45 (3) 0.28 0.72 624 Zeta Tri. Aust. G0V 39 (4) 1.10 1.02 Spect. Binary n 668.1 DM- 5 4426 G9V 45 (4) 0.36 0.77 691 Mu Arae G5V 41 (4) 0.91 0.98 773.5 DM-23 15935 G7 43 (9) 0.48 0.82 780 Delta Pavonis G8V 21 (1) 1.04 1.01 or G5IV G5IV-V or G5V 827 Gamma Pavonis F8V 31 (2) 1.28 1.07 Copyright 1987 by Geoffrey A. Landis, all rights reserved. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU: ucbvax!jade!BROWNVM.ST401385@jade.Berkeley.Edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #164 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25358; Mon, 16 Mar 87 03:03:17 PST id AA25358; Mon, 16 Mar 87 03:03:17 PST Date: Mon, 16 Mar 87 03:03:17 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703161103.AA25358@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #165 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 16 Mar 87 03:03:17 PST From: Ted Anderson Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #165 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 165 Today's Topics: Space Arks Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years Re: Star Travel Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years Re: Star Travel Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 Re: Star Travel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Feb 87 14:07:09 GMT From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, SEI, Pgh, Pa Subject: Space Arks Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov If space arks are to us what pyramids were to the Egyptians, a quick check of the number of pyramids the Egyptians built (over 100) and the time they kept building them (over 2000 years) makes me at least VERY optimistic about interstellar colonisation! Someone care to post how many Parthenon-scale temples the Greeks built? ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 87 15:19:32 GMT From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu (Ethan Vishniac) Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov>, <1185@husc2.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <1185@husc2.UUCP>, chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes: > > As for the Fermi paradox, it is based on others being likely to have > developed star travel if such is possible... > but also remember, somebody has to do it first. . . . > Fermi favored the idea that we are the first, which is at least an attractive and flattering resolution. A friend of mine shared a paranoid hypothesis with me which is probably the *least* attractive resolution I have ever heard. Suppose some percentage, possibly quite small, of all intelligent species are rabidly xenophobic and do their level best to destroy other species on contact. If that's your objective then you gain a considerable advantage from the finite speed of light (a newcomer sees you before you see him). What fraction of all intelligent races need to be like this before all the intelligent species in the universe are divided into three categories: the nervous, who do not broadcast, the murderous, who do not broadcast, and the victims, who do? Moreover, how long does the average member of the third category survive? -- "More Astronomy Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy Less Sodomy" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan - from a poster seen ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU at an airport University of Texas ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 87 03:42:09 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!utcsri!james@rutgers.rutgers.edu (James P. Rowell) Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov>, <1269@mmm.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <1269@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes: > >In article <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > >... Since these Arks would represent > >virtually no financial return upon completion, the constructing > >civilization would look upon making these ships as only a "luxury > >activity" for disposing of surplus wealth. > >This assumes that financial return is the only "coin" for which a >civilization considers projects worthwhile. I and, I'm sure, many >others on this newsgroup have a much more important "payoff" in mind >when we support space exploration: species survival. I don't believe that last statement reflects what "many others" think. At least I hope not. What threatens our existence? **For now** it seems that we are really the only threat to our existence here. The kind of money involved in building an "Ark" could much more effectively be used to help fix our problems here on Earth. After all, billions of people (and countless other species) stand to benifit from the latter expenditure, and only hundreds with an "Ark". Furthermore if we can't make it work here on Earth what makes you think that we can surive on any other planet? I would say that the reason we support Space exploration is definitely not: species survival. ---- James Philip Rowell University of Toronto {ihnp4 utzoo decwrl uw-beaver}!utcsri!james ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 87 04:01:00 GMT From: mcewan@a.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Star Travel Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > I see only two hopes for > star travel: One is through nuclear fusion to nonrelativistic > velocities. The other is through some new "rabbit out of the hat" via a > new unified field theory. Because of the "Fermi Paradox", I suspect > that there are no new "rabbits" in the hat. The Fermi Paradox is: "We > are on the verge of being able to travel to the stars. The sun is a > common star and the earth is not unusual. Therefore life in the galaxy > must be common. If we can travel to the stars then the bug eyed > monsters must be able to do it also. However there are no bug eyed > monsters, ergo the paradox." We don't know how many earth-like planets there are, how common life is, what the probability of a life-bearing planet developing intelligent life is, how likely an intelligent species is to develop the necessary technology, or how likely an intelligent species with the technology will want to colonize the stars. > The Fermi paradox tells us that speeds of > greater than 10 Psol (percent speed of light) are unobtainable for a > manned vehicle. I think a statement like this is somewhat like a cave man declaring that crossing an ocean is impossible. Just because we don't have the technology doesn't mean it can't be developed. The fact that we don't observe and ETs doesn't prove anything. > At nonrelativistic speeds one would **not** expect a > civilization to expand beyond 50 light years from its home star ... Why not? If the race can get to one other star and establish a civilization at the same technological level as the home planet, what's to stop them from expanding indefinately? Do the people in the colonies 50 LY away say "We *could* send out our own ships, but we're afraid to get any farther from the home star"? > Gary Allen Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 87 23:45:46 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov>, <1185@husc2.UUCP>,, <1631@utastro.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Suppose some percentage, possibly quite small, of all intelligent species > are rabidly xenophobic... What fraction of all intelligent races need to > be like this before all the intelligent species in the universe are divided > into three categories: the nervous, who do not broadcast, the murderous, > who do not broadcast, and the victims, who do? ... If one of the nasties gets good enough to build self-reproducing planet- sterilizers -- not impossible, we are *almost* capable of building such a thing ourselves -- it only takes one. This is not a new idea, by the way. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 87 00:21:00 GMT From: necntc!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Star Travel References: <16581@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The Fermi paradox can be explained under many sets of assumptions, therefore it cannot be used to choose between these sets. Consider an extremely optimistic set of assumptions: there is such a thing as "progress", and it is self-accelerating, quasi- exponential. A typical civilization keeps changing for the "better", every day, in every way, faster and faster. A few thousand years in the future, then, make as much difference as a million years in the past. However, the initial points in time when life or reason arise may differ by billions of years, and so the stages of development at which different civilizations are now must be staggered widely. Since our star is so ordinary, we can expect to be somewhere in the middle of the distribution. Those that are behind us, we may ignore; but those that are ahead of us, tend to be *way* ahead of us. Remember the exponential assumption: a million years ahead may be worth a billion years behind. We are to these guys as *protozoa* are to us. Then how would we observe their presence? What to look for? -- They are simply incomprehensible to us. They may not move in the same space or do any of the things we associate civilization with. They may have transcended the difference we draw between civil- ized and uncivilized life forms, or sentient and non-sentient, and even between life and dead matter. I am not saying this is *true* - just one of many possible in- terpretations of the Fermi Paradox. It merely disproves the argu- ment from the absence of BEM in the zoo to the possible speed of spacecraft. Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 87 18:57:00 GMT From: necntc!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 References: <3452@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov [james@utcsri.UUCP ] >In article <1269@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes: >> [...]I and, I'm sure, many >>others on this newsgroup have a much more important "payoff" in mind >>when we support space exploration: species survival. >I don't believe that last statement reflects what "many others" think. >At least I hope not. Count me with the "many others". >What threatens our existence? **For now** it seems that we are really >the only threat to our existence here. Not the *only* but the most obvious threat. A virus might appear naturally to wipe us out. But we are more likely to breed that virus ourselves. So, if we are the danger, let's disperse! That's what they do with *other* dangerous explosives - keep them separately, in small quantities. >The kind of money involved in building an "Ark" could much more >effectively be used to help fix our problems here on Earth. As if that were possible! "Fix" all the problems of a civiliza- tion growing more complex, more fragile, more tightly-knit every day, on a planet growing ever smaller? The only such "fix" is to- tal annihilation. *All* civilizations die. The reason history has continued so far is that there were many of them, and they passed the torch to each other - but were sufficiently insulated not to drag each other into the destruction. Now there is only one civilization; from New York to Tokyo there are the same kinds of vehicles and communication media and ideas, with slight variations. A nuclear war is just the most discussed but hardly the most probable of possible global holocausts; if it is not the one, it will be the other. Now, there's a chance to have a plurality of civilizations again, insulated from each other again by the blessed speed-of- light barrier, hidden from each other in the immensity of space. >After all, billions of people (and countless other species) stand >to benifit from the latter expenditure, and only hundreds with an >"Ark". Neither people nor species live forever; an Ark would perpetuate life and reason. In 20 generations, it won't matter whether your children have left in the Ark or mine - the genes will mix so (and will be modified artificially) that the descendants of the survivors will be about equally related to all of us. As for other species - dispersal in space would give the life on Earth (all closely related) a chance to perpetuate and diversify itself in the universe. >Furthermore if we can't make it work here on Earth what makes you >think that we can surive on any other planet? We *can't* - not forever, not on any *one* planet. Let us there- fore make use of statistics and keep the birth rate of civiliza- tions greater than the death rate! >I would say that the reason we support Space exploration is de- >finitely not: species survival. It is the strongest reason by far, from where I stand; but I agree that even other reasons are sufficient - social experimen- tation, for example. There are *many* sufficient reasons. Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 87 14:23:41 PST From: Brad Spear Subject: Re: Star Travel In the interest of alternate viewpoints, I have to disagree with Gary Allen's statement that the only means for interstellar travel are long-duration ships at non-relativistic velocities. He mentions the possibility of some as yet undiscovered result from unified theory research, but that this is unlikely, due to something called the "Fermi Paradox" (I hadn't heard of it before). The "Fermi Paradox", as stated by Mr. Allen is: We are on the verge of being able to travel to the stars. The sun is a common star and the earth is not unusual. Therefore life in the galaxy must be common. If we can travel to the stars then the bug eyed monsters must be able to do it also. However there are no bug eyed monsters, ergo the paradox. In geologic time, we are on the verge, in human time, perhaps we aren't so close. And although Sol is verifiably a common star, we as yet have no evidence that Earth and the solar system are not unusual. I personally believe that they are relatively common, but there is no hard evidence for it. As far as bug-eyed monsters, who says we are not currently the most advanced civilization in the galaxy (someone has to be first), or that others have come and gone long ago, or that there are some out there, that simply don't want us to know about them? Whatever, this isn't much of a paradox, and I see no reason to take it seriously. Perhaps it wasn't. In that case, (in a whiney voice) "never mind". Also, I personally like the "Star Trek" antimatter propulsion idea, perhaps because it seems so "neat". Since I'm not a physicist, I don't know the physics behind it, by in the letter to which I'm replying, it was stated as being easy to "shoot down" (heh-heh, Klingons have been trying that for 20 years :-)). Perhaps the Bussard ramjet is provably unworkable, but does antimatter necessarily follow suit? I seem to recall that the bumblebee couldn't fly, until certain previously known "truths" were found to be in error. And that was dealing with Newtonian physics. Antimatter deals with something that is still in it's infancy; perhaps some known "truths" are not as "true" as they seem. The conditions involved are so far beyond normal, everyday common sense, that it's still mostly theory. Who's to say that some modern Einstein won't find the key? It seems pretty likely. As far as either of these theories (or any other for that matter), being used or ignored in SF stories or professional journals, well, SF is expected to do the impossible, it's part of the thrill of the genre. In professional journals, the technologies still find use, either as teaching tools, or as experimental platforms to study the physics involved. It makes no difference if the idea, as stated, works or not. What is important is the ideas it can set in the minds of the people seeing it. That is, after all, where any hope of space travel will come from. It is a grave (literally) mistake to believe that the current knowledge of the sciences involved are infallible. Earth has seen human technology beyond the wheel and inclined plane for several centuries, and relativistic physics for less than one. We feel fairly comfortable with technology now, although mistakes are still made. How can one expect physics to be perfect? Brad Spear ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #165 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA28461; Tue, 17 Mar 87 03:03:14 PST id AA28461; Tue, 17 Mar 87 03:03:14 PST Date: Tue, 17 Mar 87 03:03:14 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703171103.AA28461@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #166 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 17 Mar 87 03:03:14 PST From: Ted Anderson Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #166 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 166 Today's Topics: SN1897A - a summary condensed space news from Dec 1 and Dec 8 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Mar 87 03:38:59 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: SN1897A - a summary I thought people would be interested in a summary of an informal colloquium given here at the Center for Astrophysics last Thursday (3/12), which attempted to summarize the current knowledge of the SN. The talk was given by Robert Kirshner, the local SN expert and the IUE target-of-opportunity observer for supernovas. As you might expect, he's been immersed in the subject since the discovery. Discovery was Feb 24.3 UT (all times are UT, BTW), by Ian Shelton, University of Toronto, working at Las Campanas in Chile. His plate of the LMC (3 hrs, starting at 24.06) showed a bright star, and he wondered why he didn't guide on it! Oscar Duhalde, the Chilean night observer also remarked that the LMC seemed different - then they realized something unusual was happening. Some hours later, Albert Jones, an amateur astronomer, independently discovered the SN from New Zealand, and alerted the Auckland Observatory, who also then called the Anglo-Australian Observatory. The LMC is about 50 Kpc (50,000 parsecs, where 1 parsec ~3.26 light years) away, giving a distance modulus of 18.5. The SN at magnitude V 4.5 is the brightest since that of 1835 in M31, and the nearest since Kepler's SN of 1604. The best astrometry of the SN gives R.A. = 5h 35m 49.95s +/-0.039, Dec. = -69 deg. 17' 57.9" +/-0.27 From prediscovery plates, there are three stars nearly at that position: Sanduleak -69 202 within .1 arc-sec, type B3 I (a blue supergiant), 12th magnitude, and a fainter star 3" to the NE, said to be bluer. The 3rd star is seen as an elongation of the S-69 202 star to the SW, and is much fainter still. I'll try to draw a picture: star 2 --> * S-69 202 = star 1 --> * star 3 --> * (note that east is to the left.) Actually, stars 1&3 are joined. Star 3 is hardly seen even on the long exposure prediscovery plates. Which one was the SN? Well, the far-UV spectrum as seen from IUE was dropping right from the discovery. The flux at 1800 A went down by a factor of 100 in the first two days. After it subsided somewhat, two blue star spectra at least one of which is a B3 at the position of S-69 202, and the other 3" to the NE are now seen. Thus, the Sanduleak star was not the SN. The best candidate is that faint star overlapping it 0.1" away. This would, by the way, be about 600 AU (for comparison, about 25 times the radius of our solar system) separation at the LMC distance. This poses a problem for studies down the line, since the 12th magnitude star will make it nearly impossible to see the dwindling SN remnant, once it get to about 15th mag. As Bob Kirshner said: "I wish someone would blow it up!". A problem for Space Telescope, which has higher spatial resolution. Timelines: lots of prediscovery plates of the LMC were taken. Because of S-69 202, 12th magnitude was the upper limit of the SN up to Feb 23.1 UT. Albert Jones scanned the area with binoculars at Feb 23.39, and did not see it. He is sure he would have if it were brighter than mag 7.5. A pre-discovery plate taken at 23.443 showed it at 6th magnitude, and on the discovery plate at about 24.1, it was about 4.5 mag. Thus, the SN went from below 12th to 6th mag in 3 hours (assuming collapse at 23.316, from below). Neutrinos: The Japanese group (can't remember the exact name) recorded 11, two from the direction of the LMC, and the Irvine, Michigan, Brookhaven (IMB) group in Ohio reported 8 neutrinos, both groups at 23.316. The Mt. Blanc French-Soviet collaboration report of 5 neutrinos at 23.12 remains unconfirmed. Those 5 were very near its energy detection limit, while the IMB group reportedly had never seen such a strong signal. Thus Feb. 23.316 marks the time of core collapse. The duration of the event (seconds) indicates a neutron star was formed, as opposed to a black hole (milliseconds). The spread of neutrino energies puts an upper limit to the hypothetical neutrino mass at some tens of eV. This limit has already been established, so nothing new there. UV observations - The IUE satellite has been observing the SN about 75% of the time since discovery. (Our atmospheric ozone blocks the far UV, of course, "...but we're doing something about that..." - Bob Kirshner :-) ) As stated above, the UV was dropping fast right after discovery, down by a factor of 100 in the first 2 days. This is to be expected, as the UV comes from the stellar surface, heated by the shock waves from the core collapse, and then cooling rapidly. The interstellar absorption lines observed at the velocity of the LMC as well as our galaxy prove that the SN is in or behind the LMC. It is extremely unlikely to be from an undiscovered galaxy behind the LMC. The SN's UV spectrum is very different from any type II previously seen. It looks much more like a type I, in fact. Type II's are thought to be core collapses of massive stars, while type I's are thermonuclear runaway when a white dwarf accretes matter from its red giant companion. The type II should have a lot of circumstellar matter (high stellar winds, old age leading to an extended atmosphere), hence the hydrogen lines usually seen. Bob's working hypothesis is that the progenitor was a relatively compact object without a lot of circumstellar matter. This poses problems with what is usually thought about SN progenitors, but is consistent with some of the optical, x-ray, and radio characteristics (below). Lots of modeling to be tried, here. Optical observations - The obvious thing here is that the SN didn't get as bright as expected (4.5 versus 1.0). The fine error sensor on the IUE has been used as a V-band (more or less) photometer. By this instrument, the SN was at 5.0 at first observation, brightened to 4.5 over the next two days, and stayed there for a week or so. A slow slide to 4.6 for a week or so was followed by a return to mag. 4.5, where it remains today. These changes are actually a reflection of changes in the SN color, which have been extremely rapid. At discovery, the B-V mag was 0.0 (like an A0 star), and reddened rapidly to B-V = 1.0 (redder than a K star, as I recall) 10 days later. Other type II's have taken 4 to 5 times longer to change this much. Bob says this is consistent with a relatively compact progenitor with little circumstellar matter. The maximum brightness may have been lower because of the same factors causing the rapid evolution. The first observations showed P-cygni profiles in H alpha, beta, and gamma, at about -17,000, -14,000, and -12,000 km/sec, respectively. P-cygni profiles, which show a blue-shifted absorption with emission to the red side, are typical of expanding gas shells illuminated by a hot interior source. The different velocities arise because the different lines `see' to different depths in the expanding photosphere. As the system evolves, the outer parts become more transparent, and we see to greater depths, where the expansion is now slower. Thus, the velocities have declined since discovery, to about -12,000 km/sec in H alpha. The outermost gas is still moving at 17,000 km/sec, but we don't see that part any more. (At 17,000km/sec, I calculate that shell to be >400 AU (about 5x the solar system) in diameter by now!) The photosphere, i.e. the visible surface, is also expanding, although not quite as fast. By translating the B-V colors into a black-body temperature and luminosity curve, then comparing to the observed visual magnitude, a size can be derived. On Feb. 25th, less than two days after ignition, this was 1.5 AU (between Earth's and Mars' orbits), while about 10 days later, March 7th, it was 10 AU, or Saturn's orbit. The photosphere is now (March 13th) computed to be 30 AU in radius, or the radius of Neptune's orbit! The rate of increase is slowing, although still impressive. X-ray, radio - Not seen at all in x-ray, and only weakly in the radio. This is consistent with a lack of circumstellar matter, since these photons are thought to arise from interactions of the shock wave with circumstellar material. THE FUTURE, or questions of interest: 1) Nucleosynthesis - study heavy metal abundances in the later optical spectra. - test light curve variations against possible radioactive decay power sources, such as radioactive nickel. - study the gamma ray emission (a direct look at nuclear processes) after the shell becomes transparent to them. 2) Explosion dynamics - the neutrino pulses & energy spectrum should test theories of the collapse to a neutron star. - UV & optical line shapes will provide density profiles of the blast. - direct angular diameter measurements will help tie down some shell characteristics. 3) Stellar remnant - will we see a pulsar in the radio or x-ray? Its characteristics? - IR studies of possible interstellar dust heating, other shock wave interactions. 4) Distance scale - optical velocities over time, coupled with the photospheric expansion will provide a direct calibration to the LMC. -- Bill UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu (or) wyatt%cfa.UUCP@harvard.harvard.edu BITNET: wyatt@cfa2 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 87 00:34:37 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: condensed space news from Dec 1 and Dec 8 AW&ST [I have reluctantly concluded that there's no way I'm ever going to get caught up if I maintain the same level of detailed reporting. It just takes too long and I'm too short of time. So I'm going to be reporting very tersely until I catch up on some of the backlog. You'll also have to live mostly without my nasty editorials until then, for the same reason.] Dec 1: Subsurface core samples from some of the Apollo missions are just now being opened after years in storage. New British space plan includes funding for international cooperation outside ESA, for greater flexibility. 1/20-scale Ariane 5 model to be test-fired to evaluate heat and noise effects during launch. USSR completes early pad tests of its space shuttle, mounted piggyback on the Soviet heavy expendable. First launch of the big expendable, unmanned, probably 1987. First launch of shuttle probably 1988. NASA looking into a second-generation "Shuttle 2", given that current fleet will not last forever and the Aerospace Plane is far away. Conceptual studies might start next year, leading to first flight maybe circa 2000. [Remember when it took eight years to reach the moon? Sigh. -- HS] Goals include single-stage-to-orbit, although two-stage schemes are being studied. New technologies would include dual fuels, lightweight engines, advanced composites, advanced lightweight subsystems, and a massive reduction in ground support overhead. One direction being looked at is a smaller vehicle, on the grounds that heavy expendables will be used for getting big payloads up and there will be little call for bringing heavy payloads down. [Micro-editorial: why not a Shuttle 1.5, applying some of these technologies in the existing design? Lower risk and more immediate benefits. Not as much money for the contractors or as big a bureaucratic empire within NASA, though, so it won't happen. -- HS] Grigg-Skjellerup flyby for Giotto added to ESA planning for possible new space-science projects. One concern is that this depends on checking out Giotto's camera, and it's not clear where the money for the reactivation (Giotto is currently in quiet-cruise mode) and checkout will come from. German proposal to use Giotto for radio-sounding of the Sun's corona (when Giotto passes behind the Sun next winter) is also strapped for startup cash. JPL and international team use antenna on TDRS in VLBI experiment, linking to ground-based radio telescopes. Feasibility test for proposed radio- astronomy satellite, "Quasat". This required knowing TDRS position to 20-30 cm along line of site and 1 m along other axes, with 1-mm resolution on changes in position. Further calibration should bring all axes down to about 5 cm, comparable to ground-based VLBI. More TDRS VLBI tests are planned, limited by TDRS's inability to point its antenna farther than 30 degrees away from Earth. NASA-ESA space station talks sounding a bit more friendly. Ariane third stage explodes in orbit, producing spray of debris. This was from the Spot 1 launch a year ago. Arianespace has been asked to investigate and remedy the problem; Delta second stages did this for some years and made a major contribution to the space-debris problem until the design was fixed. Other Ariane third stages may have exploded, in fact; this one was noticed because it was in polar orbit, while most Ariane third stages are in equatorial orbits where radar coverage is thin. Suggestive pieces of debris have been observed. DoD Air Defence Initiative urges early launch of Teal Ruby infrared tracking test satellite, originally scheduled for first Vandenberg shuttle launch. Teal Ruby is difficult to fit onto an expendable booster, and an orbit passing over arctic regions with broken ice was considered important to provide a worst-case background for tracking tests, so a shuttle launch from Vandenberg was really preferred. Not clear what will be done. Scout launches polar beacon and auroral research satellite from Vandenberg. Atlantis returns to VAB after pad tests. NASA chooses shuttle/IUS to launch Galileo, Ulysses, and Magellan, while retaining an option to launch one on a Titan 4. Orbital Sciences signs contract with NASA to provide a Transfer Orbit Stage for Mars Observer. Hughes claims comsats are cheaper than transatlantic fiber cables, looking at actual costs rather than prices charged. Turnabout: Bell Labs develops fiber link to permit locating satellite Earth station antenna several km away from its electronics. "If the commercial development of space dies in the wake of the Challenger loss, it will not be the accident that killed it but rather the inability of NASA and other government leaders to promptly establish policy that will reassure investors in and supporters of commercial applications that their activity has an important, long-term place in the US space program." Dec 8: Guest editorial from Carl Sagan pushing international manned Mars mission. Soviet launch rate in 1986 noticeably lower than in earlier years, probably due to longer-lived spysats mostly. NASA has not yet decided whether to impose a $10M penalty on Morton Thiokol's SRB contract as a result of 51L. [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- HS] New DoD space policy supports military role for manned spaceflight, notably including orbital servicing and refuelling. Also strong support for heavy expendable. SDI studies unusual booster combinations for specialized test vehicles, in reaction to cuts in Scout procurement funding. Earlier plans to use a Scout as a tracking target for an orbiting satellite would have required building a second Scout pad at Wallops, since it would require launching two Scouts (satellite and target) about a day apart. NASA launches classified assessment of Soviet space program and its capabilities. Germany finishes construction of test stand for Ariane 5 main engines. Soviets offer commercial leases of Gorizont geostationary comsats, launch by Proton to orbital position of customer's choice. Soviets continue to push commercial Proton launches. Soviet chart lists 97 Proton launches since 1970, 7 of them failures. Technical details on Proton supplied; nothing remarkable. Typical price for comsat launch $24M, launch 18-24 months after contract signed. [Low price, short notice.] Details of Ariane third-stage modifications for resumption of service in 1987. Launch will probably slip a month or two from the last tentative date (late Feb.). Estimated Ariane launches in 1987 down from 7 to 6. Exact launch order under review; Intelsat (which lost a comsat on the last launch) would like priority. 3M and NASA close to agreement on 10-year agreement providing 3M with flight opportunities for materials-processing research. Fletcher's hold order on such negotiations has been relaxed for some agreements that were near completion. Ten ESA nations formally commit to preparatory stage of Hermes. The major holdouts are England, Holland, and Canada [yes, Canada is an associate member of ESA], all expected to join soon. France is talking to the USSR about making Hermes compatible with Mir. ESA is studying a proposal to launch a 1/3-scale Hermes model for reentry testing. 6th Fleet Satellite Communication sat launched 4 Dec on Atlas-Centaur. This is the launch originally scheduled for last May. Two more FltSatComs are the last definite Atlas-Centaur customers. Inmarsat agrees to provide free capacity to Geostar Corp. for test and demo work. Joe Engle (X-15 pilot, STS-2 and 51I commander) retires from NASA and USAF. International Civil Aviation Organization to recommend to ITU that mobile satellite users on land be excluded from the aeronautical satellite band. This would shoot down the US mobile-satellite proposal for sharing the band until aviation traffic grows to need it all. Comsat Corp develops optimized station-keeping technique for comsats, possibly doubling on-orbit lifetime. Some tracking ability is needed in ground stations, limiting applicability. "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #166 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02618; Wed, 18 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST id AA02618; Wed, 18 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST Date: Wed, 18 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703181103.AA02618@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #167 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 18 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST From: Ted Anderson Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #167 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 167 Today's Topics: Re: Fermi paradox Re: Fermi paradox Re: Star Travel Re: Fermi paradox Re: Fermi paradox environmentalists, space, and getting off the planet Re: Star Travel Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Cometary volatiles Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Mar 87 18:06:19 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Fermi paradox In article <870304131313.020@nmfecc.arpa>, ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@NMFECC.ARPA writes: > > I think that I have an answer for the Fermi paradox. > [...] naturally want to explore all of the stars in their own neighborhood > before wandering far afield. > If the monsters are sending out "Arks", as Gary Allen says, > then they are few in number and the likelihood of one coming close to > earth is very small. So the monsters may be on their way, probably > by a combination of colonization and exploration. ... The Fermi Paradox arises even within the Milky Way Galaxy! If even one colonizing civilization originates, it can spread through the entire Galaxy in a time of order 30 million years. (This represents a net expansion rate of 1/1000 of the speed of light. I won't quibble about factors of 3 or even 10.) This time is much less than the age of the solar system (5 billion years) or the age of the Galaxy (~10 billion years). Given that "they" have had plenty of time to get here, "Where are they?" is the Fermi Paradox. David Brin exhaustively discussed possible answers to the Fermi Paradox in a 1985 issue of Analog. The categories I remember include: 1) No colonizing civilizations have arisen in our Galaxy. (We could be the first if we don't blow it.) 2) Natural forces or their own activities have killed off all previous colonizing civilizations. 3) Unrecognized factors make colonization impossible after all. Read Brin's article; it gives a lot more information and ideas. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 87 18:06:28 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Fermi paradox In my earlier posting, 471@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>, I left out a fourth category of explanation for the Fermi paradox: > 1) No colonizing civilizations have arisen in our Galaxy. (We could ... > 2) Natural forces or their own activities have killed off all ... > 3) Unrecognized factors make colonization impossible after all. 4) Nearby space has been colonized, but for some reason we aren't aware of it. I think these categories logically include all possible explanations, but I'd be delighted to be corrected if anyone can come up with another one. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 87 09:50 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: Star Travel Gary Allen said: > It is depressing to see that despite being able > to rigorously prove the Bussard Ram Jet is unworkable, one will > never the less find science fiction novels based upon this idea, (i.e. > Larry Niven's novels) and articles written about it in professional > journals, i.e. BIS and AIAA. Alot of people haven't gotten the word > that this idea simply doesn't work. I notice that Niven in his latest book ("Footfall", with Pournelle) uses a variant of the ramjet in which energy is supplied by onboard fuel. The advantage of this scheme is that protium doesn't have to be fused, and need not be compressed to high densities (perhaps it would not have to be compressed at all, if some kind of very large thin mesh accelerating system were used). > People have been kicking antimatter > around for sometime. I'll let another reader of Space Digest attack > this one since it's pretty easy to shoot down. Oh? There are certainly handling problems, extremely good vacuum is needed to prevent runaway warming of solid antihydrogen pellets, making the stuff is very inefficienct (.1%, at best), and the reaction chamber design is a challenge, but I didn't think there were any fundamental show stoppers. I should note that if antihydrogen is difficult to store in a starship, (meaning: the mass of the containment system is large compared to the mass of the fuel) we could conceivably manufacture antilithium. The key step here is making antineutrons by stopping positive pions in antihydrogen, followed by carefully planned fusion reactions. Antimatter has an enourmous pricetag, so one wouldn't use it unless one wanted to travel relativistically and light sails or some other trick were not usable. > I see only two hopes for > star travel: One is through nuclear fusion to nonrelativistic > velocities. The other is through some new "rabbit out of the hat" via a > new unified field theory. What about light sails? Certainly pointing accuracy is a big challenge. Does sail erosion kill this? Given that we can see the stars, I wouldn't expect the sail to be shredded too quickly. > At nonrelativistic speeds one would **not** expect a > civilization to expand beyond 50 light years from its home star (by > galactic scales this is a tiny distance). Gary is making the dubious assumption that all colonization flights must originate from the system in which the civilization first developed. Why cannot colonies grow until they are of comparable size, then themselves send out ships? In 10 light year steps at .1 c with 10,000 year layovers, the galaxy can be colonized in about 100 million years. Note that 10,000 year layovers is very conservative: if a civilization grows from 100 to 1 trillion members in that time, the doubling time is 300 years. > we may conclude that only through enormous nuclear > fusioned propelled "Arks" can a species travel to the stars. I strongly > suspect that only a fairly large and healthy interplanetary civilization > could foot the bill for an Ark and even then for only two or three > Arks. I also suspect a large interplanetary civilization is needed, but said civilization (if the resources available in our system are any indication) will likely contain trillions of inhabitants. The material and energy resources available to such a civilization are more than enough to build many arks. Would they? Unanswerable (and I do *not* want to start arguing about the motivations of hypothetical aliens), but our country spends O($10 billion) per year on space, so a civilization 10,000x larger with technology 100x more productive might spend the equivalent of 1E16 dollars per year on starships (at current energy prices and .1% efficiency, that would buy about a ton of antimatter per year). ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 87 17:00:28 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: Fermi paradox Steve Willner proposes four explanations for the Fermi paradox: > 1) No colonizing civilizations have arisen in our Galaxy. > > 2) Natural forces or their own activities have killed off all > previous colonizing civilizations. > > 3) Unrecognized factors make colonization impossible after all. > > 4) Nearby space has been colonized, but for some reason we > aren't aware of it. > > ... anyone can come up with another one. Here is another explanation: 5) By the time a civilization becomes sufficiently advanced to colonize space, it necessarily loses the interest to do so, because 5a) it discovers that happiness can be pursued more effectively by direct brain stimulation; or 5b) it discovers that conquering space is a rather stupid idea. (Er, hm, maybe you will say it is included in 1) or 2) or 3) above. Mumble.) The more I think about them, the more these explanations sound plausible. I already tried to explain my reasons on net.space a few months ago, apparently without much success. Let me try again: 5a) Consider how much time and energy Terrans already spend to pursue purely "artificial" pleasures/satisfactions: TV, movies, electronic games, novels, spectator sports, food flavors/colors/sweeteners, alchool, drugs, pornography, etc. etc. Unhappiness about one's environment is increasingly being "cured" by tinkering with the brain (with drugs, psychoanalysis, TM, or whatever) rather than straightening the environment. As the technology of these things advances, as their cost decreases, and as they become more alluring, they will surely consume an ever increasing fraction of mankind's resources. Right now space fans get a bit more bang for their buck from Lucasfilm than form NASA. Although NASA has been trying to catch up :-), the gap will only grow bigger. The day Lucasfilm will offer week-long personalized interactive 3-D movies with total sensory stimulation featuring Luke and Spok and ET and C3PO for under $10, who will care anymore for REAL (=dull, difficult, expensive, slow, uncertain, dangerous, tiresome, painful, etc.) space exploration? 5b) A few centuries ago, when farming was much more labor-intensive and wars were fought by soldiers, population growth was the obvious goal of nations and individuals alike. Persons born in those times would be unable to imagine a scenario where people go to great lengths to avoid children, rich nations have negative population growth, and poor nations try their best to follow the same path. Many other ideas have similarly been changed from obvious winners into equally obvious losers, by technological progress and a better understanding of economy and politics. Slavery has been replaced by salaried labor. Cannibalism, dueling, and religious sacrifice are out of fashion. Racial segregation is disappearing. Expansionist nations seem to have found it easier to manage an empire through puppet governments and economic devices, rather than outright invasion and territorial annexation. In the light of those examples, it seems quite possible that at some point in the future we will discover that unbounded colonization of space is a dumb idea, for reasons that we just cannot see at present. If that is true, every intelligent civilization will sooner or later reach the same conclusion (or learn it from its nearest neighbors). Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decvax!decwrl!stolfi) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 87 05:43:35 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: Fermi paradox In article <870304131313.020@nmfecc.arpa>, ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@NMFECC.ARPA writes: > > I think that I have an answer for the Fermi paradox. > Suppose that the universe is young, having originated in a big bang. > Older civilizations tend to be further from the point of origin, > and are more spread out than younger civilizations. The universe does not have a point of origin within the space in which we live (just as the point of origin of expansion of a balloon is not on the balloon). If by point of origin you meant the point of origin of the civilization in question (you meant "Older civilizations tend to be further from *their* point of origin, . . .") then it makes sense. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 87 18:52:23 GMT From: decvax!necntc!cullvax!drw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dale Worley) Subject: environmentalists, space, and getting off the planet daniel@thumper.UUCP (Daniel W. Nachbar) writes: > Other postings suggest that we can escape current political > insanity by fleeing into space much as our ancestors of the > 1600's fled across Earth's vast oceans. And it worked for over 200 years! If we can get to the next inhabitable planet, there's open land for 100,000 lightyears. Dale -- Dale Worley Cullinet Software UUCP: ...!seismo!harvard!mit-eddie!cullvax!drw ARPA: cullvax!drw@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 87 18:16:36 GMT From: amdcad!amd!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Howard A. Landman) Subject: Re: Star Travel In article <551@viper.UUCP> dave@viper.UUCP (David Messer) writes: >I don't know where you got that figure, but there are other >reasons to think that there are no other intelligent species >nearby. For instance, we are capable of communicating by >radio out to several hundred light-years and yet we haven't >picked up any signals. Why is this? It has nothing to do >with the possibility of star-travel. Ah, but it has *EVERYTHING* to do with the possibilities of Cable TV! Broadcasting is such a waste of energy and bandwidth; advanced civilizations are almost certainly very efficient in their energy usage. Would *YOU* want to communicate with someone many light years away who was using the interstellar equivalent of smoke signals? -- Howard A. Landman ...!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard ------------------------------ Date: 13 Feb 87 04:59:36 GMT From: ulysses!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil Karn) Organization: Home for Burned-out Hackers Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? References: <3725@milano.UUCP>, <7650@utzoo.UUCP>, <12995@cca.CCA.COM> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Actually gold is a wonder metal. It is more conductive than copper... Untrue. Silver is electrically the most conductive element, with copper a close second and then gold. Source: CRC handbook. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 87 00:49:46 GMT Subject: Cometary volatiles Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Organization : California Institute of Technology From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) Path: oddhack!jon Yesterday in the Caltech planetary science seminar, an interesting source of volatiles (water, methane, etc.) was proposed, which I thought sci.space readers might be interested in. The seminar subject was ``extinct comets''. The speaker suggested that one way comets become extinct is to gradually build up a dusty 'crust' which prevents further heating and loss of volatiles during perihelion passes. It occured to me that some of these extinct comets will be captured into the inner Solar System, where they could provide an source of hydrogen (very rare except on Earth and the gas giants) as well as C,H,N compounds of various sorts, all of which would be of great use in space industrialization. Since ~10-15% of Earth-crossing asteroids are believed to be of cometary origin, there may be a very cheap source of volatiles - even better than the carbonaceous chondrites - accessible with low-energy orbits. Along similar lines, in one of the classes I'm in, I found out today that there are at least three Earth-crossers of significant size which are primarily metallic (as revealed by spectral and radar observations). This is as opposed to the stony S-type asteroids, which make up the majority of Earth-crossers and are probably much less attractive sources of useful raw materials. [ In case anyone is wondering what a CS grad student is doing taking planetary science courses, I'll tell you: Having the time of my life! ] -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 87 23:58:52 GMT From: decvax!cca!g-rh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Richard Harter) Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge, MA Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? References: <7650@utzoo.UUCP>, <12995@cca.CCA.COM>, <270@ka9q.bellcore.com> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Color me embarrassed (that's that the delicate shade of pink that Black Hill's gold has.) Rule out cheap gold for wiring. However gold is, nonetheless, a metal with remarkable properties. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.] ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #167 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05398; Thu, 19 Mar 87 03:03:16 PST id AA05398; Thu, 19 Mar 87 03:03:16 PST Date: Thu, 19 Mar 87 03:03:16 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703191103.AA05398@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #168 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 168 Today's Topics: There's gold in them thar aasteroids Dowsing for water on the Moon [bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa: Re: All this pay-off-the-National-Debt stuff] Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Re: All this pay-off-the-National-Debt stuff Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Re: Future of U.S. space program Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Space program funding ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 87 08:54 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: There's gold in them thar aasteroids X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.s1.gov" A 5km asteroid contains > 4000 tons of gold? Sounds great, but that comes out to an average concentration of only several parts in 10**8. Even low grade terrestrial ores are orders of magnitude more concentrated than that. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 87 23:39:02 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Subject: Dowsing for water on the Moon Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov For some time it has been suspected that water ice is present on the Moon. If this is true, it would greatly improve the possibilities for a fuel station and even a colony on the Moon. A low-cost mission has been planned to explore the polar regions of the Moon for surface and sub-surface water. It's called the Lunar Polar Obiter, and it detects water with a gamma-ray spectrometer. This instrument detects the re-radiation of gamma rays from objects that are exposed to cosmic radiation from space. By careful design of the spectrometer, even tiny amounts of volatiles can be detected: Material Concentration -------- ------------- Water 0.7% Hydrogen 0.08% (minimum detection Oxygen 0.5% concentrations) Carbon 1.0% Since gamma rays can penetrate solid objects, water could be detected up to half a meter below the surface. Radar can also penetrate dry surface rock to reveal liquid water, which may have happened on an Apollo flight. It can not easily differentiate water ice from Lunar regolith, but radar is reflected by liquid water. Strong reflections were seen in the Mare Crismium and Mare Serenitatis between 200 and 1000 meters below the surface, although there may be other explanations for this data. The Lunar Polar Orbiter would cost $40-50 million dollars excluding launch costs, taking advantage of existing spacecraft designs and instruments. This was gleaned from the latest issue of the Space Studies Institute Update. For a complete copy, contact them at P.O. Box 82, Princeton, NJ 08540. A $25 donation will enable them to send you the bi-monthly newsletter. The next newsletter should contain more information about the mission. -- Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 87 12:33:00 EST From: Subject: [bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa: Re: All this pay-off-the-National-Debt stuff] Ok, has it escaped your attention that the elemental content of 10-20 cubic miles of seawater will also pay off the National Debt?? So what?? My point is that we don't need to hear simplistic arguments about the mineral content of asteroids. That line of argument leaves out all the important practical considerations. Also, without doing a single number, I suspect that the energy needed to move these big rocks is the same or more than the energy needed to extract the elemental content of seawater. And we have LOTS of water. Please note: This is not intended to be a practical suggestion, just a commentary on how seriously we should take these "value of an asteroid" messages. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 87 17:50:16 GMT From: well!msudoc!crlt!russ@LLL-LCC.ARPA (Russ Cage) Organization: CRLT , Ann Arbor, MI Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? References: <877@ihlpm.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <877@ihlpm.UUCP>, dcn@ihlpm.UUCP writes: >[much deleted] >Of course, the startup costs for a venture of this magnitude is formidable, >but maybe they would make a profit on the second or third asteroid? Any >estimates? I seem to recall a figure around $20-30 billion for such a venture. Lots and lots of shuttle-derived hardware (HLLV's using shuttle SSME's, dumb payload rockets made from SRB's) would have been used. You could pay back your costs with the gold from the asteroid and have all the iron, cobalt, nickel, platinum-group metals, and the "worthless" silicate rock to live well for the next 50 years. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 87 21:20:11 GMT From: pyramid!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!johnmill@decwrl.dec.com (John Miller) Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Subject: Re: All this pay-off-the-National-Debt stuff References: <8702260239.AA05100@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702260239.AA05100@angband.s1.gov> writes: > Also, without doing a single number, >I suspect that the energy needed to move these big rocks is the same or >more than the energy needed to extract the elemental content of >seawater. Nah. It isn't total energy that counts, its return on investment. Once we really get into deep space, there is no great problem moving vast amounts of mass around -- provided they have no atmosphere and we have patience enough. An ion engine attached to an asteriod, powered by the sun and providing only a couple of pounds of thrust, could eventually move it into an orbit just missing the Earth. The hard part would be changing that orbit into one which was geocentric; once that was done the same few pounds of thrust could circularize the thing. "Eventually" might be a couple of decades for a useful-sized asteroid, but it really could have a teriffic return on investment. A similar small thrust could give a massive asteroid on a collision course with Earth enough of a nudge to make it miss. Of course those bastards with the scrambled eggs on their caps* will instantly realize that the same principles can be applied to make a small asteroid hit the country of their choice ... Did you realize that there is net energy to be gained in moving rock from Luna to Earth? You have to supply energy to get the rock out of Luna's gravity well, but you get that energy back and a lot more getting down to the surface of Earth. There have been ideas published showing ways to get back some of this energy. Use your imagination. There is also net energy to be gained going from an asteroidial orbit to an Earth orbit, but I guess that it is less apt to be utilized. Solar sail could be substituted for ion engines in the above, and I'm sure others can come up with other ways of doing things. The important point is that for many applications in deep space you don't need the massive thrusters we've come to associate with space travel, thus you don't need anywhere near the capital investment you might think. --johnmill ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 87 18:07:57 GMT From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@AMES.ARPA (Russ Cage) Organization: CRLT , Ann Arbor, MI Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? References: <877@ihlpm.UUCP>, <1723@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <1723@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, news@cit-vax.UUCP writes: > From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) > > I think we need to be a little more sophisticated than arguments > like this; there's no particular shortage of iron, nickel, cobalt etc. > in the Earth's crust either. Really? Iron is in good supply (so long as you're willing to mine ores which are less and less iron-rich, and move that much more rock in the process), but nickel, cobalt, gold and the platinum group metals are tough to find in the quantities we can use. > The same problem exists as with asteroids, > however - it costs more to get than it's `worth'. A projected cost of $20 billion to recover resources valued at over $1 trillion is too much? Sounds like a damn good return on investment to me. > [...] (so you have a 5km asteroid in LEO - how do propose to land it in > a useful fashion?), [...] Try packaging raw ingots of metal in some silicate slag made from the rocky portion of the asteroid, and dropping them someplace. You scrape the fragments up later. Hundred-pound lots, properly packaged and aimed, would lose most of their kinetic energy to air friction before landing. If the alloy is ferromagnetic, you can dump them into any convenient body of water and then "mine" them with magnetic trawlers to take them to the refining and fabrication facilities. Around Michigan, we have several nice, big lakes which would do just fine. Nevada has some decent deserts. The whole world has oceans galore. Come, now. Let's have some well thought out objections, not these things which are so easily dismissed. If there are *real* problems with the concept, I'd like to know about them. However, this sort of thing doesn't rate the net.bandwidth that it takes. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Mar 87 14:41 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@angband.s1.gov, uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@utah-gr.arpa Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.s1.gov",IN%"uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@utah-gr.arpa" Mark Muhlestein wrote: >In article <934@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, gsmith@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) writes: >> Well, since you asked: the resources are not here, but floating out in >> the inconceivable vastness of the universe you talked of. They are not >> developed, and not easy to develop. Your complaint sounds more like outright >> idiocy than naivety to me, since this is all so painfully obvious I really >> wonder why I am bothering. > >You appear to have missed the point I was trying to make. Of course it's >true that the resources are not developed, and are not easy to develop. >The real question is: given the benefits to humanity of a "breakout" into >space, are we ("we the people") making the appropriate effort to utilize >space resources? And if not, why? I think you missed the point: that the benefits largely don't exist, except as illusions presented by space advocates whose support for space is largely irrational and quasi-religious. The idea of extracting iron from asteroids, for example, is grade-A idiocy, given the current cost of iron, and the fact that current iron reserves on earth amount to some 100 gigatons (!), and certainly much more than no one has bothered to find yet because there's no reason to (US iron consumption is about 100 megatons per year). The same is true of other resources. We aren't using anything that can't be substituted for, recycled or conserved. Costs of retrieving space materials are outrageous, while terrestrial sources have huge overcapacities. Population growth is slowing down. I think we are making the appropriate effort to utilize space resources: some limited preliminary work is being done on He-3, lunar oxygen and perhaps some space use of lunar composites, and other obviously uneconomical and premature proposals have been placed on the back burner until the day when it might be economical to spend time thinking about them again. Until then, we'd be much better off keeping the economy strong and growing and fostering broadbased technological advances here on earth so that when and if it does become economical to move into space in a big way we'll have the resources to back it up. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 87 22:38:13 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Organization: California Institute of Technology Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? References: <877@ihlpm.UUCP>, <1723@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, <665@crlt.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <665@crlt.UUCP> russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes: >In article <1723@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, news@cit-vax.UUCP writes: >> From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) >> >> I think we need to be a little more sophisticated than arguments >> like this; there's no particular shortage of iron, nickel, cobalt etc. >> in the Earth's crust either. > >Really? Iron is in good supply (so long as you're willing to mine ores >which are less and less iron-rich, and move that much more rock in the >process), but nickel, cobalt, gold and the platinum group metals are >tough to find in the quantities we can use. Yeah, really. What do you think asteroids are, solid iron ingots or some such? The majority of asteroids are primarily silaceous or carbonaceous chondritic composition - neither particularly valuable on Earth. There are a few which appear from radar observations to be primarily metallic, but we need more data instead of wishful thinking before launching a multi-billion $ program to snarf asteroids. >A projected cost of $20 billion to recover resources valued at over >$1 trillion is too much? Sounds like a damn good return on investment >to me. Perhaps you should inject a note of reality into these projections. To recover asteroidal resources on Earth, we have to develop: - Robotic prospectors to identify possibly usable asteroids - Person-rated deep-space systems good for several years &/| Autonomous robots (to install the recovery system) - Some sort of recovery mechanism - solar sails, ion drives, mass drivers, whatever. - A mechanism to separate worthwhile fractions of the asteroid - A mechanism to return said fractions to Earth's surface in a plausible fashion. I do not consider dropping 100 lb chunks of asteroid near inhabited areas to fit this qualifier, technical considerations entirely aside. One miss could result in lawsuits for more than the entire venture is worth. This has to be done at a cost competitive with mining raw ores on Earth and delivering them to primary manufacturers. Furthermore, it has to be done on a scale large enough to recover investment costs reasonably quickly. I very much doubt we can do this for $20G, now or anytime in the near (30 years, say) future. Something as simple as the Space Station is going to cost almost that much. I'm also sceptical of this $1 trillion figure. Maybe a 5 km asteroid is ``worth'' that amount in some sense, but I can equally well say that a large enough area of the seabed is worth billion$ and billion$. Worth has little to do with money in the bank. >Come, now. Let's have some well thought out objections, not these >things which are so easily dismissed. If there are *real* problems >with the concept, I'd like to know about them. However, this sort of >thing doesn't rate the net.bandwidth that it takes. Ah, the good old ``I don't like your argument so I'm going to trivialize it'' approach. Come, now. Let's treat each other as intelligent people. These ARE *real* problems. Save the accusations of wasted net bandwidth for the Velikovskians. Back in the 70's, the pro-space people were proclaiming space as a panacea for resource and energy problems. We don't hear much about putting up dozens of Solar Power Satellites anymore - largely because there IS NO CLEAR ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE to doing so, and a great deal of unquantified risk, both physical and economic, involved. The same applies to recovering asteroidal materials for use on Earth. Resources found in space are going to be required and used. In space. On a time scale of decades. If recovering asteroids is really so OBVIOUSLY profitable (50x return on investment), I'm sure some (Japanese?) consortium will do so. $20G is not too much more than the Alaska pipeline cost. Funny how nobody is showing signs of forming such a consortium. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 87 22:38:36 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Space program funding To: ltsmith@MITRE.ARPA Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov >From: LT.Sheri.L.Smith@mitre.arpa, USN >That narrowminded, dimwitted, diehard man-belongs-on-earth-or-God-wouldn't- >have-put-us-here 20% should be the focus of a dedicated educational effort >on the part of NASA and other space related groups. ... As one of the 20% who feel that NASA spending should be reduced, I have to respond to this. I do not believe that "man-belongs-on-earth-or...", I simply don't believe that government should be playing the role it is. I *DO* believe in man's future in space, but I don't believe that this justifies taking money from people against their will. Robert Maas and I have been discussing this subject, and I will be glad to forward all our messages to anyone who is interested. ...Keith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #168 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08677; Fri, 20 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST id AA08677; Fri, 20 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST Date: Fri, 20 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703201103.AA08677@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #169 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 169 Today's Topics: Asteroid Mining Re: Can *you* use a pocket calculator? Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? Re: Paying off the national debt with s Re: Yttrium, Lanthanum, Thorium Shuttle external tank Re: Shuttle external tank Space Station Concept ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Mar 87 11:48 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: Asteroid Mining One of the drawbacks of asteroid mining may be lack of differentiation. Even if precious / valuable materials are in those rocks, they ( I think ) probably will be evenly spread throughout. Asteroids, like the moon, lack the geothermic fluxes that cause ores to form in concentration. If this is a problem, we could try the following solution : Construct a BIG focusing mirror. Aim it at an asteroid till the asteroid was very melted. Then aim at another asteroid while the first cools. When the second asteroid is melted, and the first cooled, start the cycle over. Repeat this a few times and you have a zone-refined asteroid : strip-mine it like peeling an onion with each layer having different materials concentrated in it. Note I did two asteroids ( or more, depending on heat-up to cool down rate ratios ) at a time. Also, small rocks would work faster than real big ones, but might not differentiate as well. I'm not claiming anything about profit or loss, just technical idea. Comments on either are O.K. Dennis O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 87 17:40:19 GMT From: pyramid!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!johnmill@decwrl.dec.com (John Miller) Subject: Re: Can *you* use a pocket calculator? In article <8702281341.AA10576@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET.UUCP writes: >I wish all these people talking about asteroids as great sources of >gold, and how that would affect semiconductor technology, etc., would >simply calculate the fractional density of gold in the asteroid. You are making the assumption that such gold would be homogeniously distributed -- and my guess is that by and large your assumption is correct. But of course no one tries to mine gold on Earth where it exists at merely average distribution. Until we go and take a look we won't be able to say that there are no asteriods where gold is sequestered, possibly even to the extent where an asteroid is nothing but one big nugget ... On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that iron, nickle, and cobalt exist in extremely rich concentrations in some asteroids. I would expect to see profitable return on investment from iron asteriods before any rare or exotic materials. Platinum (and related metals) could be an exception. Think about the recent bruhaha about the the possibly-asteroid-derived high percentage of platinum in the sedimentary layer marking the extinction of the dinosaurs. --johnmill ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 87 23:58:37 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? > This has to be done at a cost competitive with mining raw ores > on Earth and delivering them to primary manufacturers. Furthermore, it > has to be done on a scale large enough to recover investment costs > reasonably quickly. As various people have pointed out, by far the easiest and simplest market for asteroidal resources -- the one that might well fund the development of the infrastructure needed for others -- is supplying raw asteroidal rock as armor for military satellites in Earth orbit. No refining or purification is needed and the required prospecting is minimal; any old rock will do. What's more, the competition is launching the stuff from Earth at horrendous cost. I have been told that this is potentially a multi-billion-dollar market. (For those who object to "militarizing space", note that most everyone agrees that making satellites less vulnerable to attack would make the world a safer place -- important and easily-destroyed satellites are already a serious destabilizing influence.) > I very much doubt we can do this for $20G, now or anytime in > the near (30 years, say) future. Something as simple as the Space > Station is going to cost almost that much... I fully agree that NASA couldn't do it for $20G. That is not the same as saying that it couldn't be done for $20G. There is no reason why the Space Station has to cost anywhere near that much. (A venomous editorial on this subject will show up in one of my AW&ST summaries sometime soon.) If you doubt this, consider what NASA's budget would be to attempt a round-the-world flight. Burt Rutan did it for under $2M; NASA couldn't even get the Phase A studies done at that price. On another topic... > Back in the 70's, the pro-space people were proclaiming space > as a panacea for resource and energy problems. We don't hear much about > putting up dozens of Solar Power Satellites anymore - largely because > there IS NO CLEAR ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE to doing so... You are probably thinking of the report that spent hundreds of pages concluding that Earth-launched powersats weren't economical and then dismissed use of extraterrestrial materials in two paragraphs. As I recall, somebody got the authors themselves to admit that their treatment of extraterrestrial materials was totally inadequate and their conclusions were valid only for Earth-launched systems. Unfortunately, this little admission didn't attract one-hundredth as much attention as the original report. > If recovering asteroids is really so OBVIOUSLY profitable (50x > return on investment), I'm sure some (Japanese?) consortium will do so. > $20G is not too much more than the Alaska pipeline cost. Funny how > nobody is showing signs of forming such a consortium. Wait until Japan has its own commercial launch capability, not controlled by the US. Or, for that matter, until the US has a commercial launch capability not controlled by the government. (Japan will probably be first, since there is no sign that the US government will permit commercial launch firms to operate without interference.) Then there will be commercial interest in such things. "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 87 18:59:51 GMT From: news@csvax.caltech.edu (Usenet netnews) Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? In article <7736@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >As various people have pointed out, by far the easiest and simplest market >for asteroidal resources -- the one that might well fund the development of >the infrastructure needed for others -- is supplying raw asteroidal rock as >armor for military satellites in Earth orbit. Do me the favor of reading ALL of my posting before responding. As I said at the end: Space resources will be used. IN SPACE. But whomever I was responding to wanted to bring asteroidal resources back to Earth to solve (non-existent) shortages. This is utter nonsense. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 87 14:44:05 GMT From: cbosgd!gwe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (George Erhart) Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !? In article <665@crlt.UUCP> russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes: >In article <1723@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, news@cit-vax.UUCP writes: > >Really? Iron is in good supply (so long as you're willing to mine ores >which are less and less iron-rich, and move that much more rock in the >process), but nickel, cobalt, gold and the platinum group metals are >tough to find in the quantities we can use. One should remember that it's not just how much, but where. The US can get plenty of iron, aluminum, copper, and some nickel (the latter from Canada), but we have little or no domestic sources for chromium, cobalt, manganese, titanium, ... >> The same problem exists as with asteroids, >> however - it costs more to get than it's `worth'. > >A projected cost of $20 billion to recover resources valued at over >$1 trillion is too much? Sounds like a damn good return on investment >to me. Where did these numbers come from ? I've not heard them before. Don't asteroids come in the same three basic types as meteoroids; that is, stoney, metallic (iron-nickel), and composite (?) ? If so, then we would want to go for the latter two types; iron-nickel asteroids would be wonderful, as there would be no need to refine or smelt the ore. >> [...] (so you have a 5km asteroid in LEO - how do propose to land it in >> a useful fashion?), [...] > >Try packaging raw ingots of metal in some silicate slag made from the >rocky portion of the asteroid, and dropping them someplace. You scrape >the fragments up later. Hundred-pound lots, properly packaged and >aimed, would lose most of their kinetic energy to air friction before >landing. If the alloy is ferromagnetic, you can dump them into any >convenient body of water and then "mine" them with magnetic trawlers >to take them to the refining and fabrication facilities. Around Michigan, >we have several nice, big lakes which would do just fine. Nevada has >some decent deserts. The whole world has oceans galore. > >Come, now. Let's have some well thought out objections, not these >things which are so easily dismissed. If there are *real* problems >with the concept, I'd like to know about them. However, this sort of >thing doesn't rate the net.bandwidth that it takes. How 'bout this : I've read lots of talk about dropping things from orbit. I also remember that when Skylab crashed, nobody could accurately predict it's "flight plan" because of atmospheric skip. Maybe that was because of the involuntary nature of the decay; but just how accurately can we drop an unguided rock from orbit ? Even if that accuracy is high, there are still problems. Nobody is going to want the drop zone near their homes; no Congressman will allow it in his constituency. Okay, you can probably get away with Lake Michigan; now you have to clear the drop zone of fishing boats, etc, whenever a package is due. Then, you need your magnetic (or whatever) grabber to retrieve the metal. Finally, you need to transport your catch to a mill to turn it into something useful. I'm just about positive you couldn't make any money from iron this way. Finished steel products (strip, sheet, bar, etc.) average about 25 cents per pound. Space-iron would have to be remelted, cast into ingots, and rolled to achieve this state. In "raw" form it is comparable to steel scrap (which would be remelted and added to virgin iron before ingot casting). This currently goes for about 5 cents per pound. Do you think you could mine, package, and retrieve a hundred-pound chunk of space-iron for $5 ? You'd have a better chance with nickel; the current price for primary nickel is $1.62 per pound. Of course, the nickel in these asteroids is already alloyed with iron. It would be better to market the alloy (so no refining is necessary) or to sell ferro-nickel for melt stock. Common iron-nickel alloys include Permalloys (soft magnetic alloys) (a small market), austenitic stainless steels (if there's chromium [at $4.62/lb] in asteroids, then space-production of stainless might have a prayer), and the superalloys used for jet engine components, etc. Superalloys also require aluminum, chromium, and just about every other metal known to man :-/ , and need some rather fancy processing (like vacuum refining !) which would make them another potential winner in space. (all prices ripped off from _Iron_Age_Manufacturing_Management_, V230,No.2, Feb '87, pp 58-59) Of course, none of this really matters if the end product is to be USED in space; anything would be cheaper than lifting steel into orbit. I just don't think you'll be able to bring them back to earth economically. Bill Thacker cbatt!cbosgd!gwe ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 87 23:48:00 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!iucs!jec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Organization: Indiana University CSCI, Bloomington Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with s References: <877@ihlpm.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Lets not forget that market forces will still exist and dumping that much iron on the market will probably drop the price of iron. Might not be as profitable as you might think. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 87 17:11:53 GMT From: decvax!cca!lmi-angel!wsr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Alison Chaiken) Subject: Re: Yttrium, Lanthanum, Thorium Actually one of the world's major merchants of rare-earth metals is the Alfa Company. I don't really know if sci.* readers would want to invest in Alfa, though: they are wholly owned by Morton Thiokol, which is not our favorite company nowadays! Alison Chaiken {harvard|decvax!cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!wsr ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 87 18:44:04 GMT From: cbatt!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!drich@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Daniel Rich) Subject: Shuttle external tank I recently read a new science fiction short story by David Brin ("Tank Farm Dynamo" if anyone is interested), in which he presents the idea of a space station made up of used shuttle external tanks. Does anyone on the net know if this would be at all practical? Would the extra weight of the tank use up too much shuttle propellant to make this possible? It seems that the ammount of material (not to mention the extra fuel left over) in the external tank would make this a valid idea! Brin does mention in his afterward that this idea has been discussed, but that it never met with much approval. Admittedly, I am not in the space field (although I do wish I had some connection with it) and may not know what I am talking about, but I just thought I would let others know about this idea. - Dan Rich CSNET: drich@research1.bgsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 87 01:57:26 GMT From: al@ames-aurora.arpa (Al Globus) Subject: Re: Shuttle external tank in article <711@bgsuvax.UUCP>, drich@bgsuvax.UUCP (Daniel Rich) says: > I recently read a new science fiction short story by David Brin > ("Tank Farm Dynamo" if anyone is interested), in which he presents the > idea of a space station made up of used shuttle external tanks. Does > anyone on the net know if this would be at all practical? Would the > extra weight of the tank use up too much shuttle propellant to make > this possible? Actually, if you take the tank into orbit you GAIN a little payload on the shuttle. This is because the tank almost goes into orbit anyhow and the shuttle must do some fancy manuvering to avoid hitting the tank after separation. There have been several studies on using External Tanks, with many positive findings. One problem that has not been solved, so far as I know, is stock- piling the tanks between launch and use. Since they would normally be left in low orbit they would come down, in unpredictable locations, fairly shortly. A few uses for ET's in orbit: sports center, movie set, storage, space station, cut them up for shielding. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 87 02:25:08 GMT From: al@ames-aurora.arpa (Al Globus) Subject: Space Station Concept NASA's space station has recently suffered its first major cost overrun - from $8 billion to $12-16 billion depending on who you believe. The phase B contract explicitly stated that the Space Station was to be designed to cost, i.e., will cost $8 billion. Thus, the cost over-run represents a major failure on the part of of the phase B effort (requirements and preliminary design, just completing) to meet requirements. I have a proposal. Instead of building one very large station that must accomadate all users, build small, replicable stations. One for each discipline. This has several fundimental advantages: 1. Since each discipline has its own station, conflicting requirements are avoided; along with significant analysis and design costs in resolving them. 2. Since there are several station, a major accident on one does not destroy the manned space program ala Challenger. 3. With luck, the cost of a single station will be within the means of large corporations or smaller countries thereby increasing orbital penetration (please excuse pun) at no cost to the American taxpayer. 4. The first station might be within the $8 billion bogey. 5. Each station is integrated on the ground. Upgrades are done by building new stations. This appraoch is much easier than the on-orbit upgrades currently baselined. In this concept Marshal Space Flight Center builds a station for life science research that can be duplicated for materials processing, etc. Johnson Space Center builds a 'RV' vehicle that is home for the crew and can be moved from one station to another. Thus, each applications station can be visited by the RV periodically. Ultimately, additional RV stations can be built. RV, as in recreational vehicle ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #169 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11230; Sat, 21 Mar 87 03:03:13 PST id AA11230; Sat, 21 Mar 87 03:03:13 PST Date: Sat, 21 Mar 87 03:03:13 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703211103.AA11230@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #170 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 170 Today's Topics: An Emergency Re-entry System for Astronauts in Low Earth Orbit Re: Shuttle external tank Environmentalists/space industrialization (long message) Space garbage and the Environmentalists as a constituancy. Re: Space garbage and the Environmentalists as a constituancy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Mar 87 22:50:45 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: An Emergency Re-entry System for Astronauts in Low Earth Orbit In response to the discussions about parachuting from orbit, I will summarize a study found in the American Astronautical Society Science & Technology Series, Volume 37 on Space Rescue and Safety from 1974. An Emergency Astronaut Re-entry Parachute System James J. Murray, U.S. Army Research Office Fred R. DeJarnette, North Caroline State University This paper describes a method of emergency re-entry for astronauts that are marooned in a malfunctioning spacecraft or space station in low Earth orbit. Given a special space suit, parachute, rocket motor and life support system, an astronaut can leave the spacecraft and re-enter the Earth's atmosphere. The two major obstacles to overcome are deceleration and aerodynamic heating. The rocket motor is used to decelerate the astronaut to begin re-entry on a tolerable trajectory where air drag on the parachute will bring them back down to Earth. The suit and life support keeps them alive for the two hours or so it takes to re-enter. The maximum deceleration is about 8 g's, and the maximum temperature peaks at about 1500 degrees Fahrenheit (an Apollo- type capsule experiences up to 3500 degree temperatures during re-entry). The time of maximum deceleration is only two minutes long, when the stress rises from 2 g's, up to a peak of 8 and back down to 2. A small rocket motor with 13 pounds of propellant could decelerate the astronaut with the escape package, totaling about 400 pounds. The legs of the Gemini EVA suit could withstand 1300 degrees, and the Apollo suit provides up to four hours of life support, and it is assumed that a suit could be developed that would survive the re-entry. A parachute of about 70 feet in diameter that will deploy in a rarefied atmosphere, withstand 1500 degree heat and maintain stabilility is required. Deployment can be handled by spring-loaded ribs, and although high temperature resistance material is required, the maximum loading is only 1 pound per square foot. A high-speed parachute called the `hyperflo', consisting of a flat ribbon grid roof and a conical solid skirt, withstood 1000 degrees using silicone- coated glass fiber cloth. Non-porous parachutes were found to exhibit dynamic instabilities, but the ribbon grid design significantly reduced this behavior. In conclusion, this system provides an inexpensive means of re-entry without depending on a spacecraft or re-entry capsule. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 87 00:15:01 GMT From: pyramid!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@decwrl.dec.com (Howard A. Landman) Subject: Re: Shuttle external tank In a normal flight, the shuttle actually turns *DOWNWARD* for a brief period just before releasing the external tank. I believe that this is in order to make sure it lands in the unpopulated ocean. At any rate, the fuel used in this maneuver is more than enough to boost the tank to LEO; that is, it costs more fuel to dump the tank than to take it into orbit. There were several articles on this in L5 News a year or two back. The problem is, if you put the tank into LEO it will slowly decay and eventually come down like Skylab. So, NASA doesn't want to put them up there until they know what they're going to do with them! It's a sad waste of resources, but until we can commit the necessary effort to boost the tanks even higher (periodically or once and for all), they'll continue wasting fuel to drop the tanks in the water. Sigh. Those tanks are *BIG* inside, many times larger than anything else we've ever lived in in space. Imagine the possibilities! Football, soccer, and ultimate frisbee! :^o Gymnastics (what's "balancing"?). :^o Kathy Sullivan leading aerobics in zero-G! :^) -- Howard A. Landman ...!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard ------------------------------ Date: Tue 10 Mar 87 01:26:18-PST From: Christopher Schmidt Subject: Environmentalists/space industrialization (long message) What confuses me is why "environmentalists" like Greenpeace should be involved with SDI. Those that believe that SDI destabilizes existing arms agreements and peace efforts are concerned that a breakdown of those efforts might lead to nuclear war and the concomitant environmental side-effects. The potential magnitude of those side-effects makes the issue hard for anyone concerned with the protection of the environment to ignore. I don't believe I've read anything yet in any Greenpeace publication that discusses opposition to SDI per se, though it would not surprise me at all to learn that the leadership is opposed to it. Greenpeace is not a pacifist group [...] Actually, the Greenpeace quarterly usually contains one or two essays exploring the problems of effecting change without violence. Recent articles compared the Quaker notion of "bearing witness" with the Greenpeace efforts to monitor compliance with international whaling agreements and with the effort to monitor nationalistic abuses of the Antarctic continent. My impression is that they were mainly into whales, cute baby seals, and nuclear tests. Greenpeace acts as an umbrella for a number of efforts not well reported by the national press. They have their own funding efforts and leadership and do not necessarily agree with each other on every issue; certainly not on the relative importance of the issues. I used to be a member of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club's big thing (at least under John Muir) was the preservation of wilderness. This is a very noble cause and one that I still believe in. However they got all wrapped up with the No-Nukes issue to the detriment of the far more important wilderness preservation tasks, (at which point I bailed out). I quit the Sierra Club when they started organizing a PAC for every local Democratic Party candidate who even hinted that he might throw them a bone. I don't think it's fair to hold their leadership (who, I agree, have lost their way) against environmentalists in general, though. Will they seize upon the (unfortunate) SDI dominance of the space program as an excuse to oppose the space program? I don't think many environmentalists are looking for an excuse to oppose the space program. I believe that those who oppose SDI would oppose it with equal conviction if it were deployed (somehow) on the ground. I think any **honest** environmentalist or person concerned with wilderness preservation has to also be an advocate for space industrialization. I am an environmentalist and an advocate of space industrialization, but the motivations are entirely different. Because two things are desirable doesn't mean they are necessarily related. Don't you find it annoying when certain people regard women as an ethnic minority simply because they favor the advancement of both? With the industrialization of space, the Earth can be excluded from all polluting commercial activity. Unfortunately, people don't give up polluting activities just because it is possible. Consider the tons of nasty toxic pollution produced in the processing of titanium to make toothpaste white (a purely cosmetic gesture unrelated to cleaning teeth). It's already possible to exclude that activity from earth by fiat, but it's not happening. People won't accept non-white toothpaste. Building a titanium plant in space as an alternative source and then outlawing earthly production might solve the problem another way, but not nearly so easily or directly as by outlawing its cosmetic use in the first place. If we can't get consumers to accept this sort of small change in their lifestyles today, how can we expect them to accept the much more sweeping changes you propose for tomorrow? I think the Earth should be a world of parks, farms and small cities. The bulk of the human population with all of its environmentally destructive (though wealth producing) activities should be moved off-planet. You'd have to move more than 100 million people off-planet each year just to break even, though, at today's breeding rates. If you know how to get people to breed less, you can solve the basic problems without the additional mechanism of moving people off-planet. The main commercial activity of the Earth should be as a tourist resort for the rest of the human race which is living in space. If people think the Earth is a nice place to be, I don't think you'll be able to get them to leave it. Could you get everyone in California to move to New York City, claiming that it will make California an even better place to vacation? --Christopher V.A. Schmidt ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 10 March 1987 1110-EST From: DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET (R. David Murray) Subject: Space garbage and the Environmentalists as a constituancy. When I first became aware of the space activist movement back in high school (about twelve years ago) it was a commonplace that one of the advantages of space colonization was the movement of the polluting industries out into space, leaving Earth a parkland. It still is a commonplace, as is evidenced by the discussion of garbage in space. For all of the intervening years, I accepted this commonplace without question. It was not until just this year that I was given cause to look at it from a fresh viewpoint. It didn't take much, it just took someone questioning it. I suppose that the reason my change in opinion occured so readily was that subconciously I had been mulling over the problem for years. I think I can pinpoint the event that started me doubting. It was a silly little thing, a public service spot on T.V. The spot showed the cartoon version of the Enterprise and crew floating through space just as usual. Then they came upon a navigational hazard, which turned out to be a space junkyard. The characters said various stock lines about how littering and pollution was a terrible thing. Now, following the commonplace I had been sold on earlier, I said to myself: 'How silly. Everybody knows there is plenty of room out there. There would be no garbage problem. Why, any amount of trash would just dissapear in the vastness of space.' But underneath, I think it bothered me. Something was not quite right. A couple months ago I reiterated the commonplace to a friend, who is a space supporter but not a space enthusiast. She said to me 'But why? Why should we put the pollution in orbit? Why not take the opportunity to do it right, and not generate any pollution?' My immediate reply was because it would be costly, and industries aren't going to want to do it in space any more than they do on Earth. But it started me thinking. It occurs to me that Environmentalism is more than a desire to preserve the enviroment of Earth. It is a state of mind and a way of interacting with the world around you. Instead of simply taking things from the environment willy-nilly and dumping what is left over back, you find a way to accomplish you goal with as little net disturbence to the environment as possible. A discussion of why the environmentalist attitude is applicable to space could get very long and involved. Consider the following examples: On of the things that I have learned in my years of reading SF is that in space, everything is a valuable resource. You cannot afford to throw anything away, you never know when you are going to need it again. (For reaction mass, if nothing else; but that may be a kind of pollution.) I think it would be to our distinct advantage to find a way to trap and store any waste products. We will probably want them later. (And let's not dump them in a crater on the moon unless we generate them on the moon: even its shallow well costs something to get out of.) Is trash in space a problem? You bet. A study has been done (I'm sorry, it was mentioned in a lecture and I did not get the reference) that predicts that we will, within the next decade, have to start cleaning up in orbit or our satalites are going to die. There is enough garbage up there that things will get broken by running into debrie. And once they do, they will be more debrie, with that much more chance something else will die. (It gets a lot worse if someone starts exercising a satalite killer, which would generate more dispersed debrie.) Are Environmentalists a natural constituency of the space movement? I think not. I think you will find Enironmentalists who are space enthusiasts, ones who are indifferent, and ones who are against, in just about the same proportions as in the rest of the population. Space is not an answer to environmental problems. It is a source of environmental concerns all its own. We will know we have truly arived in the age of space colonization when environmentalists lobby, not about the affects of the space program on Earth, but about its affects on space. Those affects generate different concerns, but they are no less concerns. Environmentalism is a state of mind. It applies to space just as much as it applies to Earth. If we could convince the Environmentalists that we were concerned about *both* environments, we might get their support as a group. Otherwise, we will get only those who are interested in space colonization for other reasons. My feeling is that space is an environment (it is, you know) that calls for a careful husbanding of resources. It is a place where one must try to do the most one can with as little as possible, as long as the job gets done. If it doesn't, you're dead. I don't think we can afford to throw *anything* away. And I don't think we should if we could. It seems to me that it is always better to coexist harmoniously with one's environment, whatever it is, than to abuse it. In the *long* run, as we are discovering here on Earth, it is cheaper. I think the Environmentalist state of mind, as I expressed it above, is a valuble one. I think we should take the opportunity of the new start that space is providing us and apply the lessons we have learned on Earth. Keep in mind, the price for littering in space may well be the ultimate one. -- R. David Murray University of Pennsylvania P.S.: If people send me answers to the following questions, I will summarize for the group: 1) Do you consider yourself a space enthusiast(*)? 2) Do you consider yourself an environmentalist? 3) Do you think we should be concerned about pollution in space? (*) If you don't, why are you reading this discussion group? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 21:18:07 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Space garbage and the Environmentalists as a constituancy. Newsgroups: sci.space >Keep in mind, the price for littering in space may well be the ultimate one. > > -- R. David Murray > University of Pennsylvania > >P.S.: If people send me answers to the following questions, I will summarize >for the group: > > 1) Do you consider yourself a space enthusiast(*)? > 2) Do you consider yourself an environmentalist? > 3) Do you think we should be concerned about pollution in space? > I think it should also be reminded the problem is not always one of contamination (Al Globius al@ames-aurora.arpa) has pointed out the space suit problem with floating junk. We have problems like parking orbits for communications satellite. No, space should not just wantonly become a dumping ground and people in higher places know that and rejected it a long time ago (just are there are tons of proposals for expended Shuttle Fuel tanks [but that's another junk story]). Just to add to your survey (summary). No to 1), I just work there ;-). 2) I am a life member of the Sierra Club. 3) Yes. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #170 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15161; Sun, 22 Mar 87 03:05:31 PST id AA15161; Sun, 22 Mar 87 03:05:31 PST Date: Sun, 22 Mar 87 03:05:31 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703221105.AA15161@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #171 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 171 Today's Topics: Freon & the Ozone layer (was Re: What are symptoms of UV over-exposure?) Re: UFO Coverup Question UFO evidence Re: Next 30 years.. person'ed, crewed, manned 50 light years (newsgroup survey) Re: UFOs and Ball Lightning ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Mar 87 10:04:11 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Freon & the Ozone layer (was Re: What are symptoms of UV over-exposure?) In article <414@atux01.UUCP> jlc@atux01.UUCP (J. Collymore) writes: >Last night on NBC Nightly News, there was a report of a recent >Congressional scientific hearing on the destruction of earth's OZONE >layer. >The scientists providing the data and testimony, had spent the past few >years in the Arctic performing the experiments for their findings. >What did they find? That they were in the wrong hemisphere. The ozone hole has been observed in ANTarctica. A lot of the data was taken from satellites, also - I saw a fascinating time-lapse movie of ozone concentration over the pole showing the hole getting (for the most part) bigger and more pronounced over the observing period (started around 1980). >Well, over the past eight years they have found a ~7.2 % decrease in >the earth's ozone layer at the Arctic Circle, and the loss of ozone >seems to be spreading furhter, and the ozone concentration is weakening >also. They blame this on countries still producing consumer used >aerosols products (e.g. hair sprays & spray deoderants) that have >CHLOROFLOROCARBONS (CFCs) as one of their prime ingredients (e.g. >countries in Europe). Last term in one of my planetary science classes, one of the professors here who specializes in planetary atmospheres discussed the CFC issue and manmade atmospheric perturbations in general. I'll summarize a bit of what he said (I knew those class notes would come in handy someday...) For starters, here are measured concentrations of some atmospheric gases: Concentration Date CO2 CH4 N2O CFCl3 (Freon 11) CF2Cl2 (Freon 12) x10^-6 x10^-6 x10^-6 x10^-9 x10^-9 1850 270 1.0 .282 - - 1900 290 1.17 .284 - - 1958 315 1.40 .293 .01 .03 1970 325 1.51 .297 .07 .13 1985 346 1.79 .305 .24 .40 CO2 increase is largely through manmade activities (thank the Industrial Revolution); increasing concentration from 300 to 600 ppm is expected to lead to a mean global temperature rise of ~2.5 degrees C, other things being equal and ignoring a potential negative feedback mechanism wherein increased temperature -> increased cloud cover -> increased planetary albedo -> lower temperature. CH4 and N2O are largely biological in origin. The two Freons are the evil CFCs referred to above. The mechanism whereby CFCs destroy ozone is a catalytic cycle with chlorine as the catalyst: CFCl3 + photon -> CFCl2 + Cl Cl + O3 -> ClO + O2 ClO + O -> Cl + O2 ------------------- O3 + O -> 2 O2 The reason such low concentrations of CFCs can have significant effects on ozone is that each Cl atom gets reused ~1000 times before being removed by some other reaction. He suggests as a rule of thumb that a 1 ppb increase in CFC concentration leads to a 1% decrease in the column abundance of ozone (O3 molecules in a vertical column from ground level up). One estimate is that total CFC (and other chlorine source) concentration will rise from 2 to ~10 ppb over the next century, with a corresponding decrease of ~10% in the ozone column density. Unfortunately, most of the ozone is being removed at high altitudes where it's blocking out UV. Since the lifetime of CFCs in the atmosphere is believed to be on the order of 100 years, we can't get rid of the problem by just ceasing to produce them now. There are a number of theories as to why the depletion is greater over the poles. One is chemical, that ice freezes out atmosphereic HNO3, a chlorine antagonist. Another is dynamical, that a O3-rich polar air vortex is sucking up O3-poor air to altitudes where it's observed by satellite (i.e. the column density over the poles would not be much different than anywhere else, just distributed differently in altitude). Of course, this doesn't answer your medical questions, but I think the issue of man's effect on the biosphere is interesting in general. Please direct followups to sci.space or sci.med as appropriate depending on the nature of replies. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 87 14:49:39 GMT From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) Path: oddhack!jon In article <8703101910.AA12537@angband.s1.gov> DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET (R. David Murray) writes: >Subject: Space garbage and the Environmentalists as a constituancy. > > Environmentalism is a state of mind. It applies to space just as >much as it applies to Earth. If we could convince the >Environmentalists that we were concerned about *both* environments, we >might get their support as a group. Otherwise, we will get only those >who are interested in space colonization for other reasons. Environmentalists are not all going to support space; but people who actually LIVE in space are going to have to be environmentalists. An O'Neill colony will have to be kept pristine because pollution can screw up such a small ecosystem far faster than here. Space may be infinite but people will be living in small, finite parts of it. Which is not to say that I see anything wrong with LARGE scale operations in space, just that we should think about how to do it with as little excess effort (read garbage) as possible. As far as junk in orbit goes, I wonder how many more SDI tests like the recent Delta (involving active homing on and destruction of a target vehicle) it will take before it's not safe to fly manned spacecraft in LEO. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 87 18:19:19 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A Andrews) Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question > > It's interesting to see a scientific community assuming that some > > phenomenon doesn't exist simply because there's no absolute proof > > that it does... > > > > None of which establishes that he [Zamora] wasn't lying.... > > > > When one has evidence that doesn't fit one's hypothesis, then the > > first reaction is to blame one's equipment. Of course. Maybe he > > is telling the truth... > > Okay, it's time to kill this one dead. Consider the following: > > - Zamora claimed he heard a loud roar when the UFO landed, and another when > it took off. He was about 3/4 mile away when it landed. There was a house > barely 1000 feet from the site. Its owner and his wife were at home with > windows and doors open, and heard nothing. > . . . etc . . . Wrong, Mr. (Dr.?) Spencer, on every count! You obviously have not read anything but Klass' account of the Zamora incident, and thus have failed to read other information about the case. In a book called (poorly titled!) SOCORRO SAUCER IN A PENTAGON PANTRY (or something very close to that), each of Klass' points you enumerated is destroyed. I would call this selective reading and find it hard to believe a scientist would only read one side of a controversial subject. I lived only 100 miles south of Socorro (working at White Sands Missile Range) when this event occurred. Believe me, nothing could save Socorro's economy! By the time this happened, I was interested in UFOs, a member of APRO, but I figured the USAF and Dr. Hynek could handle it, so I never even bothered to travel the 100 miles. Klass' allegations that there were no other witnesses is a lie; his allegations of economic reasons is a fraud. On the other hand, his record is very poor in debunking UFOs for the most part, anyhow, so one more try at destroying the life of an innocent observer is to be expected. Why try to find contradictory information if you have already concluded that the victims are culprits? In 1978, I met Dr. Hynek (again; first in 1960) and he was still convinced Zamora saw some kind of real object. In 1975, I chanced to meet the man who was commanding general at Kirtland AFB during the investigation, and he told me that his officers were convinced there was some kind of landing of something that left traces. The landing trace data correlates with hundreds of other landing reports, so nothing unusual there. Other evidence is contained in the previously mentioned book. So, read the other evidence some time before you spout off PSICOPs latest drivel, would you? (I wonder what Klass would have called two of us co-op students who photographed an object at WSMR in the early 1960s, an ovoidal blob that we measured going at least 5000 mph [determined from our field of view, a known target in the same frame, etc.]. No doubt that as men in our early 20s, he'd have called us unreliable, denied that the film existed, probably accused us of chewing some of the strange weeds that grow in Jornada del Muerto...) --Arlan Andrews (ex desert rat) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 87 18:44:16 GMT From: shawn@eddie.mit.edu (Shawn F. Mckay) Subject: UFO evidence Ok, so having adpoted this as a hobby, where would people recomend I start looking, for information, both on-line and printed, who, if anyone is researching it, (i.e. USAF? NASA?, No one?).. I have no bias in either direction, but I am unwilling to disbeleive, or beleive, based on heresay, so where to look? Thanks in advance, -- Shawn ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 87 02:49:06 GMT From: cgs@umd5.umd.edu (Chris Sylvain) Organization: University of Maryland, College Park Subject: Re: Next 30 years.. person'ed, crewed, manned References: <8702231756.AA13693@ames-pioneer.arpa> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702231756.AA13693@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > ... >I would like to see a greater unmanned program, both in the orbital >and planetary (especially for the science) arena. Man-rate (people- >rated?) flight systems are an order of magnitude more expensive >than un-manned systems, and there's lots of work to be done. > ... >I think we will continue to need a manned (person'ed) program >to do those things which electronics can't provide. We should certainly >explore our solar system (in crewed flight), have space stations, and so >forth. > ... >--eugene miya In the special issue of The Planetary Report dated March/April 1985, Dr. Sagan invited the Society's members to suggest alternatives to "manned". 236 members responded, with many applauding the effort to be sensitive on the subject, and many stating that it was too trivial to bother with. Humor, trivia, scorn and many constructive suggestions typified the responses [ sounds like recent "net history" ]. The most popular choice was "staffed", chosen 29 times, with "live" right behind with 28. "Astronaut", "inhabited", "piloted", "occupied", and "personned" were all suggested more than 10 times each. 29 people said: Leave it alone, "manned" is perfectly acceptable. Some specific responses mentioned in the follow-up article in the January/February 1986 issue: An Iowa City policeman said his force had solved the problem by changing "manned vehicles" to "occupied vehicles". Several people noted that they had put in days of work on the subject, and cited their research. One comment was: "From an extraterrestrial point of view, the difference between Sally Ride and Neil Armstrong doesn't seem worth worrying about." Another person quoted Shakespeare, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet," and then added, "As to the future we reap with our technology, may it be as sweet as the Bard's proverbial rose." The words chosen by the Society's Board of Directors were: accompanied ambisextrous animated anthropic attended beset bionic corporeal creatured droogied hominized hybrid missionary organic peopled personned piloted prosopal starred tended wamo "droogied" is from Russian for "friend" "prosopal" is Greek for "personned" "wamo" is "woman or man operated" Popular use will determine the new, correct term. (I personally prefer "tended".) reprinted, paraphrased, rearranged, and otherwise rewritten without permission. ARPA: cgs@umd5.UMD.EDU BITNET: cgs%umd5@umd2 UUCP: ..!seismo!umd5.umd.edu!cgs ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 87 18:13:13 EST From: weltyc@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) To: space@angband.s1.gov Cc: In-Reply-To: (Andre Guirard's message of 25 Feb 87 14:39:15 GMT Subject: 50 light years (newsgroup survey) OK, you wanted to hear from people on the list, you got it. When pressed, I can rarely think of reasons why I personally support space exploration/colonization/etc. so strongly. When given time I can coem up with reasons that sound very altruistic (more food, energy, eggs in one basket), but they aren't really why I am so interested. Why was Columbus interested in sailing west? Why did Louis and Clarke explore the Louisiana Purchase, why did any explorer ever go exploring? It is very appealing to some people, and I count myself as one of those people. Exploring what is literally the unknown has always fascinated me tremendously. Sure, there are REAL humaninstic and monetary benefits from various space and exploratory missions, but that's just icing on the cake. I believe that Columbus et al felt the same way - there was money involved, yes, but they probably would have done it for free. ANyone who thinks "there are enough problems here to spend our money on" is just someone who doesn't believe in exploration. They should be thankful that the more prominant figures of the past didn't feel the same way or a lot of what we have and know today MIGHT not be there (I did say might). In my view, exploration is ALWAYS justified, regardless of the cost. In MY view. I am glad there are others who share this feeling, but I wish there were more and that they were richer... -Chris ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 87 05:34:16 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 Subject: Re: UFOs and Ball Lightning References: <8702150249.AA14072@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702150249.AA14072@angband.s1.gov> KGEISEL%CGIVC%cgi.CSNET@RELAY.CS.NET writes: >Wolfgang Rupprecht asks in Space Digest #132 about confirmed existence >of ball lightning. An excellent collection of hundreds of ball lightning excerpts can be found in the following: Corliss, W.R., "Lightning, Auroras, Nocturnal Lights, and Related Luminous Phenomena", 1982. (Published and distributed by The Sourcebook Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057) Tel: (301) 668-6047 >A while back I attempted to research this phenomenon myself. There is >very little on it and I can't remember much of what there was. It HAS >been created under laboratory conditions, with strictly controlled >conditions (perfectly mixed gasses, etc.). It is true plasma, but >no one (that I know of) really knows what makes it tick. Some "rf" plasma balls have been generated in the laboratory in a reduced pressure atmosphere and referred to as ball lightning, but that is doubtful given the bounce, sometimes explosive, and its existence observed inside metal skinned sheds and aircraft. We think we have a basic understanding of the phenomena. >motions, jumping between metallic objects. It "latched" on to a power >line and moved rapidly down the line past my father. It then lept >with unbelievable speed from the line to a nearby trashcan, setting >off an explosion which destroyed the trashcan and knocked my father >into a ditch! I believe this shows the magnetic characteristics of BL and the highly conducting nature of the "shell or plasma Mantle". The latter is demonstrated because the transmission line current repels the BL at very short range by inducing image currents in the plasma Mantle. The high conductivity comes from runaway electron currents -- something in the range of .5 to 10 MeV. >A man was living in an apartment or something that was a few stories >up. He was sleeping with his window open during a thunderstorm. >A lightning ball floated through his window. Its loud crackling awoke >him just in time for him to see it jump to a lamp or something and destroy >an entire wall in his apartment. Energy of BL ranges from 3 to 10 times the energy density of air. A one foot diameter nascent ball (typical) would contain about sixty kilojoules. A three foot diameter ball have flattened farm machinery & tractor shed. That's 1.6 megajoules.. more whack than a concussion grenade, I think. >and seems to like metallic objects. It is very bright, makes a lot of >noise, and has been reported to remain in existence as long as two Depends on the metal. Repelled by conductors without current and attracted by ferromagnetic material or conductors carrying substantial current. It can be quite dim too if the currents are MeV energetic (conducting) and it does not have a lot of high Z impurities. Their noise level can be in the silent range, but things like rain, poorly formed Mantle, etc can cause it to make snapping or "crackling" noise. If rolling over a wet railroad track a BL "sizzles". >radio. That amount of electrical energy has been known to magnetize >objects. The UV emission could easily cause "sunburn" which is also >often a claim of the sighters. Also a loss of hair and radiation burns evident after a week on the side of the body toward the BL. Thei is probably caused by high "Z" impurities (copper, lead, tin, etc) being bombarded by the MeV energetic currents which can cause some quite dangerous X-rays. "Clean" pure air BL's might still be able to give you UV burns if one passes within a couple of feet. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #171 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17409; Mon, 23 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST id AA17409; Mon, 23 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST Date: Mon, 23 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703231103.AA17409@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #172 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 172 Today's Topics: Re: UFOs and Ball Lightning ball lightning Ball Lightning And another remark on Ball Lightning Back to the Future More Ball Lightning New book Thanks for the help Re: SPACE Digest V7 #159 Re: heat of spacecraft Re: heat of spacecraft Light sails, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Feb 87 06:00:22 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 Subject: Re: UFOs and Ball Lightning References: <8702150249.AA14072@angband.s1.gov>, <1615@utastro.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <1615@utastro.UUCP> ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes: >In article <8702150249.AA14072@angband.s1.gov>, KGEISEL%CGIVC%cgi.CSNET@RELAY.CS.NET writes: >> A single brightly glowing and .. >> with unbelievable speed from the line to a nearby trashcan, setting >> off an explosion which destroyed the trashcan and knocked my father >> into a ditch! >Few such reports took place in front of a calm >scientific observer which is why at least one group of researchers >has persistently claimed that ball lightning is a fluorescence >phenomenon involving very low energies. I think the documentation >of such incidents is sufficient that few people believe this explanation. You are probably correct. Fluorescence would provide a "dimming" light with time that alone would be nearly impossible to see in the daylight. It would not require any "higher internal energy" structure, so that wind and rain would disassemble it easily. I have a report from Sweden (Annika Waern -Swedish Institute of Computer Science) that there was a recent study there which seems to have confirmed the probable existence of ball lightning, but I don't yet have a reference and I haven't had time to track it down. A couple of days ago I received a letter concerning my interest in Ball Lightning from Japan of all places. Prof. Y. H. Ohtsuki of Waseda University, Japan, organized the "Japanese Information Center for Ball Lightning Observation" last June. Since then his researchers have obtained 1600 cases, including many colored photographs, drawings, and video tapes. By rough analysis, it is apparent that Japanese Ball Lightning have similar characteristics to those observed on the Continent (probably Europe?). He will be sending me a report shortly, which the researchers are now preparing in English. In Japan, interest in Ball Lightning has increased considerably, so they are planning to organize an "International Symposium on Ball Lightning" in Japan during 1988. If you are interested in the Symposium, and have more than a passing interest in this phenomenon or closely related matters, I would be happy to pass on your address to the Japan BL Information Center. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 87 08:16:40 PST From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov Subject: ball lightning For a good description of what is known about ball lightning and bead lightning, see the book by James Dale Barry, "Ball lightning and bead lightning", New York: Plenum Press, c1980. There seems to be no doubt that the phenomena exist. What is not yet understood is the mechanism that allows the ball to persist for long periods of time. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Mar 87 13:31 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: KGEISEL%CGIVC%cgi.com@relay.cs.net, space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Ball Lightning X-Vms-To: IN%"KGEISEL%CGIVC@cgi.csnet", IN%"space@angband.s1.gov", DIETZ Reading KGEISEL%CGIVC%cgi.csnet's description of his father's incident made me wonder about something: if ball lightning is a ball of hot, ionized air, why did it *fall*? I would think it would be less dense than the ambient air. Would it follow magnetic field gradients? If so, that might explain why it often shows up in certain geographical locations. Those locations would have large local magnetic field inhomogeneities, perhaps caused by magnetic iron ore deposits. This is testable -- did KGEISEL's father happen to live up in northwestern Michigan, south of Lake Superior? There are large taconite deposits there. Taconite contains magnetite. It would be amusing if some electrical utility built a superconducting magnetic energy storage system (basically a ~1 km ring buried several tens of meters down) and then discovered itself plagued by BL during thunderstorms. > The UV emission could easily cause "sunburn" which is also > often a claim of the sighters. If indeed BL contains very energetic electrons, I'd be worried about X-ray exposure. X-rays can cause sunburn-like symptoms too. I hope KGEISEL's father didn't suffer any ill effects. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 87 09:33:01 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: And another remark on Ball Lightning An interesting paper that crossed my desk was "A Model for Ball Lightning and Bead Lightning" (CMA-R11-86) by Karl L. E. Nickel of the Institut fuer Angewandte Mathematik, Universitaat von Freiburg, West Germany. In the paper Prof. Nickel presents the theory that ball lightning is really an energetic plasma contained within a vortex ring or Hill spherical vortex. A classic example of a vortex ring can be observed when a cigar smoker is making smoke rings. A simple experiment to form a vortex ring is to take a glass of water and drop dyed-water into it with an eye dropper. The vortex ring forms a donut shaped core which is a region of high vorticity accumulating the dyed water. The vortex ring is extremely stable. It is quite possible that a highly energetic plasma could be confined within the core of a vortex ring. The electromagnetic forces which would tend to breakup the core could be cancelled out by the hydrodynamic forces of the vortex ring. However, such a configuration would have to travel at high speeds to be stable and would be sensitive to nonaxisymmetric breakup unless the electromagnetic forces somehow stabilized against this. I have never seen scientific evidence to support this idea and for this reason am sceptical about the reality of ball lightning. However I find a ball lightning theory more believable for explaining UFO's than extra-terrestrial spacecraft. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 08:38 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Back to the Future Ethan Vishniac (ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU) wrote: > There are other reports, including a famous one about a Russian > contemporary of Ben Franklin's who died during an encounter with > one. (He had tried to trap a large charge using a lightning rod > and a Leiden jar.) If someone back in the 1700's could make ball lightning accidently, perhaps some interested amateur scientist with a small budget could do the same today. Collecting natural lightning is not difficult, given patience, a lightning rod and a tall tower or building. Making the ball lightning is more of a challenge. Any idea what a lightning driven ball lightning generator would look like? A pair of coaxial helical electrodes? An exploding coil of wire? It can't be too complex, if it happened by accident. Record the results with TV cameras & VCRs (shielded and battery powered). Adventuresome experimenters might want to try different gases (deuterium could be very exciting). Does anyone have a bibliography on ball lightning? ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 87 22:17:37 GMT From: felix!peregrine!ccicpg!leo!larry@hplabs.hp.com ( Larry Johnson) Subject: More Ball Lightning While I was a student at UCSD one of my professors showed several photographs of ball lightning to the class. It was time lapse and as such not detailed. However it appeared to wander down from the sky, brush against the ground several times, and finally explode against a phone pole. During the ground bounces it grew in luminosity due to ionizing dust. My understanding of the stability is that the circular magnetic field causes the ions to circle the magnetic lines. These rotating charged particles then create,(maintain) the magnetic lines. The stability has nothing to do with the speed of the BL. The energies are also too low for xrays. The stored energy (in the mag field) can be released in a hurry however if the circular mag field is cut by a conductor since the stability is ruined and the ions wind up plunging into the conductor as they race down the field lines. This explains burnt paint on cars and scorched people. Anybody else ever seen a photo? A film would be even better. My physics prof refused to publish his photo after the first time because of the adverse mail he recieved. Too bad but I feel privilaged to have seen them. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 1987 01:44-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: New book I've just been reading a new book called "The Tomorrow Makers" by Grant Fjermedal, Macmillan Publishing. It offers and excellent coverage of the personalities and the work of numerous people on the forefront of the creation of intelligent robots that will either be our successors or our symbiont. Interestingly and not terribly surprising (to an L5'er that is) quite a number of the people are L5 members: Marvin Minsky, Hans Moravec, Mike Blackwell, Kevin Dowling, John McCarthy, Eric Drexler, just to name a few. He stumbled on our underground (under computer??) techno-conspiracy!!! The game is afoot... Anyway, I'd recommend it highly. What I find most interesting is a fairly balanced examination of the moral and ethical considerations of this front line technology. The opinions of members of Harvard Divinity School were particularly thought provoking. I would go so far as to say that it changed my whole perception of theologians. They really do have something to say that is worth listening to. It's a fun read; it's about people like us. I'm sure many of you will see parts of yourself in the bits of personal trivia on the highlighted individuals. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 1987 13:43-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Thanks for the help For those who helped with the request for assistance in the shuttle funding push last year, thanks. Here is a letter rcvd by Gary Oleson from Senator Ted Stevens: UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS WASHINGTON, DC 20510 February 6, 1987 Mr. Gary Oleson Senior Vice President L5 Society Dear Gary: Thanks for your support for my initiative to provide a replacement orbiter for the Challenger space shuttle. The timely support that the members of the L5 Society lent to this effort helped in focusing Congressional and public attention on this proposal. As you know, we succeeded in securing an appropriation of over $2.4 billion for the new shuttle, which raised NASA's funding level to over 10.4 billion. Hopefully, this will help set the space program back on track. You should be proud of the role you played in this outcome. Again, thanks for your assistance during the closing days of th 99th Congress. With best wishes, Cordially, Ted Stevens (handwritten at bottom) Your help was VERY important Thanks, Ted ============================================================================== And I will say the same to all of you out there: YOUR help was very important. Thanks, Dale ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 1987 01:09-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #159 Errata: The date on the banquet for Forward is of course 3/28/87, not 3/38/87.... ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 87 17:07:10 GMT From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Subject: Re: heat of spacecraft References: <8702102105.AA27868@ji.Berkeley.EDU>, <269@ka9q.bellcore.com>, <2970@ihlpa.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <2970@ihlpa.UUCP>, animal@ihlpa.UUCP (D. Starr) writes: > ... you can dump only a small amount of your orbital momentum > before you've gotten into a path that intersects the earth's surface. At > this point you still have a lot of velocity to dispose of. As a result, > re-entry paths are limited to about half a revolution or less. Not necessarily so if the spacecraft develops lift. The Dyna-Soar was supposed to dip in and out of the upper atmosphere, taking more than one revolution to come down. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 87 04:37:55 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Ctr., Cambridge, MA Subject: Re: heat of spacecraft References: <8702102105.AA27868@ji.Berkeley.EDU>, <269@ka9q.bellcore.com>, <2970@ihlpa.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov That doesn't have to be the case, if your reentry vehicle can generate aerodynamic lift. Just design the vehicle and your reentry path so that it loses velocity only fast enough to provide the lift (after allowing for the inevitable inefficiencies). -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 87 04:24:31 GMT From: princeton!puvax2!0164384%PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU@rutgers.rutgers.edu (David King) Organization: Princeton University - Computing and Information Technology Subject: Light sails, etc. Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > I don't think you can tack a light sail, but if it's on an angle like > a mirror [elaborate picture and description].... How are you going to *hold it* in that funny angled position? Oh, I guess you could play some tricks with thrusters and gyros, but I think I've got a better way (which is NOT completely original with me). Build two light sails and attach them. One is a conventional reflector; the other is made of wire mesh with a charge applied. The first sail is pushed by radiation pressure; the second by the solar wind. By varying the angle between them and the charge on the mesh (mesh so it will let most of the light through), you should have great flexibility without needing reaction mass or massive gyros. How much serious work has been done on purely electrostatic, or perhaps electromagnetic, engines? There is an ion drive research project here at Princeton, but the thrust of the continuous drive is something like a micronewton (if anybody wants an exact figure, send mail and I'll go ask) while the pulsed drive produces 20 newton pulses with a really horrendous duty cycle. Why on Earth can't somebody built a source of electricity with a decent power-to-weight ratio??? I see no theoretical reason why an ion drive couldn't develop as much thrust/mass as, say, a Saturn V. In particular, how long will it take before we have *small* fusion reactors, small and efficient enough to put themselves in LEO with their own energy? -Keith Mancus <6106728@PUCC> ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #172 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19062; Tue, 24 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST id AA19062; Tue, 24 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST Date: Tue, 24 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703241103.AA19062@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #173 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 173 Today's Topics: Inertial Fusion Rockets (IFR) are the key to space industrialization Re: Solar Garbage Re: Inertial Fusion Rockets (IFR) are the key to space industrialization Space propulsion systems. How Close Has Fusion Come to Breakeven? Re: Al203 condensation Re: Al203 condensation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 87 11:48:18 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Inertial Fusion Rockets (IFR) are the key to space industrialization In the "Weekly Bulletin" of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 11 Feb. 1987, Vol. 12, No.6 there appeared an absolutely fascinating article entitled: "Fusion Rocket Studied: Star-Drive Might Put Man on Mars". Livermore Lab physicist Charles Orth organized a seminar composed of scientists from NASA, JPL, MIT, and Rocketdyne to discuss "Interplanetary Propulsion Using Inertial Confinement Fusion". I quote the important core of the article: "A radical new engine based on the energy of stars would propel the Intertial Fusion Rocket (IFR). The engine uses lasers and a large super conducting magnet. In the vacuum of space, an invisible magnetic bottle acts as a thrust nozzle. Pellets of fuel are injected into the magnetic bottle one by one, at the rate of about five a second. Laser-pulses implode each pellet, causing hydrogen nuclei to fuse.... The magnetic nozzle shapes the expanding plasma debris from the tiny fusion explosions into a ... jet. LLNL's Rod Hyde conceptualized this design, and published it in 1983. Orth and his team are expanding the concept with detailed systems studies.... Orth detailed the required features (of the laser), such as reliability for 1.0E8 pulses, light-weight, high operating efficiency and temperature, and ability to fire perhaps as many as 30 times a second with a 2-10 megajoule output.... At present, only some advance form of excimer laser seems viable for an IFR application.... Three fuels were closely considered: a deuterium-tritium mixture, deuterium-deuterium, and deuterium-helium-3... Even though the deuterium-helium3 mixture looks the best at first glance, its energy output is worse than DT's by a factor of six. In addition, the unavailability of He3 is a major drawback. With dry humor Orth said, "You're going to have to mine the atmosphere of Jupiter or the surface of the moon to get it". Orth said...DT is the fuel of choice in the near-term, despite the fact that tritium is radioactive. The nuclear fusion reactions whose debris would directly propel the IFR also emit neutrons and X-rays. The magnetic force of the thrust chamber would not steer this energy. Any neutrons or X-rays striking the spaceship would heat it-necessitating a system of weighty radiators to dispose of the heat. So Orth and his team have devised a novel conical design. They placed the reaction zone in the cone's tip (the back of the ship). They placed a shield right next to the reaction area, which protects the magnet coil which is supercooled to zero electrical resistance. They designed the rest of the ship to be in the protective shadow of this shield. (The cone is hollow) The neutrons ... don't strike anything except the shield. Orth said a major problem facing any space vehicle is getting rid of waste-heat. Radiatiors are bulky and heavy... Since most of the surface area of the craft must be waste-heat radiators, the IFR designers went a step further. They are making the spacecraft itself the radiator. Orth also said that coil shield could incorporate a waste-energy recovery system. Electricity to run the laser could be made there using Rankine thermal hardware. Or, an additional wire coil could produce electricity by magnetic induction when the expanding exhaust plasma causes magnetic field lines to cross the coil." --- Vehicle Specifications --- Mars mission duration: 110 days Payload: 100 tons Maximum velocity: 190 miles/sec Specific Impulse: 30,000 sec. Pellet drive energy: 5 megajoules Pellet gain: 1,500 ======================================================================== Commentary This is **it** guys. This Inertial Fusion Rocket is the idea that will open up the entire solar system to exploration and commercial development. The major barrier is getting the lasers small, reliable, and efficient. However this is **exactly** what they're trying to do with SDI. Through SDI research, the military will **accidently** provide the key technology that will make the IFR viable. People have been thrashing around trying to come up with a space objective like the Apollo program. Here is one: Send an American to Mars by use of an IFR type vehicle by the year 2000. Talk about spin offs: The vehicle once made could be used for ***many*** missions (and not just to Mars). IFR technology would be directly applicable to terrestrial energy programs. You could even sell the military on the IFR since much of its technology has direct military application. This is exactly the sort of project that could excite the American people into backing a major Apollo type program and get us **permanently** into space. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 87 23:32:26 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Subject: Re: Solar Garbage References: <163400004@uiucdcsb>,, <451@lewey.AIT.COM> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > ... Unfortunately, atmospheric drag is much greater than solar > radiation thrust for thousands of miles away from the earth, so the > use of sails below Clarke orbit is silly... Unless you're using perforated sails. Holes that are small compared to the wavelengths of visible light will not affect the optical properties of the sail, but they'll let gas molecules go straight through. (This wouldn't work in a thick atmosphere, where a boundary layer of gas "sticks" to the surface and fills in the holes. Out in space, where every gas molecule is on its own, no problem.) A sail that's 75% holes will have only 25% of the atmospheric drag (and incidentally only 25% of the mass), but 100% of the thrust, of a solid sail. Of course, it's harder to make... -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 87 06:47:30 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Ctr., Cambridge, MA Subject: Re: Inertial Fusion Rockets (IFR) are the key to space industrialization References: <8702261258.AA06415@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702261258.AA06415@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: [Quotes excerpts from a rather showy article describing an Inertial Fusion Drive] > ======================================================================== > Commentary > > This is **it** guys. This Inertial Fusion Rocket is the idea that will > open up the entire solar system to exploration and commercial > development. The major barrier is getting the lasers small, reliable, > and efficient. The problem is trying to get ANY kind of fusion reactor to work. > However this is **exactly** what they're trying to do > with SDI. Through SDI research, the military will **accidently** > provide the key technology that will make the IFR viable. . . > . . .You could even sell the military on the IFR since much of > its technology has direct military application. This is exactly > the sort of project that could excite the American people into backing > a major Apollo type program and get us **permanently** into space. One major problem: if the military either develops it or gets its hands on it, we will never get the benefit of it, because they will keep it classified in the name of keeping the Soviet Union from getting it; they will also wish to expand themselves into space without competition from civilians who would want to do unrestricted research and who might advance political causes unfavorable to the military-industrial complex or even blow the whistle on abuses. > Gary Allen -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 87 13:15:36 PST From: "William J. Fulco" Subject: Space propulsion systems. While we're on the subject of interstellar travel, I thought I would dig out my "Forcast of Space Technology: 1980-2000" from NASA (via Govt printing office) and would spew some info about propulsion systems at the net. While the document does not give fun numbers like Isp, it gives some amusing ones, like: Cost-to-develop-system (couldn't be off by more than 1E2 :-} ) Most of the numbers relate to year 2000 technology (as seen from 1976). Enough chat, just the facts 'mam: Thrust Weight Conversion cost to Velocity Power Efficiency Develop Types of propulsion (M/Sec) (Kg/Watt) (pct.) $1.0 E6 --------------------------- ------- ------- ------ --------- e Bombardment Electrostatic --------------------------- Primary Hg Propellant 2.9 E4 3.5 E-3 70% 10 Primary light gas Propellant 2.1 E5 1.5 E-3 70% 10 Auxalliry Hg or Cs Propellant 2.9 E4 1.3 E-2 70% 10 Coiloid Electrostatic Thruster ------------------------------ Glycerol Propellant 1.9 E4 2.5 E-3 60% 2 Cesium Propellant 1.0 E5 9.0 E-2 65% 4 Electromagnetic Accelerator --------------------------- QuasiSteady (10 kW) 1.0 E4 1.0 E-3 40% 35 Steady (1 mW) 1.0 E4 1.5 E-4 50% 35 Beamed Energy Driven Thermal 1.0 E4 1.5 E-4 20% 1500 ---------------------------- Solar Sails 3.0 E8 7.0 E-5 (1+r/2) cos^2 b 21 ----------- [can't get much faster^^^^] r = reflectance Solar Electric Propulsion ------------------------- Hg Propellant 4.0 E4 2.0 E-4 70% 55 Liquid Propellant Rocket ------------------------ Pump Fed 5.5 E3 6.0 E-6 95% 90 Pressure fed primary 3.6 E3 3.0 E-6 95% 7 Pressure fed auxilary 3.0 E3 5.0 E-6 85% 00 Solid Propellant Rocket ----------------------- Propellent Mass=1E2 Kg 2.9 E3 1 Propellent Mass=1E4 Kg 2.9 E3 10 Propellent Mass=1E4 Kg 2.9 E3 150 Detonation Propulsion 7.0 E3 1.0 E-5 50% 10 --------------------- Metastable Chemical (H-H2) -------------------------- Magnetic Stabalized 1E3 Mass 9.0 E3 70 Magnetic Stabalized 1E5 Mass 1.7 E4 150 Solid Matrix Stabalized 1E3 Mass 5.0 E3 70 Solid Matrix Stabalized 1E5 Mass 5.0 E3 150 Solid Core Nuclear Rocket Engines only ------------------------- from here on F= 7 E4 N 9.0 E3 7.0 E-6 < @ 100% 400 F= 3 E5 N 9.0 E3 6.5 E-6 < @ 100% 700 F= 1 E6 N 9.0 E3 7.0 E-6 < @ 100% 1200 Dust Bed Nuclear Rocket ----------------------- F= 2 E4 N 1.1 E4 7.0 E-5 < @ 100% 600 F= 4.5 E4 N 1.1 E4 3.0 E-5 < @ 100% 850 Nuclear Light Bulb Rocket ------------------------- F= 5 E5 N 2.0 E4 6.0 E-6 < @ 100% 900 F= 1 E6 N 3.0 E4 4.0 E-6 < @ 100% 1250 Nuclear Gas Core Rocket ----------------------- F= 2.5 E5 N 4.0 E4 1.0 E-5 < @ 100% 600 F= 4.5 E5 N 6.0 E4 7.0 E-6 < @ 100% 850 Nuclear Electric Propulsion --------------------------- Thermonic (120/240 kW) 4.0 E4 3.0 E-2 65% 900 Thermonic (1 MW) 6.0 E4 2.0 E-2 70% 2100 MHD (1 MW) 4.0 E4 2.0 E-2 65% 1500 MHD (10 MW) 6.0 E4 1.0 E-2 70% 1500 Fusion Rocket Engine -------------------- Jet Power (200-1000 MW) 1.0 E6 1.0 E-3 25% 7000 Fusion Microexplosions 1.0 E5 1.0 E-4 15% 1800 ---------------------- Anti-matter ---------- I don't know if the GPO still has the document, or if there is an updated version of the report (I got mine in 1978), but it is a great little book that talks about all aspects of the space program, from life support to information processing to propulsion. The number on mine is NASA-SP-387. Have fun pushing some of these numbers through your equations. (bill) William J. Fulco lcc.bill@locus.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Mar 87 15:29 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: How Close Has Fusion Come to Breakeven? X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.s1.gov" Someone asked "how close is fusion to achieving breakeven". Well, it depends on what you mean by breakeven. The cheating definition is "scientific breakeven", where one compares the energy produced by the fusion reactions to the energy injected into the plasma (ignoring energy needed to run the magnets, conversion losses in turning heat to electricity, etc.). According to this measure, if TFTR at Princeton had been run with DT fuel (it uses pure deuterium in tests to hold down radiation levels) it would have achieved a Q of .2 -- fusion output would be 1/5 of the energy input. Suprisingly, this is not the best. That honor goes to a dark horse -- muon catalyzed fusion. Recent measurements in hot compressed DT gas show that one negative muon catalyzes about 150 to 170 fusions before it decays. Each negative muon costs about 5 GeV to produce; at about 20 MeV per fusion (counting heat generated in the lithium blanket) this gives a Q of between .6 and .7. It will be necessary to reach ~1200 fusions/muon to make a pure fusion reactor economical, but even at current fusion/muon ratios a thorium-blanketed fusion/fission/spallation U233 factory is feasible (if not yet economical, given the glutted market for fission fuel). They would be no reason in space to prefer a MCF reactor to a fission reactor. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 87 17:48:35 GMT From: amdcad!amd!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Howard A. Landman) Subject: Re: Al203 condensation In article <8702111517.AA04498@angband.s1.gov> ST401385@BROWNVM.BITNET writes: > . . . If Al2O3 condenses into a solid at 2100C, >then the adiabatic expansion (neglecting supercooling) STOPS at >2100C (call it 2400 K). At this point, how much of the thermal >(undirected) energy of the gas has been converted into (directed) >kinetic energy? Since E(thermal)=(n/2)kT (where n is the number >of degrees of freedom, depends on the gas), the formula for >specific impulse including condensation is > Isp=sqr[2E*(T(reaction)-T(condensation))/m]/g >or, for the specific case here > Isp (Al/O2) =sqr[2E*(T(r)-2400)/m]/g I'm curious. It seems to me that this argument only considers pure H2/O2 and Al/O2 systems. But suppose you mix them? If you use, say, 90% H2 and 10% Al, doesn't most of the heat from the Al2O3 get transferred to the H2O, even when the temp falls below 2400K? So wouldn't the specific impulse of such a mixture be greater than that of pure H2/O2? If so, what is formula describing specific impulse as a function of %Al, and where is its maximum? Is there a patent waiting for us here? Howard A. Landman ...!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 87 23:27:24 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: Al203 condensation In article <482@cpocd2.UUCP> howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes: >> ...[discussion of specific impulse of aluminum-oxygen rocket]... >> Isp (Al/O2) =sqr[2E*(T(r)-2400)/m]/g >I'm curious. It seems to me that this argument only considers pure >H2/O2 and Al/O2 systems. But suppose you mix them? If you use, say, >90% H2 and 10% Al, doesn't most of the heat from the Al2O3 get >transferred to the H2O, even when the temp falls below 2400K? So >wouldn't the specific impulse of such a mixture be greater than that of >pure H2/O2? If so, what is formula describing specific impulse as a >function of %Al, and where is its maximum? Is there a patent waiting >for us here? > Howard A. Landman > ...!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard Unfortunately, probably not. I have seen (but do not, unfortunately, have a reference for) a paper in the AIAA Journal which gives the specific impulse for a wide variety of "trinary" propellants: H2-O2-X (where X is things like Al, B, Be), H2-Fluorine-X, and several others, so these possibilities have been studied. Plotting Isp vs. % of X usually gives a roughly parabolic curve, with a peak at some moderate amount of X, as suggested. Unfortunately, the practical difficulties of building tripropellant engines (Do you really want to build a pump -- or an injector -- that handles a suspension of aluminum dust in liquid hydrogen??) generally make the modest increase in Isp uneconomical. Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.s1.gov jtk@mordor.uucp ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #173 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21279; Wed, 25 Mar 87 03:03:09 PST id AA21279; Wed, 25 Mar 87 03:03:09 PST Date: Wed, 25 Mar 87 03:03:09 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703251103.AA21279@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #174 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 25 Mar 87 03:03:09 PST From: Ted Anderson Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #174 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 174 Today's Topics: Summary Earth Mass and N-body motion Dumping on Venus and Orbital Transfers Re: Cometary volatiles Re: Dumping on Venus and Orbital Transfers Re: Dumping on Venus and Orbital Transfers Texts on Orbital Mechanics ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Feb 87 15:24:43 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Organization: AT&T Consumer Products, Indianapolis Subject: Summary Earth Mass and N-body motion Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov >In Vol. 7, No. 130 of Space Digest, Fred Mendenhall asked for help in >debugging an N-Body code. Fred, I am sorry to say that there is no >easy fix for your problem. You assumned **falsely** that third body >perturbations are dominant in low earth orbit. In actuality the >oblateness terms, J2-J4 and atmospheric drag dominate until you have a >gecentric radius of 1.1E8 feet. If you are only interested in the >N-Body problem, then let me suggest that you investigate the orbit of >the asteroid Toro. The orbital elements for Toro are tabulated in the >"Astronomical Almanac 1986" on page G12. However if you insist on >investigating low earth orbit trajectories, then I suggest that you >read "Astrodynamics" by Samuel Herrick. Use the MSIS 1977 atmospheric >model by A.E. Hedin. I've written such a code myself and it is over >several thousand lines long. Good luck. > Gary First of all, I want to thank Gary, and the many others that have responded to my posting. I've summarized their responses and that summary follows my remarks. However, in the case of the simulation, classical orbital periods are determined using Kepler's laws and these laws do not consider atmospheric drag nor irregulairties in the Earth's shape. The simulation only knows about gravity and and treats the bodies as points, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the error term to approach zero. My only interest in Low Earth Orbits is to test out the simulation, after all if I can't solve the problem with just two bodies, its tough to have confidence with three or more. With the help I've received from the net I've reduced the error for one orbit to a few seconds. Now I expect the program to be good enough to demonstrate 1. Gravity Whipping 2. Gravity Breaking 3. Apollo type Free return Orbits 4. Potential Colony orbits 5. Clarke Orbits 6. Possibly inter-planetary missions 7. Military tactics - like lunar loops to retograde Clarke I'm sure I'll think of others. Fred ********************************************************* BEGIN SUMMARY ******************************************************* From: ihnp4!thumper!mike If you're using regular old "Feynman integration" you need to be very careful. Try looking in Feynman lectures, book I (I think) for a discussion of this technique. The numbers I have are: M sub e: 5.9734e27 grams G: 6.673e-8 dyne cm^2/g^2 Mike Caplinger mike@bellcore.com {decvax,ihnp4}!thumper!mike From: ihnp4!tektronix!reed!clyde (Clyde Bryja) According to the system of astronomical constants adopted by the IAU in 1976, the product of the earth's mass and the gravitational constant is fixed at 3.986005*10^14 m^3/sec^2. For gravitational simulations involving the earth, this product is all you need (unless you wish to consider secondary effects due to the non- spherical shape of the earth (which is very significant for satellite computations). -- +++++++++++ Clyde Bryja "For Easter Day is Christmas time, Box 21, Reed College And far away is near, Portland, OR 97202 And two and two is more than four, And over there is here." tektronix!reed!clyde From: inuxc!pur-ee!pur-phy!newton!clt (Carrick Talmadge) Since what actually enters in these equations is the product of G*M, where G is the universal gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the Earth, I would suggest using the measured value of G*M. For this you have your choice: >From Earth-Moon laser ranging: G*M = 3.98600444(10) times 10^14 m^3/sec^2 >From measurements of the trajectory of the LAGEOS satellite: G*M = 3.986004342(20) times 10^14 m^3/sec^2 The number in parentheses represents the error in the least significant digits, i.e., 1.002(10) -> 1.002 +- 0.010. Hope this helps! Carrick Talmadge clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu ******************************************************** I had the same problem you seem to have had. Here are the values that I used. I took G to be exact (from Particle Physics Data Book) and played around with Me until I could predict orbits to within a few centimeters (with certain assumptions). For the Earth-Moon system, remember to used the "reduced" mass to do the calculations in the certer of mass. (The Earth wiggles quite a bit thanks to our dear friend the Moon.) Earth Mass = 5.97420205e24 kilograms Gravitational Constant = 6.672041d-11 N m^2 / kg^2 Good Luck! Rich Webb Organization: Elec. Eng. Dept., U of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 Cc: Something that you might want to look into is this: near Earth, ie to within at least the Moons orbit, the gravational field of the Earth cannot be treated as a constant. Since Earth is not isotropic, the field isn't isotropic either. What is done is to write the field as an expansion in Legendre Polynomials ( Similar to Fourier expansion ). The Coefficients for each term need to be determined by measurement Currently, there is a 36*36 matrix of coefficients that is used and standardized for geo-physicists. I dont have any references here, but I'll try to dig some up, that is, assuming that you are interested in near-earth orbits. Sent me mail if you are interested -- ====================================================================== David Bengtson/Laboratory for Plasma Fusion/University of Maryland College Park Md 20742 {your keyboard} !seismo!mimsy!eneevax!daveb ====================================================================== From: James Alexander Organization: Elec. Eng. Dept., U of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 Cc: Status: R If you are using 1968 values, you are surely off somewhat. The value of the universal gravitational constant G is not too well known. However the product GM (M=earth mass) is very well known and this is what is needed for orbit computations. The best value I know is due to the efforts of some people I work with in the Geodynamics Section of Goddard Space Flight Center. It is 3 986 004.40E8 plus or minus .05E8 meter cubed/sec squared. See eg. Lerch et al. Marine Geodesy 5 (1981) 145-187, also Geophys. Res. Lett. 9 (1982) 1263-1266. -- alex@eneevax.umd.edu {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!eneevax!alex ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 87 08:51 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL To: Space@angband.s1.gov Date: 19-FEB-1987 08:33 Subject: Dumping on Venus and Orbital Transfers Relative to the dump-on-venus discussion, it seems to me there is a misuse of the Hohmann Elipse Transfer data. These figures represent the change in energy to go from one stable orbit to another. But if you are dumping refuse, orbital stability hardly seems important. A simple example will demonstrate why the Hohmann figures are irrelevant to dumping-in-the-sun : Take your garbage and aim it somewhere near the moon when the moon is directly up-orbit of earth. Calculate your trajectory so that as your garbage passes through the moon's gravitational field it turns 90 degrees or so. This passage will convert the orbital velocity of your garbage into radial velocity. Your garbage will then rush into the sun. What you have done has not changed the energy of the garbage. Instead, you have changed a relatively circular orbit into a VERY elliptical one, that intersects the surface of the sun. If the garbage didn't intersect the sun, it would loop back around, continue out past the orbit of earth some distance, and so on in a cometary orbit. This doesn't defy any conservation laws. The energy of the garbage is the sum of its potential and kinetic energies. When the garbage gets near the sun, it no longer has the potential energy it had in Earth orbit, but it has a corespondingly greater kinetic energy. If the garbage loops back and goes beyond the earth's orbit, it will have greater potential energy than it started with, but much less kinetic energy ( so it won't stay out there ). This is well known stuff. The point is, garbage won't be sent to orbit the sun, but to SMACK into it. You can do this with Venus too. In fact, I think you can go all the way to Saturn using this approach, but when you got there, your velocity relative to Saturn would be tremendous ( in fact, equal to the Holmann delta-vee figure ) so you won't be soft-land there. You CAN crash however. You can also go into orbit around the planet by falling deep enough into ITS potential energy well to pick up the neccesary orbital velocity ( I think ) but you better have enough big moons around to re-direct your velocity. Of course, orbital mechanics is NOT my profession : I could be wrong about these "free" orbit transfers. Any comments and corrections are appreciated Dennis O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 87 19:07:09 GMT From: dayton!umn-cs!hyper!jmh@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Joel Halpern) Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls. MN Subject: Re: Cometary volatiles References: <1818@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Has anybody in this group read "Heart of the Comet" by Brin and Benford. I am asking because of a mechanics question therein. At one point in the novel, two characters attempt to use rotation to transfer velocity from one to the other. While in general this is possible, it seemed to me and some other people that the particular case they were in made the machanics a losing proposition instead of a winning one. I would appreciate a comment from someone who knows some mechanics and has read the novel, thank you. Joel M. Halpern - Network Systems Corporation umn-cs!hyper!jmh ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 87 04:30:55 GMT From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ed Post) Organization: American Information Technology, Cupertino, CA Subject: Re: Dumping on Venus and Orbital Transfers References: <8702191301.AA05108@angband.s1.gov> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov in article <8702191301.AA05108@angband.s1.gov%, OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) says: % % Relative to the dump-on-venus discussion, it seems to % me there is a misuse of the Hohmann Elipse Transfer data.... % % Take your garbage and aim it somewhere near the moon % when the moon is directly up-orbit of earth. Calculate % your trajectory so that as your garbage passes through % the moon's gravitational field it turns 90 degrees or % so...... % % Of course, orbital mechanics is NOT my profession : I % could be wrong about these "free" orbit transfers..... I'm not an "orbital mechanic" either, but I think you have a problem getting a 90 degree turn out of the moon. Your exit velocity relative to the moon needs to be at least enough to cancel out the earth's orbital velocity if you intend to hit the sun -- this is about 18.5 miles/sec. Assuming you apply no energy to the garbage during your 90 degree corner, the incoming velocity must also be 18.5 miles/sec relative to the moon. The moon's escape velocity is only 1.5 miles/sec. At this point my meager knowledge deserts me, but it seems that the change in direction of the velocity vector of the garbage can not be very large. And you can't use the velocity of the moon very effectively either -- it cruises along at 0.6 mile/sec relative to the earth, so even hitting it when it's going against the earth's orbital velocity doesn't buy you much additional braking. -- Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp American Information Technology (408)252-8713 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 87 04:13:53 GMT From: imagen!auspyr!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: Dumping on Venus and Orbital Transfers Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <8702191301.AA05108@angband.s1.gov>, OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes: > > Take your garbage and aim it somewhere near the moon > when the moon is directly up-orbit of earth. Calculate > your trajectory so that as your garbage passes through > the moon's gravitational field it turns 90 degrees or > so. This passage will convert the orbital velocity of > your garbage into radial velocity. Your garbage will then > rush into the sun. Well... If you think about it, the maximum velocity change you can get by diving at a planet is twice its escape velocity (i used a rather simplistic argument to get at this, but i think it's correct) (just before you round the planet, you have its escape velocity going one way, just after you finish, you have its escape velocity going the other way (well, not quite the other way, but close)). What you are trying to do from all this is to redirect your velocity so that you have zero angular velocity relative to the sun (close enough to zero, anyway, that the ellipse you are on will intersect the sun's surface). Jupiter appears to be the nearest planet whose escape velocity is more than half its orbital velocity. It might be possible to get a boost from Mars to swing you out to Jupiter (umm, Hohmann from Earth to Mars has an orbital velocity of 21.5 km/sec at Mars, Hohmann from Mars to Jupiter has an orbital velocity of 30.0 km/sec at Mars, Mars has an escape velocity of 5.02 km/sec. Just barely possible), but Earth, Mars, and Jupiter all have to be at exactly the right spots. Earth to Mars requires a delta v of 11.56 km/sec, Earth to Jupiter requires a delta v of 14.22 km/sec, Earth to Sun requires a delta v of 35 or so (not listed in my tables). The moon has an escape velocity of 2.37 km/sec--not really enough to be useful for much of anything. david rickel cae780!weitek!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 87 05:40:11 GMT From: u5@eddie.mit.edu (John DeRoo) Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA Subject: Texts on Orbital Mechanics Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov I have been reading a lot about orbits and such in this news group, but I know very little about Orbital Mechanics. Can someone recommend a text? I have taken "basic" college physics, Calculus, DifEQ, etc., so I don't think I have to worry too much about the math. If people send their suggestions directly to me, I will post a summery (so as not to clog up th news group). Thank You, John DeRoo (I'm not sure of the path to eddie, but I think it is fed by Harvard) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #174 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23014; Thu, 26 Mar 87 03:03:10 PST id AA23014; Thu, 26 Mar 87 03:03:10 PST Date: Thu, 26 Mar 87 03:03:10 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703261103.AA23014@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #175 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 26 Mar 87 03:03:10 PST From: Ted Anderson Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #175 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 175 Today's Topics: I-CON VI Convention condensed space news from Dec 22 AW&ST condensed space news from Jan 5 AW&ST condensed space news from Jan 12 AW&ST Re: Texts on Orbital Mechanics Solar Garbage ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Mar 87 13:17:07 GMT From: unirot!bicker@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Brian Kohn) Subject: I-CON VI Convention I - C O N V I The New York Area's Largest Convention of Science Fact, Fiction and Fantasy THIS WEEKEND: March 27, 28, 29 Jacob K. Javits Lecture Center on the scenic SUNY-Stony Brook Campus Stony Brook, Long Island, New York Guest of Honor: Dr. David Brin Special Guests: Colin Baker - Doctor Who # 6 Mark Lenard - Star Trek's Sarek David Gerrold - Story Editor for STAR TREK-The New Generation Films: ALIEN ALIENS Star Trek - The Motion Picture Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan Star Trek - The Search for Spock Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eigth Dimension Wizards The Dark Crystal Creeping Terror Between Time and Timbuktu Invaders From Mars The Man Who Fell To Earth Phantom From the Paradise Doctor Who, Star Trek and Japanimation Videos Large Dealers' Room with SF Memorabilia and Comics (Open Saturday and Sunday) FRP Gaming -- Special Events -- Autograph Sessions Seminars -- Panels -- Art Show -- Auction The Stony Brook Campus is conveniently located at the Stony Brook L.I.R.R. Station or several miles north on Nicholls Road, Exit 62 North of the Long Island Expressway. Tickets are $16 at the door-includes all 3 days. I-CON Information: (516) 632-6472 The Resource. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 87 22:54:21 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: condensed space news from Dec 22 AW&ST [This is the last of 1986; there was no Dec 29 issue.] FCC licenses another competitor for Intelsat, Columbia Communications Corp., for service between North America and Canada. In-depth report compiled for NASA on last three Soviet space stations, based on sources including translated Soviet journals. Navy Secretary Lehman cancels Navy Remote Ocean Sensing Satellite program due to excessive costs. NROSS users, predictably, howl about loss of US leadership in space. International Space Station partners ticked off about DoD getting its fingers into the Space Station. Negotiations will be delayed. DoD wants to keep its foot in the door, given reduction in Shuttle flight opportunities, and wants to make sure it is not kept out by management agreements between the partners. NASA is worried about the secrecy constraints that might result from DoD use of the Station, Japan is upset because it wants no part of station military activities, Europe is concerned about possible restrictions on access to Station facilities. ESA seriously, repeat seriously, unhappy about continued delays in Space Station cooperation agreements. USAF releases draft agreement on launch of commercial spacecraft from USAF facilities. NASA is already negotiating agreements for its support of commercial Titan, Atlas-Centaur, Delta, and Conestoga launches. USAF will speed up MLV program, and has decided not to use Ariane for Navstar (Ariane is feasible, but MLV plus shuttle is thought sufficient). NASA mixed-fleet assessment urges Fletcher to get going on buying expendables for civilian missions. Shortage of shuttle capacity makes this imperative. Space science officials concur, say some transfers from shuttle to expendables could be justified on cost -- their numbers are shuttle $40-80M/flight, Delta $60-70M, Atlas-Centaur $80M, Titan 34D $100M+, Titan 4 $250M. Space Station management is mildly interested and will get much more interested if the 16/year Shuttle mission rate estimate turns out wrong, as NRC suggested. KSC photo analysts reviewing 51L videotapes looking for possible booster debris falling early. See 15 Dec AW&ST. USAF is keeping ASAT alive and pushing live tests in FY88 despite Congress's ban on live tests in FY87. Still uncertain is the fate of a target satellite launched in Dec 1985, whose lifetime has been extended until fall (i.e. start of FY88) but can't be pushed much longer. Intelsat approves controversial comsat to link Peru and US, outside Intelsat network. Traffic diversion thought to be small. American Rocket Co. begins full-scale tests of a prototype hybrid rocket engine for its Industrial Launch Vehicle (suborbital late 87, orbital 88?). Antenna system on TDRS failed Nov 28, further reducing capacity. Eosat expects to complete its shutdown of work on future Landsats by Jan 9 unless FY87 subsidy funding is released by then. Amusing item in letter column: "There is a solution to the US civil space program crisis during a period of budget constraints. Instead of laying off engineers and technicians to reduce program costs, layoff notices should be given to others, such as personnel managers, accountants, economists, and lawyers... "In normal Canadian fashion, we will institute the same approach in Canada about two years after..." (signed Doug Caswell, Spacecraft Manager, Government of Canada) "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 87 01:43:43 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: condensed space news from Jan 5 AW&ST [Call for comments: I am seriously considering retaining the condensed format even after I get caught up. Several people have commented that they prefer it. More important, one reason why I got behind in the first place was that the full format takes time I sometimes don't have. So I find the condensed format attractive. I'd like to hear readers' comments on this. Now obviously, if you like reading these summaries, condensed is almost certainly better than nothing. Telling me "well, if you haven't time for the full format, I can live with the condensed format" doesn't help -- I'm fairly sure of that already. So I'd like to hear your preference for format, *ignoring* the issue of which is easier for me. Which do you want to read? Does it make a big difference? This isn't a vote -- since I do the work, I make the final decision. I don't promise to follow the popular sentiment. But I'd like to know how people feel. -- HS] NASA Ames officials tell congressmen that giving the Space Station life sciences facility to ESA is a mistake, possibly giving Europe leadership in biotechnology. Shuttle program starts assessment of five proposed Block 2 SRB designs. Some claim it would take 4-5 years, minimum, to put them into operation. [Micro-editorial: Wanna bet that Von Braun, if he were still alive and in charge at Marshall, could have a *liquid-fuelled* booster operational in that length of time? -- HS] Proposal to rescue stalled Landsat program at Eosat, but congressional action uncertain. Commercial viability of Landsat questioned. DoD supplemental budget request includes $110M for R&D on heavy launcher (100-150k lbs) for SDI. Jarvis and United Technologies shuttle derivative are major candidates. Operational mid-90s? Flurry of stories about the Voyager round-the-world flight includes one on use of satellite communications. One problem was that communication could occur only when Rutan was piloting -- the antenna had to be hand-pointed and Rutan was too big to unfold it in the rest area. Fairchild wins JPL contract for Topex/Poseidon ocean topography satellite, to launch on Ariane in 1991. Space Station hardware-development RFPs delayed to allow congressional briefings first. Tentative NASA approval for shuttle crew-escape system using tractor rockets to pull astronauts out of side hatch during gliding flight. It might be ready for the next flight. Justice Dept. settles legal claims with four Challenger families over the accident. Terms confidential, but quite a bit of money is changing hands, some of it provided by Morton Thiokol. Air Force Space Div. issues RFP for large new upper stage for shuttle and Titan 4, to replace the cancelled shuttle/Centaur. Intended to be ready for use in 1992. Letter column entirely composed of flak for Carl Sagan's guest editorial (see Dec 8 summary). Much unhappiness about Sagan's "if we weren't spending all this silly money on defence, we could afford Mars" attitude. The one other comment of major interest was a claim that NASA could not handle a Mars project any more -- first it would need a capable leader and a purge of the chair-warmers. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 87 02:44:54 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: condensed space news from Jan 12 AW&ST Japan sets launch of Astro-C X-ray satellite for Feb 5. China selects two student experiments to fly on US shuttle mission. Boland and Garn urge NASA to transfer Ulysses to a Titan 4 launch in 1991, bumping it from an earlier shuttle slot to reserve all three 1989-90 planetary launch opportunities for US missions. NASA is thinking about it, but ESA is expected to be angry about the further delay. Eosat halts construction of Landsat 6 and 7. Construction restart will cost $1M. After a two-month delay, $10M. Circa 400 staff laid off or transferred to other projects. FY88 budget fully supports USAF launcher development, plus boosting ASAT funding. NASA FY88 budget request is $9.48G, a $1G increase after allowing for the FY87 one-time new-orbiter funding. Space Station funding lower than what NASA wanted. "Space technology initiative" to try to restore technology base. New start for Global Geospace Science Mission (formerly International Solar-Terrestrial Physics Program). No new start for AXAF space X-ray telescope. [Boo.] No new start for CRAF comet/asteroid mission. [BOO HISS!] Startup funds for a space-station hardware building at KSC and a Space Station Support Center at JSC. No new funding for NASA expendables, except for the Cosmic Background Explorer's Delta. No money for the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite, although Congress is expected to put it back in as happened last year. (NASA has in fact signed with Orbital Sciences for a TOS upper stage for ACTS, in anticipation of this.) The Spelda dual-satellite deployment system, developed by British Aerospace for Ariane 4, is being offered for use on Titan. Arianespace has no objection as long as prices are fair. Soviets say that Western commercial payloads for Proton could go to Soviet launch sites in sealed containers, exempt from customs inspection. Fred Hauck expected to be commander of STS-26. Other crew members probably Richard Covey (pilot), John Lounge and George Nelson. If a fifth member is added, it will probably be David Hilmers. All experienced astronauts. Dutch participation agreed in Italian SAX X-ray telescope. If SAX goes ahead, Fokker will build attitude control and solar arrays. Intelsat issues RFP for Ku-band transatlantic satellite system for fast delivery, 24-30 months, as gap-filler between Intelsat 5 and 6 series. University of Colorado group notes that airborne dust from volcanic eruptions early in this decade may be confusing satellite sensors studying atmospheric ozone. The Antarctic ozone hole may not be real. They urge that future atmospheric-science satellites have more discriminating instruments. Some nice pictures of Soviet boosters on ground and in flight. Also a bunch of newly-released technical details on Proton. Eutelsat is looking at Proton, Titan, and Atlas-Centaur to replace the shuttle as the official backup launcher (prime launcher is Ariane) for Eutelsat 2 series. Eutelsat impressed by Soviet willingness to invest manpower and effort when needed to assure reliability, also by promise of a relaunch within 4 weeks after a Proton failure (although this is pretty academic because a replacement payload probably couldn't be ready so soon in the West). Eutelsat is actively pursuing only the US boosters, but that is just because Proton doesn't need such long lead times, so attention to it can be postponed. NASA signs major agreement with 3M for a number of shuttle materials experiments over the next 10 years. External Tanks Corp. is fund-raising for preliminary work on a poor man's space station. They want to link two shuttle external tanks, fit them with life support and power (picture shows tanks side by side, with a Spacelab-sized module attached to the bottom of each, each module having a solar array, and a tunnel connecting the two modules). ETCO says this would cost about $100M for a "spartan and unfurnished" lab, which would then be leased to commercial and scientific customers for potential annual profits of $30M+. High risk admitted, but project believed feasible. ETCO is largely owned by a university consortium. Talks with NASA underway. [Micro-editorial: *This* is the kind of project, and budget, that the Space Station ought to be starting with. -- HS] NASA to begin re-bonding tiles on Discovery after sorting out the cause of the bad tile bonds. Columbia has no problem, Atlantis yet to be checked. Picture of two Long March 3 boosters undergoing checkout and final assembly. Another letter column full of response to Sagan guest editorial, more mixed this time. Support of ambitious objectives, criticism of his call for cooperation "on behalf of the human species" with the country that operates the Gulag. Finally, interesting letter from John Martellaro: "...I almost always support Sagan's views. But not here. "...I was an eager 2nd lieutenant in the Air Force when Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon, and I expected to ride a wave of space exploration. Now, more than 17 years later, we have no manned outpost on the Moon or the capacity to supply one... "...If we fail to establish lunar colonies in preference to another one-time, minimum-capacity trip (this time to Mars), we will doom the next generations to imprisonment on Earth while singing of past glories." Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 87 18:23:35 GMT From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. Subject: Re: Texts on Orbital Mechanics References: <4918@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov My favorite introductory level book is: "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" by R. Bate, D. Mueller, and J. White Dover 1971. Trade paperback size was $9.50 some years ago. This book is good for understanding the essentials of simple orbits, ballistic trajectories, planetary orbits, and interplanetary trajectories. There isn't much related to more complex manuevers such as re-entry, interplanetary "sling-shot" trajectories and such arcana. A more detailed treatment can be found in: "Orbital Motion" by A. E. Roy Halsted Press 1978. $29.95 hardbound some years ago. Above subjects with more math, plus better descriptions of Lagrange points, resonant orbits, and some bits on the motions of stars. -- Keith Lofstrom MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 87 12:11:00 EST From: LANTZ@red.rutgers.edu Subject: Solar Garbage To: Space@angband.s1.gov Maybe I'm ignorant of something, but I don't think that it is necessary to cancel all of the orbital velocity to stick something into the sun. Can't you adjust the orbit into a sun-grazing ellipse with far less energy. Just make sure you go deep enough into the sun that the garbage never makes it back out again. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #175 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25533; Fri, 27 Mar 87 03:03:19 PST id AA25533; Fri, 27 Mar 87 03:03:19 PST Date: Fri, 27 Mar 87 03:03:19 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703271103.AA25533@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #176 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 27 Mar 87 03:03:19 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #176 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 176 Today's Topics: Re: space news from Nov 10 AW&ST Re: Solar Garbage Re: space news from Nov 10 AW&ST Re: Texts on Orbital Mechanics Re: Solar Garbage Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Re: nuclear fission/fusion in space Re: A use for nuclear fission in space Re: How Close Has Fusion Come to Breakeven? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Feb 87 20:34:37 GMT From: clyde!masscomp!wanginst!vilot@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Michael J. Vilot) Subject: Re: space news from Nov 10 AW&ST Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <7672@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Ten tons to "polar sunsynchronous transfer", whatever that is. It depends on the orbit's inclination to the earth's equator, and the altitude of the satellite. For example, a 450-mile altitude at 98.7 degrees inclination is sun-synchronous. That means that the stellite's orbit remains in the same orientation to the sun as the earth moves in its orbit during the year. The NOAA weather satellites use such an arrangement to provide complete earth coverage - one is a "morning bird", orbiting continuously over the daylight/darkside terminator; the other is a "noon bird", covering the center of the lit/dark sides. As the earth rotates beneath them, the satellites can provide a comprehensive look at the entire planet. -- Michael J. Vilot ...!decvax!wanginst!vilot (UUCP) Wang Institute of Graduate Studies vilot%wanginst@CSNet-Relay (CSNet) Tyng Road, Tyngsboro, MA 01879 MVilot@ADA20 (ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 87 18:30:01 GMT From: amdahl!meccts!viper!dave@AMES.ARPA (David Messer) Organization: Lynx Data Systems, Minneapolis, MN Subject: Re: Solar Garbage References: <12281634089.57.LANTZ@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The difference between hitting the sun in the center and grazing the surface is insignificant from out here. The sun is only 1/2 a degree in diameter from earths orbit. David Messer - Lynx Data Systems ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 87 00:10:43 GMT From: trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jeff@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jeff Hull) Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA Subject: Re: space news from Nov 10 AW&ST References: <7672@utzoo.UUCP>, <868@wanginst.EDU> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov The purpose of sun synchronous orbits is that they provide a constant shadow angle which makes image processing of the observed data MUCH easier. Jeff Hull ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 87 22:20:36 GMT From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!n4hy@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Organization: Home for Burned-out Hackers Subject: Re: Texts on Orbital Mechanics References: <4918@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Two that I use regularly and like: Fundamentals of Astrodynamics by Roger Bate, Donal Mueller, and Jerry White, Dover, ISBN: 0-486-60061-0 Methods of Orbit Determination (Editorial comment : and so much more) by Pedro Escobal. Krieger ISBN: 0-88275-319-3. Both include problems and answers. Bob ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 87 22:40:54 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Solar Garbage I used to work with an engineer that was studying space disposal of nuclear waste. The problem they found was that any manmade transportation system has a finite chance of failing at the worst possible momment. That time is when your rocket or sail or whatever has you in an orbit that eventually crosses a planet's orbit when the planet is nearby. An example is on the way out of the solar system your drive fails just as your apogee reaches Jupiter's orbit. Then there is a finite chance that Jupiter will slingshot the waste on an intersection with the Earth. The chances of such an occurance are about the same as an earthquake in a hard rock depository releasing some waste. Space disposal was estimated to cost twice as much as underground disposal. Hence underground disposal. If space transportation costs come down and the Goverment messes around for enough years trying to decide WHERE to put the underground repository, that conclusion may be wrong. Dani Eder/Advncd Space Trans/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 13 Feb 87 05:05:15 GMT From: ulysses!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil Karn) Organization: Home for Burned-out Hackers Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space References: <7555@utzoo.UUCP>, <480@prometheus.UUCP>, <632@crlt.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov > Please, Paul, don't you know anything about orbital mechanics? Spare > us this sort of thing until you do, okay? Orbits decay from air drag, > which is quite quantifiable (especially since Skylab gave us such good > measurements of atmospheric heating and expansion). Perhaps you should read up on orbital mechanics yourself. Satellites have decayed because of resonance "pumping" by bodies such as the sun and the moon. The Soviet Molniya satellites are in highly elliptical orbits with initial perigees well above what one would call "safe" but they lost some of them fairly early when solar and lunar perturbations brought the perigee down into the atmosphere. Careful control of the orbital period, along with an extra margin on the perigee altitude, is required for long orbital life. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 87 08:00:40 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 Subject: Re: nuclear fission/fusion in space References: <7555@utzoo.UUCP>, <480@prometheus.UUCP>, <632@crlt.UUCP> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <632@crlt.UUCP> russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes: >In article <480@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (who >is usually much more lucid) writes: >>>> - you miscalculate the stability of an orbit and it starts to decay? >Please, Paul, don't you know anything about orbital mechanics? Spare >us this sort of thing until you do, okay? Orbits decay from air drag, >which is quite quantifiable (especially since Skylab gave us such good >measurements of atmospheric heating and expansion). Sorry, Russ, if you will check back more carefully you will see that that statement was NOT posted by me. Still such things are in the realm of possibility. >Why? The whole point of nuclear ion engines is going to be for outer >planets probes and space tugs. If one tug malfunctions, you can move >it around with another one (you might as well have 2 or 3). That is naive given the interest in SDI. >So? The concern is power/mass and energy/mass ratio. Concerns about >thermal efficiency belong where you aren't paying $5000/kg to launch >things. Thermal efficiencies contribute directly to the problem. In addition for the SDIO low thermal efficiencies contribute to the generation of large beacon for easy targeting. >So build them as throwaways; if they malfunction, you simply forget them. Hardly, that's the attitude that is sure to get the program flushed. >Please, Paul, learn some orbital mechanics before you make assertions >like this. A perigee over 150 miles is sufficient to keep even a satellite >of low mass/area ratio (like Skylab) up for many years. No kidding! But will it be the better to for the SDIO mission to have these things hugging the "ballistic boulevard" (as close to the probable action as possible)? Still, keep up the optimism. >Now, exactly what would cause "orbit disturbing gas jets" from a reactor >made of uranium carbide, graphite and some heat pipes? One could easily >compute the maximum impulse from losing all the heat pipe working fluid >(in *one* direction) and insure that it would not be sufficient to cause >a re-entry. Or, one could have a small hydrazine-powered auxiliary >attitude control system. That's nice.. but what pressure?? .. now what happens if there are deliberate attempts to put these babies out of action. I doubt if such scenarios have been considered in the open literature, i. e. the conduction paths to the radiators sheered or blown away, and the control system malfunctioning. Radiation is the only cooling, and I can think of ways where even that can be frustrated. >Paranoia, yes. Rational, no. You're obviously a nuclear-phobe and I was being rhetorical. This is the gut reaction of a lot of people. It is going to be an important consideration. >If it can't re-enter after it's hot, what's the worry? Or suppose >it's designed to survive re-entry and impact intact, just in case (this >can be done, RTG's are designed to)? What dust? I don't think you are considering the full extent of what is going to have to be put up there to do the various defense related jobs and I don't think you are considering all of the scenarios for transport that are available to an exoergic system. >Backing for this assertion? What failure modes would cause a reactor >to dump its isotope inventory onto people or their food supplies? (I >think you have none.) Most food supplies are at the surface and the protein variety tends to concentrate toxic dusting. >How long will it take to get a good fusion reactor design up in space? >How many years until I can get one? Probably five to ten years. >How much does the smallest one weigh (BIG question)? >Projected power/mass ratio? The smallest is a big question. But for a continuous operating "space tug" 2 to 10 gigawatts per 50 ton engine. Probably minimum 10 kilowatts / lb. One thing for sure.. we would spend months going propelling to Mars with "fissling" driven ion engines. What a drag! How much more research is yet to be done? An infinite amount if tokamak Spheromak and other "solid first wall" approaches are done to the exclusion of more advanced concepts ( see Lidsky, Hirsch, Ashworth). >Has anyone, anywhere achieved net power return from a fusion plant? Not anything reported unclassified. Interesting rumors about a from "hot shot" at Kurchatov (experiment now at Krasnaya Pachra). Classified projects here are as optimistic about useful "break even" as are mine, and they don't even have the most optimal approaches. >(Who did I just see complaining about costly technological fixes?) >We can build fission reactors *now*, and we *know* that they work. >They can also be built small enough to power space probes of reasonable >mass. Can you say this? I think not. I don't want to bet any part >of the space program on a dream when off-the-shelf technology is ready >to do what needs to be done. The burning plasma in a 10 gigawatt PLASMAK(TM) generator is less than 150 cc yet generates peak burns (60 hertz 3 phase) of 60 megawatts per cubic centimeter. Is that compact enough? The conversion (electric) efficiency is 90 to 95% without cogeneration. What do you consider a space program..? You are seriously putting the future of the space program on fission and chemicals propulsion driven engines. Power???? I would NOT call what fission can generate and what is needed to carry million pound payloads into orbit per launch anything but a serious mismatch. We need gigawatts of clean aneutronic energy, and you're not going to get it by chasing obsolete technologies. It's more like a cruel joke. Let's all go to Mars on via TM... that is about the best you are going to do with your "off the self(shelf)" approach. These here aneutronic driven buggies really do go "lickety split", don't they? Yep! +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 87 20:20:46 GMT From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space References: <7555@utzoo.UUCP>, <480@prometheus.UUCP>, <271@ka9q.bellcore.com> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov In article <271@ka9q.bellcore.com>, karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes: > > Orbits decay from air drag, > > which is quite quantifiable (especially since Skylab gave us such good > > measurements of atmospheric heating and expansion). > > Satellites have > decayed because of resonance "pumping" by bodies such as the sun and the > moon. The Soviet Molniya satellites are in highly elliptical orbits with > initial perigees well above what one would call "safe" but they lost some of > them fairly early when solar and lunar perturbations brought the perigee > down into the atmosphere. Another cause is mass concentrations in the primary. Quoting from Richard Lewis's "Appointment on the Moon": The mascons were credited with producing a peculiar "yo-yo" variation in the orbits of Apollo 8 and 10. On each revolution of the moon, the apolune, or high point, of these orbits would rise, while the perilune, or low point, would drop.... On its third revolution, the Apollo 10 orbit was 70.3 miles apolune by 69 miles perilune. On the 25th revolution, apolune had risen to 77.1 miles... while perilune had dropped to 62.5 miles... David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 87 14:28:47 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: How Close Has Fusion Come to Breakeven? In article <8703082041.AA08372@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >... .. The cheating definition is "scientific breakeven"... >According to this measure, if TFTR at Princeton had been run with DT fuel >(it uses pure deuterium in tests to hold down radiation levels) it would >have achieved a Q of .2 -- fusion output would be 1/5 of the energy input. >... Muon Catalyzed Fusion. Recent measurements in hot compressed DT >gas show that one negative muon catalyzes about 150 to 170 fusions >.... this gives a Q of between .6 and .7. >They would be no reason in space to prefer a MCF reactor to a fission >reactor. A problem with MCF is that it doesn't work if the plasma fuel is very warm. That limits the power density. All of these approaches have serious power/mass problems as well as biological hazards. That's why aneutronic energy is the way to proceed ... It's compact, powerful, and almost healthy. **** BUT **** there is no one at NASA that has the interest or the authority to start even the engineering and fabrication of 100 megawatt engines. Too bad, it would demonstrate the solution to the Mars problem and put us beyond the SDI "nail strewn space" mind-LOCK. NASA.. the society for the preservation of historic propulsion technology? Ride Amtrak: America's first Super Collider! +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #176 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA27272; Sat, 28 Mar 87 03:03:15 PST id AA27272; Sat, 28 Mar 87 03:03:15 PST Date: Sat, 28 Mar 87 03:03:15 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703281103.AA27272@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #177 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 28 Mar 87 03:03:15 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #177 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 177 Today's Topics: Re: Fusion Rockets (IFR) key to space industrialization? SRB's New thing on SRBs Risk in Space travel Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel Orbital Junk Re: Josephson junction chip exists (was Re: Want to bet ...) Re: Yttrium, Lanthanum, Thorium More superconductor news Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Mar 87 15:03:14 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: Fusion Rockets (IFR) key to space industrialization? In article <1200@husc2.UUCP> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes: >In article <8702261258.AA06415@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >[Quotes excerpts from a rather showy article describing an Inertial Fusion >Drive] >> This is **it** guys. This Inertial Fusion Rocket is the idea that will >> open up the entire solar system to exploration and commercial >> development. The major barrier is getting the lasers small, reliable, >> and efficient. > The problem is trying to get ANY kind of fusion reactor to work. No... I think the problem is getting any kind of fusion reactor funded that will work and isnt' twenty years old. If it does work, it will work with a vengence and that means it will be cheap. The approaches that are being worked on now are: 1) a clear demonstration of the inferior intelligence of "big physics"; 2) demonstration that "big physics" knows how to pick items that have enormous cost /unit progress; 3) and finally, there is no effective oversight by congress of "big physics". I think physics is where is is at, and "big physics" is "Let's all blah blah the same thing... else we get our funding cut". > One major problem: if the military either develops it or gets >its hands on it, we will never get the benefit of it, because they will >keep it classified in the name of keeping the Soviet Union from getting >it; Hmmmm! Not if the greedy little Corporate heads I know get their hands on it.. The problem is that DoE has the private sector believing that fusion (commercial) is for the decade 2040-2050.. and that forces them OUT of even considering it as a possible R&D option. Incidentally, that time frame was choosen to take care of the current DoE employees and their children... another sixty years of welfare. :-) Perhaps spending the money locally and letting more of it pass through to the institutes directly without project specification could improve both "Innovation" and "Competiveness";.. whatever that is. Still, could it be worse?? Paul M. Koloc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 87 13:06:34 pst From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum) To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SRB's The latest issue of IEEE Spectrum contained a very complete article on the SRBs and the Challenger failure. You might want to check it out - particularly for data on the previous O ring failures. Eric Hildum ------------------------------ From: Eugene Miya N. Date: 11 Mar 1987 1227-PST (Wednesday) Subject: New thing on SRBs Propaganda: Thought this was of interest. This should stir the SRB fires a bit. Let's keep the flames down. Send mail not follow-ups, and I'll summarize. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA From: hqnewsroom@telemail (ED CAMPION) Subject: RELEASE/SRM MOTOR TEST Date: 11 Mar 87 15:10:00 GMT Sarah Keegan March 11, 1987 Headquarters, Washington, D.C. (Phone: 202/453-8536) RELEASE NO: 87-28 SHUTTLE SOLID ROCKET MOTOR TEST FIRING UNDER REVIEW Detailed teardown analysis of the test article from the highly successful solid rocket motor (SRM) joint environment simulator (JES) firing at Morton Thiokol on Feb. 23, 1987, has indicated potential insulation bonding deficiencies in the assembly process of the test hardware. NASA and Morton Thiokol are assessing options for correcting this occurrence, which potentially affects the insulation configuration in the area of the field joints on several other test articles, including the first full-scale firing test, the Engineering Test Motor (ETM-1). Because the same fabrication/assembly process has been used on the hardware for the ETM, the assessment and ensuing corrective actions may cause a schedule delay for the test, which had been slated for March 25. It is not anticipated that this situation will cause a delay in other motor test firings or the February 1988 target Shuttle launch date. The Engineering Test Motor is an interim step in the developmental evolution of the redesigned SRM joints. It does not have the redesigned joint case hardware and will use motor segments manufactured prior to the Challenger accident but with modifications in the joint insulation area to approximate the redesigned insulation. A non-flight "U" seal is used in place of the "J" seal which has been selected as the flight design. The hand-fitting and secondary bonding of this non-flight "U" seal led to the assembly concerns. The flight-design "J" seal will utilize precise, production-type molds which create a homogeneous, one-piece insulation for each segment and is not expected to be subject to the kind of problem encountered in the ETM. John Thomas, manager of the SRM Design Team at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, stated today: "We are fortunate to have discovered this discrepancy in a short-duration Joint Environment Simulator test firing rather than in a full-duration test. The JES program is accomplishing exactly what we designed it to do in terms of providing early test demonstrations of planned or potential design features. Whatever the outcome of our Engineering Test Motor deliberations, we retain full confidence in our baseline joint design, which will be first demonstrated in the Joint Environment Simulator #3A test, now targeted for June, and the full-scale Development Motor #8 test, targeted for July. Both of these motors contain not only the improved "J" seal insulation system but the newly designed steel capture feature field joint, as well." - end - This release and other NASA information is available electronically through DIALCOM, INC. For access to NASA NEWS through this system, contact Jim Hawley, DIALCOM, INC. at ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 87 09:15:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Risk in Space travel > As far as junk in orbit goes, I wonder how many more SDI tests like > the recent Delta (involving active homing on and destruction of a > target vehicle) it will take before it's not safe to fly manned > spacecraft in LEO. > -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) This, I think, was the reason the Challenger disaster was such a shock to a lot of people: IF HAS NEVER BEEN SAFE TO FLY A MANNED SPACECRAFT! There has always been a large element of risk involved in space travel. We who are associated with the aerospace industry must accept that. Your average man on the street seems to have forgotten (if he ever knew) that riding to heaven on a pillar of fire, one is likely to burn one's tail off. -- Ken Jenks ------------------------------ Date: 20 Mar 87 01:22:31 GMT From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gerry Gleason) Subject: Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel In article <74700010@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > ... IT HAS NEVER BEEN SAFE TO FLY A MANNED SPACECRAFT! ... This is most certainly true, in fact you can argue that the safety record has been remarkably good (I wonder if sailing ships across the oceon was any safer in the 15-16 centuries). But the comment is not really relevent to the original posting. We certainly shouldn't clutter up LEO with junk, so that it becomes more dangerous than it already is, not to mention how bad it is to move warfare off the planet. I for one am interested in colonizing space, and I would much rather it remain peaceful. Does anybody know if space junk is/will be a problem, just how big is near space? gerry gleason ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 87 22:26:11 GMT From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Orbital Junk In article <74700010@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> As far as junk in orbit goes, I wonder how many more SDI tests >> like the recent Delta (involving active homing on and destruction of >> a target vehicle) it will take before it's not safe to fly manned >> spacecraft in LEO. > >This, I think, was the reason the Challenger disaster was such a shock >to a lot of people: IF HAS NEVER BEEN SAFE TO FLY A MANNED SPACECRAFT! Undoubtedly. What I'm talking about, however, is the difference between a small-but-finite chance of mission failure inherent within the shuttle and other manned systems, and the certainity of mission failure once enough junk is floating around in shuttle orbits. I'm willing to take the first chance but not the second. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 87 21:18:07 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Josephson junction chip exists (was Re: Want to bet ...) > > [it is] very hard to build JJ LSI ... IBM concluded that > > the problem wasn't fixable. > > See Electronics, February 19, 1987, page 49 for several articles > on a working Josephson junction signal processing computer. The > machine is build by Hypres Inc. and cools just a portion of a > chip by spraying liquid helium on it. I saw the Electronics coverage. Although it wasn't very detailed, this does *not* appear to be JJ LSI -- it's normal LSI with a small chunk of JJ stuff in one corner. JJ MSI, maybe. I also note that Hypres isn't shipping them in quantity-thousand yet, either. -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 87 15:40:15 GMT From: pyramid!pesnta!phri!bc-cis!raanan@decwrl.dec.com (Raanan Herrmann) Subject: Re: Yttrium, Lanthanum, Thorium One of the reasons that all those rare-metals are so expensive is that it is very hard to produce large quantities of them. I know that in the fifties, 1 gram of Plotonium had a price of about $500,000 - but in the seventies, the price went down drasically. What will happen if someone will find a way to produce a larger amounts of those rare-metals from exisiting mines? Raanan Herrmann (...!delftcc,phri!bc-cis!raanan) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 87 10:33 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: More superconductor news Paul Anderson has published a hypothetical model of superconductivity in the new materials in which electrons are paired by electronic and magnetic interactions, not by phonons as in ordinary superconductors. The operation of this new mechanism at room temperature is a possibility, if the proper material can be found. Scientists at Stanford have successfully fabricated 0.5 micron thin films of the new superconductors with a transition temperature of 40 K (which they are confident can be raised to 90 K). This is the first step towards making superconducting connections on ICs (such wires have low losses up to > 1 THz) and towards making Josephson junctions (note that the switching speed and operating voltage of a JJ both increase with increasing critical temperature; both are good). The Stanford group also built a prototype of a new kind of tunnel junction using the materials. The films were deposited by vapor deposition on a sapphire substate. They say commercial use of the material for connections on ICs in supercomputers could be as little as a year away. Japan's MITI has started a government coordinated effort to commercialize the materials. American scientists speculate they are trying to get a jump on the US while the materials are still in the lab here. Mario Rabinowitz of the Electric Power Research Institute states that superconducting power lines using the new materials will likely be available in ten years, and widely used in 20. Unlike in magnets, where fine wires of high current carrying capacity are needed, underground superconducting power lines could be made by simply coating the current materials on the outside of copper or aluminum pipes, then running liquid nitrogen through the pipes (with extra outer insulation and armoring, of course). The impact on the power business will be profound. Example: power plants (nuclear, powersat rectennas) could be placed great distances from consumers. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 87 02:18:48 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? In article <1211@husc2.UUCP> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes: >How do you get a space elevator started? I can think of 2 ways >which would not use an inordinate amount of material: > 2. Put a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, and have it > spin out cables both toward and away from Earth This is the method Clarke assumed in his novel; an asteroid of useful composition was found and dragged to the proper orbit. A factory was then added which munched away at the asteroid. The leftovers were used for a station. I'm not sure how much raw material is required, but four cables 45,000 miles long each take quite a bit. >One problem with space elevators is that you would always have to be >compensating for Coriolis effects (which could trash the system if not >corrected immediately) unless you made real sure that mass going up and >mass going down for each particular distance were equal. Just some of the monumental engineering tasks involved. Nobody said it would be easy, but wouldn't it be fun? --Rod ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 87 20:41:16 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ece-csc!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Wayne Throop) Subject: Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? > chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) > 1. Launch a very powerful rocket towing a very long wire > 2. Put a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, and have it > spin out cables both toward and away from Earth The second method is much MUCH more plausible. See Clarke's "Fountains of Paradise" for fictional elaboration on this method. And of course, there is the "BANZAI!!!!" method, outlined by Sheffield in "Web Between the Worlds". Build the whole thing in space, see, and give it a trajectory that causes the tip to "kiss" the earth at the anchor point. When the cable end touches down for an instant, pile a mountain or two on the cable tip to keep it from flipping back up into orbit. Damp the vibrations. Voila. Simple, no? > One problem with space elevators is that you would always have to be > compensating for Coriolis effects (which could trash the system if not > corrected immediately) unless you made real sure that mass going up and mass > going down for each particular distance were equal. Why is this a problem? The cable is under tension, so the corriolis force will "pluck" the cable and cause it to vibrate, but will not necessarily pull it down. Just be sure the cable is under ENOUGH tension, and provide a damping mechanism and you're all set. Wayne Throop ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #177 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA28831; Sun, 29 Mar 87 03:03:03 PST id AA28831; Sun, 29 Mar 87 03:03:03 PST Date: Sun, 29 Mar 87 03:03:03 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703291103.AA28831@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #178 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 29 Mar 87 03:03:03 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #178 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 178 Today's Topics: elevators, bootstrap value, comparison, dynamic programming Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? Re: elevators, bootstrap value, comparison, dynamic programming Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? Space Elevators Wrong equation, so wrong result Re: Wrong equation, so wrong result More details on space elevator impossibility ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 87 10:22:50 PST X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 12 03:27:35 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov Subject: elevators, bootstrap value, comparison, dynamic programming Date: 9 Mar 87 19:05:11 GMT From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov (Dave Chassin) Subject: Space Elevators I may be wrooooooong but I would think that for any usual distance the weight of the cable itself would be far greater than the way of whatever your lifting, meaning it would have to be HUGE at the station. Maybe someone has done this calculation. I'd be curious to see how it turns out. Yes, the cable is much much larger than any payload, but unlike chemical rockets which are burned up after one use, and even the shuttle which is only partly re-usable, the cable can be re-used for hundreds of tiny payloads per day, tens of thousands per year, hundreds of thousands or even millions during the lifetime of the cable. So if an individual payload is only 1/10000 the mass of the cable, you will still be able to lift the equivalent weight of a new cable in less than a year, so doubling time (if all your payloads are invested in new cables or thickening the existing cable) is less than a year. If you put up a very thin cable after 5 years effort with pre-existing techniques (STS etc.), after another 5 years of doubling you have 32 times as strong a cable, or 2 cables each 16 times original strength, etc. Hans Moravec (now at CMU, then at Stanford) did a study on hanging (planet-stationary) and rotating (dipping) cables about 10-15 years ago. The reference was posted to this digest a couple years ago, but there seem to be a lot of new members who are enthusiastic with the idea but not much informed, so perhaps somebody can re-post the reference(s)? (I don't have them handy, sigh.) I believe his conclusion was that Kevlar cables of the dipping kind were already practical (except for lack of transport for putting them up) at the time he did the study, but non-rotating cables would require new materials not yet invented on Mars but within feasibility in a few years, and non-rotating cables unreasonable on Earth. However, before we spend too much time randomly browsing the features of an already-installed cable, I'd like to see somebody with the technical data/knowledge do a summary of all the various methods of lifting payload from Earth and other planets/moons in terms of bootstrap costs&benefits. A given cable or other technology will supply a fixed rate of putting mass into orbit, but can be paid-for in various ways ranging from totally current-technology Earth-supplied (possible now, but most expensive among all options) to totally exotic (non-Earth) supply of materials with processing in space (longest wait before we can even get started, but cheapest at that time). Each different starting point reaches the same end point over a different time period and at a different capital&labor&Earth-materials investment. For example (totally hypothetical figures here for illustration): a given technology may get us to a state of 1E5 grams per second payload to GEO (Geosynchronous Earth Orbit), from these starting points: Current technology, taking 10 years, costing 1E12 dollars, diverting 1% of the world's valuable resources; Technology available in 5 years (heavy lift vehicle), taking 7 years, costing 1E11 dollars, diverting 1%; Technology available in 15 years (above, plus advanced shuttle, ion rocket, sails, robotics), taking 2 years, costing 1E9 dollas, diverting 0.1% because most of the bulk comes from the Moon. The third sounds cheapest, but hardly gets you anywhere, you are already almost there and hardly need the cable any longer; The first sounds most expensive, but gets you from here to there soonest (ten instead of seventeen years), using the cable to supply equipment for early lunar mining, rather than vice versa (using the lunar mining to build the cable). After getting similar information for all proposed techniques, we apply "dynamic programming" procedures to find the optimum sequence of investments to achieve a given level of development at a given number of years in the future from where we are now. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 87 00:00:30 GMT From: hpda!hpcllla!hpclisp!coulter@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Michael Coulter) Subject: Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? The biggest problem is finding a material that will support 36000 miles of itself. -- Michael Coulter ...ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpcllld!coulter ------------------------------ Date: 16 Mar 87 22:42:59 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: elevators, bootstrap value, comparison, dynamic programming In article <8703141822.AA22188@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes: >However, before we spend too much time randomly browsing the features >of an already-installed cable, I'd like to see somebody with the >technical data/knowledge do a summary of all the various methods of >lifting payload from Earth and other planets/moons in terms of >bootstrap costs&benefits. This is extremely difficult to do, since estimates for the costs of different technologies vary by over an order of magnitude, depending on who you talk to. NASA is currently funding a study by CalSpace (California Space Institute) to quantify the costs and benefits for different schemes of getting mass from the Moon to LEO. Even with that single goal, and with a lot of restrictions on the parameter space (for instance, lunar oxygen is the only "product", and the calculation disregards development and most startup costs) it's a complex question. Several hours of meeting, for instance, were spent arguing on what size system(s) to consider -- how many tons per year -- since some approaches are only appropriate for large scale efforts, while others are best for small scales. >After getting similar information for all proposed techniques, we apply >"dynamic programming" procedures to find the optimum sequence of >investments to achieve a given level of development at a given number >of years in the future from where we are now. Alas, this is the sort of thing government agencies try to do, and it usually doesn't work. Neither technology, nor economics, nor politics are predictable enough. Remember, the Space Shuttle was supposed to put mass in orbit for a few hundred dollars a pound, and provide launches once a week! And rockets are the best-understood technology around. :-( Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.UUCP jtk@mordor.s1.gov ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 87 07:14:47 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? In article <1371@dg_rtp.UUCP>, throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes: ["> > " = me] > > One problem with space elevators is that you would always have to be > > compensating for Coriolis effects (which could trash the system if > > not corrected immediately) unless you made real sure that mass going > > up and mass going down for each particular distance were equal. > > Why is this a problem? The cable is under tension, so the corriolis > force will "pluck" the cable and cause it to vibrate, but will not > necessarily pull it down. Just be sure the cable is under ENOUGH > tension, and provide a damping mechanism and you're all set. The damping mechanism is the problem. Unless you can make a very thick/stiff cable (thickness of a skyscraper) of material that won't fatigue too fast, you are going to have to use rockets for damping. This means massive propellant usage (including the fact that you will have to use much propellant just to correct for the Coriolis effect caused by bringing the fuel up). -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 87 20:41:43 GMT From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: space elevators: how do you set them up? Lucius Chiaraviglio: > > > One problem with space elevators is that you would always have to be > > > compensating for Coriolis effects (which could trash the system if not > > > corrected immediately) unless you made real sure that mass going up and > > > mass going down for each particular distance were equal. Wayne Throop: > > Why is this a problem? The cable is under tension, so the corriolis > > force will "pluck" the cable and cause it to vibrate, but will not > > necessarily pull it down. Just be sure the cable is under ENOUGH > > tension, and provide a damping mechanism and you're all set. Chiaraviglio: > The damping mechanism is the problem. Unless you can make a very > thick/stiff cable (thickness of a skyscraper) of material that won't > fatigue too fast, you are going to have to use rockets for damping. > This means massive propellant usage (including the fact that you will > have to use much propellant just to correct for the Coriolis effect > caused by bringing the fuel up). I'm no big fan of the stationary space elevator concept; there are alternatives that don't require super-strong materials and would be orders of magnitude less expensive to put in place. But the claim that damping presents fundamental problems is wrong. For one thing, it's not at all difficult to make the "beanstalk" as thick as you'd like. (That's assuming that you have the technology base to make construction of a beanstalk possible in the first place--admittedly not a trivial assumption). It doesn't have to be solid. You just spin parallel cables with cross links. The dampers go in the cross links. But a more elegant solution is simply to program the movement of the elevators so that vibrations in the cable are dynamically damped. Also, it is NOT necessary that the net mass flow up and down the cable be balanced. If there is a net upward flow, the cable will lean to the west. Net flow down, and it will lean to the east. But not noticably, for mass flows repesenting at most a few percent of cable mass per week. You can work out the numbers; the physics involved isn't really that difficult. - Roger Arnold ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 87 03:50:56 GMT From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov (Dave Chassin) Subject: Space Elevators I hate to open myself to flames like this but here is a simple calculation to figure the maximum allow length of any cable (please excuse the units, "dammit Jim, I'm an architect, not an engineer"): Let: Ft - max tensile stress r - specific gravity A - cross sectional area l - length of cable We know that T = A x l x r for any cable hanging free this is the tensile stress T at the top and A = T / Ft this is area determination from stress so Ft = l x r too simple you may say... or l = Ft / r ouch!!! For high grade steel we get Ft = 50000#/sqin and r = .29 #/cuin (this is not top grade however, I've heard of up to 94K#/sqin) so l = 14367.8 ft or (read'em 'n weep:) l = 2.7 miles <---- not even close Alright, what do we need: 2.3Gin (that's 2,300,000,000 roughly) = Ft / r or for r = .01#/cuin (pretty light ~1/2 H2O) , -> Ft = 11500 tons/sqin That's real good stuff, wish I had some for my socks... :-) (-: By the way, when you look at the relationships, you see that strength only increases to the square of material used but stress increases to the cube. This is a property of three dimensional space that is more than a technical difficulty. Also please check the method, because the result seems too drastic, I'd rather it weren't like that. It's too bad. Dave Chassin ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 87 15:44:09 GMT From: rpics!yerazuws@seismo.css.gov (Crah) Subject: Wrong equation, so wrong result In article <1012@rpics.RPI.EDU>, chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: > > so l = 14367.8 ft or (read'em 'n weep:) > > l = 2.7 miles <---- not even close The problem with that calculation is that you assume that the cable is of constant cross-section. So, if you require constant cross-section, your answer is correct. But if you are willing to taper your cable, you can get a MUCH longer cable. It works like a compound-interest problem. The bottom foot of cable must be strong enough to support only the payload, plus itself. The second-from-the-bottom foot of cable must be strong enough to support the payload plus the first foot plus the second foot. The third-from-the-bottom ..... [...] The result is that the cable is tapered exponentially- and can be constructed of any material of finite-positive tensile strength, provided you have enough of it (oversimplification- this is true only in a laminar, as opposed to spherical (planetary) gravitational field) For even mild steel, the above exponential cable is quite constructable. For Kevlar or boron, it's not even outrageously thick. Energy-storage flywheels have the same effect- a flywheel can store more total energy if it has a thick hub and a thin rim because it is so much stronger it can turn much faster. People don't normally build flywheels that way because they don't store much energy at low RPMs. Exercise for students: (1) What is the differential equation that describes the shape of the optimal cable? (2) Given Kevlar with a tensile strength of 5,000 Ksi and a density of 1.00 (water = 1.00), how thick is a 24,300 mile cable at the most highly-stressed point? Where is the point of maximum stress? Assume a constant 1 G gravitational field. (Extra Credit) Use an 1/r^2 field, like around Earth. How thick now? -Bill Yerazunis ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 87 23:00:39 GMT From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov (Dave Chassin) Subject: Re: Wrong equation, so wrong result In article <1016@rpics.RPI.EDU>, yerazuws@rpics.RPI.EDU (Crah) writes: > In article <1012@rpics.RPI.EDU>, chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: > > > > so l = 14367.8 ft or (read'em 'n weep:) > > > > l = 2.7 miles <---- not even close > > The problem with that calculation is that you assume that the cable > is of constant cross-section. So, if you require constant > cross-section, your answer is correct. I'm not sure if the improvement is that great. Of the top of my head I think it a factor of 1/(e**2), so somethin' like 20 miles??? I'm hesitant anyway, but I'll go ahead and figure it out, it's not too tough... I'll post it when I get it done. Dave Chassin ------------------------------ Date: 20 Mar 87 01:44:44 GMT From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov (Dave Chassin) Subject: More details on space elevator impossibility In article <1016@rpics.RPI.EDU>, yerazuws@rpics.RPI.EDU (Crah) writes: > In article <1012@rpics.RPI.EDU>, chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: > > l = 2.7 miles <---- not even close > > The problem with that calculation is that you assume that the cable > is of constant cross-section. . . . > But if you are willing to taper your cable, you can get a MUCH longer > cable. It works like a compound-interest problem. I tried first the following program to get an order of magnitude: ft=50000 <- max tensile strength r=0.29 <- density of steel, (try .02 to kevlar) w=1000 <- 1/2 ton object, (must have one or no result) while area < 10**33 <- a reasonable cross section area :-) area = (w +wl)/ft <- wl initially null print length/60000, area <- for area at mile increments length = length + 60000 wl = wl + r * area * 60000 endwhile The routine exits @ length = 270 miles. Admittedly crude, but effective. As for diff.eq it'd be something like: A(0) = W / Ft A(x) = (W + W(x))/Ft W(x) = rS[0->x] A(x) Maybe someone would care to do it for a poor archie who has even looked at a differential since sophomore year... I'll do it but it'll take a few days before I can post it. My intuition tells me however that it does not have a failing point, true, but the it is ridiculous to think it is practical. I'm still interested in the results as they a quite applicable to tensile stuctures' limitation in architecture. So please participate with any other ideas and alternatives you might have. I would appreciate it however if everyone would actually do the math they say will proove something, before posting. I, for example, would never have been tempted to post anything if I didn't think I was in the ballpark with the computer algorithm. It's really a matter of rigour, which I think is distinctly lacking in our day and age. (I know, I fail to practice what I preach... I'm as guilty as anyone else... so spare us the flames, it really just a thought anyway) Dave Chassin ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #178 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02162; Mon, 30 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST id AA02162; Mon, 30 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST Date: Mon, 30 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703301103.AA02162@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #179 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 30 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST From: Ted Anderson Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #179 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 179 Today's Topics: Re: Space Elevators Re: Space Elevators Space elevators, Final (?) equations Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations Space Elevator References Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations Re: Space Elevator References Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter Re: Some comments on anti-matter storage ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Mar 87 18:28:14 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Elevators > ...here is a simple calculation to figure the maximum allow length of any > cable ... You forgot the possibility that the cable is tapered, which lets you put more strength up top and less weight down on the bottom. Proposals for Earth-based space elevators generally involve tapered cables. > For high grade steel we get Ft = 50000#/sqin and r = .29 #/cuin Nobody is proposing building space elevators out of steel, or even Kevlar (which is far superior to steel for things like this). Actually, I dimly recall -- I may be wrong about this -- that Kevlar is good enough for a Mars space elevator. It's definitely not sufficient for Earth. > -> Ft = 11500 tons/sqin > That's real good stuff, wish I had some for my socks... :-) (-: It is within the theoretical maximum strength of materials, though, and is not too impossibly far above what has been demonstrated for *small* samples in the *laboratory*. It *is* far beyond the best that would be practical in volume production today, which is why nobody is selling stock in a space-elevator company yet. :-) Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 87 05:25:22 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Space Elevators > Nobody is proposing building space elevators out of steel, or even Kevlar > (which is far superior to steel for things like this). Actually, I dimly > recall -- I may be wrong about this -- that Kevlar is good enough for a > Mars space elevator. It's definitely not sufficient for Earth. > > "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology First off, carbon fiber is currently the strength/weight champion. Hercules Inc. is making 800,000 psi tensile strength fibers in quantity for aerospace applications (principally solid rocket motor cases) They claim they will have 1000,000 psi fibers in a few years, as soon as they can get it out of the lab and into reproducable mass production. Second, I am aware of an invention that uses multiple rotating tethers to achieve high tip velocities without outrageous mass ratios. The arrangement is to put a small spinning tether at one end of a larger spinning tether, with both spinning in the same sense. From the point of view of the larger tether, the smaller one is just a constant mass suspended at the end of the larger tether. The tip velocities of te two tethers add, but only the small one is moving at the high velocity. By keeping the large tether from moving as fast as it would have to if it were one big one going at the summed velocities, you don't have to pay the high mass ratio. On first examination, a three stage tether could reach zero velocity relative to the earth's surface with real materials. To be sure, the dynamics of such objects are unknown, but the improvement over monolithic tethers is large enough to make me spend some of my time looking into them. Dani Eder/Boeing Advanced Space Transportation/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 20 Mar 87 17:04:43 GMT From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov (Dave Chassin) Subject: Space elevators, Final (?) equations As some of you might know I recently posted an article about the absolute limit on the length of a cable. That was, for a non-varying cross section, 2.7 miles. Here is the solution for the perfect cable (one that only supports what is necessary): We have two equations: (1) A(x) = (W + W(x))/Ft where A(x) is the area function W is the load we wish to carry W(x) is the weight of the cable function Ft is the yield stress and (2) W(x) = S[0,x] rA(x)dx where r is the density of the cable S is a pityful impersonation of an integral so integrating (1) and (2) we get (3) dA/dx = 1/Ft dW/dx (4) dW/dx = rA(x) juggle (3) and (4) and we get A(x) = A(0)e**(r.x/Ft) where A(0) = W/Ft so A(x) = W/Ft.e**(r.x/Ft) plug in the values of steel Ft=50000, r=.29 with a load of 1000 lbs, x = ~2x10**9 (36000 miles) A(36000miles) = oops my calculator overflowed!!!! ok so @ what x does A(x) = 10**33 (what I did on the computer at last post) x = 242.5 miles (my ballpark figure was close enough...) by the way 10**33 square inches is a diameter of ~10**11 miles!!! I think this sufficiently prooves the impossibilty of such a cable. I would also add that Kevlar is not a better choice for two reasons. First it is heavier for its yield stress (Lmax=.79 miles; steel Lmax=2.7miles) Second elasticity is a SEVERE problem. If you think vibration due to the coriolis force is a problem try elastic oscillations. Even in steel they're severe at any great length (this is what limits bridge span among other things). I hope this satisfies even the most skeptical mind as to feasibility. It is clear to me that theory has a VERY LONG way to go before it can be practice. Don't forget that theory to practice is a process long studied in architecture, and that many of the structural problems you encounter in space have already been solved or proven impossible by architects and structural engineers. So don't bother reinventing the wheel, just research it properly first (it's not under SPACE ELEVATORS :-) in the library, try Buckminster Fuller, or Felix Candella, Nervi, Gaudi, and so on). I would add as a last note that on smaller planets that rotate faster, it could work. I'll try various moons around the solar system and see what I get. I'll let you know what the results are. This is all quite fascinating to say the least. For me as an architect it's a whole now frontier of design that remains to be explored, so to speak. Dave Chassin PS: I welcome anyone to do the calculations for other planets and moons, they're quite simple in fact, I just don't want to send any more time on this subject. I'm sufficiently convinced about earth at least. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 87 21:04:15 GMT From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations In article <1020@rpics.RPI.EDU>, chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: > I think this sufficiently prooves the impossibilty of such a cable. I > would also add that Kevlar is not a better choice for two reasons. > First it is heavier for its yield stress (Lmax=.79 miles; steel Lmax=2.7miles) A common term for how long a cable can be supported by it's own weight is the "support length". For Kevlar 49 (A 10 year old material) the support length is 195 kilometers. The tensile or yield strength (usually abbreviated Y) is 400,000 PSI or 2758 megaPascals. The density is 1.44 gms/cm3 or 90 pounds per cubic foot. Gravity at the equator is 9.78057 m/sec2 . the support length is thus 2758 MPa Ls = --------------------------- = 195,824 meters ~ 195 Km 1440 Kg/m3 * 9.78057 m/sec2 Not enough for a practical skyhook, even with tapering, but enough for quite a few other concepts. (Note- the "effective length" of a skyhook is 4900 Km). In actual fact, the design yield should be less than this, because any fiber material should be imbedded in some matrix material to share load between fibers. On the other hand, much stronger materials have been seen in the lab, they just cost too much AT PRESENT (Kevlar was $10/lb some years ago). When something like nanotechnology appears, it should be possible to build material structures nearly as strong as atomic bonds - support lengths on the order of 2000 Km should be possible. There are a lot of wild things going on in materials research right now. The vast rewards of lighter aircraft and spacecraft are pushing strongly for better materials. Buildings usually don't fly, so it's not surprising that architects are unfamiliar with these materials, as they are more expensive than structural steel. It is also untraditional to include active control for vibration dampening for buildings, but the latest crop of airplanes would be uncontrollable without it. Kevlar reference: DuPont Bulletin K-2, "Characteristics and Uses of Kevlar(R) 49 Aramid High Modulus Organic Fiber," DuPont Textile Fibers Department, Technical Service Section, Wilmington, Delaware 19898. Kevlar is a registered trademark of DuPont. -- Keith Lofstrom MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 87 21:41:44 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Space Elevator References Well, I started all this talk about space elevators, and now I have the references. The novel is _The Fountains of Paradise", by Arthur C. Clarke, c. 1978,1979. In his sources and acknowledgements, he lists a number of references on the topic. "Satellite Elongation into a True 'Sky-Hook'", John D. Isaacs, Hugh Bradner, and George E. Backus, of Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and Allyn C. Vine of Woods Hole Institute of Oceanography (of Alvin fame) in the Feb. 11, 1966 issue of _Science_. First presentation of the idea to the West. Y.N. Artsutanov in _Komsomolskaya Pravda_, July 31, 1960. He called it a "heavenly funicular". "The Orbital Tower: A Spacecraft Launcher Using the Earth's Rotational Energy", Jerome Pearson, in_Acta Astronautica_ Spetember-October 1975. "Using the Orbital TOwer to Launch Earth-Escape Payloads Daily", Jerome Pearson, Proceedings of the 27th International Astronautical Federation Congress, October 1976. "A (Relatively) Low Altitude 24-hour Satellite", A.R. Collar and J.W. Flower, _Journal of the Britich Interplanetary Society_, Vol. 22, pp. 442-457, 1969. Not a tower directly, but important nonetheless. "A Non-Synchronous Orbital Skyhook", Hans Moravec, American Astronautical Society Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 18-20 October 1977. Wlater L. Morgan and Gary Gordon of COMSAT Laboratories and L. Perek, of the U.N. Outer Space Affairs Division, provided useful information on the stable regions of geosynchronous orbit, considering particularly Sun-Moon effects. NASA Technical Memorandum TM-75174, "A Space 'Necklace' About the Earth," G. Polyakov, translated from Russian. He proposes not a simple tower, but an entire ring orbiting t he Earth, treating the simple tower as a matter- of-fact step in that direction. There! Is that enough references? I think people have been thinking about the idea, and no one has yet said it's completely impossible. I don't have any of these materials, and I would be interesting in hearing from anyone who reads them. --Rod ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 87 03:51:52 GMT From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov (Dave Chassin) Subject: Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations In article <1503@vice.TEK.COM>, keithl@vice.TEK.COM (Keith Lofstrom) writes: . . . Deletions that I agree with :-> (implications?) . . . > There are a lot of wild things going on in materials research right > now. The vast rewards of lighter aircraft and spacecraft are pushing > strongly for better materials. Buildings usually don't fly, so it's > not surprising that architects are unfamiliar with these materials, as > they are more expensive than structural steel. It is also > untraditional to include active control for vibration dampening for > buildings, but the latest crop of airplanes would be uncontrollable > without it. Actually I would refer you to the design of almost all buildings over 70 stories. They do in fact have dynamic stabilization system that boggle the mind. If I recall correctly the World Trade Center buildings have to such systems inside that are essential 10 ton blocks moved back and forth somewhere around the 30th and 70th floor (maximum motion) in order to compensate for the 11 foot sway at the top. Many people think buildings don't vibrate but this is one of the biggest structural problems, even though the frequency in incredibly low (order of several 10s of seconds). If any is interested in detailed data concerning dynamic building stabilization I'd be glad to dredge it up... Dave Chassin ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 87 08:05:32 GMT From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: Space Elevator References Another - sort of - reference: A book of collected essays of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (dammit, I don't know which one! It was in the U.T. Austin library, if memory serves) contained an essay mentioning a tapered tower of bricks (!) extending towards geosyncronous orbit. Climb up it and jump off; you are in orbit! K.T. didn't actually imagine his tower clear up to geosync; just high enough that angular momentum was suitable for a high eccentricity orbit. The width at the base of the tower was thousands of miles! Like everything else, Tsiolkovsky thought it up first, but in insufficient detail. Keith Lofstrom MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 87 16:52:50 GMT From: dayton!viper!dave@rutgers.rutgers.edu (David Messer) Subject: Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter In article <7761@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> How do you build the sail? > >Presumably robotic construction, it will be too big and too flimsy to use >human labor efficiently. If you postulate self-reproducing machinery, in >particular, a 1000-km sail is trivial. If you postulate self-reproducing machinery almost ANY large engineering problem is trivial. >I've seen a properly-shielded proposal >for an antimatter-powered ship capable of 90+% of the speed of light, and >the shielding problems of more modest vessels pale beside that one. It seems to me that you would need on the order of five times as much "fuel", half of which is anti-matter, as payload to achieve 90% of C. It must be an interesting design to handle that much anti-matter with so little structure. >"We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology I choose the stars. :-) David Messer ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 87 17:12:00 GMT From: amdahl!meccts!viper!dave@AMES.ARPA (David Messer) Subject: Re: Some comments on anti-matter storage In article <8703101137.AA12054@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >Paul claimed that anti-hydrogen could be stored in a vacuum container >by being suspended through paramagnetism. I will not address the >question of heating and melting of the anti-hydrogen by magnetic eddy >currents (though this is a problem). Instead I'll show that this is >impossible due to vacuum constraints. One **might** achieve such a >vaccum inside a diamond container heated to several thousand degrees >and then cooled to near zero degrees kelvin. One could I don't know why you decided on a diamond container other than to make it sound expensive. Does anyone know what the vapor pressure of diamond is compared to, say, gold? >take this container to interstellar space, open-and-close it and then >bring it back to Earth (I don't think it's possible to artifically pump Why bring it back to Earth? I think the eviromentalists would quite rightly object to manufacturing of anti-matter on Earth. (Nice anti-matter you have there... Be a shame if you were to drop it... :-) >Another fix is to suspend the antimatter in front of the spacecraft and >insist that the spacecraft doesn't leave interstellar space. However >this seems rather silly to have a spaceship that can't leave >interstellar space. No sillier than having water-ships that can't leave the ocean. Space is big (really big), if one has to build one's starship in the orbit of Pluto, it really wouldn't make a whole lot of difference to travel time needed between stars. David Messer - Lynx Data Systems ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #179 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04118; Tue, 31 Mar 87 03:03:40 PST id AA04118; Tue, 31 Mar 87 03:03:40 PST Date: Tue, 31 Mar 87 03:03:40 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8703311103.AA04118@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #180 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 31 Mar 87 03:03:40 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #180 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 180 Today's Topics: Your Tax Dollars At Work Hole in Ionosphere Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel space dates Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel summery of info on texts about Orbital Mechanics The Cold Rush of 1987 Re: The Cold Rush of 1987 Re: Space Elevators Emergency evacuation of planet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Mar 87 22:42:08 GMT From: ulysses!faline!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Your Tax Dollars At Work NASA attempted to launch an Atlas Centaur carrying a FltSatCom this afternoon after delaying because of weather for a few minutes. Contact was lost at launch + 51 seconds when range safety blew it up; there is initial speculation that the launcher may have been hit by lightning. At least it was a military payload this time instead of another weather satellite; they'll certainly not have any problems in getting money to buy another one. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 87 13:30:17 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!sslvax!bt@seismo.css.gov (Brian Thompstone) Subject: Hole in Ionosphere Hey you guys, the UK national TV news have just discovered that there is a large (growing?!) hole in the ionosphere over Antarctica, and rumours of one in the northern hemisphere. They showed animated timelapse satellite pictures of the Antarctic hole (very pretty) and warned of its potential for 'skin cancer'/'changing LifeAsWeKnowIt'. Maybe this news item was timed to coincide with the EEC meeting where the chemical giants *might* be forced to reduce production of certain aerosol propellants etc. by a massive 20%. Articles in journals such as New Scientest and Scientific American over the last 6 months have suggested a certain amount of controversy over the facts and or interpretations (if very little in the way of dire warnings.) Anybody got some real info?? BT ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 87 03:51:47 GMT From: euler.Berkeley.EDU!dma@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. M. Auslander) Subject: Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel We already have a problem with space debris. The shuttle windows were pitted by bits and pieces of various old space vehicles out there. We also run the risk of running out of room for everything we want to put up. There's an international committee assigning slots out at geosynch for precisely that reason. Miriam Nadel ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 87 01:58:06 GMT From: pyramid!amdahl!dlb!auspyr!sci!daver@decwrl.dec.com (Dave Rickel) Subject: space dates A while back I posted a request for dates for firsts and lasts in space. I got a few requests for the dates, but no actual dates. Anyway, here is what I have so far. The info is culled from a National Space Society list, a Scientific American book, a World Almanac, and perhaps some other sources that I don't recall offhand. If there are any errors or additions or suggestions, send them to me. The posting is formatted to fit my calendar program (which I'm too embarrassed to post). It should be fairly simple to convert to other formats. The first field is the day of the week the event takes place on (1 for monday, 6 for saturday, 7 for sunday, 0 for unspecified). The second field is the day of the month, the third is the month of the year, everything else is data. /*###*/ 0/10/4/1957 Sputnik 1. 0/1/31/1958 Explorer 1. 0/10/7/1959 Luna 3 sends pictures of lunar farside. 0/4/12/1961 Yurii A. Gagarin, first man in orbit. 0/2/20/1962 John Glenn, first american in orbit. 0/8/26/1962 Mariner 2 launched. First spacecraft to flyby another planet, \ first to flyby Venus. 0/12/14/1962 Mariner 2 Venus flyby. 0/6/16/1963 Valentina Tereshkova, first woman in orbit. 0/10/12/1964 Voskhod 1 (Vladimir Komarov, Boris Yegorov, Konstantin \ Feoktistov), first multi-man spaceflight. 0/11/28/1964 Mariner 4 launched. First spacecraft to flyby Mars. 0/3/18/1965 Aleksei Leonov, first spacewalk. 0/4/6/1965 Intelsat 1 ("Early Bird") first commercial geosynchronous \ communications satellite. 0/7/14/1965 Mariner 4, Mars flyby. 0/11/16/1965 Venera 3 launched. First spacecraft to land on another planet \ (crash), first to land on Venus. 0/2/3/1966 Luna 9, first lunar landing. 0/3/1/1966 Venera 3, Venus landing. 0/3/16/1966 Gemini 8 (Neil Armstrong, Dave Scott) first space docking. 0/4/3/1966 Luna 10, first lunar orbiter. 0/6/2/1966 Surveyor 1, first American lunar lander. 0/2/27/1967 Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, Ed White die in Apollo I fire. 0/4/24/1967 Vladimir Komarov dies when parachute lines of Soyuz 1 tangle. 0/9/9/1967 First successful test flight of a Saturn V. 0/9/17/1968 Zond 5, first circumnavigation of the moon (?) 0/12/21/1968 Apollo 8 (Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, Bill Anders) first manned \ lunar voyage 0/12/24/1968 Apollo 8 enters lunar orbit. 0/1/5/1969 Venera 5 launched. First spacecraft to successfully land on \ another planet. 0/5/16/1969 Venera 5, Venus landing. 0/7/16/1969 Apollo 11 (Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin E. Aldrin Jr., Michael \ Collins) launched. First manned lunar landing. 0/7/20/1969 LM Eagle (Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin) (Apollo 11), lunar landing. 0/5/19/1971 Mars 2 launched. First spacecraft to land on Mars (crash). 0/5/28/1971 Mars 3 launched. First spacecraft to soft land on Mars. 0/5/30/1971 Mariner 9 launched. 0/6/30/1971 Gerogi T. Dobrovolsky, Vladislav N. Volkov, Viktor I. Patsayev \ die during Soyuz 11 reentry. 0/8/17/1970 Venera 7 launched. 0/12/15/1970 Venera 7, first soft landing on Venus. 0/4/19/1971 Salyut 1 launched. 0/11/13/1971 Mariner 9, first orbit of another planet, first orbit of Mars. 0/11/27/1971 Mars 2, Mars landing. 0/12/2/1971 Mars 3, Mars landing. 0/3/3/1972 Pioneer 10 launched. First spacecraft to traverse asteroid belt, \ first flyby of Jupiter, first to use gravity-assisted trajectory, first to \ escape Solar System. 0/12/7/1971 Apollo 17 (Eugene A. Cernan, Ronald E. Evans, Harrison H. \ Schmitt) launched. Last Apollo moon mission. 0/4/6/1973 Pioneer 11 launched. First spacecraft to flyby Saturn. 0/5/14/1973 Skylab 1, last flight of a Saturn V. 0/5/25/1973 Skylab 2 (Charles Conrad Jr., Joseph P. Kerwin, Paul J. Weitz), \ first American manned space station. 0/11/3/1973 Mariner 10 launched. First spacecraft to flyby Mercury. 0/11/16/1973 Skylab 4 (Gerald P. Carr, Edward G. Gibson, William Pogue), \ final Skylab mission. 0/12/3/1973 Pioneer 10, Jupiter flyby. 0/3/29/1974 Mariner 10, Mercury flyby. 0/7/15/1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project linkup. First US-USSR joint flight. \ Last Apollo flight. 0/5/20/1976 Viking 1, Mars landing. 0/9/1/1979 Pioneer 11, Saturn flyby. 0/4/12/1981 Columbia (John Young, Bob Crippen) first shuttle voyage. 0/6/13/1983 Pioneer 10 passes orbit of Neptune. 0/6/18/1983 Sally Ride, first American woman in orbit. 0/1/28/1986 Francis Scobee, Michael Smith, Judith Resnik, Ellison Onizuka, \ Ronald McNair, Gregory Jarvis, Christa McAuliffe die in Challenger explosion. 0/2/24/1986 Voyager 2, first Uranus flyby. /*###*/ david rickel cae780!weitek!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 87 17:38:10 GMT From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel > We already have a problem with space debris. The shuttle windows were > pitted by bits and pieces of various old space vehicles out there. We > also run the risk of running out of room for everything we want to put up. > There's an international committee assigning slots out at geosynch for > precisely that reason. That's not the reason for assigning geostationary orbit slots. Space isn't THAT full of junk, at least not yet. Geostationary orbit slots are assigned because the satellites share the same frequency allocations, and they must be far enough apart as seen from the ground to be easily distinguishable with practical antennas. Once a satellite dies, it disappears from its slot as far as the allocation is concerned, although it is of course still up there physically. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 87 02:29:05 GMT From: u5@eddie.mit.edu (John DeRoo) Subject: summery of info on texts about Orbital Mechanics enclosed please find a summery of the mail I received in response to my request for information about textbooks on orbital mechanics. -u5 ---------------------- Subject: Re: Texts on Orbital Mechanics From: rutgers!dave@viper.MIT.EDU I just bought the best book on this subject that I have seen. It is "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" by Bate, Mueller and White. Apparently this is the standard text used in the Air Force academy for their astrodynamics course. I have only had time to glance at the book, but it seems to cover the whole range of orbital mechanics including a complete solution to the two-body problem and the techniques used in solving the N-body problem. David Messer - Lynx Data Systems :::::::::::::: Subject: Re: Texts on Orbital Mechanics In my Physics of the Solar System course I took, the prof made up his own "textbook" which was something he kept up-to-date via a computer file. He said (as did everyone else in the astronomy dept.) that since astronomy is changing so fast, it doesn't pay to write a textbook on it, since it will be out-of-date before it is published. While this doesn't quite apply to orbital mech., this "textbook" from my course did have quite a bit of this subject in it. If you send me your USNail address, I could send you the appropriate sections. (...) In terms of posting my reply in the summary, you can say that if others want to get the text, they might be able to get it from Professor Alan Meltzer Astronomy Department Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY 12180-3590 I'm not sure whether *he* would like being swamped with requests, either--however, I'm sure he could point people to where he had gotten the info to write the "textbook" in the first place. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 87 14:02 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: The Cold Rush of 1987 Scientists at Wayne State University, in Michigan, have announced the detection of superconductivity at 240 degrees K (-27 F) in a two-phase mixture of the YBaCuO compound system. Drs. Chen and Wenger, in an attempt to disprove numerous results from other labs hinting at high temperature superconductivity in the material, applied a high-frequency alternating current to the sample and detected the resulting dc voltage. They are now attempting to identify and isolate the high temperature superconducting phase. According the Chen "somebody could announce a room temperature material at any moment." Progress has been extremely rapid. According to M. Brian Maple of UCSD, "`Recently' in this field now means two days ago." Bell Labs scientists have fashioned flexible ribbons and ceramic rings of the materials, so there is evidence applications may be closer than many believe. The only physicists concerned about this stuff are the particle physicists. They're afraid it will delay the SSC. If they wait until very strong magnets can be built, the SSC will shrink to the point where it will fit in the LEP tunnel at CERN, and the europeans will beat them to the Nobel prizes again. This is Space Digest, so I'll mention some implications for space. I'm not sure what the effect of these discoveries will be on space based power systems. On the plus side, rectennas could be placed in deserts far from cities, and perhaps highly efficient millimeter wave transmitters and receivers could be developed, shrinking the incremental size of the system. Fusion gets a big boost. If very large magnetic fields can be produced, reactors shrink and fuel density increases. D-He3 fuel would become preferable for use in main-line reactor concepts, since reactor power density would be limited by neutron wall loading, not by the physically attainable power density in the plasma. This is excellent news for those contemplating lunar He3 mines. On the minus side, more conventional power systems also get a boost. MHD generators like high magnetic fields (power density scales as B**2). Conventional generators will get smaller and more efficient. Replacing long distance transmission lines with superconductive lines will save enough energy to put 50+ power plants in the US in mothballs. Practical energy storage systems will save even more. This could reduce the demand for new generating capacity for years. Earth based photovoltaic systems in deserts may be practical. End user efficiency will also improve, perhaps reducing the demand for electricity. The new technology should also reduce the price of electricity, though, so elasticity of demand may increase consumption. Any use for this stuff *in* space? High temperature superconductors would be very useful in electrodynamic tethers, inertial fusion rocket nozzles, mass drivers, railguns and energy storage for all kinds of pulsed power systems. Rocket powered MHD generators could be useful for powering laser weapons and launchers. Does a very high magnetic field make the "MHD Fanjet" more practical? Can MHD systems replace turbines or pumps in conventional rockets, increasing reliability? Magnetic radiation shielding? Efficient millimeter or submillimeter wave transmitters and receivers could make beamed power useful in powering spacecraft anywhere in the earth-moon system. Compact fusion plants would be much appreciated for use on the moon and in space. I'm looking forward to buying the following technotoy: a bowl of room temperature superconductor above which a magnetized globe is levitated. It would make a great conversation piece for the coffee table. Someone made a comment about rare earth elements being rare. They aren't. The average abundance of yttrium in the earth's crust, for example, is over twice that of lead and 60% that of copper. There isn't a big market for yttrium (currently maybe 50 tons are used per year in red TV phosphors, along with assorted other uses in specialty alloys, microwave ceramics and lasers), but should a big market develop, I expect production will increase and costs will drop from economies of scale (how much would iron cost if only 50 tons/year were made?). Monazite, a common heavy mineral rich in rare earths that often occurs as sand deposits in ancient river channels, is 3% yttrium. Yttrium metal is made by reduction of the fluoride with calcium metal, but superconductors are made from the oxide, so this expensive step is unnecessary. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Mar 87 00:03:12 GMT From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) Subject: Re: The Cold Rush of 1987 In article ... DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >... On the plus side, rectennas could be placed in deserts far from cities ... >... Earth based photovoltaic systems in deserts may be practical. ... What has a desert done to you lately? Since the cities already have ruined ecologies, why not put these microwave and lightwave receivers there? If these systems are safe enough for fragile desert ecologies, they will not bother humans in cities. People should live in their own waste. It makes for a cleaner world. Apologies to Paul Dietz, this is not a personal attack. He obviously had grander visions on his mind. I just want to make sure we watch our means while achieving our ends. Lawrence Crowl ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 87 22:55:00 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!ccplumb@seismo.css.gov Subject: Re: Space Elevators For a good discussion of tethers (all the math and physics) see Jerry Pournelle's _A_Step_Farther_Out_. He also edited _Far_Frontiers_, which had a discussion of these `skyhooks' in Vol. 1. -Colin Plumb (watmath!watnot!ccplumb) Quote: It's like talking to a needle in a haystack. ------------------------------ Comment: 28 Mar 87 20:56:01 PST Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1987 20:55 PST From: HMICHEL%CALSTATE.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Emergency evacuation of planet I just saw "When Worlds Collide" for the first time today (a 1951 film that won an Oscar for special effects--thoroughly undeserving for any other category by the way). In the film the world has one year before a roving star and planet come by and cause problems. One group of scientists, backed by essentially unlimited resources, builds a space ship to escape. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION Given a catastrophic need, how many space ships could be built and how many people could be evacuated from earth within the next year? Where could we go that would give the human race a viable opportunity for indefinite survival? LIMITS FOR DISCUSSION Assume the threat is unavoidable. I am not interested in various methods of blowing up a meteor or comet or whatever. Assume global cooperation. Don't be concerned about military needs. Don't be concerned with the effects of the catastrophy. You may assume that the rest of the solar system is available for colonization, even our own moon. (Although, if you want to make some comments about what would happen to the moon if the earth was fragmentized, I would be interested in that insofar as it would affect the moon as a choice for colonization.) You get the drift, I am mainly interested in how many people could hope to escape and where we could go. I'm looking forward to your thoughts. Michael W. Fleming ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #180 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA26883; Wed, 1 Apr 87 03:03:16 PST id AA26883; Wed, 1 Apr 87 03:03:16 PST Date: Wed, 1 Apr 87 03:03:16 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704011103.AA26883@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #181 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 1 Apr 87 03:03:16 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #181 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 181 Today's Topics: Boston L5/NSS April Meeting Notice NASA Summer positions Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova USSR adds addition to Mir space station Space elevator calculations Re: Emergency evacuation of planet Re: Emergency evacuation of planet Interstellar matter Bussard ramjets More comments on Star Travel Forward's antimatter article in New Destinies Problems with Lightsails for Interstellar Travel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 87 18:51:25 EST From: glenn%ll-vlsi.arpa@ll-vlsi.arpa (Glenn Chapman) Subject: Boston L5/NSS April Meeting Notice For those in the Boston area I will now try and post the meeting notices of the Boston L5/NSS on a regular basis. The Boston L5/NSS chapter April meeting is a Lecture by Jack Kelly of the Center for Space Policy Analysis. This talk will give an overview of the NASA/International space station's current status. Its present budget, international participation agreements, current planned experiments and the impact of the station on the technology of the west will be discussed. The Boston L5/NSS will meet on Thursday Apr. 2 at 8:00 pm at the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science (AI building, 545 Main St., Cambridge) in Rm NE43-512A. For more information please contact Glenn Chapman at 617-275-8729 evenings, 617-863-5500 Ex 2657 during the day, or via apra mail at glenn@ll-vlsi. Glenn Chapman, President Boston L5 MIT Lincoln Lab. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 87 17:57:04 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: NASA Summer positions The period for accepting summer positions closed over a month ago. Please stop mailing resumes, there is very little I can do with them, now. --eugene miya ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 87 07:24:59 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova _Science_ Magazine has good, current articles on Supernova 1987a (are they expecting another this year?) with the latest news direct from the scientific community. -- -Doug Reeder, Reed College ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 87 04:49:02 GMT From: bek-mc!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova In article <5815@reed.UUCP> douglas@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes: >_Science_ Magazine has good, current articles on Supernova 1987a >(are they expecting another this year?) with the latest news direct >from the scientific community. They not only expect another supernova this year, there has already been one. I expect the discoverer is rather peeved because his one shot at fame is overshadowed. (It is not really a shot at fame, over a dozen are found each year, but most of them, including 1987b, are so far away that they never get to be naked eye objects.) Time magazine had an interesting quote, which says a lot about journalists' ability to comprehend orders of magnitude. Quoting from memory "The supernova makes Mt St. Helens and Krakatoa look puny by comparison." David Palmer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 87 15:25:00 EST From: glenn%ll-vlsi.arpa@ll-vlsi.arpa (Glenn Chapman) Subject: USSR adds addition to Mir space station The Soviet Union has today (Mar 30) announced the launching of the first large addition to their Mir space station. This "star" module has a mass of about 20 Tonnes, and is about the same size as the Mir station itself. This section, called Roentgen in the West (the Russian name for it was garbled in the announcement) is devoted to high energy (X-ray) astronomy, and contains equipment built by the West Germans and the British. One interesting point is that the module has its own life support system which means that it can act as a free flyer to some extent. No date of the docking to Mir was given. It was not stated whether Roentgen was going to dock to the rear docking port of Mir, or the front axial one. The Soviet plans call for modules docked to the forward axial port to be transferred by a remote manipulator attachment to one of the 4 side ports of the front docking "ball". However Mir was launched without its manipulators in place (they would not fit inside the launch shroud), and it was planned that they would be added later on in an EVA which has not yet taken place. Actually this launch is even a little ahead of schedule because the Russians had stated to the western researchers that the module would be up there by the end of May. One other interesting point is that of the two cosmonauts currently on Mir, the rookie one, Alexander Laveikin, has already obtained 1270 hours of zero g time on his first mission. On April 12th he will exceed the duration of the highest time of a currently active US astronaut (Owen Garriott with 1674 hours from Skylab 3 and STS-9). By coincidence (?) April 12th is also the 26th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's flight which opened the age of man in space. Again the USSR is moving ahead. Mean while the congress is now trying to cut 2.1 billion out of NASA's funds. Is that what we really want? Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 87 18:48:35 CST From: David Chase Subject: Space elevator calculations Please also include in your calculations the amount of mass that must be lifted to geosynchronous orbit. If you are really ambitious, provide an estimate of what happens if the cable should break in the middle; does it all fall in one place, burn up, or pulverize some distant city? Back of the hand physics (no envelope handy) say that it will fall to the east. Of course, an 18000 mile section of cable (with elevator attached, of course) could land almost anywhere. David ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 87 13:24:37 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (Rick Kolker) Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet Martin Caidin (so many books I can't begin to name them) addresses this in his latest book 'Exit Earth'. I don't agree with all of what he says (and the end of the book is much too convenient) but it does put 'Worlds' in a contemporary situation. Rich Kolker ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 87 08:25:06 GMT From: mcvax!enea!tut!santra!kolvi!jku@seismo.css.gov (Juha Kuusama) Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet In article <8703290457.AA28166@angband.s1.gov> HMICHEL@CALSTATE.BITNET writes: > Given a catastrophic need, how many space ships could be built and >how many people could be evacuated from earth within the next year? >Where could we go that would give the human race a viable opportunity >for indefinite survival? > Assume global cooperation. Don't be concerned about military needs. I admit knowing about nothing about spaceship building, but I do know something about humans! My bet is that even if we assume cooperation between nations, the answer is either zero or all, and that means zero. Humans are infinitely jealous. The rescued group is obviously limited. No project as big as that can be completed in arised social situation. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 87 14:33 EDT From: Subject: Interstellar matter In V7 # 160 Jay Freeman writes: > The too-low-density bug might better be reinvestigated as > "how far is the nearest high-density region of the interstellar > medium?" and in V7 #161 Keith Lynch sez: > Nobody knows the density of interstellar dust grains. (Obviously Keith has no friends who are radioastronomers...) In order that we may finally put the Bussard ramjet to sleep, here are the numbers. (note: M* = solar mass = 2 E+33 gm, pc3 = cubic parsec, kpc = 1000 pc) In a 1 kpc survey about the sun, the long-dead Copernicus satellite found these densities: HII(=H+) .003 M*/pc3 HI(=neutral H) .031 M*/pc3 H2(=molecular H) .007 M*/pc3 note that 1 M*/pc3 = 40.3 H atoms/cc = 6.8 E-23 gm/cc. Typical ISM dust grain density: 0.002 M*/pc3 Typical properties of interstellar clouds (cf. _Astrophysics II_, Bowers and Deeming, 1984): Type Kinetic Temp density Composition (atoms /cc) Diffuse Clouds 50-150 K 10-1000 mostly HI mass=400 M* radius = 5 pc Molecular Clouds 3-10 K 10^3 - 10^6 mostly H2, molecules (CO), and dust m = 300 M* r = 1 pc The nearest clouds are on the order of a *kpc* away. Nobody's gonna use a Bussard ramjet in the near future. :-( | Legalize | Marc Pound--Boston Univ. Astro Dept | Henry Spencer! | pound@buasta (on a variety of networks) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 87 08:39:19 SA From: Tero Siili Subject: Bussard ramjets I have not been following the digest in a while, so my comments may be out of date, but anyway: 1. How does one achieve braking to halt in a solar system with a BRJ? If I picture the situation correctly, in order to brake down the magnetic scoop would have to remain in the direction of motion and simultaneously the thrust would have to be to the direction of the scoop. Two questions arise: how does the outgoing, most probably high-temperature and ionized fusion-product plasma interact with the magnetic field of the scoop and secondly, is it possible, that after expelling the fusion-products, the 'ashes', to the direction of movement, at sometime the scoop eventually begins to collect the 'ashes' along with hydrogen, which eventually would change the realtive amount amount of fusionable fuel in the scooped stuff, thus maybe reducing the efficiency of the fusion plant? 2. Those discussing about laser-powered lightsails, someone suggested, that the tracking of the ship and the sail would be done preprogrammed. It would be nice to read, what magnitude of angular accuracy would be needed at the solar system end, to keep the laser beam on target even about 4-7 light-years distance away. Additionally, Robert Forward suggested using the same laser for braking to halt at the target solar system. If the beam does not go on target, the ship can not stop. It would be nice for a manned vehicle... Some other questions arise, what is the scattering due interstellar medium, does the solar wind of other stars have effect(probably not), etc... Well, that much for this time Tero Siili Helsinki University of Technology, Finland ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 87 16:22:31 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: More comments on Star Travel In SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 162, Henry Spencer responded to some earlier remarks made by me concerning Robert Forward's laser driven light sail. >> ... Where would you get the energy? >Presumably solar energy. Mercury is valuable territory. A major problem here will be dumping the waste heat. If we assume that our laser is pumping out a terra-watt and is operating at 10 percent efficiency then we have to reject 9 terra-watts. If the radiator is made of steel then it will have a surface area of greater than 14.7 square kilometers in order not to melt (that's a square steel plate that is 2.4 miles by 2.4 miles). This radiator will have to be in the shadow of the collector or a sun shield. Building such a device on Mercury would be ill advised because it would only worsen heat rejection. >> How do you build the sail? >Presumably robotic construction, it will be too big and too flimsy to >use human labor efficiently. If you postulate self-reproducing >machinery, in particular, a 1000-km sail is trivial. A 1000-km sail is trivial as is a 1000-km frensel lens and a 14.7 square km radiator?? Henry, your credibility is showing. I got a better thing to postulate: Let's postulate that if we close our eyes, clap our hands, and wish real hard then an FTL-drive will appear out of thin air. A self-reproducing machine with full AI capability already exists (it's called a human being). I doubt you'll ever make a machine that is cheaper than that. However by your own admission this sail is too big and flimsy for humans to make. >> How do you accurately track the sail when it is over a >> light year away?... >You don't. All you do is keep the beam pointed in pretty much the >right direction, with maybe an occasional correction. The spacecraft >moves to stay in the beam, not vice-versa. The key problem is not sail >tracking but pointing stability. Now that's a pretty thin come back. You're a bright guy Henry, you know that the position error of the beam will grow as you get further away. There will be jitter on board the laser due to machinery and buffeting from the solar wind and light pressure (the intensity of which is almost totally chaotic). Your sail is supposed to have a pretty heafty velocity vector and is quite fragile (so no large delta Vs). Of course you can fix that by letting the beam diverge but that defeats the whole idea. --- Commentary --- There is too much wishful thinking in these ideas and not enough hard science. I want to see us get to the Stars as much as anyone else in this news group. However Science Fiction masquerading as real engineering proposals isn't going to get the job done. Let's increase the signal-to-noise ratio on the issue of Star Travel and make the subject respectable. Too many times have I read someone claim that some whacky idea was plausible and all that remained was the engineering details. Those engineering details are often 99.999999% of the problem. Look at nuclear fusion, the problem is "trivial". All you got to do is drop a speck of tritium-deuterium into a container and zap it with a laser. The minor details of the laser, radiation, heat extraction, etc. are "simple" engineering details and not worthy of our concern. What utter Hogwash. If we can't crack the "trivial" engineering details of Inertial Containment Fusion, then what hope is there for these other crazy ideas. Come on guys, get some perspective on the problem. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Fri 13 Mar 87 10:34:25-CST From: Larry Van Sickle Subject: Forward's antimatter article in New Destinies A more easily obtainable artice by Robert L. Forward on the engineering of antimatter space drives is in New Destinies, Volume 1, Spring 1987, Baen Books. It should be in your local bookstore in the science fiction section. Larry Van Sickle cs.vansickle@r20.utexas.edu.#Internet Computer Sciences Department U of Texas at Austin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 87 16:36:44 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Problems with Lightsails for Interstellar Travel Some comments on laser-propelled lightsails: The article which must be read in order to comment intellegently about interstellar travel using laser-pushed lightsails is Forward's article in the March-April 1984 _Journal of Spacecraft_. However, this article seriously underestimates the difficulties. Consider the problem of pointing accuracy. At a distance of one parsec, the beam will wander a million miles if the pointing accuracy diverges by as much as 1/360,000 of a degree. Unless drift is very very slow (weeks) the craft will not be able to follow the beam. A thin plastic lense 1000 kilometers in diameter will be a very difficult object to hold in position. There are also fundamental optics problems. If the lense is assumed to be 15 AU from the laser and focussed at a spot 4 light years away, the optical magnification at the target is 200,000, the ratio of the object and image distances. The light misses the sail if it is misdirected by half the sail diameter. Given that the sail diameter for the first mission is 4 km, this implies: The lense must be positioned to within an accuracy of 1 cm in the lateral direction, (2) The laser aperture must also be positioned to within 1 cm, (3) The laser aperture must be no larger than 1 cm. I can't believe that a 1000 km lense could be positioned to within a centimeter, or that a laser could put the required power density through a 1 cm aperture. Further, assuming a laser wavelength of about 1 micron, with a 1 cm aperture, the diffraction limited beam spread of the laser will be about .0001 radian. With the lense 2 billion kilometers from the laser, the beam width at the lense will be 200,000 km: most of the beam will miss the lense. (Obviously, positioning the lense closer to the laser will not help, since it makes the magnification factor larger.) Forward pointed out, when I brought up some of these issues that some of the optics problems might be made to go away if a diverging lense is placed in front of the converging lense, although at a cost of adding some new complications. The fundamental problem of pointing accuracy is not solved, and this is the basic issue behind lense positioning. For the larger sails or sails that only accelerate close to the sun (eg., fly-by missions), the problems are not quite as bad. For the 100 km diameter sail in the rendezvous mission, the positioning accuracy can be 25 cm, which is still an amazing feat of positioning for a 1000 km lense. The laser aperture can be up to 25 cm: the beam will still mostly miss the lense. For the 1000 km diameter sail used for the manned mission, the accuracies are 2.5 meters, and the laser will at least hit the lense. In short, laser pushed lightsails are a *possible* way to do starflight, but are not an *easy* solution. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #181 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA29288; Thu, 2 Apr 87 03:03:11 PST id AA29288; Thu, 2 Apr 87 03:03:11 PST Date: Thu, 2 Apr 87 03:03:11 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704021103.AA29288@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #182 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 2 Apr 87 03:03:11 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #182 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 182 Today's Topics: condensed space news from Jan 19 AW&ST anti-matter storage, how good a vacuum? Orion Recalculated And the Star Travel debate rages on.... antimatter confinement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Mar 87 00:34:36 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: condensed space news from Jan 19 AW&ST Soviet Union 1986 launch schedule was 91 missions, slightly fewer than earlier years due to longer-lived satellites. First 1987 launch was a weather satellite on Jan 5. Launch of Japan's MOS-1 Marine Observation Satellite postponed a month due to problems in satellite instrumentation. New US position on international cooperation on Space Station to be presented at multinational meeting in early Feb. DoD influence felt. House/Senate continues to refuse release of Space Station hardware funds because NASA has not satisfied them about life sciences and payload funding. Truly is re-evaluating policy on shuttle payload specialists. They may be limited to one per flight, because extending crew complement beyond that means using middeck lockers for crew supplies, and there is a desperate shortage of middeck locker space for small payloads. STS-26 crew is emphasizing visits to contractors and NASA centers to hear workforce concerns and boost morale. First full-scale SRB firing slips to mid-March; delay in STS-26 possible. NOAA will hold competition to buy 3+ expendables for GOES launches. NOAA has funding for the launchers in its new budget, which also marks a victory in that the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting has been convinced to approve two polar-orbiting metsats (it has repeatedly tried to reduce the civilian polar metsat constellation to one). USAF proposes Adaptable Space Propulsion System, essentially a replacement for Shuttle/Centaur, providing a backup for Titan/Centaur. Target is 10k pounds into Clarke orbit, using hypergolic liquids or a hypergolic/solid combination. (An all-solid solution does not seem feasible.) New engines may be needed. One problem is that 10klb to Clarke orbit probably can't be done without cryogenics unless NASA authorizes a 55klb payload weight for the shuttle, and NASA's current position is that the USAF should plan for 50klb max. [Micro-editorial: The solution to this is obviously to take a Centaur up dry, and fuel it in orbit from residual External Tank propellants or from an orbiting propellant facility. This would have many other uses. -- HS] NASA management to be briefed on new Space Station cost estimates, which are said to have grown to $12-13G from the $8G target. NASA management says if it's that bad, reductions in scope will be needed. Also to be presented is the "lifeboat" crew-rescue issue. The lifeboat unfortunately would need $0.3-1G extra, and may be presented to Congress as an "if you want it, add money" option. There is great concern about the escalating Station costs. [A long scathing editorial about the Space Station situation is coming, but it will have to wait until I have a bit more time to write it. -- HS] [Meanwhile, a snide suggestion: why not contract with the Soviets for a rescue mission if needed? *They* can do rapid-reaction launches! -- HS] NASA Dep. Admin. Dale Myers says that NASA wants to be involved in the DoD heavy-lift vehicle, which is very ill-defined as yet. He says it is becoming clear that neither NASA nor DoD really knows how to cut launch costs by a factor of 10, an oft-cited goal. Obvious HLV candidates are shuttle-derived systems and souped-up Titans. McDonnell-Douglas redesigns Titan 4 payload shroud after test shroud fails during test. DoD MLV winner expected to be announced this week. Transpace and McD-D agree to cooperation on commercial Delta if Delta wins. [It did.] USAF reduces Vandenberg shuttle pad from operational caretaker status to minimum caretaker effective next Oct, lengthening reactivation time. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 87 01:03:52 PST X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 14 11:50:18 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: anti-matter storage, how good a vacuum? Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 12:29:19 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Some comments on anti-matter storage The best vacuum known is in interstellar space which is 0.1 particles per cubic centimeter. The interplanetary vacuum is 1000 particle/cc. ... The best current artifical vacuum is at about 1.0E10 particles per cc. What on Earth (literally) are you talking about?? I thought we were talking about some 50-100 years in the future when we're living and working in space? What makes you think the ability to force air out of a vessel into Earth's atmosphere is relevant? Let us assume that through the marvels of technology an artificial vacuum of 1000 particles/cc is possible (a seven orders of magnitude improvement). No marvel is needed; merely open your vessel to interplanetary space. With ionization and electromagnetic pumping of the ions out to interplanetary space (instead of into Earth's atmosphere as you seem to imply) and free electrons we should be able to achieve several orders of magnitude better than the ambient (interplanetary) semi-vacuum. One **might** achieve such a vaccum inside a diamond container heated to several thousand degrees and then cooled to near zero degrees kelvin. One could take this container to interstellar space, open-and-close it and then bring it back to Earth (I don't think it's possible to artifically pump it down). Why would you ever want to bring your container back to Earth? Surely you don't think we're going to try to store massive amounts (a few grams) of antimatter anywhere near or on Earth, do you? We're trying to get hazardous or polluting industry off Earth into space! Another fix is to suspend the antimatter in front of the spacecraft and insist that the spacecraft doesn't leave interstellar space. However this seems rather silly to have a spaceship that can't leave interstellar space. By your logic it would be silly to have an airplane that can't travel on freeways or a ocean-liner that can't leave water, after all what good does it do to have a plane or ship that can't deliver door to door? What ever happened to the idea of a shuttle craft? The big trans-star ship keeps away from dense matter, and the local shuttle commutes between the trans-star ship and the local planet or space-colony. Apologies to Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, but it looks like antimatter storage doesn't work. Credit for Startrek for having a starship which never landed itself on planets but either beamed people down&up (probably not possible) or used a shuttle craft. Startrek was sort of right on that point I think. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 87 12:34:57 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Orion Recalculated An article by Ted Taylor in the recent (April) Scientific American gives yield to weight figures for fusion bombs: "The overall yield to weight ratio fo strategic thermonuclear warheads has been as high as about six kilotons per kilogram. Although the maximum theoretical ratios are 17 and 50 kt/kg from fission and fusion reactions, the maximum for US weapons has probably come close to the practical limit owing to various unaboidable inefficiencies in nuclear weapon design (primarily arising from the fact that it is impossible to keep the weapon from disintegrating before complete fission of fusion of the nuclear explosive has taken place). In his article on Orion type propulsion in Physics Today, Freeman Dyson uses as a lower limit 1 kiloton per kilogram. Multiplying by a factor of SQRT(6) (note that specific impulse is proportional to square root of energy) gives an exhaust velocity of 7500 km/sec if the entire debris velocity is converted into exhaust velocity. For the best Dyson assumes (for reasons I don't quite follow--he apparently does not consider the possiblility of a magnetic nozzle, and seems to assume that material that hits the pusher plate is stopped rather than reflected) that the exhaust velocity is the debris velocity over two. This may be a more realistic assumption if we include inefficiencies anyway. An exhaust velocity of 3700 km/sec is 1.2 percent of c. For the nonrelativistic case (and relativistic flight is real hard with only exhaust velocities of 1.2% c!) The maximum velocitys obtained at a mass ratio M for a stop-at-destination trip is V(mission) = V(exhaust)*EXP(M) /2. So for a mass ratio of, say, 100, we can get mission velocities of about 5% of c, which means the nearest stars in about 100 years. (Eliminating Dyson's factor of two doubles the exhaust velocity, and halves this time) --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 87 12:21:16 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: And the Star Travel debate rages on.... The Star Travel debate is attracting alot of interest. This is great, since the subject is certainly interesting. However some reader's responses bordered on being random. I would like to encourage these people that before they hose out some emotional flame onto the net that they proof read it before to see if their argument is comprehensible (many weren't). As usual the most well thought out and technically correct responses come from Paul Dietz. Paul made a couple of statements that were incorrect: > Gary Allen claimed that interstellar colonization was impossible, I've never claimed that interstellar travel is impossible. In fact in an earlier posting I described a way to travel to the stars by means of an interstellar "Ark" and based my 50 light year colonization limit on this vehicle. I am confident that interstellar travel **is** possible through Inertial Fusion Rockets (IFR) of the type described by the British Interplanetary Society and Rod Hyde of LLNL. However I do think that interstellar travel by Bussard Ram Scoops, anti-matter rockets or laser driven light sails is impossible. >Gary Allen's analysis of antimatter heating in imperfect vacuum had >several flaws. (1) Gary assumed that all the energy generated in >annihilations on the tiny solid hydrogen mote will be deposited in that >mote. Gary's mote had a surface area of 1E-11 meters, for a diameter of >slightly under 2 microns. The gamma radiation produced in annihilation >will travel meters in antihydrogen, and the charged particles s >centimeters... only a small fraction of the energy released is >deposited by the antihydrogen. (2) Gary claimed that heating of the >vacumm chamber will lead to runaway outgassing.... >the energy hitting the wall per unit can be made arbitrarily low >by increasing the radius of the container. I redid the calculation assumning a ten percent absorption of the energy. Unfortunately the temperature of the anti-hydrogen is still at the one atmosphere boiling point. The calculation was a simple order of magnitude analysis to prove impossibility. Except for the assumption of energy absorption, I always made assumptions favorable to the anti-hydrogen remaining frozen. However it still melted. Of course, if you make the container really big then there will be less wall interaction. However we're talking about a fuel tank inside a star ship. This has to be reasonably compact. Also we have not addressed the problem of transport of the fuel from the tank to the combusion chamber or handling during manufacture. Both problems are far more difficult than simple storage. Also another reader mention the possibility of easier handling of anti-matter at low temperature. This is news to me. However this point is irrelevant, since the antimatter will be heated to a much higher temperature by the energy of collision and then its wave function could see the colliding particles wave function causing mutual annihilation. I should also point out that Paul's observations on the difficulty of absorbing energy raises grave questions about how one extracts thrust from a matter/anti-matter reaction. >Finally: Gary Allen made explicit his assumptions that went into his >50 light year limit on colonization. These assumptions seem debatable, >to say the least... >> The basic assumptions are that starships can never travel faster an >> than ten percent of the speed of light, and are enormously expensive. >We've already handled the first. About the second, expense is relative >to the capabilities of a society. Paul has not handled the first problem. In arguing for anti-matter rockets and Forward's light sails, Paul has not demonstrated feasibility nor has he shown the capability of relativistic velocities. Expense is relative, but a trillion bucks is still a trillion bucks. If you divide a tillion dollars over the entire American population you will be giving every single person $4000. Would you pay $4000 so someone elses grandson could make it to Tau-Ceti? I'd pay $4000 for my grandson (and $40,000 for myself). However I'm a space fanatic. From John Q. Public, you'd be lucky to get forty cents. >Gary goes on to state that stars of spectral type K5V to M are unable >to support life. Wrong -- planets around those stars are unable to >evolve life. Gary depends heavily on the assumption that building a >civilization away from planets, and on barren planets, is impossible. Paul, you're the one that's wrong. It's clear that I meant these stars couldn't evolve life. Of course they can support life that travels to it, but what idiot civilization would send a star ship to a barren system? We got plenty of dead worlds in the solar system, and it costs a whole lot less to stay here. The extreme expense of star travel is justified only if you can go to an earth-like world. >Gary mentions that the average lifetime of a civilization or country is >500 years. After that every individual gives up and dies, I suppose? No, but they could (and probably will) do something much worse. A society could regress and become no-growth. It could renounce technology and become an agricultural society concerned with religious contemplation and such burning philosophical issues as: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" The Romans inherited geometry and science from the Hellenistic Greeks. What did they do with it? Answer: Almost nothing. The Medieval Europeans also inherited this same Hellenistic tradition. What did they do with it? Answer: Almost nothing. We can thank our stars for the Renaissance. Another point people kept raising in arguing against the 50 light year limit theory was the concept of "carrying the seed". "Carrying the seed" works for the first three times you've travelled to the stars. But what do you do **after** you've carried the seed? Sure, I'd like to have a son and a daughter but do I really want ten thousand sons and daughters? The "seed" argument doesn't work for unbounded interstellar growth. Many people argued against the three star ship limitation, saying that the solar system has lots of resources, (Why should one be content with just three star ships?). However these enormously expensive ships won't be built for economic reasons. They'll be built for idealogical reasons, i.e. carrying the seed, scientific research, etc. However after your home world has done it three times and your daughter planets have each done it three times, then the thrill will be lost. The home world will be insulated from the frontier by its colonies. It'll feel that it has done its part and leave star travel to the colony worlds. Others argued against the 1 light year frontier thickness. This is an insignificant point. If you argue that the frontier is 10 light years thick, then the radial limit upon expansion is only slightly increased, if at all. The law-of-scale concerning the frontier volume servicing the home world volume would still stand. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 87 13:51:16 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: antimatter confinement >> Anti-hydrogen could be stored in a vacuum container by being >> suspended through paramagnetism. Yes, but a better way to suspend it is to put a slight charge on (hit it with a few electrons) and then suspend it between crossed capacitor plates, with an optical positioning sensor, and active control to the charge on the plates to keep it centered. >>The best current artifical vacuum is at about 1.0E10 particles per cc. >>Let us assume that through the marvels of technology an artificial >>vacuum of 1000 particles/cc is possible (a seven orders of magnitude >>improvement). One **might** achieve such a vaccum inside a diamond >>container heated to several thousand degrees and then cooled to near >>zero degrees kelvin. Tungsten would be a better choice, the sublimation vapor pressure of W at room temperature is something like 1 atom/universe. >>take such a container to interstellar space, open-and-close it and >>then bring it back to Earth [orbit] (I don't think it's possible to artifically pump it down). A good way to make high vacuum in space is to take a bluntly pointed cone and move it through the interplanetary gas at hypersonic velocities. The cone effectively bats away the gas molecules, and if it is moving faster than the kinetic velocity, very few fill in behind. Immediately behind the cone there will be a vacuum which is many orders of magnitude better than the ambient. >>Let the anti-hydrogen have a surface area of 1.0E-11 square meters. >>[assume the ambient gas is] 1 degree Kelvin (in truth it will be much >>hotter). Why hotter? >>The thermal velocity of the gas will be 1 meter/sec. 1.0e-3 >>particles/sec will impact the anti-hydrogen delivering 1.0e-5 >>ergs/sec. Carbon=12 amu, annihiliating 12 antihydrogens=24 amu total; (1 amu)*c**2=0.0015 erg, so we get 0.036 erg/atom, or 3.6e-5 ergs/sec. Close enough. >>assume that most of the heat is absorbed in the anti-hydrogen. This is the critical assumption, and it is faulty. Energy from antiparticle annihilation will mostly be in the form of pions, which decay to muons and gammas. For a small amounts, very little of the energy should be absorbed in the antihydrogen. Unfortunately, the energy will be absorbed in the container walls. However, these (a) have a much smaller energy density absorbed and (b) can be actively cooled. >Also there will be outgassing of the anti-hydrogen which will heat the >walls of the container... Now *this* could be the killer problem. What is the vapor pressure versus temperature curve for hydrogen? And how low can we take the temperature? Certainly millikelvins are possible in the lab, but probably not without ever touching the sample. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #182 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01278; Fri, 3 Apr 87 03:03:17 PST id AA01278; Fri, 3 Apr 87 03:03:17 PST Date: Fri, 3 Apr 87 03:03:17 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704031103.AA01278@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #183 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 3 Apr 87 03:03:17 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #183 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 183 Today's Topics: laser beam to interstellar sailboat Re: Space Travel ... and Antimatter Materials Strength and Bussard Ramjets Robert Forward talk, comments on. Making antimatter by neutron-antineutron oscillation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 87 03:07:04 PST X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 14 11:52:32 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: ota@galileo.s1.gov, mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov Subject: laser beam to interstellar sailboat Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 09:11:29 PST From: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Star Drives This laser could use a laser from the lightsail as a guide beam for tracking and distortion correction. This wouldn't work over interplanetary distances, much less interstellar, because of the long speed-of-light feedback delay. Let's go back to pre-aimed beam with the light sail tracking the beam not vice versa, since that involves no long servo delay, ok? Date: 10 Mar 87 22:44:35 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter All you do is keep the beam pointed in pretty much the right direction, with maybe an occasional correction. The spacecraft moves to stay in the beam, not vice-versa. The key problem is not sail tracking but pointing stability. Yup. Note the "occasional correction" must be a sudden change in the second derivative of angle, not in absolute angle nor first derivative, lest the sail suddenly lose track of the beam (literal use of word "track" here). ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 87 11:01:04 GMT From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: Space Travel ... and Antimatter Gary Allen left a few points uncriticized. I think I'll jab at them. > The engine itself will need a pretty >heavy-duty cooling system. The crew quarters will quite simply need >shielding. A combination of a long ship and shadow shielding can get the >mass down to where it's manageable. Down to where it's manageable? Hahaha. Now *why* is this man laughing? > I've seen a properly-shielded >proposal for an antimatter-powered ship capable of 90+% of the speed of >light, and the shielding problems of more modest vessels pale beside >that one. Why do I hear people throw off .9c without blinking? Grr, it worries me. You say this ship is capable of .9c? Do you know what this entails? Have you done the physics? (For the lazy, just look it up in J Ackeret "Zur Theorie der Raketen" Helv Phys Acta 19:103 (1946)) In units where c=1, to obtain final velocity v, assuming utter perfection energy-wise, the ratio of payload to entire ship is sqrt((1-v)/(1+v)). Assuming one wants to decelerate back to zero at the end, one must square this quantity. This gives 5.26%. If one is travelling at constant acceleration a, the distance travelled is (cosh(aT)-1)/a). (T here is proper time; it works out that the payload ratio is exp(-aT).) This works out to be, for acceleration measured in "g"s, 8.5/a light years (plus coasting). Now this is almost believable. But what about the real world? (There's *always* something, isn't there? Bitch, bitch, bitch.) If fraction eff of emitted energy is useful, and the rest is just dumped (this includes inefficiencies and stage separations, etc), we must raise this ratio to the 1/eff power. (This conveniently turns out to be equivalent to the case of wasteless exhausts with relative velocity eff.) So, our payload ratio becomes .00004% for eff=.2, and .000000000016% for eff=.1. Frankly, I think anyone seriously expecting eff>.2 to be achieved is a raving lunatic. ("Scotty, could you beam this 'engineering' difficulty into a wall?" "Aye aye, Captain!") Anyway, that's uh, a LOT of fuel you've got there. Now, if one were planning to return .... So let's look at v=.1. Here for eff=1.0, we get a payload ratio of 82%. Not bad. When eff=.2, we get 37%, and when eff=.1, about 14%. This may even be plausible. I'll believe it when I see it, of course. After all, eff=.01 gives us a ratio of .0000002%. Oh, you were really talking about being properly shielded? I haven't thought about the gamma rays, but what about interstellar space grains? I mean, you run into a teensy little gram at .9c, and it's like being hit by a 20 kiloton nuke blast, the size of the Hiroshima bomb. You know, as in "BOOM". That's a LOT of shielding to provide for. And there's still that immense payload ratio. (Yes, I know the typical grain is believed to be about 1e-15 g. Somehow I don't like the idea of learning about the atypical dust grains the hard way.) Even if you restrict .9c to the intergalactic medium (and pray a lot), just getting there is going to take a while. And to make matters worse, one is going to have to practically *crawl* through the Oort cloud. At .0001 or less. Note that I don't think interstellar travel is impossible. Just a lot harder and far more expensive than I think most of you want to realize. Nothing less than planetoid-sized and extraordinarily slow arks seems feasible according to known physics. >> Number two: How do >> you store the stuff? (remember quantum theory proves that no container >> is 100% effective)... > >Quantum theory turns up other interesting things, too. There has been a >suggestion Wow. An actual suggestion. THIS is why you people believe in interstel- lar travel? Because of suggestions of how physics *might* turn out? Gag me with a gluino. (And to think that I thought that the unswerving faith in the of-course solvability of the "mere" engineering difficulties was stupendous.) > that at really low temperatures -- like 0.0001 K -- antimatter >could be handled with normal matter, because the wave functions don't >overlap enough to produce a reaction. I'm not enough of a physicist to >check that one. I'm not enough either, but it sure sounds like wishful thinking. Appar- ently it's close enough for government work, and of course as always it's close enough for sci-fi. Come on. There is *always* the zero point energy minimum, even at absolute zero. *This* is what quantum mechanics tells us. And its size is inversely proportional to the mass of the object in question. As a first guess, I would expect a kind of van der Waals analogue of a force to develop between nearby hydrogen and antihydrogen atoms, encour- aging the electron and positron to annihilate each other. > The studies funded by outfits like the USAF have concluded >that storing the stuff is not an insuperable problem; low temperatures, >hard vacuum, and handling by magnetic or electric fields will suffice. Someone should tell the physics community! One of the interesting side results that I've seen noted from the method of stochastic cooling was experimental confirmation of the stability of antiprotons. Before, they had linear beams of antiprotons that travelled at near the speed of light for a fraction of a second--kind of hard to catch them. Stochastic cooling allowed circular beams to be kept going (at worthwhile beam densities). And it was just last year that the first published accounts of successful antiproton traps came out. They could actually count how many antiprotons they had. Or has the USAF stuff been kept classified all these years? Just how long have they kept antimatter stored? And how much? Sorry, I just can't be impressed by toys. > the proton-antiproton reaction does *not* yield >gammas immediately. Of course not. Protons are rather complicated objects. This has been known for nearly two decades now. But does this make a difference? > A large fraction of the energy is temporarily in the >form of charged particles, which a magnetic nozzle can handle. A "magnetic nozzle"? Now what is that? And how can it handle reaction times on the order of 1e-23 to 1e-10 seconds? (You did say "temporarily"?) And just how does it aim a mixture of positive and negative particles of various masses and momenta in the same direction? (Hmm, let me guess: "very quickly!") Yes indeed, this sounds like a classic way to revolutionize all of modern high energy physics. Perhaps they should tell someone.... > Please >read some of the work that has been done before denouncing it as impossible. OK. Here's a compromise: I will simply denounce it as science fiction. That way no one can accuse me of exaggerating. Note that I don't think the storage of vast amounts of antihydrogen is impossible. Just very very difficult, with nothing exotic about it either. Humph. I've got a much more practical suggestion for getting to the stars. First, find a good-sized black hole (say this big ---> . <---) .... ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 PS-I've changed my mind. I give the derivation of the equations for a relativistic rocket with inefficiencies--those for hyperbolic motion are too well known and hence omitted: <-de- * ==|===M====> Let M denote the rocket rest mass, dM the change in rocket rest mass, de the exhaust energy, dx the wasted energy, eff the efficiency ratio de/(de+dx), v the Earth-frame speed of the rocket, dv' the change in the rocket's speed, in the rocket-frame dv the corresponding Earth-frame change, B the factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2). Computing to first order in the rocket's frame, we get de + dx + dM = 0 (conservation of energy) de = M dv' (conservation of momentum) dv' = B^2 dv (relativistic addition) This yields: eff dM/M + B^2 dv = 0, which is easily solved to give M_final/M_init = sqrt((1-v)/(1+v))^(1/eff) for a trip starting at velocity 0, ending at v. This value is squared for stopping, and squared again if a round trip is planned. More generally, in case of fuel emitted with velocity w<1, one replaces "de" by "b dm" in the energy equation, and "de" by "w b dm" in the momen- tum equation, where dm is the rest mass of useful fuel, and b=sqrt(1-w^2). This is equivalent to replacing "eff" by "eff w" in the final results. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 87 13:32:38 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Materials Strength and Bussard Ramjets Somebody responded a while ago that materials strengths won't limit a Bussard Ramjet, since you could design it so that there is no stress on the field coils. Sorry, but this turns out not to be the case. A magnetic field produces a force on the coils that produce it. This is not absolutely obvious, but think of the (I x B) force of the field on the field coil wires. This force is inherent in the energy density of the magnetic field; clever design can't erase it. Electric fields have the same problem. There is another force on the coils as well, which is the inertia of all those interstellar hydrogens being pulled in. Don't know how large this will be, but probably smaller. Shortly after Bussard's paper was published there was a discussion paper which analyzed this effect and concluded that the fields would have to be much weaker than Bussard proposed to avoid structural limitations in the field generators. Don't recall the reference offhand, but I could find it if anybody is really seriously interested. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 87 17:35:37 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxa!rmrin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D Rickert) Subject: Robert Forward talk, comments on. I attended a talk by Dr. Robert Forward the other night on the subject of interstellar space travel. I was impressed that he had done some mathematical analysis of his ideas to eliminate obvious and not-so-obvious "it just won't work without magic" type stuff. He also submits these ideas to journals that have a referee process to give others a chance to throw bubble-bursting darts. And finally, wonder of wonders, he's convinced the Air Force (with Hughes as intermediary) to pay him a salary for his hobby. Those of you who follow the standard s-f magazines know his thing is light sails. He also was hot on the idea of anti-matter drives and hinted darkly at a "negative mass" drive which he wasn't willing to say a lot about because the papers were still under review. In the informal discussions afterward, I brought up the generation ship concept; not that I'm a big fan of it but just to hear his rebuttal. As I expected from previous net-notes, he dismissed it with, "We'll wave to you as we go by fifty years after your launch when we have developed our better drive." Of course, even with the better drive the faster ship was still slated to use up most of the crew's lifetime so it really isn't too far from being a generation ship either (but I quibble). Driving home after the meeting, the thought occurred to me that perhaps he errs in thinking the rate of progress in spacecraft development will be the same as it was for today's aircraft (not a surprising assumption for someone working for Hughes (and the Air Force)). However, the driving forces for the development of today's 747 (or Voyager, or Challenger, insert your favorite technological marvel) were military and commercial, neither of which I see operative on an interstellar scale. The Kennedy "race to the moon" approach might work but I see the development time as far longer than the time in office of any administration. Even more thought provoking is the amount of effort that will be needed to build the huge lenses and lasers in space that he envisions. Those efforts will require long term living by tens of thousands of people in things like O'Neil colonies. These large space habitats will already be generation ships without engines. Since Dr. Forward's main technological message seems to be that the best way to build an interstellar craft is to leave the engines and propellant behind, the same thinking could be applied to a space habitat. His thrust (sorry) is to minimize mass of the ship so that reasonable accelerations can be achieved to allow travel times within a lifetime given practical constraints on available power. Granted that this is a good hard-headed engineering constraint, one still has the liberty of trading off the other variables such as trip duration. My guess is that some of his ideas (or their descendants) will be used for the exploratory unpeopled probes but by the time (if ever) we have decided where we want to go, we'll want to go in droves and with a "getting there can be half the fun" philosophy. As a weak support for this notion I cite the rapidity with which early exploratory voyages were followed by voyages of colonization throughout history (sometimes the colonizers came first and said "Hi" to the explorer's when they landed). I await the rebuttals eagerly (and fear only the silence). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Mar 87 11:13 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Making antimatter by neutron-antineutron oscillation On the subject of manufacturing antimatter... One speculative phenomenon in some grand unified theories is neutron- antineutron oscillation. Free neutrons would oscillate into antineutrons (and back again) if there is a tiny mass difference and if the theory allows some kinds of baryon-number changing interactions. Current experiments place a lower limit on the oscillation time T of 10^6 seconds. After t seconds (t << T) a free neutron will be found to be an antineutron with probability (t/T)^2. 10^6 seconds is a bit long to be useful, since the neutron mean lifetime is about 900 seconds. However, these experiments were done on earth. There may be a weak intermediate range force sensitive to baryon number (this is very controversial) or perhaps there are contributions from quantum gravity that might cause antimatter to experience a stronger attraction to the earth than normal matter (this will be tested soon at CERN). This could change the energy of a neutron relative to an antineutron near the earth and suppress oscillation. The oscillation time might then be more like 3x10^3 seconds, in which case we might (in space) optimistically change about 10% of the free neutrons to antineutrons. If making a free neutron costs 10 MeV (from fusion, say) this would be some 10,000 times more efficient than the most optimistic accelerator based scheme, and might even be a net source of energy. Perhaps one could also use resonant enhancement of the oscillation, using a magnetic field interacting with the particles' magnetic moments. A similar phenomenon has been proposed for solving the solar neutrino problem by resonantly converting electron neutrinos to other flavors as they pass through the sun. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #183 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03049; Sat, 4 Apr 87 03:02:55 PST id AA03049; Sat, 4 Apr 87 03:02:55 PST Date: Sat, 4 Apr 87 03:02:55 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704041102.AA03049@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #184 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 4 Apr 87 03:02:55 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #184 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 184 Today's Topics: Re: Making antimatter by neutron-antineutron oscillation Re: Fermi paradox Fermi's Paradox Re: SPACE Digest V7 #162 why make arks? Plausible arguments; antimatter; Forward; 50 light year limit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Mar 87 14:09:25 GMT From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: Making antimatter by neutron-antineutron oscillation In article <8703211635.AA11975@angband.s1.gov>, DIETZ@slb-test ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: > perhaps there are contributions from quantum gravity that >might cause antimatter to experience a stronger attraction to the earth >than normal matter (this will be tested soon at CERN). To date, this has been best tested within the K0-anti-K0 system, which undergoes strangeness changing oscillations much like the conjectured baryon-number changing oscillations. I don't have the numbers handy, but the limits are stringent. The best way to change baryon number is to have a good-sized black hole handy, all set to explode. But given that, you could turn an asteroid into fuel for a ship, always keeping the mini black hole at a critical mass, constantly radiating energy. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 87 12:20:36 GMT From: mcvax!enea!tut!intrin!pl@seismo.css.gov (Petri Launiainen) Subject: Re: Fermi paradox In article <750@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@jumbo.UUCP (Jorge Stolfi) writes: >Steve Willner proposes four explanations for the Fermi paradox: Here's yet another candidate: n) The space around us is fully inhabitated, but measures are taken to keep us from knowing it, because such knowledge is considered harmful for a growing-up civilization. Petri Launiainen ------------------------------ From: warlord@athena.mit.edu Date: Fri, 13 Mar 87 15:33:44 EST Subject: Fermi's Paradox In issue V7 #162, Gary Allen writes: > In a previous posting I made the assertion that one would not expect >an interstellar civilization to expand beyond 50 light years radius from >its home star. This caused some readers to ask the obvious question, >"Why?" Unfortunately the argument supporting this assertion is complex. >... I won't argue here since the math is sound. >However within 800 years the inner home worlds will have changed >totally. The typical life span for a nation or empire is about 500 >years. 500 years sounds more like a guess. The deviation is certainly wild: Western Roman Empire on the order of 1 millenium vs. the empire of the Medes (nearly the same size as the early Persian empire, but lasted less than 2 decades). However, just because the nation(s) initiating interstellar colonization are no longer in power doesn't mean that colonization is going to end necessarily. >If you have a frontier thickness of 1 light year then there will be >about 6 frontier stars to service 94 interior home systems. . . . Now we have the real problem. If we assume *no* progress in technology, and *no* change in cost and investment relations, we certainly are stuck within this 50-ly limit. But didn't Gary just say a few paragraphs back that alot can happen in 800 years??? Incidentally, just because a theoretical limit exists, we cannot assume that our engineering applications have reached it (i.e., we might be able to make more efficient, more attractive space arks, make them cheaper...). Gary also mentions problems when contacting solar systems with unfriendly life forms ( we might not want to land on the dinosaur planet...), but what if we met another spacefaring race??? I would think that we would want to improve communication and transportation whether or not they are friendly (and perhaps especially if they are hostile...). If they are neutral or friendly, think about interstellar commerce... Seems as though this 50-ly limit hinges on a lot of ifs... >Of course this whole argument is false **if** you can travel fast >enough that relativistic time dialation is possible. Then the "Fermi >Paradox" really is a paradox. Gary Allen No argument there. Perhaps the paradox is more helpful in getting us to think: if we can move further than 50-ly, what does that gain us? After all, the paradox is really a practical limit according to Gary's argument., rather than a theoretical one. Edison Wong ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 1987 16:16-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #162 Gary Allen: Your 50 light year analysis seems to assume a bottom line oriented Western Terran psychology, and it makes the assumption that the cost of a generation ship remains a significant fraction of a "Gross System Product". I think the limit of 3 is one of the softest numbers I've seen in awhile. With the proper mindset and self-replicating systems the number may be more like hundreds. I certainly expect to see self replicating systems before I see a star ship. I might add that the Nanotechnology session here will cover some of the issues that make megaprojects like generation ships economically feasible; you just 'grow' them. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 87 15:19:58 PST X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 10 18:29:16 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: dayton!mmm!cipher@rutgers.rutgers.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: why make arks? Date: 25 Feb 87 14:39:15 GMT From: dayton!mmm!cipher@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Andre Guirard) Subject: Re: 50 light years (newsgroup survey) >> >... Since these Arks would represent >> >virtually no financial return upon completion, the constructing >> >civilization would look upon making these ships as only a "luxury >> >activity" for disposing of surplus wealth. (False, see below.) >>This assumes that financial return is the only "coin" for which a >>civilization considers projects worthwhile. I and, I'm sure, many >>others on this newsgroup have a much more important "payoff" in mind >>when we support space exploration: species survival. (True, see below.) Let's hear from some people in this newsgroup. Those of you who support space exploration, what are your main reasons? Send me mail and I'll post a summary. I'll answer the specific question above, about arks (survival capsules that have no economic return to parent civilization). Some civilizations will choose to send arks, even they give no return on investment directly to parent civilization; others won't. The former will survive, via the arks, where the latter are destroyed by local war or nova or whatever. Eventually the Universe will be populated mostly by only the (descendents of the) former. We as individuals can't survive; we die before we are a hundred years old usually. But we can have children, which can produce our grandchildren etc. We can help those children etc. live on Earth by nurturing them in early years, or we can put them in an ark with supplies and send them out where they will be safe from thermonuclear war and novas. It's all the same thing basically. If you want to survive through your descendents, you must first breed descendents and second see to it that those descendents have a good chance to survive, including putting some of them in arks when the technology is ready, and working toward that technology in the meantime. If you don't want to survive, you are a discrace to your ancestors who were hoping they would survive through you. (Technically it's the genes which survive.) I agree with the rest of Andre Guirard's message, about putting genetic information from billions of people on an ark, about the more planets we inhabit the more people and other creatures can live who might never have lived, etc. Well said and I have nothing to add (actually some of Andre's ideas sound like ideas of mine I expressed previously in this forum; I think the ideas are getting around, or we think alike, etc.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 87 09:48 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Plausible arguments; antimatter; Forward; 50 light year limit Dave Chassin wrote: > I see a serious lack of 'scientific method' here. Many people have > been basing arguments solely on plausibility. This is ridiculous > reasoning, and I think it achieves nothing. I would and do reject > any line of reason which concludes: 'and this seems plausible'. This is correct, except that plausible arguments can be used as counterexamples when someone has claimed to prove something. In this case, Gary Allen claimed that interstellar colonization was impossible, but plausible scenarios where it is highly likely can be given. The plausible scenarios are nothing but tales, of course. No certainty is possible short of observing actual colonization or the lack thereof, since we cannot predict the psychology or sociology of unknown aliens, nor be sure of the feasibility of star travel until it is accomplished. Gary Allen's analysis of antimatter heating in imperfect vacuum had several flaws. (1) Gary assumed that all the energy generated in annihilations on the tiny solid hydrogen mote will be deposited in that mote. Gary's mote had a surface area of 1E-11 meters, for a diameter of slightly under 2 microns. The gamma radiation produced in annihilation will travel meters in antihydrogen, and the charged particles centimeters at least. So only a small fraction of the energy released is deposited in the antihydrogen. (2) Gary claimed that heating of the vacuum chamber wall will lead to runaway outgassing. With proper design this will not happen: at a fixed background gas density, the energy hitting the wall per unit area can be made arbitrarily low by increasing the radius of the container. Also, particles ejected from the container wall by the impact of radiation can be made to have an arbitrarily small chance of hitting the antimatter mote, again by increasing the radius of the container. Ted Anderson was surprised I hadn't read Robert Forward's work. I have read some of it. I thought phased array lasers would be more reliable than a single large laser directed through a zone plate. Also, I don't have Forward's book with me. I thought the self-deceleration mirror trick was unworkable, but on second thought I now see that by having the vehicles track the beams rather than vice versa the idea may work. Ted did suggest using a reference beam from the lightsail and phase conjugate. I don't see how this can work, given the time delays involved. Finally: Gary Allen made explicit his assumptions that went into his 50 light year limit on colonization. These assumptions seem debatable, to say the least... > The basic assumptions are that starships can never travel faster than > ten percent of the speed of light, and are enormously expensive. We've already handled the first. About the second, expense is relative to the capabilities of a society. A starship requires a trivial fraction of the material and energy resources available in a star system. Even making antimatter requires tiny (on an astronomical scale) solar energy collectors. The effort required is large compared to *today's* capacity, but that's about as relevant as saying travel to the moon is impossible because cavemen didn't have the capability. (Rockets will never be launched because one launch consumes as much energy as the campfires of all the tribes produce in 10 years -- clearly ridiculous!) In my previous plausible scenario, a society might spend $1E16 per year on starships. Even taking Gary's $1E12 figure for the cost of an Ark, that's 10,000 launches per year. Gary's assertion that no society could build more than three of these ships is clearly contradicted in this scenario, by many orders of magnitude . (I wonder were Gary got the $1E12 figure? The small space colonies should be much less expensive than that. Perhaps most of the cost is in fuel?) Note also in my scenario that individual productivity is assumed to be 100x higher than today, so individual income could perhaps be $3M/year. If 30,000 people save ten years of income, that's about $1E12. Gary goes on to state that stars of spectral type K5V to M are unable to support life. Wrong -- planets around those stars are unable to evolve life. Gary depends heavily on the assumption that building a civilization away from planets, and on barren planets, is impossible. Strange, given that he is advocating L5-style Ark spaceships and has advocated lunar colonies. Note that Gary's argument that space colonies are too expensive (they require much shielding) is hardly relevant when there is no habitable planet to live on instead, and also hardly relevant to societies much more technologically advanced than our own. Gary argues that civilizations on the edge of the expanding sphere will more likely send their colonists back rather than forward. This seems implausible. Either those old systems have depleted their resources, in which case you wouldn't want to go there, or they have not, in which case they will have a large entrenched population. Gary mentions that the average lifetime of a civilization or country is 500 years. After that every individual gives up and dies, I suppose? The issue of starship feasibility seems to bring out a lot of silly arguments on the part of the less responsible SETI advocates (I do not necessarily place Gary in this class). For example, Drake has argued against the possibility of starships by arguing that the energy demanded would be better used by the society to increase the standard of living -- this from a man who works in a profession that, by that standard, would not exist. Sagan (I think?) wrote an article on starships arguing they were infeasible. His argument showed that the starship would require ridiculously large waste heat radiators. Unfortunately, he assumed the radiators would work at 300 degrees K! Sagan and Newman wrote a paper purporting to show (via application of the diffusion equation) that colonization of the galaxy would take too long for the wave to have reached here. Unfortunately, their use of the diffusion equation was mathematically inappropriate (the population density gradient at the edge of the colonization sphere was too large; colonization is more like an explosion). Etc., etc. Responsible SETI advocates simply say speculation without experimentation is scientifically sterile, so let's listen and keep out minds open. That's my position. If I were a betting man I'd bet they find nothing, but that's true of much research, and SETI isn't expensive. Proposal: look at distant galaxies, where galaxy spanning civilizations may be detectable. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #184 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05012; Sun, 5 Apr 87 03:03:03 PDT id AA05012; Sun, 5 Apr 87 03:03:03 PDT Date: Sun, 5 Apr 87 03:03:03 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704051003.AA05012@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #185 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 5 Apr 87 03:03:03 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #185 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 185 Today's Topics: Refuting ESG7's ideas opposed to building arks SPACE Digest V7 #165 Star Travel and Longevity Re: SPACE Digest V7 #165 Re: And the Star Travel debate rages on.... One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water Re: Star Travel/ Fermi Paradox SPACE Digest V7 #167, interstellar travel Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 87 12:04:28 PST X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 14 11:47:12 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Refuting ESG7's ideas opposed to building arks Date: Mon, 09 Mar 87 09:44:24 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter In an earlier posting I claimed that there are only two hopes for star travel, namely: nuclear fusion (IFR systems), or a Grand Unification Theory "rabbit out of the hat". Paul Dietz raised a third possibilty: Light sails propelled by a laser. ... How would you construct such a laser? How do you build the sail? Mere engineering problems. A technology capable of living and working in space, and of tapping the energy of the Sun and the materials of the Solar System, might find a way to engineer a billion-mile-long laser and a thousand-mile-across sail. There's nothing physically impossible about such engineering tasks as far as I know, just they are way beyond 1987 technology, might have to wait until 2037. Where would you get the energy? Obviously from the Sun. Virtually *all* the Sun's energy is radiated into deep space, where it essentially wasted, a wee bit slightly heating the Oort cloud, and the rest going out out out ... into the void. How do you accurately track the sail when it is over a light year away? Dumb question. You don't!! You just aim the lightbeam along the trajectory you want the craft to travel (you compute where the target star will be by the time your craft gets there), and you have machinery on the craft to track the beam instead of vice versa. Re antimatter: How do you make the stuff? One easy way is to bombard a target with lots of gamma rays (generated by a gamma-ray laser, which of course is solar-powered), and selectively collect the stuff that flies out the back. The antiprotons or anti-electrons (positrons) or whatever you want are collected, and the rest are returned to the gamma-ray target to try again. This device is grossly energy-inefficient, but relatively simple to engineer and who cares if we waste all the solar energy anyway since we're wasting a lot more now by not tapping it at all (except the teensy bit which happens to hit Earth or some other planet). If we ever start running short on gross energy output from Sun (like if we have a complete Dyson sphere around it and there's none left unused), then we can design something more efficient. Date: Mon, 9 Mar 87 18:17 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Laser Sails, Antimatter (Response to Gary Allen:) Travelling to Alpha Centauri, it may be possible to slow down in Alpha C's plasma tail, since the interstellar wind is coming from Centaurus and the plasma tail should be pointing nearly in our direction. Furthermore, if we know ahead of time which exact direction the plasma tail is pointing, we might deliberately aim for the tail instead of the star, to get maximum decelleration, then tilt the sail to provide both braking and transverse force, thus ride the tail in to the star. Date: Wed, 18 Feb 87 11:34:07 MEZ To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years (Why is the date on this message so old?? If it is a mistaken repeat transmission, forgive my castigating you again for an old message.) In a previous posting I made the assertion that one would not expect an interstellar civilization to expand beyond 50 light years radius from its home star. This caused some readers to ask the obvious question, "Why?" I ask it again. Your message here doesn't answer it in any correct way, since it is based on a false assmption. The basic assumptions are that starships can never travel faster than ten percent of the speed of light, and are enormously expensive. That's not the problem, I accept that premise, >0.1C is difficult and possibly not worth the effort. Also ... I'm assumning that the only way one could get men to another star would be through a nuclear fusion propelled "Ark" which was about the size of an L-5 type colony, and required over a hundred years to complete one voyage. Maybe not the only way, but the most reasonable way we currently envision, so let's go with that. But ... Since these Arks would represent virtually no financial return upon completion, the constructing civilization would look upon making these ships as only a "luxury activity" for disposing of surplus wealth (like the Egyptians building the Great Pyramid or the Athenians building the Parthenon). It is doubtful that any single civilization could justify building more than three of these ships. There you go talking about financial return to parents instead of setting seed upon the wind. Do you expect your children to support you? (You would analyze financial return before conceiving children, and only if they will pay you back more than you invest in their upbringing would you ever conceive them??) No, your children are your survival machines for your genes and perhaps some of your ideas and morals etc. It's the same with these interstellar arks. Did you miss the earlier postings, or am I seeing an old message that you sent before the postings arrived at your site? Have you ever watched a nature film on PBS? (Nature, Profiles of Nature, Planet Earth, Living Planet, et al) Have you seen how those primitive creatures assure their survival by sending out millions of eggs or spores? Some sea creatures even give off thousands of fully-formed children (not eggs or spores)! We should do the analagous thing on an interstellar scale if we want to survive. Date: 19 Feb 87 15:37:25 GMT From: dayton!mmm!cipher@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Andre Guirard) Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years To: space@angband.s1.gov (In reply to ESG7) This assumes that financial return is the only "coin" for which a civilization considers projects worthwhile. I and, I'm sure, many others on this newsgroup have a much more important "payoff" in mind when we support space exploration: species survival. Yup. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1987 14:20 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #165 "This is not a new idea, by the way" said Henry Spencer about life-destroying civilizations. One version was developed in Piers Anthony's "Macroscope" novel; the neat idea was to destroy them by sending messages! See also Fred Hoyle's "A for Andromeda". Gregory Benford has written several novels involving destroyers who represent a spreading machine civilization dedicated to saving the galaxy from the destructive effects of self-reproducing life-forms. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Mar 87 15:19:00 EST From: "R2D2::BRUC" Subject: Star Travel and Longevity To: "space" Reply-To: "R2D2::BRUC" In the discussion about star flight by other intelligent species, we should keep in mind that the time scale of other species might be very different. Imagine another species where the normal lifetime is 100 times that of a human, and to whom 2 minutes of our perception seems like just a second of theirs. A 50 year flight would seem like 6 months. Of course, the rate of evolution leading to such a species would likely be comparable to our own, assuming a similar tortuous path to intelligence, but it would not be beyond reasonable extrapolation to presume that the species could change itself for much greater longevity. Bob Bruccoleri bruc%r2d2.decnet@mghccc ------ ------------------------------ Date: 16 Mar 1987 13:48-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #165 Count me PARTIALLY with the "many others". Species survival is a last resort that space makes possible. I certainly hope we can make it here. But not making it here does not mean we can't make it anywhere else. One data point makes for very poor statistical conjecture... ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 87 02:54:41 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!myers@csvax.caltech.edu (Bob Myers) Subject: Re: And the Star Travel debate rages on.... In article <8703161124.AA25580@angband.s1.gov> Gary Allen writes: > The Romans inherited >geometry and science from the Hellenistic Greeks. What did they do >with it? Answer: Almost nothing. The Medieval Europeans also >inherited this same Hellenistic tradition. What did they do with it? >Answer: Almost nothing. We can thank our stars for the Renaissance. I feel I should point out that 'science' is a MODERN concept. The Ancient Greeks did not go in for 'science' the way we do today. Science was born in the Renaissance, though certainly derived partly from Ancient Greek roots. The Romans were great engineers, besides. The point is that we needed to go through the Roman and Medieval periods before science could develop. And there has never been a *scientific* civilization yet that has fallen. Bob Myers myers@tybalt.caltech.edu ...seismo!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 87 15:00:56 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water I've read three different postings to Space Digest suggesting a solution to the Fermi Paradox is quite simple, namely: We are the first intelligent race to evolve in the galaxy. The simple argument for this is: "Someone has to be first, so why not us?" To shed some light on this theory, my calculations are that there are 3.0E9 sun-like stars in the galaxy. Assumning that the odds of a sun-like star system generating life at 1:1000000 leaves 3000 stars in the galaxy with life. That puts the odds of our being first at 1:3000, which are pretty bad odds. The prospect is made even more unlikely if one takes into account that our location in the galaxy is utterly mundane (halfway between the galactic core and the edge, on a main arm). We might have been first if we were on the edge (and thereby older) but not if we're right in the middle. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Star Travel/ Fermi Paradox Date: Wed, 18 Mar 87 08:46:10 -0500 From: mike@nrl-ssd.arpa I've been biting my tounge and not saying anything through this entire discussion of why star travel isn't possible, but I've finally had enough of it. Folks, why is it that we always seem to assume that there are no real improvements to be made??? Examples: Nobody wanted to believe the world consisted of anything besides Europe, Africa, and Asia for centuries until some guy named Columbus came along and rubbed their noses in it. Then there's always 'Man doesn't have wings, therefore he cann't fly'; once again, we had to have our noses rubbed in it. 'It is impossible to fly the Atlantic solo and unrefueled.' (How many times do you have to rub a dog's nose in it??? Maybe we need to get knocked over the head with a baseball bat.) ' The speed of sound is an absolute barrier. ' Oh really? Ask General Yeager about that one. 'Man cannot survive in outer space.' Hmmmm. seems to me we went from 90 minutes in orbit to landing a man on the moon in a grand total of about 12 years and that includes the time we spent designing the orignal Mercury capsules. Gary, Jorge, I realize you guys have good arguments for the Fermi Paradox, etc, but I really don't see any evidence that this time will be any different than any of the ones I mentioned above. Newtonian physics sufficed for centuries, until we started getting more sensitive equipment, and started noticing that there seemed to be problems at very high speeds, etc., and still apply for 99.9999 percent of all the things that man needs. What's to say that Relativistic models don't break down at some point either???? The whole point is, let's quit wasting time finding reasons not to do things, and start finding solutions to the problems. Mike Stalnaker ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1987 09:04 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #167, interstellar travel We have been considering interstellar travel without taking into account any technical progress first. Let us assume that in, say, 10,000 years we achieve a nanotechnology in which we can make computing elements each from a small number of well placed atoms. (Let's neglect sub-atomic structures for the moment.) This will permit us to make computers that contain 10**18 element per cubic millimeter. This should be able to simulate a very powerful brain. Second, suppose that in this 10,000 years we make progress in AI. Then that cubic millimeter could be programmed to contain something much like ourselves, complete with the contents of a billion books. Now reformulate the interstellar travel problem so that the goal is to accelerate payloads of the order of a few milligrams. There may be a few problems about power sources, but 10,000 years should help with that. There may also be some shielding problems, but advances in redundancy and self-repair should make that inconsequential. Decellerating, landing on planets, and converting back into animals, are also interesting little problems. The basic point is that the launch vechicle will be 10**9 times smaller, at the start, than the kinds that have been considered here, and hence need not constitute such expensive projects. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 87 10:52:21 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60/C) Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water In article <8703171427.AA29060@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > We are the first >intelligent race to evolve in the galaxy. The simple argument for this >is: "Someone has to be first, so why not us?" . . . >that puts the odds of our being first at 1:3000, which are pretty bad odds. You haven't shed any light on any theory because your odds don't mean a thing. You made up a probability which has as much validity as any other random number, i.e. none. > The prospect is made even more unlikely if one takes into account >that our location in the galaxy is utterly mundane . . . > Gary Allen As far as I know, being on the edge has little to do with the age of a star. I could be wrong, if so please correct me. Stars in globular clusters are much older, but globular clusters are not exclusivly on the edge of the galaxy. One factor that you must take into account about the very earliest stars of the galaxy (such as those in globular clusters) is that the material they were originally composed of was hydrogen and helium with very very small proportion of heavier elements. As the galaxy got older and as supernovas occurred, the interstellar medium was gradually enriched with heavier elements. What this means is that the earliest stars would not have rocky planets (such as the Earth). Later stars would have very small rocky planets, with the size of the these terrestrial planets generally increasing with time. Life, as we know, it requires an atmosphere to shield it from solar radiation and to moderate the temperature, among other things. Small rocky planets (smaller than Mars) cannot hold an atmosphere at the temperatures that occur in the inner solar system. Thus, life could not form until the interstellar medium was enriched enough for large terrestrial planets to form. What the time frame is for this I don't know. Perhaps someone else could enlighten us. Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com P.S. There is an assumption in the above that life will only form on planets in the inner solar system and not on a planet like Titan which is in the outer solar system and is smaller than Mars but has a thick atmosphere. Does anyone have any *informed* speculations on the possibility of life forming under the conditions on Titan? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #185 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07342; Mon, 6 Apr 87 03:03:11 PDT id AA07342; Mon, 6 Apr 87 03:03:11 PDT Date: Mon, 6 Apr 87 03:03:11 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704061003.AA07342@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #186 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 6 Apr 87 03:03:11 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #186 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 186 Today's Topics: Fermi Paradox and Dark Matter Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water The AI-based nanotechnology approach Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach Fermi Paradox: the South Dakota scenario Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 87 13:23:59 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Fermi Paradox and Dark Matter Another "solution" to the Fermi Paradox: interstellar space is "filled" with very small rocks (eg., pinhead sized and smaller). Regardless of speed, travelling from here to another star you impact every rock in a volume equal to (cross section of your spaceship x distance), even if the number density is comparitively small you will hit many. If you travel at a speed which is even a fraction of a percent of c, the impact energy is enormous (remember, the speed of light is about as much faster than a high-velocity rifle bullet as the bullet is faster than a person walking, and kinetic energy goes as v**2). This increases the time and increases the cost of interstellar travel immensely. For high-speed travel, you need to carry an iceberg around with you just as an impact shield (as Clarke suggested in his book _Songs of Distant Earth_). If this is the case, I *still* think we'd probably end up checking out a couple of the nearest stars, but I doubt that there would be a colonization front travelling very far from the planet. In support of this, let me mention that I believe that Voyager and Pioneer recorded *no* noticible decrease in the micrometeroid density with distance from the sun, out to at least Pluto distance--this makes it reasonably likely that the density is constant out to interstellar space. (Don't have a reference off hand--may look for one if I find some time.) Also, note that objects this size are almost impossible to detect. Interstellar dust (what astronomers now call "interstellar grains" is much smaller, more smoke-particle sized (typically 0.1 to 1 micron). This is detected by reddening of starlight by scattering. This solution also aids in solving the dark matter problem, namely the question of why there seems to be ten times more mass in the galaxy than the sum of the mass we can see... --a depressing solution, if true... Comments on other Fermi Paradox postings: Many of these make assumptions about sociology (/"anthro"pology), and I wonder about the documentation behind some of them. For example, statements like "all civilizations will expand to fill their frontiers"-- is this justifiable by looking at the evidence? Seems to me a typical civilization expands for a while, then the people at the fringes start looking back inward. The center (Rome, wherever) becomes the place everybody thinks is interesting, and the people on the outside resent being stuck in the boondocks. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 87 22:52:55 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!holloway@csvax.caltech.edu (Bruce Holloway) Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water In article <8703171427.AA29060@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > Assuming that the odds of a sun-like star system generating >life at 1:1000000 leaves 3000 stars in the galaxy with life. That Given 3000 stars in the galaxy with life, then how many would develop intelligent life? We have no evidence there is life anywhere else - maybe it takes a few billion years for intelligent life to arise? We don't know - we have no way of knowing - our existance seems little more than a fluke, and the dinosaurs before us didn't seem headed on the road to sapience. We have plenty of examples of life on Earth that are far older than man, or even mammals, and none of them have developed our level of intelligence. Out of God knows how many species on the planet, only one developed what we consider to be intelligence... us. So say that there is a one in a hundred million chance that intelligent life will form where there already exists life - and I think the odds are a bit low at that - according to your figures, that would leave 0.00003 planets with intelligent life on them, and ourselves a statistical fluke. Bruce Holloway ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 87 14:48:01 GMT From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: The AI-based nanotechnology approach In article , MINSKY@OZ suggests that within 10k years that we may achieve wonderful nanotechnologies, a la Isaac Asimov's _Fantastic Voyage_. I'll believe it when I see it--there's a lot that we do not know. But if we do achieve such, I'd bet on it being achievable within the next 200 years. (I suspect 10k years was just an enormous upper bound to placate AI criticism. But really, it's still not yet a question of "when", but of "if".) But somehow, achieving such seems to be a great way of sidestepping one of the major "reasons" to go out to space in the first place. Thus, it's now like the film TRON--reality becomes one giant video game. The population explosion will be solved by sociological/electronic engineering etc by our friend the Master Control Program. (I put "reasons" in quotes above since I happen to find the "because it's there" argument irresistable.) >Second, suppose that in this 10,000 years we make progress in AI. >[and other speculations omitted] As I've said before, so much science fiction. Personally I'm rather skeptical about AI. I've never *seen* any evidence that mind is capable of a reductionist explanation, although based on the way I hear many people talk about it, it's an inviolate axiom. The argument seems to run in the (much exaggerated?) direction of "we can imagine a reductionist explanation, and by {definition|Occam's razor|whatever}, it really does have a reductionist explanation". What utter scientizmoid behavoirrhea, to paraphrase the late Michael Ellis. (Please don't misunderstand. I also think the usual AI critics like Searle and Dreyfus have completely missed the boat. And I am NOT engaging in an AI argument per se, just making an observation about your own AI-based space travel conjecturing.) I myself can imagine that consciousness could perhaps be understood by turning the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics upside down, and that it ends up being a special kind of amplification, based on the emergent features of a very complicated randomly driven chaotic dynamical system, etc, that cannot be compressed because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. (Note that I am purposely not identifying "reductionist" with "scientific". Thus, in my lingo there is, presumably, no reductionist interpretation of quantum mechanics. Feel free to substitute a different word for "reductionist" if it suits you.) (Again, this is not an argument about AI, and please, let's not make it an argument about QM.) This is my argument: You see, for every "reasonable" science fictional conjecture you make, I can make one ten times weirder which negates your expectations. In particular, I find linear extrapolations highly unconvincing. They are the stuff of great speculations, and of great research efforts--and so far, they are all stuff. But I hear the yes-we-can crowd echo the same conjectures over and over again until I'm convinced they essentially believe that they have been established and now it's just soldering iron time, if only we had the funding. Someday we may know one way or the other. Until then, ad astra per dolorem. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "Nihilism is our gift, our sending, our fate." -- that Dreyfus ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 87 19:03:00 GMT From: apollo!arnold@eddie.mit.edu (Ken Arnold) Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water In article <8703171427.AA29060@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >I've read three different postings to Space Digest suggesting a >solution to the Fermi Paradox is quite simple, namely: We are the first >intelligent race to evolve in the galaxy. . . . > Gary Allen These are pretty random numbers, and so mean little, especially since it doesn't take into account the distribution of those 3000 stars and what affect position in the galaxy *really* has on evolution (mostly because nobody knows). You're also reasoning in the wrong direction. As an analogy, any *given* arrangement of molecules in the air of your room is quite improbable, but, by gum, if you we're able to determine it, there would be one. If you looked at that arrangement, you might argue that it was so wildly improbable that it couldn't possibly happen. But, in fact, there is guaranteed to be at *one* inconceivably improbable arrangment at any given moment (let us not quibble too much over "moment" -- if you like, rephrase this in terms of rolling 10e6 dice and looking at any single roll). We *know* that there is one oldest race. Maybe it's us. Maybe it isn't. But you can't tell by looking at us; this is one of those things which, given our present Solar-system bound status, we can only prove false, not true. Although one thing is certain: The first intelligent race of beings would certainly develop someone who would say: "If there are other intelligent beings out there, why haven't they contacted us? Certainly we couldn't be the first -- it's too improbable!" (Unless, of course, life is wildly, hugely, probable, which it doesn't *seem* to be.) Ken Arnold ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 87 04:36:50 GMT From: tektronix!reed!percival!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water In article <8703171427.AA29060@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >I've read three different postings to Space Digest suggesting a >solution to the Fermi Paradox is quite simple, namely: We are the first >intelligent race to evolve in the galaxy. . . . > Gary Allen To start with, there are several false assumptions here. 1. The core stars *cannot* support life due to a number of conditions. The major factor is that they are first generation stars (more on this below). I seem to recall that the radiation level is a mite high too... (remember that there may be one h*ll of a black hole at the center). 2. Older is *not* better. First generation stars (Population II) do not have *any* elements heavier than helium. This makes life more than a little difficult. Second generation stars may have some elements up as far as iron, but the distribution is such that life is *very* unlikely (picture iron being as rare as gold, and with no noble metals metals would be unlikely to be discoverable). (take a good look at the heavy elements required for life). Even if it does evolve it won't be able to develop a technology (or if you are *very* optimistic, they might, but it would have to be based on unknown principles, thus we would not be able to detect them). There is also the matter of their civilization (if any) being a few *million* years older than ours... Third generation stars. Now we are talking about Sol. And it is the oldest one for quite a ways. A good reference is an article published in Analog in Jan 1970 by Ben Bova titled "Galactic Geopolitics". It has been reprinted in at least one of his books (non-fiction). Leonard Erickson ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 87 23:36:53 GMT From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gerry Gleason) Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water I'm not so sure that we're the only ones with intelligence (what do our considerations have to do with it anyway). But then that brings up another issue, we are certainly the only ones to have developed technology, and that probably is necessary if you want to get very far from your home planet. LET'S FACE IT ALL THIS IS SPECULATION!!! We don't even know what time and distance scales other beings would operate on. Sure we would like to be the center of the universe and all that, but its probably not true. I agree with the poster who commented that no one would believe their was more to the world until Columbus rubbed their noses in it (of course he didn't believe it either, why do you think we have the West Indies). I think it would be much more productive to speculate about things like space colonies and travel inside our solar system. No doubt what we learn in this process will help spur us onward (think about how much easier it will be to build really big science projects). gerry gleason ------------------------------ Date: 20 Mar 87 01:10:26 GMT From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gerry Gleason) Subject: Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach In article <1050@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> obnoxio@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: > . . . >I'll believe it when I see it--there's a lot that we do not know. But . . . I'll believe it when I see it too, and I agree that the "if" question persists. >I myself can imagine that consciousness could perhaps be understood by >turning the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics upside down, >and that it ends up being a special kind of amplification, based on the >emergent fea- tures of a very complicated randomly driven chaotic >dynamical system, etc, that cannot be compressed because of the >Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Others have suggested this, but using this argument to say AI is impossible is also saying that somehow biological matter has some strange influence over quantum mechanical happenings. Or on another track, that mind is separate from body, and it is our "minds" or "astral" bodies that influences matter. I don't know about you, but I need more justification to accept this as reality. >You see, for every "reasonable" science fictional conjecture you make, I can > . . . >Someday we may know one way or the other. Until then, ad astra per dolorem. I don't need to make science fictional conjectures, I guess that I just believe in the "closure" of the universe. If you do not postulate some kind of "spirit" world that we cannot access from this one, then there is no reason that silicon can't think just as well as carbon-based life (if we could only figure out how to plug them together). By the way the arguments about reductionism just don't work, who says we have to be able to understand what we build. I read a comment by Godel about the implications of his "completeness therum" to the AI question. He said basically that if we do build a truely intellegent machine that we won't be able to understand how it works. Someday we will know one way or the other, but how you answer the question will effect how (or if) you work in the field. (What does ad astra per dolorem" mean anyway I don't know ?Latin?). gerry gleason ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 87 17:11:40 GMT From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Fermi Paradox: the South Dakota scenario Yet another solution to the Fermi Paradox: Postulate some naturally occuring phenomenon (like quantum strings or black holes) that is hard to create and hard to move. Assume the Solar System DOESN'T have any of these, and that they are REAL useful to an advanced civilization. That makes "here" not worth visiting. We can call this the "South Dakota" scenario. On the other hand, the low infrared to visible light ratio of the stars and galaxies we can see leads me to believe there are no star-faring expansion-oriented industrial civilizations. All that prime energy going to waste. Back to the Paradox... Keith Lofstrom MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 87 02:16:30 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water In article <1092@drivax.UUCP>, holloway@drivax.UUCP (Bruce Holloway) writes: > In article <8703171427.AA29060@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > > Assuming that the odds of a sun-like star system generating > >life at 1:1000000 leaves 3000 stars in the galaxy with life. That > Given 3000 stars in the galaxy with life, then how many would develop ... Actually, some of the approximately human-sized carnivorous dinosaurs that lived right before the extinction of dinosaurs had cranial-space to body-weight (the source said brain to body weight, but that is not necessarily so) ratios as us. While this does not guarantee intelligence, it literally provides space for it. Some primates, such as chimpanzees, show intelligence that is the rudiment of our civilization-forming intelligence. If something had killed us off before we could form a civilization, but chimpanzees or other higher primates lived, it is likely that one of those species would have evolved to take our place. Bears have also been known to show intelligence (talk to somebody who has been on a camping trip and hung their food in a part of a tree not climbable by adult bears, only to find a mother bear directing her cub up the tree to knock it down), and have limbs that could be adapted for use as manipulators without radical change, although it would probably take a while for ursinoids to replace us if we were bumped off. > We have plenty of examples of life on Earth that are far older than > man, or even mammals, and none of them have developed our level of > intelligence. It is quite possible that many species choked just short of it. > Out of God knows how many species on the planet, only one developed > what we consider to be intelligence... us. So say that there is a one > in a hundred million chance that intelligent life will form where > there already exists life - and I think the odds are a bit low at that > - according to your figures, that would leave 0.00003 planets with > intelligent life on them, and ourselves a statistical fluke. Of course, right now WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH DATA TO MAKE SUCH ESTIMATES of how many intelligent species are in the galaxy. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #186 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09431; Tue, 7 Apr 87 03:02:45 PDT id AA09431; Tue, 7 Apr 87 03:02:45 PDT Date: Tue, 7 Apr 87 03:02:45 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704071002.AA09431@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #187 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 7 Apr 87 03:02:45 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #187 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 187 Today's Topics: condensed space news from Dec 15 AW&ST Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Mar 87 00:57:25 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: condensed space news from Dec 15 AW&ST Arabsat is procrastinating about whether to let Geostar use Arabsat 1C. Apparently hardware changes would be needed. State Dept. okays export of two Ford Aerospace comsats to Japan, for eventual Ariane launch. White House will probably overrule OMB's desire to hold NASA to pre-51L budget levels. SRB joint simulator test tests revised seal designs at low temperatures; no leaks. New analysis of 51L videotapes suggests that failure may have started earlier than previously thought. Ali F. Abutaha, a perennial source of weird theories about the Challenger accident, may be onto something this time. His latest is that abnormal loads in the rear attachment strut for the right SRB may have flexed the SRB joints excessively, followed by bits falling off. He has identified two features in the videotapes that *might* be debris falling from the right SRB. The first is at 55 seconds, and Abutaha suggests it is the pin retainer band from the failing joint -- the band has never been found. The second is at 70 seconds, suggested to be part of the strut itself. Telemetry data does suggest that the loads in the strut were abnormally high, compared to the left SRB strut and to previous missions. Further photo analysis and re-examination of the radar data are being considered, and it's possible that a look may be taken for debris closer to shore than the main search area. FltSatCom F7, launched by Atlas-Centaur Dec 4, is on orbit and working. Boeing tells NASA and USAF it is willing to invest its own money in getting Jarvis working. No firm go-ahead yet, though. Boeing says it does not want NASA subsidies (although it is interested in the USAF heavy-lift RFP expected soon) but would like cooperation on market assessment, facilities use, and technical assistance. Current Jarvis breakdown is that Hughes handles mission planning and control, payload integration, and the third "transfer platform" stage; Boeing does everything else. Boeing is pushing Jarvis for Space Station assembly, heavy planetary missions, and SDI work. McDonnell Douglas signs four reservations for commercial Delta: American Satellite, Inmarsat, and two for Comsat Corp. All conditional on McDD winning the MLV contract [they did]. Titan 3 booster segments cleared for launch. Further testing underway, both nondestructive examination of inventory segments and firing tests. GAO study comes out strongly in favor of activating the Vandenberg shuttle pad early next decade. Says nine payloads will need Vandenberg shuttle launches in 1992-4. Some of the payloads might be modified for expendables, but some probably can't be. NASA cancels design of additional shielding for the isotope generators on Galileo and Ulysses. The shields appear to be helpful only for a short period on launch, and there are some (admittedly unlikely) scenarios in which they actually make things worse. NASA says the decision was based solely on the risk assessment, although there were also problems with weight, schedule, and in particular cost -- GE was estimating $40-50M *each* for the shields. [Mini-editorial: Lordy. Assuming there's only one shield per probe -- I forget whether G. and U. have one or two generators each -- that's about $100M for work that presumably started about a year ago and would have been complete for 1989-90 launch windows. Assume engineer salaries at $70k/yr (I don't know what the real numbers would be; I suspect that's high) and 200% overhead (100% is normal for big bureaucratic organizations, but high-tech engineers would need more). Assume materials costs are minor by comparison. Then that's five man-centuries of effort in about three years. That seems high, to put it mildly. Sounds to me like somebody is getting ripped off, and I don't think it's GE! -- HS] NASA and contractors put heads together on revised tile-bonding procedures after bad bonds discovered on some of Discovery's tiles. Problem is not believed widespread. Range Control Center at the Cape gets major upgrade of equipment, including more sophisticated equipment for the Range Safety function. French competition for space structure commemorating 100th anniversary of Eiffel Tower (1989) won by inflatable ring, 8 km dia, with aluminized Mylar spheres spaced along it. Launch in late 1989, piggyback on the Ariane launching Spot 2. Life about three years, should be visible from Earth as object about the size of the moon. News story about quality and reliability problems in defense hardware, possibly also relevant to space hardware. Willis J. Willoughby, Jr., USN head of quality and reliability, says problems are due to choking amounts of paper and bureaucracy ("We've got to keep an eye on the hardware... not concentrate on whether the paper is filled out right."), ridiculous and outmoded specifications, excessive requirements, an MBA corporate investment approach oriented solely to next-quarter results and ignoring technology and capability development (his recommendation: "Hang all the MBAs."), and engineering education that ignores realities like production engineering. NASA Goddard starts procurement for the Explorer Platform, a satellite bus designed to carry different payloads for in-orbit replacement by shuttle missions. First mission: extreme ultraviolet telescope package. 1990-91. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 87 06:45:02 GMT From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach In article <888@laidbak.UUCP>, gerryg@laidbak (Gerry Gleason) writes: >>I myself can imagine that consciousness could perhaps be understood by turn- >>ing the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics upside down, and that >>it ends up being a special kind of amplification, based on the emergent fea- >>tures of a very complicated randomly driven chaotic dynamical system, etc, >>that cannot be compressed because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. > >Others have suggested this, but using this argument to say AI is impossible >is also saying that somehow biological matter has some strange influence over >quantum mechanical happenings. But the Copenhagen interpretation a la Wigner/Wheeler *does* say this: con- sciousness can collapse wave functions. Translating into the many-worlds view, one would say that objects can go splitting along their merry ways, but mind balks and retreats to one path--or perhaps is only "aware" of the one path--or perhaps--hell, I don't know, roll your own interpretation at this point. > Or on another track, that mind is separate >from body, and it is our "minds" or "astral" bodies that influences matter. >I don't know about you, but I need more justification to accept this as >reality. Huh? My mind is currently influencing electrons nearby, and as you are read- ing this, is influencing them nationwide. I can't comment about my "astral" body--you will have to clue me in as to what whacko belief you think I have. >>You see, for every "reasonable" science fictional conjecture you make, I can >>make one ten times weirder which negates your expectations. In particular, >>I find linear extrapolations highly unconvincing. [...] > >I don't need to make science fictional conjectures, I guess that I just >believe in the "closure" of the universe. Now this is more of a metaphysical conjecture; I rarely see science fiction that ever questions the 19th century philosophy of science worldview--Stan- islaw Lem comes to mind here. However, this has little to do with my argument, as closure does NOT imply that AI-based nanotechnology will work as Minsky originally suggested. > If you do not postulate some >kind of "spirit" world that we cannot access from this one, I did not postulate a "spirit" world. Just a "mental" world, and gave in 25-words-or-less format the scientific underpinnings why such might not be simulatable. I'm thinking more along the lines of hard core stuff that would be appro- priate for the Journal of Theoretical Biology or Mathematical Biosciences etc, and not junk like the _The Tao of Physics_. OK? > then there is >no reason that silicon can't think just as well as carbon-based life (if >we could only figure out how to plug them together). Sure there is! I *gave* a reason. >By the way the arguments about reductionism just don't work, who says we >have to be able to understand what we build. A good point, but I'm claiming that there is the subtler possibility that an appropriate simulation might not even exist. There's a distinction here. To turn it around, who says that understandability implies reductionism? To me, quantum mechanics is a perfect example of what I mean. Science has, apparently, reached a limit as to what is in fact *out* there--there is NO mechanism that "explains" QM, it just "is". Many find this bothersome--I do not, nor comprehend why anyone does. Now, I'm not saying mind "is", and that's that. I'm saying that its final explication may be too deeply embedded in the physics of QM and chaos to permit accurate simulation. I see no reason why AI won't eventually develop AI, but I am skeptical that silicon based AIs, say, will be recognizably like our own intelligence, or even capable of simulating our own. (I've been told by someone who knows Searle that this is what he really has been trying to say all these years. I was rather surprised, to say the least. Do note that I said "skeptical", not "contrarily convinced"; I find Searle's arguments laughably fallacious.) Essentially, what you say is just a question of A => B, I say is a question of A => C => D => ??? => B. >Someday we will know one way or the other, but how you answer the question >will effect how (or if) you work in the field. Don't misunderstand! I'm all for research--even on antimatter drives. I do not, however, believe that the usually stated end goals are feasible. This belief is based, I believe, on what we actually know is possible, as opposed to those whose beliefs are based on "reasonable" conjectures. Thus, is it "reasonable" to say that the chemistry of antihydrogen will be just like hydrogen's? Probably, but I can imagine charge conjugation sym- metry violations that show up and effect the long term stability of antihy- drogen. In other words, a lot of basic research is going to be needed when we start investigating antimatter in detail, and much of it is going to con- firm the expected, but little kinks will have to be looked for. As for myself, I'm just a mathematician who likes to annoy other people. >(What does ad astra per dolorem" mean anyway I don't know ?Latin?). It is Latin for "to the stars through grief". It generally refers to the hardships on the way to realizing any dream; the space program has added an unexpected literal twist to the ancient aphorism. As this is wandering far too afield from space, I won't argue it anymore. Please don't followup with bogus strawmen that have nothing to do with my points. "Astral bodies", indeed. To summarize, let me quote my buddy Rich Rosen: Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Or perhaps I ought to paraphrase Trent Phloog: WOW! That theory goes STRAIGHT UP into the CLOUDS! AMAZING!! ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 87 04:26:04 GMT From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gerry Gleason) Subject: Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach I didn't really want this to be an extended debate, but I will post one more time to clarify some of my points. In article <1055@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> obnoxio@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >In article <888@laidbak.UUCP>, gerryg@laidbak (Gerry Gleason) writes: >>Others have suggested this, but using this argument to say AI is >>impossible is also saying that somehow biological matter has some >>strange influence over quantum mechanical happenings. > >But the Copenhagen interpretation a la Wigner/Wheeler *does* say this: >con- sciousness can collapse wave functions. Translating into the >many-worlds view, one would say that objects can go splitting . . . . The Copenhagen interpretation says things about "observers" effects on experiments and measurments. I see no reason that an observer could not be an intellegent machine, which gets back to my original point, what is special about carbon based life. Do carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. have peculiar effects on matter that other forms of matter do not? The word "observer" in this interpretation is closely linked to conscousness, not to what type of matter posseses conscousness. My interpretation of conscousness is that it arise not directly from a type of matter, but from a particular configuration or pattern of matter; from the topology of a network of interconections. >> Or on another track, that mind is separate >>from body, and it is our "minds" or "astral" bodies that influences matter. >>I don't know about you, but I need more justification to accept this as >>reality. > >Huh? My mind is currently influencing electrons nearby, and as you are read- >ing this, is influencing them nationwide. I can't comment about my "astral" >body--you will have to clue me in as to what whacko belief you think I have. Exactly, so are the states of your computer, how is the situation different. My point was, either biological matter has special effects on the matter around it, or there must be something else that living beings have that makes us and other creatures special, i.e. a soul (or whatever you want to call it). Even this does not exclude machine conscousness/intellegence, unless there is a rule that machines can't have souls. >>I don't need to make science fictional conjectures, I guess that I just >>believe in the "closure" of the universe. > >Now this is more of a metaphysical conjecture; I rarely see science fiction >that ever questions the 19th century philosophy of science worldview--Stan- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >islaw Lem comes to mind here. ^^^^^^^^^ What are you refering to here? > >However, this has little to do with my argument, as closure does NOT imply >that AI-based nanotechnology will work as Minsky originally suggested. > >> If you do not postulate some >>kind of "spirit" world that we cannot access from this one, > >I did not postulate a "spirit" world. Just a "mental" world, and gave in >25-words-or-less format the scientific underpinnings why such might not be >simulatable. Oh, well if its a mental world, why can't a machine with a mind have access to it? What does simulatable have to do with anything? Can't you conceive of a machine that can't be simulatable? >>By the way the arguments about reductionism just don't work, who says we >>have to be able to understand what we build. > >A good point, but I'm claiming that there is the subtler possibility >that an appropriate simulation might not even exist. There's a >distinction here. [stuff deleted about the relationship of reductionism, understandability, QM, etc] As I pointed out above, simulation has nothing to do with it. Take any of these issues (reductionism, understandability of the solution, QM underpinnings, etc.), and nothing you can say on these issues applies differently to biological or silicon system. >As this is wandering far too afield from space, I won't argue it >anymore. Please don't followup with bogus strawmen that have nothing >to do with my points. "Astral bodies", indeed. >ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 I agree, if there is any more follow up, it should be moved to another more appropriate group (which?), or if you (Matthew) want to comment directly to me, feel free. gerry gleason ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #187 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11203; Wed, 8 Apr 87 03:03:00 PDT id AA11203; Wed, 8 Apr 87 03:03:00 PDT Date: Wed, 8 Apr 87 03:03:00 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704081003.AA11203@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #188 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 8 Apr 87 03:03:00 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #188 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 188 Today's Topics: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach Biosphere II Re: Robert Forward talk, comments on. The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion we'll want more even after miniaturized The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion Re: Future of U.S. space program Re: Paying off the national debt with s ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Mar 87 19:46:36 GMT From: philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!johnmill@nyu.arpa (John Miller) Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water In article <1092@drivax.UUCP> holloway@drivax.UUCP (Bruce Holloway) writes: [following up to earlier article suggesting 3000 stars in our galaxy ought to have life] >we have no way of knowing - our existance seems little more than a >fluke, and the dinosaurs before us didn't seem headed on the road to >sapience. Well, maybe not. But some more recent stuff I've read says that some of the later, smaller dinosaurs were achieving a brain-body weight ratio about that of the modern baboon, suggesting that the idea of the necessarily stupid dinosaur should be relegated to the same scrap-heap of preconceptions as the cold-blooded, sluggish brute stereotypes that we have all known and loved. [some reasonable thoughts leading up to the following statement] >So say that there is a one in a hundred million chance that intelligent >life will form where there already exists life - and I think the odds >are a bit low at that - according to your figures, that would leave >0.00003 planets with intelligent life on them, and ourselves a >statistical fluke. In other words, maybe we are the cosmic equivalent of enough monkeys on enough typewriters writing Shakespear .... It would appear that on this planet evolution (or whatever) worked out all right. But must it always? Say that life arises fairly easily on lots of planets. Now let's say that at ANY LEVEL one particular life-form gets a clear advantage over all others and short-circuits evolution at that point ... Use some imagination. Or take our own planet. AIDS has come along and scared the hell out of us. In point of fact the larger the population the greater the chance that something will come along parasitic on that population, and there is always the chance that SOMETHING will do in its hosts totally. Even at our "advanced" stage we could be obliterated without a trace, and a few hundred million years later all the mammals by something unrelated, and cockroaches later still ... Stagnation could set in: No environmental challenges for billions of years, no significant evolutionary advancement. Too much environmental challenge and evolutionary change is unable to keep up. Just let the sun warm up 5% per thousand years .... A supernova in the vicinity and your budding life-system is fried; and the odds are that almost every galactic neighborhood will have a supernova every billion years or so ... Interplanetary collisions are clearly occur, and everybody who reads this has heard the speculation of the dinosaurs being wiped out that way. Mercury looks like it was nearly shattered once ... The point is that although life may arise easily, on a cosmic scale it is extinguished VERY easily. We balance on a very long, thin tightrope.... It could be that we have been very, very lucky. And I would say that this CLEARLY the biggest reason why we must get our act together and get out into space. We can't stay lucky forever. --johnmill ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 87 16:59:46 GMT From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach In article <897@laidbak.UUCP>, gerryg@laidbak (Gerry Gleason) writes: >I didn't really want this to be an extended debate, but I will post one >more time to clarify some of my points. Well sure, but in the meantime you are obfuscating mine. (Which does not mean that I was clear in the first place, but I did think my words referred to what I thought I was thinking.) I'll be sending you a detailed response sometime next week. >My interpretation of conscousness is that it arise [...] from the >topology of a network of interconections. *That* remains to be seen. I've been suggesting that it could be more than the topology of a network--dynamical considerations of a quantum chaotic sort could be significant. >Oh, well if its a mental world, why can't a machine with a mind have >access to it? I did NOT say it *can't*. Indeed, my original article did not even address this question--it's a red herring, and one that I wish you wouldn't bring up since it completely obfuscates my point. MINSKY'S SUGGESTION was about reducing/coding people and their minds with bits, and THAT was what I made a countersuggestion about. That implies **NOTHING** about my beliefs about whether a separate silicon intelligence is possible. This is on an abstract par with the proposed solution to the Fermi paradox that we just don't recognize the intelligent aliens around us. >As I pointed out above, simulation has nothing to do with it. Take any >of these issues (reductionism, understandability of the solution, QM >under- pinnings, etc.), and nothing you can say on these issues applies >differently to biological or silicon system. But they DO apply to the question of whether the biological is interpret- able WITHIN the silicon system. Replace the word "simulation" with "very good simulation, to the point that nanotechnology can be applied to people directly by 'simulating' people inside silicon" and you will get what I was referring to. Personally, I think Minsky did not go far enough in his proposal. Given 10 zillion years, we as might as well assume that everyone can be reduced to photons coding up the Goedel numbers of our Turing machine minds--we shall all have identical bodies by then anyway. Thus, people will be transported by laser. Budget travellers will get a parity check bit attached to the end; first class will be sent via sophisticated error correcting codes. As usual, getting your luggage through customs will be the most difficult part of any trip--at least complaints about the food will evaporate. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 87 00:53:31 GMT From: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim@oberon.usc.edu (Tim Smith) Subject: Biosphere II The discussion of Space Arks reminded me of this: There was an article in the Los Angeles Times this week ( I believe it was on 3/23/87 ) about the Biosphere II project. This project is an attempt to build a self-contained system capably of supporting eight people for two years. The article starts on the front page, so it should be easy to find in the library. The article is a fairly long article giving quite a bit of detail ( for a newspaper ). Some of the problems they are facing are interesting. For example, they want to use termintes to perform the function of consuming some grass that they are going to have. In a "natural" environment, this function would be done by grazing herds and forrest fires. They don't have room for grazing herds, and they aren't too keen on the idea of forrest fires. The problem is that all the species of termites they have tried so far will also attack the gunk that seals the glass panels that enclose the project. Tim Smith ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 87 06:25:41 GMT From: linus!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse@husc6.harvard.edu (der Mouse) Subject: Re: Robert Forward talk, comments on. In article <277@inuxa.UUCP>, rmrin@inuxa.UUCP (D Rickert) writes: > [Those efforts] will require long term living by tens of thousands of > people in things like O'Neil colonies. These large space habitats > will already be generation ships without engines. More than that. They will be close enough for us to support them, so their ecology doesn't need to be as close to sealed - they'll make good *practice* generation ships. They will also be in orbit around a star, making life easier for then again. Lucky us - we'll certainly need the practice before setting out for real in a generation ship. der Mouse ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Apr 87 11:40:45 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion I'm going to give the 50 light year limit argument one more try and then give it a rest. Responses to my position that interstellar travel is limited to 50 light years have for the most part been totally orthogonal to my actual argument. The following are the basis for my position that 50 light years is the upper bound for interstellar travel: 1) The surface of a sphere grows as r**2 while the volume grows as r**3. 2) Because of the speed-of-light limitation, star travel is expensive and travel time from one star to another takes about a century. 3) Worlds producing starships will eventually be insulated from the frontier by nearer colony worlds created through earlier star missions. 4) Star travel will be ideologically motivated and will provide no economic return. 5) The home worlds will change significantly as the radius of colonization expands. All of my conclusions leading up to the 50 light year limit are based on these five points. Please do not waste my time and other reader's time with boring sermons about Christopher Columbus. The Santa Maria didn't cost a trillion dollars nor did it take a century to get to a America. If someone can come up with a counter-argument recognizing the above five points then the discussion will be worthwhile. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Apr 87 08:50:09 PDT X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 April 06 07:39:42 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: we'll want more even after miniaturized Date: 19 Mar 87 14:48:01 GMT From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: The AI-based nanotechnology approach In article , MINSKY@OZ suggests that within 10k years that we may achieve wonderful nanotechnologies, ... ... But somehow, achieving such seems to be a great way of sidestepping one of the major "reasons" to go out to space in the first place. Thus, it's now like the film TRON--reality becomes one giant video game. The population explosion will be solved by sociological/electronic engineering etc by our friend the Master Control Program. Basic law of both computers and biology, the demand expands to fill the supply then wants more space. If people could be reduced to 1mm cubes, the population explosion would go exponentially until we had a Dyson sphere completely filled with these tiny people, and there'd be demand to expand to other stars. I don't think nanotechnology is a permanent cure for expansionism. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 87 05:47:09 GMT From: cullvax!drw@xn.ll.mit.edu (Dale Worley) Subject: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion If interstellar colonization is ideologically driven, and if a culture that considers interstellar colonization gets established, it will come to dominate the bulk of the planets, because it will have colonized the bulk of them. Thus it could be that colonization becomes a self-sustaining cultural force. The underlying question is "generation time"--how long does it take from colonization of a planet until it can send out its own colonizing ships? Is this short enough that the culture doesn't change completely between colonizations? I would think only a couple of hundred years if the culture and technology of colonizing new worlds is well developed. Dale Worley Cullinet Software ARPA: cullvax!drw@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Apr 87 06:02:51 PDT X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 April 07 04:37:13 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu Date: Mon, 16 Mar 87 12:21:16 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: And the Star Travel debate rages on.... (Re stars of wrong spectral class, thus so hot they burn out before life can evolve, or so cool any planet close enough to be warmed would also be tidally locked.) Paul, you're the one that's wrong. It's clear that I meant these stars couldn't evolve life. Of course they can support life that travels to it, but what idiot civilization would send a star ship to a barren system? We got plenty of dead worlds in the solar system, and it costs a whole lot less to stay here. The extreme expense of star travel is justified only if you can go to an earth-like world. If the major reason for going out there is survival, by planting seed in more remote places to avoid any local disaster, better to go to those other stars with dead worlds around them than to stay in our teensy solar system. We're trying to leave Earth into space colonies and lunar colonies to escape worldwide thermonuclear war, but might still get hit by a really big war that includes space, so it's better than just Earth but not enough to be completely safe. - Next we're going to other planets and free-solar-orbiting colonies to escape Earth/Moon thermonuclear war, but eventually war might reach those colonies too. - Next we go to other nearby stars and Oort cloud or whereever, then to faraway stars, then to other galaxies. The further spread the better chance of survival to end of Universe (heat death or pancake-collapse or whatever) or forever if possible. Earth-like worlds would be nice, but are "pie in the sky", not worth worrying about. Plenty of ugly horrible worlds we can make nice, and lots&lots of empty space with just debris and energy we can harness. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 87 22:08:56 GMT From: amdcad!amd!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Howard A. Landman) Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program In article <8703021438.AA14811@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >Mark Muhlestein wrote: >The idea of extracting iron from asteroids, for example, is grade-A >idiocy, given the current cost of iron, and the fact that current iron >reserves on earth amount to some 100 gigatons (!), and certainly much >more than no one has bothered to find yet because there's no reason to >(US iron consumption is about 100 megatons per year). >The same is true of other resources. We aren't using anything that >can't be substituted for, recycled or conserved. Costs of retrieving >space materials are outrageous, while terrestrial sources have huge >overcapacities. Population growth is slowing down. I would agree with this if we were discussing mining space materials and returning them to Earth (as some were). The arithmetic just doesn't support that activity very well. But why dump materials down a deep gravity well when you need them right where they are, in space? The cost of 1 kg of iron in asteroidal orbit (assuming we tried to send some there, from Earth, with current technology) would probably be at least $25,000. At those prices a 20-ton space structure costs at least $1,000,000,000, just to get the materials into space. Much cheaper to mine it locally, and smelt it with solar heat. Howard A. Landman ...!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 87 22:51:15 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!holloway@ames.arpa (Bruce Holloway) Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with s In article <13200002@silver> seiffert@silver.bacs.indiana.edu writes: >Along the issue of gold as a conductor, scrap the idea. In space build >computers and electrical systems out of superconductor material. It is >easily cold enough. Of course these are systems built to remain in >space and just for the electrical hardware. If space is a vacuum, how can it have any temperature at all? When it gets really cold, atomic activity gradually slows down, right? With very few atoms in space, seems you wouldn't be able to measure any sort of temperature. But the radiation hitting something in space would probably be even more than penetrates to the Earth's surface, so it could well heat up circuits, et.al., even more so than here. Plus, with no atmosphere to carry conductive heat (any such thing?) away, things might get even hotter. Of course, if you could shield instruments from the sun's radiation, and reflected radiation from the Earth and the Moon, it might be possible... but there'll still be the heat of the circuits themselves to contend with. -- {seismo,hplabs,sun,ihnp4}!amdahl!drivax!holloway Put the power of RANDOM NUMBERS to work FOR YOU! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #188 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12909; Thu, 9 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT id AA12909; Thu, 9 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT Date: Thu, 9 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704091002.AA12909@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #189 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 189 Today's Topics: Troubles with the Soviet Module for Mir condensed space news from Jan 26 AW&ST Re: Paying off the national debt with s Re: Paying off the national debt with s Re: Paying off the national debt with s Mining asteroid for gold Re: Mining asteroid for gold Re: Shuttle external tank ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 87 14:37:22 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Troubles with the Soviet Module for Mir The Soviet Union has run into some problems with the "star" module addition to their Mir space station over the past few days. Called Kvant (Quantum) this 20 Tonne system was to create a major expansion of Mir (see below). Launched on March 31 they had announced it would dock on Sunday. However at that time they said that the auto docking system failed whenever they brought the module within 200 meters of Mir. At that distance it kept veering away from Mir. They stopped the system at that point and said that they try again in a few days, but yesterday (Apr. 7) they talked about delaying another attempt several more days. Kvant consists of a 12 Tonne station section with 40 cubic meters of habitable volume. There is a vacuum section with X-ray and UV telescopes, mostly West German or British instruments (with some USSR). It also contains a huge 10 Tonne descent stage is present to bring processed material down to earth. By comparison the descent stage on previous star modules was in the 4-6 tonne range. It probably can take around 10 cubic meters of material down (based on a smaller habitable volume for this module). Kvant was designed to dock to the rear of Mir, opposite the 5 docking port "ball". After the descent module left it would open a docking where Progess tankers could connect to refuel and supply the station, or Soyuz's could attach to bring up new crews. Now for some rumors and speculation that make this event event stranger. Considering how important this module obviously is it is interesting that the Russians from their broadcasts and announcements have been positively upbeat about correcting the problem (before Glosnos an event like this would produce silence followed by a terse "the vehicle achieved its mission" - it would also have been called Cosmos xxxx until it docked). Yet James Oberg stated in an interview yesterday that it only had a battery system good for two weeks on its own! Why are they delaying the docking still longer if that is true? If problems occur they might try flying Soyuz TM-2 over to it, but could the Soyuz dock to Kvant's front port (it certainly could to the rear port after the descent module was jettison). The Soyuz could recharge its batteries for other trys and the crew could make some repairs if needed. This is the first automatic docking failure they have had with a "star" module or Progress tanker. Two additional strange points. Before this failure occurred the Soviets said that the two cosmonauts aboard Mir were preparing materials to be sent to earth - strange because the smaller descent modules used before have generally stayed on the station for several months. It would not seem that they are making maximum use of the system that way - hence it might be a test of some new vehicle (the lander portion). Secondly last night they said that the current crew would be up for only 3 to 4 months (more ? they have already been up there for nearly two). This would not put them up when the Syrian came up in July! However in the past they have made some statements about this crew not being trained to run the Kvant module (it used to be called Roentgen in the west). There were indications of a new crew with an astrophysicist being sent to run it. This is getting stranger all the time. Ok now we will see how the Soviets handle what is a major space problem under full international view. In all previous events of this kind nothing was said until long after the fact. Will they close down the news or will they kept it open? Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 87 06:22:01 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: condensed space news from Jan 26 AW&ST Spot Image is now equipped to turn Spot pictures into 3-D terrain models. McDonnell-Douglas proposes building a heavylift booster by strapping four stretched Delta first stages together, adding a pair of large solids, and topping it off with a Titan 2 second stage. Mars Observer launch officially delayed to 1992 due to shortage of shuttle planetary-launch slots. Everyone is pissed off. NASA rejected congressional idea of moving Ulysses from 1989 shuttle to 1991 Titan 4 [among other reasons this was a bad idea, the extra 2+ years of decay in Ulysses's isotope generators would have caused severe problems -- HS]. Strong support outside NASA for launching Mars Observer on schedule in 1990 by using a Titan 3; NASA quietly likes the idea but wants Congress to find extra money for it. Martin Marietta has dubbed its new pointing/tracking lab in Denver "R2P2", "Rapid Retargeting Precision Pointing". SDI head Abrahamson, who doesn't like the term "Star Wars", says "I can't believe they did that..." McDonnell-Douglas Delta wins USAF Medium Launch Vehicle contest. First nine Navstars go up on Deltas with hotter solid boosters and larger payload fairings; later ones will need lighter booster casings and stretched first- stage tanks as well. Commercial utility a major factor in the competition; one of Delta's strong points was demonstrated 12 launches/year capacity, making several commercial launches per year available. [Micro-editorial: I hope the US will now shut up about how the Europeans subsidize Ariane... but they won't. -- HS] Congress balks at notions of regearing SDI to early deployment of space-based kinetic-kill defense, warns SDI that attempts to divert funds from long-term work on advanced technologies to work on near-term systems will result in loss of SDIO's power to control funding distribution. DoD and Congress prepare for battle over whether the SDIO heavy-lift booster should use shuttle-derived hardware or be all-new. USAF is skeptical that developments of existing systems can really get costs down. NRC report on SRB test program raises serious questions about whether NASA will really be ready for an early-1988 STS-26. NRC wants more thorough testing, more effort on backup approaches in case things don't work as planned, and more attention to realistic simulation of booster loads. NRC also comments that NASA's review of flight-critical shuttle hardware will not leave enough time to correct anything serious and still launch next February. They suggest assigning priorities to identify the most likely points of failure, and focussing attention on them. Truly orders investigation of doing a flight-readiness firing of Discovery's engines before STS-26. This would delay launch at least a couple of months. Officially no decision has been made, but KSC contractor documentation shows a Discovery test firing scheduled for Feb 1988 -- the official launch date. Truly approves equipping shuttle with a hatch-jettison system, and crew with parachutes and related equipment. If the h-j system is not ready for STS-26, this will not necessarily delay the launch -- the system's importance is long-term rather than immediate. One thing Truly did not approve is the use of tractor rockets to ensure that crewmembers clear the left wing. The astronauts are concerned about the safety aspects of storing several live rockets in the cabin. The idea is still under investigation, as are other approaches to clearing the wing. NATO orders two comsats from British Aerospace / Marconi Space Systems, who beat out a US bid from GE. Satellites will be derivatives of the Skynet 4 design that BA and MSS are building for the British military. Some impressive pictures of Soviet booster-assembly facilities and rollout of an SL-4 carrying a Soyuz. Rows of boosters and Soyuzes. Preparations for re-manning of Mir begin with docking of a Progress tanker. US impressed by five Soviet launches in 12 days despite severe winter weather; the Progress launch was televised live, indicating considerable confidence. Federal Express buys two comsats from GE Astro-Space. FCC revokes MCI's license to launch SBS-7 comsat because company has yet to do anything about getting it built. Pictures and lengthy coverage of an AW&ST editor trying out an underwater space-based assembly simulation at McDonnell-Douglas, with partner Pete Conrad (Gemini 5, Gemini 11, Apollo 12, Skylab 2, now a McD-D VP). JPL directory Lew Allen proposes NASA-ESA-Soviet Mars sample-return mission for launch in 1996. NASA begins to implement management changes based on the Phillips report. KSC is busy shaking up management and procedures to fix problems identified by the Rogers report. One important change is measures to control overtime. "...no more will anyone work six 12-hr days in a row without a break..." The Feb 18 target for STS-26 can be met if nothing goes seriously wrong. One complication is the possible installation of the hatch-jettison system. Comsat owners are interested in insurance again, and are finding the rates rather high. DoD is pursuing meteor-burst communications as a less vulnerable alternative to satellite communications. Bouncing transmissions off meteor trails in the ionosphere has data-rate and range limitations, but it is virtually immune to jamming and interception (not to mention antisatellite weapons). NASA Lewis about to issue RFP for Space Station power systems. Amusing letter of the month [not space-related but funny]: "The article on the SRAM 2 for the B-1B (AW&ST Dec 15) said: 'The Air Force wants to purchase 1,633 of the new missiles with an operational date of March, 1982'. "I mean, we're a hell of a company but there's going to have to be some schedule slippage." "John J. McElroy, Boeing" Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 87 00:43:53 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with s > Along the issue of gold as a conductor, scrap the idea. In space build > computers and electrical systems out of superconductor material. It is > easily cold enough... Only if you work hard at it. Think: if space is that cold, why did IRAS have to carry a big tank of liquid helium to keep its detectors cold? You can get things cold in space, but it's not just a matter of waving your hand and getting things down to a few degrees K. (Please don't tell me about the new high-temperature superconductors -- they are laboratory curiosities so far, although very interesting ones.) Almost any object in space spends much of its time in bright, bright sunlight. Note also that superconducting computer and electrical technology is in a very primitive state compared to room-temperature stuff right now. -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 87 02:13:24 GMT From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gerry Gleason) Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with s In article <7770@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Along the issue of gold as a conductor, scrap the idea. In space build >> computers and electrical systems out of superconductor material. It is >> easily cold enough... > >Only if you work hard at it. Think: if space is that cold, why did IRAS >have to carry a big tank of liquid helium to keep its detectors cold? >You can get things cold in space, but it's not just a matter of waving >your hand and getting things down to a few degrees K. If you want cold in space you need two things: block out other radiation and get rid of the waste heat. Big radiators might work, but aren't likely to be easy to launch (but if your not shipping everything from Earth?). Probably, the IRAS detectors generate a good amount of heat in operation. I don't know about switches, but superconducting wires wouldn't generate much heat. Certainly, there are technical problems, but in the long term superconductive computers will probably be common in space. gerry gleason ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 87 17:15:07 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with s > >Only if you work hard at it. Think: if space is that cold, why did IRAS > >have to carry a big tank of liquid helium to keep its detectors cold? > > Probably, the IRAS detectors generate a good amount of heat in operation. Nope, sorry. No major heat generation. (After all, that helium kept them cold for nearly a year, remember.) They just needed to be kept awfully cold for proper sensitivity, and liquid helium was considered more practical than the alternatives. My recollection -- I could be wrong -- is that the various design sketches for an advanced infrared telescope generally use the same technique, except that unlike IRAS they have provisions for in- flight refills. To rephrase my previous comment: yes, you can get cryogenic temperatures just with radiators, but it's not as easy as the sunday-supplement articles would have you believe. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 87 17:43:59 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Mining asteroid for gold To shed some light on the "great asteroid mining debate", the East Rand Proprietary mine (ERPM) is mining gold at 6 grams per ton, using unskilled black labor paid at $300/month. However despite this, ERPM is losing money, (costs are greater than return). If you want to mine an asteroid for gold, your gold density must exceed 6 grams per ton to be profitable. However, everything that I've read about asteroids indicates that asteroid gold density is considerably less than this. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 87 09:26:47 GMT From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@AMES.ARPA (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Mining asteroid for gold In article <8703201650.AA09627@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >...the East Rand Proprietary mine (ERPM) is mining gold at 6 grams per >ton, using unskilled black labor paid at $300/month. However despite >this, ERPM is losing money, (costs are greater than return). If you >want to mine an asteroid for gold, your gold density must exceed 6 >grams per ton to be profitable.... > Gary Allen This assumes that you're using the same technology to separate the gold from the asteroid metal that the ERPM is using. I really doubt this. I would imagine that large-scale electrolytic refining could yield economic amounts of gold inexpensively, particularly if you are also refining silicon for solar cells (which you might) and have practically unlimited sunlight available (which you would). Just dissolving the iron, nickel etc. in a salt bath might separate the gold, platinum, and iridium by their chemistry alone. I don't know, I'm not a chemist. (Any chemists out there?) Russ Cage ------------------------------ Date: 20 Mar 87 20:40:47 GMT From: mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Shuttle external tank In article <711@bgsuvax.UUCP> drich@bgsuvax.UUCP (Daniel Rich) writes: >I recently read a new science fiction short story by David Brin ("Tank >Farm Dynamo" if anyone is interested), in which he presents the idea of >a space station made up of used shuttle external tanks. Does anyone on >the net know if this would be at all practical? There is a company which is currently studying the feasiblity of doing just that. They hope to be able to reuse the external tanks for raw materials to hulls for space-stations. I'm sorry, but I do not remember their name right now. The biggest hurdle in using the tanks is their low orbit. That is, because of the size of the tanks (large cross-section) and their relatively low weight, their orbit decays rapidly. So, even at the highest shuttle orbit, a tank might last only 6 months or so, before re-entry. By they way, one of the original Skylab proposals invovled taking the S-IVB stage to orbit, used as a stage, and while in orbit, install the lab. (As opposed to installing it on the ground, as was actually done). So converting tanks to lab space wouldn't be much different than that. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #189 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14698; Fri, 10 Apr 87 03:02:57 PDT id AA14698; Fri, 10 Apr 87 03:02:57 PDT Date: Fri, 10 Apr 87 03:02:57 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704101002.AA14698@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #190 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 190 Today's Topics: Soviet module dock to Mir & Russian Reuseable Spacecraft Space Station - want to air your views? Do it via Usenet! Hipparcos astrometry satellite Re: SN1897A - a summary RE: SN1987A (a summary) Amateur Astronomers Astronomers Upset Over Art Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art Re: Amateur Astronomers Re: direct measurement of near-Sun environment Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 87 15:14:13 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet module dock to Mir & Russian Reuseable Spacecraft The USSR announced today (Apr 9) that they had successful linked up the 20 tonne Kvant addition to the Mir space station (see my message on Space Digest v7, 189 yesterday for a description it and of the problems they had before today). Some reporters here have said that the wording of the announcement in TASS suggested that there was damage to Kvant in the docking. The vocal report that was given on short wave did not strike me that way. The Russians certainly kept more open about this problem than in the past - last night they announced the failure of a docking attempt about at the time it happened. Most importantly this expands Mir by 40 cubic meters (30% in working volume), and adds an good set of UV/X-ray telescopes to the station. As was pointed out to me by Steve Willner of Harvard on the net they could really be used to study the supernova events that are currently taking place. One other interesting point was that before the docking the Soviets were also talking about a speech by one of their spacecraft designers where he said that they were building a reuseable vehicle. The report also stated that the launch of such a system would be announced before it happened. Whether or not Kvant was damaged when it docked this certainly is not the failure that it has been described by some people here (I have been told that one New York Times reporter compared it to the Challenger accident in its impact on their program before the success of today). The Soviets take their space problems in stride and work to overcome them as quickly as possible. This country should be doing the same thing with its program. Otherwise we will be left behind. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 87 06:06:40 GMT From: elroy!smeagol!earle@csvax.caltech.edu (Greg Earle) Subject: Space Station - want to air your views? Do it via Usenet! In article <7838@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >[A long scathing editorial about the Space Station situation is coming, >but it will have to wait until I have a bit more time to write it. -- HS] If you people want to air your Space Station views to someone who has any say in the matter, then I suggest you do this (he'll probably kill me for this, but ...) : Write your email to lyman@plyman.UUCP. It's in the UUCP map, somewhere in u.usa.ca.[135]. In fact, here's the map entry : >UUCP mail information for host plyman (#USENET lines show USENET news links): >#Name plyman >#System-CPU-OS AT&T UNIX PC; UNIX PC Version 3.5 Software >#Organization SpaceSoft/Consultants >#Contact Peter Lyman >#Electronic-Address plyman!lyman >#Telephone +1 818 354 4500 , +1 818 794 4170 >#Postal-Address 1454 East Mountain St., Pasadena, CA 91104 >#Latitude-Longitude 34 09 41 N / 118 07 11 W >#Remarks >#Written-by plyman!lyman (Peter Lyman) ; Mon Feb 2 1987 ># >plyman escher(DIRECT), idi(WEEKLY), ihnp4(WEEKLY), jplpub1(DIRECT), > mfci(DAILY), monrovia(DIRECT) Although nothing in this map entry gives anything away, in fact, Dr. Lyman is one of the Assistant Lab Directors of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (meaning there's only 2 people, director Allen, and deputy director Parks, above him in the heirarchy). He is also a Very Important Person with respect to the Space Station, and in fact spends most of his time away from Pasadena either in Washington or at the KSC or overseas or at meetings and such. He also has an alter-ego as a computer hacker and all-around nice guy :-) I can't promise he'll be able to respond to any/everyone individually (since he puts in Celebrity Guest Appearances here at the Lab), but I just thought people might be interested to know that someone In High Places is actually right on Usenet. If you don't have a smart mailer then take the Path: of this article and append `jplpub1!plyman!lyman' to it, or mail to ihnp4!plyman!lyman through ihnp4 if you know how to get to there. -- Greg Earle UUCP: sdcrdcf!smeagol!earle; attmail!earle JPL ARPA: elroy!smeagol!earle@csvax.caltech.edu AT&T: +1 818 354 4034 earle@jplpub1.jpl.nasa.gov (For the daring) smeagol!earle@jpl-elroy.arpa earle@smeagol.jpl.nasa.gov (4 daring nameservers) ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 87 09:05:18 GMT From: news@csvax.caltech.edu (Usenet netnews) Subject: Hipparcos astrometry satellite Organization : California Institute of Technology Keywords: parallax, stellar distances From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) Path: oddhack!jon I haven't heard anything about the ESA Hipparcos high-precision astrometry satellite. Does anyone know the current status of the project? Has it been launched yet? -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 87 23:46:14 GMT From: cbatt!cwruecmp!sundar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Sundar Iyengar) Subject: Re: SN1897A - a summary In article <479@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> wyatt@cfa.harvard.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: > .... >Discovery was Feb 24.3 UT (all times are UT, BTW), ... >... The LMC is about 50 Kpc (50,000 parsecs, where 1 parsec ~3.26 light >years) away Thanks for summarizing the events that followed the SN (is it going to be called the Shelton SN? :-) ). At the risk of being flamed let me ask a simple question. The SN must really have happened about 50000x3.26 years ago. Given the relative motions of celestial bodies and the need to make relativistic adjustments, has anyone computed its "real" distance from us? Thanks. sri ------------------------------ Date: 16 Mar 87 15:24:44 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: RE: SN1987A (a summary) A couple of points, originally raised to me by Matthew P. Wiener, in e-mail: In my previous summary, I reported that Bob Kirshner, in *his* summary, said that the SN was the brightest since 1835 in M31, and the closest since 1604 (Kepler's SN). Well, either I misheard or Bob misspoke, because I checked with him this morning, and it was 1885 for the former (S Andromeda, mag 7.2, caused terrible confusion about the distance scale, since only novae were known, not supernovae). On the second point, there should have been a SN about 1680 seen where the radio source and SN remnant Cas A is, but it must have been faint, and there's some controversy as to whether anyone saw it. -- Bill UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu (or) wyatt%cfa.UUCP@harvard.harvard.edu BITNET: wyatt@cfa2 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 87 03:25:08 EST From: Grant.Fjermedal@rover.ri.cmu.edu Subject: Amateur Astronomers The March 23 issue of TIME has a cover story on the supernova, and as part of the coverage the magazine has a feature on an Australian amateur astronomer named Robert Evans who has spotted 15 supernovas first. I have also heard of amateur astronomers who have firsts on comet sightings and other neat discoveries. I would like to pose two questions: --What would be good projects for amateur astronomers who wanted to make original findings of one sort or another--figuring that there was a lot more sky out there than could be completely covered by the established observatories. --Who are the major amateurs in this country, and what are the major amateur organizations (and phone numbers or addresses). I would appreciate any suggestions either posted to Space or by e-mail. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 87 10:32:06 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Astronomers Upset Over Art I heard an item on a BBC World Service science program the other evening that will be of interest to the SPACE readership. Astronomers are upset over some tentative French plans to put artworks into orbit as part of the celebration of the centenary (I think) of the Eiffel Tower. There has been a competition to select the winning design, and several were described. For example, there was one that would be an inflated ring, which would appear from the ground as a circle of 16 very bright stars moving across the night sky. Another would be a cross-shaped sail device which would reflect sunlight to the surface giving an apparent brightness greater than the full moon. (These are LARGE satellites, several kilometers across.) The astronomers are upset because these would not only be a source of more light pollution, but the high relative brightness would actually damage sensitive detection instruments aimed at faint distant objects if the field of view were invaded by such a satellite. Long-exposure photographic plates would be ruined by the glare of light, and other observations would be hindered or made impossible. They are also upset by the American private proposal for a high-reflectivity "funeral" satellite, mentioned here before, which would contain the compressed remains of a number of cremated corpses as an orbiting cemetary. Again, the reflected light is the problem (and this is an integral part of that proposal, since the satellite has to be clearly visible from the ground in order to persuade the loved ones to pay to stick Uncle George in this thing). While it would be possible to shut off incoming light during the period such a light-emitting orbiting device will pass within a telescope's field of view, it will add to the difficulty and complexity of making astronomic observations, and perhaps add substantially to their cost (for example, if they have to hire extra people to merely guard the observations by watching for approaching bright objects and warn the operators). Writing programs to automatically compute the position of such objects and automatically shut off the incoming light when such things get dangerously near, and maintaining these to accomodate additional objects or changes in orbital parameters, would be another task and expense. Also, if the "seeing" is marginal, adding such periods of enforced idleness could make the difference between worthless and usable results. This is an issue I haven't seen much comment on regarding space development. Is it just assumed that, as soon as substantial activity begins to fill near-earth space, that all astronomy would move off the planet's surface, to the lunar farside or to distant orbiting stations? Who's going to pay for that? All the ground-based observatory budgets put together wouldn't begin to pay the costs of a lunar base... And this would also eliminate much of the redundancy and backup and reduce the number of observing instruments to just a few. Putting all our eggs into one or two baskets, as it were... Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 87 01:39:19 GMT From: terra!brent@sun.com (Brent Callaghan) Subject: Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art Humph! Sounds like sour grapes to me. Compared with other problems that earth-based astronomers face: daylight, clouds, aircraft nav lights, moonlight etc etc, the brief transit of an orbiting sculpture would be a very minor hindrance. Art in orbit! What a great way to display an artwork to all humanity! I can still remember the excitement I felt when I watched the 100' dia Echo balloons sail serenely across the twilight. It's a cheap way to keep space exploration in the public mind. There's enough room up there for Science AND art. Brent Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan @ Sun Microsystems uucp: sun!bcallaghan phone: (415) 691 6188 ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 87 17:15:36 GMT From: unmvax!charon!deimos!f12008ad@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Amateur Astronomers If you find radio astronomy interesting, then by all means get in touch with the Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers. This is a field where one can do many observations that larger radio observatories do not have time for. If you would like to get more information about amateur radio astronomy and S.A.R.A., write: R.M. Sickels 7605 Deland Ave. Ft. Pierce, FL 33451 or SARA President Jeff Lichtman 37 Crater Lake Drive Coram, NY 11727 Hope this helps. Good luck, Ollie Eisman ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 87 16:45:25 GMT From: doug@ngp.utexas.edu (Doug Miller) Subject: Re: direct measurement of near-Sun environment In article <8703251759.AA22065@angband.s1.gov>, REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes: > It occurs to me that we've never gotten any measurements directly of > the particles etc. very close to the sun. All we've done is indirectly [...questions about what might be possible, how we might do better...] > obvious ons we use now? Could some non-photo method such as neutrinos > or pions etc. be used to communicate between drone and relay-craft?) In a word, no. You don't want to use charged pions (think about what the Sun's magnetic field will do to your communications), but even if you did, the lifetime of your typical K-Mart variety charged pion is ~10E-7 seconds, and the uncharged variety is even worse, weighing in at ~10E-15 seconds. Neutrinos are *hard* to detect, and I don't think anyone has a clue about how to modulate them. They would be a perfect communications medium because they don't interact with very much, but that also makes them impossible for us to use right now. Maybe someday, but neutrino communication is as big a mystery to us now as radio would have been to Christopher Columbus. Doug Miller ...ihnp4!ut-ngp!doug doug@ngp.utexas.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 87 17:35:13 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art In article <15576@sun.uucp>, brent%terra@Sun.COM (Brent Callaghan) writes: > In article <8703241701.AA19807@angband.s1.gov>, wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will > Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes: > > Astronomers are upset . . . > > Humph! Sounds like sour grapes to me. Compared with other problems > that earth-based astronomers face: daylight, clouds, aircraft nav > lights, moonlight etc etc, the brief transit of an orbiting > sculpture would be a very minor hindrance. These are either more predictable (daylight, moonlight) or cover less area (aircraft lights) or do less damage (clouds just get in the way -- they don't make enough light to damage instruments, unless they have lightning in them, but then you don't have your telescope running when it's overcast anyway). And how many "brief transits" of orbiting sculptures are astronomers (and everyone else) going to have to put up with? > Art in orbit! What a great way to display an artwork to all humanity! > I can still remember the excitement I felt when I watched the 100' dia > Echo balloons sail serenely across the twilight. It's a cheap way to > keep space exploration in the public mind. > There's enough room up there for Science AND art. What a great way to extend the billboard eyesore problem to the entire globe. Its bad enough that we have to see our highwaysides scuggified with schlocky billboards -- can't we at least be free of this when we get away from the roads? I can see it coming -- even when you backpack into the Sierra Nevada, you won't be able to avoid the Coca-Cola signs. Read Poul Anderson's _The_Merchants'_War_ and despair, for here it comes. . . . -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #190 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16367; Sat, 11 Apr 87 03:03:08 PDT id AA16367; Sat, 11 Apr 87 03:03:08 PDT Date: Sat, 11 Apr 87 03:03:08 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704111003.AA16367@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #191 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 11 Apr 87 03:03:08 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #191 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 191 Today's Topics: space pollution Re: Amateur Astronomers Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art Re: space pollution Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art Star charts for the bay area Re: Star charts for the bay area Re: Fermi Paradox and Dark Matter Re: Fermi Paradox Re: Freon & the Ozone layer (was Re: What are symptoms of UV over-exposure?) environmentalism and space Re: environmentalism and space Re: environmentalism and space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Mar 87 19:08:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Subject: space pollution > over some tentative French plans to put artworks into orbit as part of and... >They are also upset by the American private proposal for a >high-reflectivity "funeral" satellite, mentioned here before, which >would contain the compressed These would seem to present a good opportunity to try out different anti-satellite technologies. Lets see, there's old-fashioned missles, laser and particle beams, there's that method (I forgot what it's called) of accelerating small masses to (or near) escape velocity electromagnetically, there's false radio messages to make it do self-destructive things... I wonder if a talented bunch of amateurs could contribute anything to this evolving new technology. Where do I sign up? --Peter ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 87 03:54:46 GMT From: euler.Berkeley.EDU!dma@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. M. Auslander) Subject: Re: Amateur Astronomers An excellent amateur organization is the Association of Variable Star Observers. They are particularly notable for supplying data that the professionals don't have the time to get and are very well respected in industrial circles as well. (The Air Force has even bought catalogs of variable stars from them.) Miriam Nadel ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 87 18:57:51 GMT From: terra!brent@sun.com (Brent Callaghan) Subject: Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art In article <1239@husc2.UUCP>, chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes: > What a great way to extend the billboard eyesore problem to the > entire globe. . . . I don't think it's fair to equate an orbiting sculpture i.e. "art" with billboards and advertising. Yes, I like to take a break from civilization and escape to the mountains too - but I don't get upset if I spot the contrails from a jet cruising soundlessly overhead. That's something to marvel at. Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan @ Sun Microsystems uucp: sun!bcallaghan phone: (415) 691 6188 ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 87 19:33:22 GMT From: necntc!adelie!cdx39!breslau@AMES.ARPA (Dan Breslau x7106) Subject: Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art In article <15576@sun.uucp>, brent%terra@Sun.COM (Brent Callaghan) writes: > Art in orbit! What a great way to display an artwork to all humanity! ...including those in remote areas who will have no idea what that message from the gods means :-) . Dan Breslau ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 87 03:22:24 GMT From: tektronix!reed!percival!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: space pollution In article <33e60c88.44e6@apollo.uucp> nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes: > These would seem to present a good opportunity to try out different > anti-satellite technologies. [...] > I wonder if a talented bunch of amateurs could contribute anything to > this evolving new technology. Where do I sign up? > --Peter Actually, if they are in *low* earth orbit you can knock them down for around $10k. First pick up a sounding rockert capable of reaching orbital altitude. By this I mean one the can reach the required altitude at the peak of it's flight. No attempt whatsoever to reach orbital velocity is needed (or wanted). Second fit it with a 'warhead' consisting of a hundred pounds or so of nails, ball bearings, whatever. Add an explosive charge sufficient to *disperse* them over a wide area. Finally, calculate the time/angle/etc required for a launch to put your rocket into the path of the satellite shortly before ther satellite gets there. Set the timer on the charge and launch. At orbital velocities, it should only take *one* nail to wipe out a fair-sized satellite. (of course, the bigger the satellite, the more it will hit). The nails that miss will re-enter (after all they have 0 velicity with respect to the ground). There's even a chance that the satellite will re-enter (if it gets hit by enough junk). This system is functionally equivalent to downing a low flying plane by throwing rocks in the air. (yes, we have just re-invented 'flak') Leonard Erickson ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 87 22:59:13 GMT From: robinson@csvax.caltech.edu (David Robinson) Subject: Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art What is art? The project in question is an advertising gimmick for the Eiffel Tower Centenial Sellabration. Why not have such a flying billboard the next time a soft drink company launches a new product? (Tang Coke, the blinding taste that's out of this world.) What is art? The Apple Macintosh "1984" commercial was art. It also didn't harm anyone (except IBM). You may not think of it as art, and its primary purpose was not to be art, but _I_ liked it. What is art? I think it would be art if someone diddled the books so that Oral Roberts came up short on his ransom money. Then, when he appeared on live TV on April Fool's day, a bolt from the blue (provided by an off-camera ion beam) fried him to a cinder. I do not advocate this because it would tend to cause an increase in anxiety among the faithful (i.e. those who know that they didn't give enough to help Brother Oral, and who are increasingly concerned that THEY COULD BE NEXT). Anxiety leads to fanaticism, and fanaticism leads to people being burned at the stake in the public square. (Don't say "it can't happen here." It bloody well can happen and has happenned here, and no matter who it happens to, YOU COULD BE NEXT) There are even Philistines (in the perjorative, not the literal, sense of the word) who believe that such an action would not be a work of art, and would object to being burnt at the stake as a result of such artless behaviour. De gustibus non disputadum (sp). What is the point of this diatribe? The point is that tastes differ, and we have no right to harm other people by violently imposing that which we think of (or try to pass off, in the case of advertising), as art. As a demonstration of this principle, I have not diddled Oral's books and my ion accelerator is still sitting on the shelf. I hope the Eiffel Tower commission shows similar restraint. David Palmer david%citsrl@citvax.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 87 22:15:42 GMT From: oliveb!bobd@ames.arpa (Robert Duncan) Subject: Star charts for the bay area I have had little experience with astronomy, but I have access to a telescope, and my brother lives on a hill in Morgan Hill, CA. (which is relativly dark - the hill, not the city). I would like some kind of reference of the various stellar objects of intrest we might be able to see this spring and summer, and how to find them in the sky. I perfer a guide specified for the bay area latitude if possible. Any recommendations? Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 87 22:15:46 GMT From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) Subject: Re: Star charts for the bay area _Sky_and_Telescope_ magazine (available at larger newsstands) (and carried by many libraries) has monthly star charts that show horizons for several latitudes. "Planispheres" are common paper or plastic gadgets at museum stores, science shops, and so on. I won't try to diagram one here, but they do a tolerable job at showing what constellations are above the horizon at a given date and time, at the latitude for which they are constructed. The latitude in the South Bay is roughly 37 degrees north. Ten degrees is very roughly the width of your fist at arms' length, so an error of five degrees or so clearly doesn't make too much difference in selecting charts for simple constellation- finding. -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Apr 87 13:02 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox and Dark Matter I was under the impression that small pieces of normal matter could not account for missing galactic mass. The constraints come from the nonobservation of meteors on hyperbolic solar orbits. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 87 17:52:10 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox STEVE WILLNER proposed some explanations for the Fermi paradox: > ... 4) Nearby space has been colonized, but for some reason we > aren't aware of it. Here is another variant of this explanation. Consider the following scenario: The dominant civilization in the universe consists of highly intelligent beings, well-adapted to life in interstellar space. They eat hydrogen and metabolize it by fusion. Their bodies are made mostly of hydrogen (held together by a certain exotic force). They grow a lot bigger than whales and dinosaurs, and take several BILLION years to mature and reproduce. They already have colonized our entire Galaxy and several neighboring ones. They are not aware of us, but we ARE aware of them: we call them "stars". :-) Jorge Stolfi ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 87 20:26:19 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: Freon & the Ozone layer (was Re: What are symptoms of UV over-exposure?) Why is O3 formed over the poles at all? Perhaps the UV incidence is too shallow to form much ozone there and what gets there has to be imported. The Antartic may have much different transport due to the local liquid sea surface which rings it compared to the the land masses near the artic. I'm not really suggesting an alternative explanation, only that I think it's a little early to seize on the apparent Cl- as the only cause when it seems so far from the injection point compared to the "holelessness" of the local pole (artic). Did I miss something? Paul M. Koloc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 87 12:52:41 PST From: Doctor Benway Subject: environmentalism and space I just wanted to say a few words about why I think a lot of environmentalists are crazy (and how this applies to space industrialization). You may notice that this is a value judgement, so I'll start by explicitly describing some of my values. I believe intelligence should be protected from interference and allowed the freedom to develop as it will. Non-intelligent life deserves no such protection. Here's a quick rundown of some of the implications of this: Whales, and possibly chimps and dolphins deserve protection from slaughter. Abortions are okay, at least up to around the third month when intelligent brain waves start. Euthanasia for basket cases like Karen Ann Quinlan after her accident is also okay. Vegetarianism has no moral edge over being an omnivore, and the people who don't believe in scientific experimentation on animals have literally Loony Tune attitudes. Either you believe in this, or you don't. There is no way to derive values from any kind of objective principles. The only type of rational argument that can be applied against them is to argue that they're not self-consistent or possibly that they're too vauge in some way ("intelligence?"). So, how does this apply to environmentalism? The implicit definition people have been using here is that environmentalism is the belief that the environment should be preserved unless changing it is unavoidable. By my standards, this *may* be a useful rule of thumb. Slaughtering trees wantonly could easily be a serious mistake, since our survival depends on the survival of at least some of those trees. But the notion that trees have "rights" and that killing a tree is something like murder seems crazy. Granted that you don't want to clutter up valuable orbits with garbage, and that living in space is likely to require huge amounts of recycling, these are practical concerns, with no particular moral force behind them. If it suits our purposes to convert the moon into a heap of slag, or to terraform Mars, or to use some orbit to store nuclear waste, I say go right ahead. Not only does this not interfere with any intellgent life, it doesn't seem to affect any life at all. How can you have pollution when you don't have a biosphere to pollute? ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 87 02:43:36 GMT From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gerry Gleason) Subject: Re: environmentalism and space >So, how does this apply to environmentalism? The implicit definition >people have been using here is that environmentalism is the belief that >the environment should be preserved unless changing it is unavoidable. >By my standards, this *may* be a useful rule of thumb. Slaughtering >trees wantonly could easily be a serious mistake, since our survival >depends on the survival of at least some of those trees. But the notion >that trees have "rights" and that killing a tree is something like >murder seems crazy. While I do agree with you to some extent, some of what you say disturbs me. Ok, so there is a "scale of desireability" that is tied in some way to the closeness of an organism to man, you equate this with intelegence. I view extinction as similar to the loss of the last copy of a work of art or literature. New ones will come along, and sometimes this is inevitable, but it is the loss of something that will probably not recur. Slaughtering trees wantonly IS a big mistake, as are many other major environmental changes that we have made. We do not understand the interelationships of the environment very well, irreparable damage has already been done and we can't really predict how far the damage will extend even if we stop now. I am not a crazy, but I am an environmentalist. I do not believe we should stop building nuclear plants because of the fears of unknowledgable people (but I do have some reservations about the safty of the nuclear power industry). I also object to the unknowledgable aproach of the Reagen administration to the protection of the environment. There is only one earth, it appears to have the only life in our solar system. It is our responsibility to do our best to protect the diversity and quality of life on this planet. >If it suits our purposes to convert the moon into a heap of slag, or to >terraform Mars, or to use some orbit to store nuclear waste, I say go >right ahead. Not only does this not interfere with any intellgent >life, it doesn't seem to affect any life at all. How can you have >pollution when you don't have a biosphere to pollute? I have much less of a problem with this, these places seem to be lifeless anyway. It will be desirable to leave some places undisturbed so they can be studied in their original condition. This is also a good argument for leaving earth alone, there is plenty of lifeless space that would not be radically altered be a little industrial waste. gerry gleason ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 87 06:23:55 GMT From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: environmentalism and space In article <8703232054.AA18277@angband.s1.gov>, J.JBRENNER (Doctor Benway) writes: >By my standards, this *may* be a useful rule of thumb. Slaughtering >trees wantonly could easily be a serious mistake, since our survival >depends on the survival of at least some of those trees. But the notion >that trees have "rights" and that killing a tree is something like >murder seems crazy. Uh, just about any notion of ethics is crazy when looked at too deeply. There are people who will get into infinite arguments about whether we people actually have "rights" even. I see no evidence that our morals are not arbitrary and are more dictated by custom than by right/wrong. If as you consider it turns out that there is a greater good that depends on the trees being kept around, then it might be better if we granted trees those "rights" in the first place. This argument goes back, essen- tially to Plato's Republic, where it didn't matter if the gods existed, just that the people believed that they did. Those, pigs being unkosher might not make much sense logically to the ancient but rationalist Jew. It would just be "crazy". Yet the custom might serve as a guard against trichinosis, then presumably of unknown cause and mechanism, and thus "should" be defended as strongly as life itself. Now, those of who have been reading this group for a year will remember that I "great" flamed Robert Elton Maass for taking just such a stance, namely that if it could be proven that the earth were doomed in 50 mil- lennia and furthermore the only hope of our descendants was if we got out into space within the next 50 years before technobarbarism descended upon us and close that window forever, that we should immediately set up a world dictatorship to forcefeed the space program; yet here I am argu- ing that perhaps the ends can justify the means? The resolution of this paradox is simple: it doesn't matter if I logical- ly agree with the set up's conclusions--since the hypotheses about a 50 year window etc cannot in principle be "proven", the argument must be flamed as if it were used by actual politicians; unfortunately the ends here did not justify the actual means. (Sorry again, everybody.) (And don't give me sci-fi hassles about hypothical worlds where the future can be rigorously determined. I'm talking about what we know can be deter- mined in principle in *our* world.) ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #191 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17820; Sun, 12 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT id AA17820; Sun, 12 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT Date: Sun, 12 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704121002.AA17820@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #192 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 12 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #192 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 192 Today's Topics: Re: environmentalism and space Re: environmentalism and space Re: environmentalism and space Re: environmentalism and space Re: UFO Coverup Question Re: UFO Coverup Question Re: UFO evidence Re: UFO Coverup Question Re: UFO Coverup Question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 87 23:50:28 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: environmentalism and space Summary: Long posting on "environmentalism," a definition and opinion on intelligent life, etc. how it related to space, then: >But the notion that trees have "rights" and that killing a tree is >something like murder seems crazy. I suggest you read the Supreme Court opinion "The Rights of Rocks" by now deceased Justice William O. Douglas. It's relevant even to space. --eugene miya ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 87 17:16:12 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: environmentalism and space In article <8703232054.AA18277@angband.s1.gov>, J.JBRENNER@OTHELLO.STANFORD.EDU (Doctor Benway) writes: > I just wanted to say a few words about why I think a lot of > environmentalists are crazy (and how this applies to space > industrialization). I want to say here how the environmentalists you describe are crazy, but most environmentalists are probably not. > . . .I believe intelligence > should be protected from interference and allowed the freedom to > develop as it will. Non-intelligent life deserves no such protection. > Here's a quick rundown of some of the implications of this: Whales, > and possibly chimps and dolphins deserve protection from slaughter. So far fairly good, but you should add this caveat: When in doubt, assume intelligence. Thus, "possibly" for any of the cases you list above becomes "should, until proven otherwise." > Abortions are okay, > at least up to around the third month when intelligent brain waves > start. Euthanasia for basket cases like Karen Ann Quinlan after her > accident is also okay. Vegetarianism has no moral edge over being an > omnivore, and the people who don't believe in scientific > experimentation on animals have literally Loony Tune attitudes. I don't intend to dispute you here, although it could be argued that carnivorism is immoral by being wasteful of resources when people are starving, but this isn't the newsgroup for this. Although I will add that while I do believe in scientific experimentation, I do not believe in non-scientific experimentation on animals (and plenty of this goes on, which is what many of the environmentalists complain about). > Either you believe in this, or you don't. There is no way to derive > values from any kind of objective principles. Wrong. But again, this is not the newsgroup for this. > . . .But the > notion that trees have "rights" and that killing a tree is something > like murder seems crazy. I know a few loonies say things like that, but I think most environmentalists would take the position that the avoidance of killing trees is important for survival and moral only because when we irreparably kill off species and ecosystems we deny other people the right to use them. > . . .Not only does this not interfere with any intellgent life, it > doesn't seem to affect any life at all. How can you have pollution > when you don't have a biosphere to pollute? On the other hand, it would be bad to earn the curse of our descendants by doing something like radioactively contaminating Venus so that they could not terraform it whereas they might have been able to otherwise, or through incaution do something like dispose of radioactive waste in orbits where it later comes back to plague us in forms so dispersed as to make handling impossible. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 87 00:39:38 GMT From: martin@yale.arpa (Charles Martin) Subject: Re: environmentalism and space In article <8703250750.AA19462@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >I suggest you read the Supreme Court opinion "The Rights of Rocks" by >now deceased Justice William O. Douglas. It's relevant even to space. I found this in the record of the Supreme Court, Vol 405 (1973); the case is Sierra Club vs Morton. Douglas' dissent (untitled) makes reference to a paper something like "Do Trees have Standing?" The issue in the case was whether the Sierra Club had standing to sue against a development project in the Mineral King wilderness region. Since they could prove no direct harm to themselves as individuals, they had no standing, and the injunction against development was removed. Douglas' point was that environmental objects are, in fact, being harmed by development, and should be allowed standing much as, for example, ships acquire in rem legal status upon christening. In this case, the suit should have been Mineral King vs Morton. Standing is an issue which is particularly tough these days, as the conservative courts make it more and more difficult to achieve. This can make the job of civil rights lawyers particularly difficult. Douglas' dissent is also interesting for its rhetorical style and its characterization of, e.g., the Department of the Interior. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 87 14:00:00 GMT From: adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@XN.LL.MIT.EDU Subject: Re: environmentalism and space [gerryg@laidbak.UUCP ] >Ok, so there is a "scale of desireability" that is tied in some >way to the closeness of an organism to man, you equate this with >intelegence. I do, too. >I view extinction as similar to the loss of the last copy of a >work of art or literature. New ones will come along, and some- >times this is inevitable, but it is the loss of something that >will probably not recur. Yes, but this work is only valuable as long as someone can appre- ciate it, and that someone is intelligent life. Therefore, the preservation of intelligent life (and the proliferation of it) must have the first priority. Only intelligent life gives mean- ing to the rest of nature. If our survival as a species depends on dispersing (as I believe it does) then any environmental con- cerns must take back seat to it - except safety of other intelli- gent species (if any). Actually, we treat works of art and literature just as we do species: most of them are neglected in their own generation. Out of those that escape oblivion by accident, some get to be re- vered in another generation. We are prolific and wasteful, like Nature itself, - and who knows, it may be the best way in the long run to produce something of value. >We do not understand the interelationships of the environment >very well, irreparable damage has already been done and we can't >really predict how far the damage will extend even if we stop >now. Unpredictable change is not, in itself, an evil. >I am not a crazy, but I am an environmentalist. I do not believe >we should stop building nuclear plants because of the fears of >unknowledgable people (but I do have some reservations about the >safty of the nuclear power industry). I also object to the unk- >nowledgable aproach of the Reagen administration to the protec- >tion of the environment. I am not sure any such approach exists. People seem to repeat that kind of accusation by rote, without independent analysis. I believe it is just politics. >There is only one earth, it appears to have the only life in our >solar system. This is why it is essential to spread this life around before it gets extinct. >It is our responsibility to do our best to protect the diversity >and quality of life on this planet. That, too - consistent with that other goal. >>If it suits our purposes to convert the moon into a heap of slag, or to >>terraform Mars, or to use some orbit to store nuclear waste, I say go right >>ahead. Not only does this not interfere with any intellgent life, it >>doesn't seem to affect any life at all. How can you have pollution >>when you don't have a biosphere to pollute? Well said. >I have much less of a problem with this, these places seem to be >lifeless anyway. It will be desirable to leave some places undis- >turbed so they can be studied in their original condition. The universe is big: some places will be left undisturbed no matter what. >This is also a good argument for leaving earth alone, there is >plenty of lifeless space that would not be radically altered be a >little industrial waste. I agree. And, to turn it around - it is a good argument for colonizing space, so that we *can* start leaving earth alone. Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 87 00:58:20 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question > You obviously have not read anything but Klass' account of the Zamora > incident, and thus have failed to read other information about the > case. On the contrary, I have read other accounts of the case, and found Klass's distinctly more informative and less pervaded by fervent I've-made-up-my- mind-don't-confuse-me-with-facts. > In a book called (poorly titled!) SOCORRO SAUCER IN A PENTAGON PANTRY > (or something very close to that), each of Klass' points you > enumerated is destroyed. I would call this selective reading and find > it hard to believe a scientist would only read one side of a > controversial subject. There is a limit to my book budget, also to my interest in the subject. Also, most significantly, to the time I have to spend on it. Other things being equal, if I want to know about UFOs, I will read Klass rather than (say) Adamski. > I lived only 100 miles south of Socorro (working at White Sands > Missile Range) when this event occurred... one more try at destroying > the life of an innocent observer is to be expected. Why try to find > contradictory information if you have already concluded that the > victims are culprits? An interesting sidelight on this is that in response to my article, I got private mail from a fellow who lived in Socorro at the time. He said, in essence, "nobody in Socorro believed Zamora was telling the truth". > ...read the other evidence some time before you spout off PSICOPs latest > drivel, would you? Given a choice between wise words from Dr. Hynek and "drivel" from the likes of Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and Martin Gardner, I'll take the drivel any day. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 87 04:00:55 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question > ...read the other evidence some time before you spout off PSICOPs latest > drivel, would you? The group's initials are not "PSICOP". That is the way it's usually pronounced, but not the way it's written. Have you ever *read* any of the "drivel" you condemn? "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 87 03:57:31 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: UFO evidence > Ok, so having adpoted this as a hobby, where would people recomend I > start looking, for information, both on-line and printed, who, if > anyone is researching it, (i.e. USAF? NASA?, No one?).. > > I have no bias in either direction, but I am unwilling to disbeleive, > or beleive, based on heresay, so where to look? There are three classes of literature you should read. First, the "serious" UFOlogists. I'm no longer acquainted with what's current, but look for names like Hendry, Hynek, Saunders. Second, the disreputable UFOlogists and out-and-out nuts. Why should you read them? Well, any good history course will hammer into you that you cannot cannot cannot take the accuracy of your sources for granted, and you must must must check them out independently. One way (out of many -- see any good how-to-do-history book) is to see what your sources think of people whom you can assess independently. If you read an obvious crackpot or sensationalist, and then see a "serious" UFOlogist treating him as a respected colleague, this tells you something about the "serious" UFOlogist. Names to look for are Hill, Adamski, Keyhoe, Steiger, Keel. (To properly apply this method, you will have to *read* them, not just take my word for it that they're whackos. My personal prediction is that applying this method will make you lose a lot of respect for the "serious" UFOlogists, who fiercely attack the skeptics but treat any fellow-believer with respect no matter how crazy he is.) Third, the skeptics. Those nasty people who insist that 2+2=4 and E=mc^2, and want to see solid evidence if anyone claims otherwise. It should be obvious that I'm in this camp. Philip Klass's books "UFOs Explained" and "UFOs: The Public Deceived" are noteworthy. Robert Shaeffer's "The UFO Verdict: Examining The Evidence" is particularly interesting because Shaeffer is the opposite of Hynek: an ex-believer who turned skeptic because he felt the evidence could not justify the claims. You might also want to check out the home turf of the dreaded "debunkers": the much-maligned (often by people who have never read it), much-praised Skeptical Inquirer. -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 16 Mar 87 21:56:44 GMT From: csustan!csun!psivax!nrcvax!ihm@LLL-LCC.ARPA (Ian H. Merritt) Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question >It's always amazing how easy it is to get confused by just the right >combination of lighting, perspective, and relative motion. Some years >ago I was standing on the cliffs at Santa Monica around sunset. Out >over the ocean was a tremendously bright light, apparently motionless >in the sky. Within a couple of minutes, there were several people >standing there watching this "object", all of us quite baffled. I >spent a little time analyzing it to determine what it was. Late on a very dark night, air clear except for patchy, well-defined clouds, about 5 1/2 years ago, I encountered some unexplained lights on the way from Los Angeles to Palm Springs (specifically, on hwy 111, about 5 miles out). The configuration, as visible from just off the main highway (I10) was as 3 or 4 lights arranged in what appeared to be a triangle or rhomboid shape (one of the lights wasn't too clear yet) hanging at about 9000 feet (estimated by height of mountains very close by). At first, I assumed it was just some new lights in addition to the one known to be at the top of the aerial tramway, but as we approached the place over which it appeared to be floating, it became clear that the lights were in no way connected with the mountain, that there were definitely 4, arranged in a perfect (or nearly so) square. By this time, we could also see the lone light atop the tramway, at some distance from where the 4 appeared. As we drove directly under these lights, they seemed totally stationary. We heard nothing, so it was probably not a chopper. To this day, I don't know what the lights were. As I recall, it wasn't terribly windy that day, but I don't think a balloon would be that stable in any case, and why would it be up THERE anyway? Much as I might like to believe we are not alone in the galaxy, we dismissed the ET explanation as pure fantacy, but what was it? I have driven that route perhaps 50 times since, and never again have I seen anything like it. As far as our observations were concerned, this was indeed UFO (Unidentifiable (within our resources) Floating Object). Cheerz-- <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 87 09:14:57 GMT From: nsc!nsta!instable!amos@decwrl.dec.com (Amos Shapir) Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question In article <802@nrcvax.UUCP> ihm@minnie.UUCP (Ian Merritt) writes: >Late on a very dark night, air clear except for patchy, well-defined >clouds, about 5 1/2 years ago, I encountered some unexplained lights >on the way from Los Angeles to Palm Springs (specifically, on hwy 111, >about 5 miles out). Have you though about the Goodyear Blimp? The area is also a training ground for airplanes and helicopters from at least 7 air bases. -- Amos Shapir National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel (011-972) 52-522261 amos%nsta@nsc.com 34.48'E 32.10'N ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #192 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19433; Mon, 13 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT id AA19433; Mon, 13 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT Date: Mon, 13 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704131003.AA19433@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #193 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 13 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #193 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 193 Today's Topics: CSICOP (sic) Manned Maneuvering Unit Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit NASA News NASA News NASA News ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Apr 87 22:10:31 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A Andrews) Subject: CSICOP (sic) There's really no proper newsgroup for this comment, but since the situation started here in sci.space, I'll make my final statement here. Yes, I know that the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal uses the acronym CSICOP. But those of us who have had "encounters" with their people or their tactics prefer the name PSICOP, for Pseudo-Scientific Inquisitors of Claimants of Paranormal. (There I was in Austin, feeling like the Devil at a revival meeting, with ASTOP going full blast: loud, rude and strident.) How strange and puzzling that otherwise seemingly calm, educated and intelligent people froth at the very concept of extraterrestrial life, at unidentified aerial phenomena, at subtle talents of the mind. As someone else said elsewhere on the net, they remind one of "tiny little dogs, yapping as loud as they can against the darkness and the unknown." I might add, "and, in packs, snapping at those who are less afraid..." (Did anyone witness Randi's problem on the Oprah show last week? Heard it was rather funny...) If any more comments, let's move it to mod.psi or talk.religion.newage. --Arlan Andrews ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 87 22:25:34 GMT From: tektronix!tekgen!tekigm!dand@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan C. Duval) Subject: Manned Maneuvering Unit Does any one have the info on how long a person can operate in the MMU? I need things like how long the power will last, how long the oxygen/air mix will last, how long the unit can maneuver before it runs out of reaction fuel, stuff like that there. Also, does the unit contain water? And, if this isn't too personal, is there a mechanism to deal with bodily wastes, or does the astronaut wear a diaper? In other words, tell me anything you know about the MMU. Thanks in advance, Dan C Duval ISI Engineering Tektronix, Inc tektronix!tekigm2!dand ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 87 02:38:44 GMT From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ed Post) Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit in article <1204@tekigm.TEK.COM>, dand@tekigm.TEK.COM (Dan C. Duval) says: % tell me anything you know about the MMU.... % % Dan C Duval From the NASA "Space Shuttle News Reference": Suit: mass: 39 kg (85 lb) plus PLSS backpack 72.6 kg (160 lb) Cooling capacity of 2.1 MJ/hr (2000 Btu/hr) Airflow 0.17 m**3/min (6.0 ft**3/min) "Urine Collection Device" capacity: 950 ml. 0.6 liter (21 oz) drinkable water. Nominal pressure 28 kN/m**2 (4.0 psi) Electrical power: 17 volts at 52 W/hr (wrong unit?) for 7 hours Oxygen: 0.55 kg primary, 1.2kg secondary: enough for 7 hours total MMU: mass: 102 kg (225 lb) Nominal 6 hour mission duration translational acceleration: 10.2 cm/sec**2 (about .01 gee) rotational acceleration: 10 deg/sec**2 propellant: dry high-pressure nitrogen total delta-vee per refueling: 20 m/sec (66 ft/sec)-- Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp (408)252-8713 American Information Technology; Cupertino, CA ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 87 04:04:17 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit > And, if this isn't too personal, is there a mechanism to deal with bodily > wastes, or does the astronaut wear a diaper? He/she wears a diaper. The suits have no waste plumbing. The intent is that the diaper is strictly a precaution against sudden emergencies. -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 87 18:00:35 GMT From: terra!brent@sun.com (Brent Callaghan) Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit I've noticed in photos of the MMU in action that the wearer has a pair of "windshield wipers" sticking out in front. I'm guessing that they are in fact some kind of MMU status display. Anyone know if this is true - and what info is displayed ? Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan @ Sun Microsystems uucp: sun!bcallaghan phone: (415) 691 6188 ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 87 13:53:33 GMT From: ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Roger J. Noe) Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit In article <7785@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > And, if this isn't too personal, is there a mechanism to deal with bodily > > wastes, or does the astronaut wear a diaper? > > He/she wears a diaper. The suits have no waste plumbing. The intent is > that the diaper is strictly a precaution against sudden emergencies. She wears a diaper (more precisely, Disposable Absorbent Collection Trunks, or DACT). He does not. Instead, male astronauts directly connect the appropriate appendage to a hose which leads to a collection receptacle. In either case, this is not really intended just for sudden emergencies as quite a few EVAs are planned to extend for a couple hours or longer and a waste collection system in the Extravehicular Mobility Unit becomes a routine necessity. By the way, I'm told that the connector hoses used by male astronauts are made in three sizes. No joke. -- Roger Noe ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe Uniq Digital Technologies rjnoe@uniq.UUCP 28 South Water Street +1 312 879 1566 Batavia, Illinois 60510 41:50:56 N. 88:18:35 W. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 87 17:43:51 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit > ... The suits have no waste plumbing... Hm, I may have been wrong about that. I've run into a reference to something that might be plumbing (which would surprise me) and might just be fancy NASA jargon for "diaper". I'll see if I can find out for sure. -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 87 16:56:37 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit > > ... The suits have no waste plumbing... > > Hm, I may have been wrong about that... Sigh. I must be getting old; my memory is playing tricks on me. I'm over the hill at 31. *sniffle*... Anyway, back to the topic. It's not quite as I remembered it. NASA is awfully coy about this sort of thing and it's not easy to find the details, but I managed. This information is from accounts by the astronauts, so it is probably accurate but just might be slightly out of date. For solid wastes, a diaper is all you get. It's strictly to confine the damage in a sudden emergency; so far nobody has had one in a suit. For urine, the NASA literature implies one system but the detailed accounts say there are two, one for each sex due to differences in human plumbing. The male system is simple, essentially a condom with a hose to a watertight sack which gets emptied into the shuttle's waste system later. The female system is more of a problem because of the lack of a convenient place to attach it, so to speak. Apparently what they've done is a very special multilayer diaper (or section of the diaper, or diaper insert -- it's not clear) with an inside layer that has a very strong tendency to carry urine away from the skin and into a center layer which is very absorbent and can soak up a lot. Presumably this goes into the trash afterwards. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 87 19:51:23 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Felton) Subject: NASA News NASA NEWS - NASA SELECTS GSFC SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACTOR NASA has selected Computer Sciences Corporation (CSF), Silver Spring, Md., to negotiate a cost-plus-award-fee contract for systems, engineering and analysis support services. The services are in support of the Mission Operations and Data Systems Directorate, Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Md. The contract, expected to be effective on November 15, 1987, will consist of a 2 year 10 1/2 month basic period of performance, a 2 year priced option and 5 years of unpriced options. The total estimated cost proposed by CSC for the basic and priced option periods is approximately $310 million. The contract will provide for approximately 1,000 people located at the contractor's facilities in Greenbelt and Beltsville, Md. and at GSFC. NASA News Release 87-39 March 19, 1987 Reprinted with permission By Debra J. Rahn Headquarters, Washington, D.C. & James Elliot Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 87 19:58:50 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Felton) Subject: NASA News NASA NEWS - NAC RECOMMENDS DIVERSIFIED FLEET OF EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES The NASA Advisory Council recommended that the space agency acquire a diversified fleet of expendable launch vehichles (ELVs) and shift as much cargo to them as possible to preserve the Space Shuttle for missions requiring its unique capabilities. In addition to launching cargo designed only for the Shuttle, the capabilities include two way crew transportation, manned on-orbit tasking, satellite recovery spacecraft servicing/reboost and the ability to return cargo from space. The recommendations are contained in a study of issues involved in creating a "mixed fleet" of launch vehicles consisting of Space Shuttles and ELVs. In a letter of transmittal, Daniel J.Fink, council chairman, urged NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher to quickly seek a supplementary budget to begin ELV acquisition. Without immediate action, "the nation's civil space program - especially that in space science, which until now has been a shining example of U.S. space leadership - will be damaged to a degree from which recovery will be extremely difficult and expensive," Fink said. The study places substantial emphasis on space science, which has suffered considerably from the 2-year delay in the Shuttle program and unavailability of ELVs. Creating a "robust and resilient capability" with an adequate fleet of ELVs could get a number of important science missions into orbit 2 to 4 years earlier than currently planned, the study said. The cost of an ELV fleet should be considered in relation to the "enormous budgetary costs, opportunity costs and programs disruption of the current unplanned for standdown," the council said. The study was undertaken by the council at the agency's request. A task force headed by council member Jasper Welch, a physicist and head of an aerospace consulting firm, did the study which was endorsed by the full council. The final report identifies and discusses issues and makes eight major recommendations. They address Shuttle use policy, acquisition of ELVs including a new heavy lift vehicle, Shuttle flight frequency, planning for stand downs, defining NASA and DOD roles, identification of program constraints, evaluation of the upperstage fleet and encourage- ment of commercialization activities. The council is the senior external advisory body to NASA and its Administrator. Its 25 members are prominent in such fields as science, industry, education, communication and others. NASA News Release 87-30 March 12,1987 Reprinted with permission By Nat Cohen Headquarters ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 87 19:53:35 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Felton) Subject: NASA News NASA NEWS - SPACE STATION SCIENCE OPPORTUNITIES TO BE EXAMINED A group of approximately 20 scientists and researchers, representing NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the private sector, will be formed this month to identify Space Station activities that could be conducted in a manner which would significantly reduce the time between experiment concept development and publishable results. "Quick is Beautiful" is the study's theme. Dr. David C. Black, NASA Headquarters Space Station chief scientist, will chair the group. Other headquartes members will include Joseph K. Alexander deputy chief scientistand Dr. Stanley Shawhan, acting chief, Space Plasma Physics, Office of Space Science and Applications. Additional NASA representatives from headquarters and field centers will be joined by NSF, NIH, U.S. universities and commercial research community representatives. According to Black, one of the more valuable modes of conducting research in terrestrial laboratories is that in which an experimental concept is developed, an operational prototype is built and tested and then, should the concept prove viable, an operational system is implemented. Typically, the time from concept development to prototype testing is a few years with publishable results usually attained in 3 to 4 years. "This latter time scale is important in that it matches well the time scale for typical graduate student thesis research," said Black. "This time scale also matches well that desired by industry in 'proof of concept' exercises either with a piece of hardware or a process for development of a new or refined product," he continued. "This important mode of research operation has been absent from space research in recent years with only a few exceptions," said Black, "with typical space missions now requiring a decade or more from concept development to hardware flight." He added, while there have been some successes using the Space Shuttle, the general experience has been that the dream of carrying the rapid development/flight opportunity into space has not yet been realized. Black said there is a perception that the Space Station can, in principle, provide a capability to overcome those factors that have prevented quick and relatively inexpensive opportunities for space research. "As we look to the last decade of the 20th Century, the Space Station looms as the major component of a permanently space infrastructure for conducting basic and applied research," said Black. "Our hope is that this study will be a major step toward involving the research talent in the disciplines that stand to benefit the most from humans in space conducting research - life, fluid and materials sciences as well as basic physics and chemistry," he said. In addition, the study will consider research activities in which humans play a relatively minor role but which capitalize on the other key resources offered by the Space Station. Major subjects to be addressed by the group include documenting prior research experience in space with emphasis on the Space Shuttle, defining the rationale, objectives and guiding principles for a Space Station "Quick is Beautiful" program, identifying and characterizing potential categories of Space Station activities and identifying requirements both on the Space Station and the transportation system arising from the program. In addition to these major subjects, the group also will develop guidelines for what constitutes a "Quick is Beautiful" activity (cost, size, response time, Station resource demand), as well as how to involve the scientific, university and commercial research communities in follow-on activities to this study. The study is expected to be completed about mid-year and will culminate with a report to the Associate Administrator for Space Station, summarizing the principle findings and recommendations. NASA News Release 87-27 March 10,1987 Reprinted with permission By Mark Hess Headquarters ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #193 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA20767; Tue, 14 Apr 87 03:02:50 PDT id AA20767; Tue, 14 Apr 87 03:02:50 PDT Date: Tue, 14 Apr 87 03:02:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704141002.AA20767@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #194 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 14 Apr 87 03:02:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #194 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 194 Today's Topics: Re: Useless Trivia (NASA Jumpsuit color or colour) NASA accepting investments and donations with strings attached? Re: NASA accepting investments and donations with strings attached? Re: NASA accepting investments and donations with strings attached? Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts) Re: Summary on "what we [US] want" and what to do [was USSR Mir] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Apr 87 01:24:29 GMT From: mike@AMES.ARPA (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Useless Trivia (NASA Jumpsuit color or colour) I heard the same a few months ago. Supposedly the decision to go to the Air Force issue royal blue-jumpsuits, is to "save" money, or something like that. Maybe light-blue dye costs more. :-> Oh, by the way, I have an address from an outfit which makes high-quality replicas of the light-blue jumpsuits. In fact, some of our people out here actually use those instead of the actual ones for sims. If anybody is interested I'll post it and prices. *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 87 16:14:33 PST From: Robert Elton Maas To: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: NASA accepting investments and donations with strings attached? Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 01:44:54 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Reply to massive missive - part II of IV (continued) I'd like to see NASA permitted to accept private investment or donations to fund launch capability and perhaps major in-space projects such as the space station. Would you agree? How do you distinguish between an investment and a donation? They are already allowed to accept donations, but not donations with conditions on them, which is what an investment is. That should be changed. Donations with strings should be acceptable, providing they set the donation aside until such time as they are able and willing to obey the strings, and providing they don't obey the strings until and unless it is favorable to NASA policy and generally conducive to development of peaceful uses of space. Thus NASA should have these options: Reject donation totally on the grounds the strings are ridiculous and never will be acceptable. Set donation aside, not acceptable now but within realm of possibility in future. Accept donation now and start working on project. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 87 06:12:27 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: NASA accepting investments and donations with strings attached? In article <8704010014.AA02328@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes: > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 01:44:54 EST > From: "Keith F. Lynch" > Subject: Reply to massive missive - part II of IV (continued) > > I'd like to see NASA permitted to accept private investment or > donations to fund launch capability and perhaps major in-space > projects such as the space station. Would you agree? In a burst of perhaps misplaced generosity, I sent NASA a $50 donation after the Challenger accident. Now I send $300/year to the Space Studies Institute, instead. On my income, that's putting a lot of money where my mouth is. Their budget is an insignificant fraction of NASAs - but it's made up largely of private contributions (until the time Geostar starts paying off), and what they're accomplishing for the money is a hell of a lot more useful than what NASA would. I predict any individual with significant amounts of money to spend on space is going to invest it in some operation that stands a reasonable chance of paying off BIG - either in terms of the breakout into space (SSI terminology), or financially, or both - not NASA. Think about how many private contributions would be required to make up even a tiny fraction of the Space Station budget ($12G? $20G? more?), for example. The numbers work a lot better for small, non-governmental outfits with clearly defined goals. For that matter, if NASA had a clearly defined goal, perhaps they could regain some of their success in the '60s. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 87 10:50:01 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: NASA accepting investments and donations with strings attached? Newsgroups: sci.space Sorry for the length. You pressed a button. REM writes: > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 01:44:54 EST > From: "Keith F. Lynch" > Subject: Reply to massive missive - part II of IV (continued) > > I'd like to see NASA permitted to accept private investment or > donations to fund launch capability and perhaps major in-space > projects such as the space station. Would you agree? NASA can accept donations, you send them to the computroller in Washington DC and every year a small amount of money is received in this way. "Investments" are clearly illegal as this is the Government. Unless you regard education as an "investment in the future," etc. > How do you distinguish between an investment and a donation? > They are already allowed to accept donations, but not donations > with conditions on them, which is what an investment is. > >That should be changed. Donations with strings should be acceptable, >providing they set the donation aside until such time as they are able >and willing to obey the strings, and providing they don't obey the >strings until and unless it is favorable to NASA policy and generally >conducive to development of peaceful uses of space. Thus NASA should >have these options: > Reject donation totally on the grounds the strings are ridiculous and > never will be acceptable. > > Set donation aside, not acceptable now but within realm of > possibility in future. > > Accept donation now and start working on project. The reason why strings cannot be attached is a simple one. It's to prevent the US Government (in theory) from being brided, etc. (That's the theory). This does not prevent lobbying on officials (Congressmen as well, and there are degrees of lobbying from taking one to lunch to (we'll leave it to you imagination). If NASA had strings, you are saying the government has strings, then other Agencies, etc. Should NASA branch off and become a non-Government institution? Show a profit? Advertise? The problem with well intended money is that any flight project is an expensive endeavor and our eyes are quickly growing faster than our technical means of getting stuff into orbit. (Space elevators excluded.) The speeds and energies (O(s^2)) are tremendous. The vaccuum is quite powerful so keeping breathable air around is tough. You can send electronics up, but the environment is just as harsh. Anyway, back to donations and lobbying. Re: lobbying.There was an attempt at Ames to start a space station newsgroup to discuss design issues. (Most people here working on the station don't even use Email.) One suggestion made two years ago was to openly discuss things like this on the net. This is clearly impossible. Can you see the lobbying implications? (I discussed this with Roger Njoe who was working at the time for Rockwell). Rockwell reads something on one of our net discussions and rewrites a portion of some contract base on an incomplete idea, then. company XYZ who is not on the net is at a disadvantage. Etc. You can elaborate on fairness, etc, or free enterprise (tough beans), but that the way it is. Maybe you should put you money into companies like Rockwell [I didn't say that.] who have big space lobbying efforts? Lastly on private funding. (As pointed out by Jon Leech) I wish industry would do more. Face it they are not. They are not interested in materials processing, it's typically more cost effective on earth. There are those rare 0-G things, but they are not interested (only companies like AT&T and SBS with communications interests). Remote sensing (my original area in space) has shown as much promise as AI {seriously}. Lots of good intentions, but lots of big problems. Surprise: a good basis of comparisons of two emerging technologies which started at the same time. Will one pull ahead and be more viable? Or do emerging technologies take near constant time to get to market place? We'll see. The point is business is not interested. There's thousands of companies in Silicon Valley, few of which are interested in space. NASA (in vein hope, a solution looking for problems) was hoping more companies would be interested in using space. At best most companies want short-term 0-G not a week at a time. You don't see companies in the 45 second 0-G business, but I wonder if one could start? A stepping stone to longer 0-G? Then this also means more Universities could use 0-G [perhaps, we need to allocated 45 second 0-G time to U's like supercomputers? or give it away for near free like Unix was initially? (I say this seriously)] Or should we begin to develop an anti-grav industry... Typical industrial responses to using space are: "no we are doing just fine on earth. thank you." "no our market is here on earth, you know the home, the consumer." "no the costs are too high (don't forget O(v^2), they're right, they might be a 3 person company)" Press your companies to think about trying things in space. I liked a friend's attitude about new immension cooling systems: he (a developer of the Alto) wanted to take one of his current company's non-products and dunk it into Fluorinert to see how it would react as a start to using the technology. This was a $100K piece of electronics we were talking about tinkering with. I think we need some thinking like this. Is your company willing to take risks and how much and how far? On my secretary's desk: "I'm with the Government, I'm hear to help you." ;-) Mentioning names like Rockwell, AT&T, and SBS are not meant to endorse those companies or their services. Anyway, time to go, they just dumped another proposal on my desk to evaluate, and I've written too much. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 87 02:07:18 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts) > > ... Mean while the congress is now trying to cut > >2.1 billion out of NASA's funds. Is that what we really want? > > Excuse my obvious paycheck bias for a moment. Yes, as a matter of > fact, I do think a majority of people want this. Actually, probably not. My understanding, from people who have been involved with polling on such matters, is that most people like the space program and favor supporting it -- but do not give it a high priority. It's not that they want big cuts in NASA's budget, but that they want the government to cut spending and don't get especially upset if NASA is one of the victims. Particularly when nobody tells them about it. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Apr 87 09:56:46 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Summary on "what we [US] want" and what to do [was USSR Mir] Re: started with Mir announcement and we have numerous suggestions. Below are the letters I have received in a week. --eugene ============================================================== From: Bill Janssen Subject: Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts) I don't know if there really is a solution. Seems that when most people have taken care of the short-term problems, they have a relatively small amount of intellectual energy to spend on their current enthusiasm. This is likely to be a personal hobby. It seems that the real way to muster national support in a democratic society, is to catch the imaginations of the populace: create a hobby activity that directly supports the activity you are interested in supporting. I'd imagine that a national lottery with a $10M prize for the first person to optically spot and track all satellite objects visible with binoculars from Arizona, say, would cause a great deal of interest, with articles in Popular Mechanics! Or proclamation of the `race for space' as a great interest of theirs by the 5 top movie stars or pop singers... Bill =================================================================== The hobby idea sounds interesting. I think many can understand the problems of a Natl. lottery. --enm =================================================================== From: Reid.A.Ellis@unicus.com I like the idea of having a separate social group devoted totally to space. We'd need: 1/10th the total pop of the US. [5/6ths of these would, no doubt, be support] Now remove all political extremes and make it look harmless to both the East and the West so as to allow maximum trust and minimum interference Hey, why not even make it a separate country? Give it a lackluster political system to tone down politics Put it up north, to isolate it geographically Hey! We've just invented Canada! Reid Ellis, aka Clith de T'nir ========================================================================= Reid has a neat solution! I like this ;-). ========================================================================= From: ames!ihnp4!uvacs!hsd (Harry S. Delugach) Subject: Is this what we want? (Usenet news) As another whose paycheck also comes (albeit indirectly) from NASA, I wanted to offer my thoughts on whether space is worth it. When I was a kid, astronauts were just starting to circle the world in their tiny capsules, and I've had the space bug ever since. I remember lots of talk about how space would be the new frontier: limitless expanses of new territory to explore and settle. Unfortunately, the analogy to the Old West fails in every respect. Instead of self-selection, new "pioneers" are carefully selected in order to maximize the support investment: if Horace Greeley had to say: "Here's a million dollars -- go west, young man!" the young man would say: "Hey, with this kind of dough, why leave?" At this point I don't think we're trying to somehow complete our destiny by going into space. As you pointed out, there are many tasks on earth that need completing: food for all, peace, stability, good health, etc. Many people, including some readers of sci.space, have forgotten them -- witness the indignant and frustrated reactions whenever space is NOT someone's highest priority. Much as I have been excited by space during most of my lifetime, I have to recognize that Earth and humanity are intimately related. Sci.space has discussed everyone's leaving Earth eventually, but that is not a goal of mine, even if it were feasible. Only a very few of us will ever travel to space, and this makes it hard for the powers-that-be to keep tossing billions of dollars into it. Of course, they continue to do so, but mostly because of lobbying and pressures from those who make MONEY (on Earth) from the space program. The Old West pioneers didn't just go west for the hell of it, either, they wanted land, money, success, etc. that they couldn't get back east. Space is different: it's much more expensive and complicated. I am encouraged by other developments however. In the 60's, there was a lot of talk as to what good was going to the moon when we had so much misery on earth to take care of. Employees of Rockwell, Lockheed, etc. weren't among the complainers however. And we ended up with a lot of technology (both high and relatively low-tech) developed that we now take for granted on earth. The Space Station program promises some similar benefits. I have seen some aspects of the SSIS architecture, and its construction will have tremendous value to anyone developing a very large, distributed, parallel, fault-tolerant, and real-time information system. On Earth! This rambling has probably gone on long enough. sorry this wasn't more organized. Harry S. Delugach University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science ==================================================================== Subject: RE: Re: USSR adds... Dr. Eugene: My opinion on this matter is to adopt the "citizens advisory council recommendations for space development" plans and privatize the US space efforts. You might have to move to a regulatory job, or join a new startup company doing seat-of-the-pants booster development, but I think the world would benefit in the long run. I read "Flugreview," (German) and "Cockpit" (Swiss). They have a different perspective from AWS&T, and print mostly positive reviews of the Arianne program (which I think is very poor at the moment). The europeans think that long-range commitment, and throwing more money at the problems will overcome the 10 year lead the Soviets have. I am not so sure. The US program needs an entreprenneurial spirit, like the airplane manufacturers of the "50s. Your (NASA's) space station plans after the Challenger disaster stink. The politics of NASA Johnson in Houston versus NASA Goddard, NASA Ames, and NASA Marshal are ugly. I am disappointed in the US space program leadership and share Richard Feynman's anger. It is very frustrating. During Apollo and Skylab, I was a real NASA fan. I wanted to work for you, build large space platforms, explore the solar system, and be a part of the space movement. I am a member of L5, and keep up somewhat with sci.space. However, STS was perverted by the military. When I was in Florida, they wouldn't let us near the VA building because of a military payload. This perversion is exactly the opposite of Apollo and Skylab, when Nasa was a civilian agency. STS is too big, costs too much, was and is poorly managed, and is under-funded for its design goals. This message can be summarized as: GO PRIVATE! for your summary to the nets. I welcome a response. Sorry if this note reads somewhat like a flame, but I feel a great frustration watching Mir. -Mitch Wyle (wyle%ifi.ethz.chunet@relay.cs.net) or (wyle@ethz.uucp) Mitchell F. Wyle |csnet or arpa: wyle%ifi.ethz.chunet@relay.cs.net Instituet fuer Informatik |uucp: wyle@ethz.uucp ...!cernvax!ethz!wyle ETH Zentrum / SOT |telephone: 011 41 1 256 5235 8092 Zuerich, Switzerland |"Sic itur ad astra" ======================================================================== I like your honesty. My only problem with going private is most private ventures are not into planetary exploration ala Voyager. It's more industrialization of space [which we will need]. My personal interest is space science. --enm ======================================================================== I thought about editing notes down but decided against it. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #194 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22918; Wed, 15 Apr 87 03:03:42 PDT id AA22918; Wed, 15 Apr 87 03:03:42 PDT Date: Wed, 15 Apr 87 03:03:42 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704151003.AA22918@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #195 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 15 Apr 87 03:03:42 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #195 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 195 Today's Topics: robotics and men-in-space not contradictory Start-up Space Colonies Re: Start-up Space Colonies Re: Start-up Space Colonies Columbus and exploration Re: SPACE Digest V7 #173 direct measurement of near-Sun environment Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts) Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 87 03:00:36 PST X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 10 18:27:32 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: robotics and men-in-space not contradictory Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 09:56:48 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Next 30 years in space (try this again) it's amusing to see people who work on things like robotics/computers push for getting people into space (sort of cutting one's own throat in some ways). I disagree. Although I have argued that for working on the Moon the 2.5 second speed-of-light delay in the servo loop would not prohibit some kinds of telepresence (interactive-remote-control), it would still make things difficult, requiring lots of training (others have claimed it would make *all* telepresence totally impossible, no amount of training could compensate), and for more remote locations such as Mars or Ganymede the multi-minute/hour loop-delay would make telepresence impossible even in my opinion. I have therefore proposed that we put people in space, but keep them in orbit around the work site, where there's only a few milliseconds of speed-of-light in the servo-loop between the orbiting astronauts and the landed robotics. Most of the cost of moving heavy things like people with life support is in the launch, not the maintenance of orbit nor even occasional change of orbit. It's a lot more expensive to land people & support equipment on Moon (or Mars, Ganymede etc.) and maintain them there, than to maintain them in space while landing&maintaining robotics on Moon (et al). Therefore the best prospects for robotics (telepresence actually) may in fact include people in space. I see no reason to ridicule robotics people for being in favor of the manned space program. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 87 11:42 EST From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL Subject: Start-up Space Colonies Most proposals I've seen to establish colonies in space or on other planets in this system are enormously expensive. Many now argue that first we should build a space infrastructure, then we should build stations and the like. This is very very expensive. Expense ( and wasting that expense ) is the primary objection most members of this newsgroup have objections to most colonization plans. Historically, colonization was not done this way. No one came to North America expecting to build cities the size of London or Paris ( much less New York ) there. People came and built ( at first ) very modest communities, which grew because of the wealth of the new world. Building an infrastructure first might ( slighlty humorously ) be liken to the original colonist building intercontinental transport systems first-thing, since the know they'll "Go West" eventually. The point is, can we colonize space CHEAPLY? If we can establish a colony that is either slightly better than self-sufficient or a net exporter, it will grow on its own. So, what's the cheapest you can build a space colony ( anywhere in space : LEO, GEO, L5, .. ) that satisfies the above criteria? What's the cheapest you can do it on the moon? On Mars? If we could establish a small but growimg colony in space for the projected cost of the Space Station ( which does not satisfy the criteria ), which one should we do? Note that I don't care what this colony does; it's primary mission is simply to SURVIVE and GROW. Useful stuff like science can come later ( or be part of the colony's export IF IT IS WORTH IT ). And no, I don't expect the colony to NECCESARILY have to pay back the money that got it started. Dennis O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 87 02:44:42 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: Start-up Space Colonies In article <8703131642.AA19959@angband.s1.gov> OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes: > Most proposals I've seen to establish colonies in space or on > other planets in this system are enormously expensive. Many now > argue that first we should build a space infrastructure, then we > should build stations and the like. This is very very expensive. > Expense ( and wasting that expense ) is the primary objection most > members of this newsgroup have objections to most colonization > plans. The infrastructure is first because it is necessary given the resources. The intelligence of cooperative and government programs is inverse to the number of participants. The only technologies that can be supported by the government are those which have a political consensus, and such a consensus isn't possible for new (esoteric) technologies. This problem is worse when international cooperation is involved even on a "scientific" basis. That is because "big physics" requires "hype" and the same consensus is required to get it funded and keep it funded in Europe, Russian and probably even Japan. The difficulty with a Mars mission is that it is stuck with warmed over and colossalized 60's technologies. The same is true for fusion. Fusion could be commercialized in ten years with our PLASMAK(TM) technology and it is an ideal engine to handle the electric power, boost phase and space propulsion needs of Mars colonization. The cost to demonstrate a commercial burn is a fraction of even today's lower fusion budget, and the engineering costs of moving it into functionality could be covered by Wall Street and a combined NASA-DOE-DOD effort. Once it is operational, the technology WILL pay for itself. Gravitational wells, that we earthlings can survive in, will be no problem to negotiate cheaply with megapound payloads that we can move from surface to surface. Paul M. Koloc ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 87 17:54:21 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Start-up Space Colonies In article <8703131642.AA19959@angband.s1.gov> OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes: > Historically, colonization was not done this way. ..... > ... Building an infrastructure first might ( slighlty humorously ) > be liken to the original colonist building intercontinental > transport systems first-thing, since the know they'll "Go West" > eventually. > Dennis O'Connor The first colonists DID build an intercontinental transport system using the most up-to-date technology of the time. They used the components of the existing transport systems, (ships, harbours, navigation, etc.) and extended their use. The original colonies were funded by governments because moving supplies for two or three years for two or three thousand people across the atlantic was not something which was going to pay dividends quickly, if at all. Once the colonies had been set up and people KNEW they could survive, other groups of people followed. Space colonisation at the moment is at the stage Columbus was at when he returned from his first trip. People asked "what good is the place? There is nothing there." Bob Gray. ERCC. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 87 12:19:04 PST From: "William J. Fulco" Cc: weltyc@csv.rpi.edu Subject: Columbus and exploration > weltyc@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) states: > Why was Columbus interested in sailing west? Why did Louis > and Clarke explore the Louisiana Purchase, why did any explorer ever > go exploring?... > ... Sure, there are REAL humaninstic > and monetary benefits from various space and exploratory missions, but > that's just icing on the cake. I believe that Columbus et al felt the > same way - there was money involved, yes, but they probably would have > done it for free.... > ... In my view, exploration > is ALWAYS justified, regardless of the cost. In MY view. I am glad > there are others who share this feeling, but I wish there were more > and that they were richer... The point is not why THEY explore; each individual has his own reasons for wanting what they want. The point is what did the people who footed the bills want? Lucrative new spice routes to the East, or the sprit of adventure?? Having started a business, and gone to someone for money to do so, I know how unsavory it feels, given all I wanted to do was "revolutionize" computing as we know it. For a while, I did work for free... BUT the exercise of having to plan, plan again, prove, convince, sell, rehash, and feel terribly responsible for someone elses money, sure tests the mettle of ones ideas, and forces you to develop very efficient plans (or cave in, and give up 'cuz you reeeeeally don't believe in your dream :-(). FLAME ON: This is the MAJOR problem with government operations. They don't need to prove and I mean really PROVE that their plans are good, sound, minimial risk operations, with lots of people giving 100% to get the most for the least. (In my case, every few dollars saved, ment more time to keep the venture going). WHEN GOVERNMENT NEEDS MONEY, THEY JUST GO AND TAKE IT! The thing to fear in the future of our space program, is that the U.S. Government will institute a "Space Industrialization Policy" and turn the U.S. Space Program into a Soviet style, politico-military planned economy, prohibiting individuals, ventures, and established companies from pursuing their own interests in space. Already, they are talking about requiring U.S. Companies to get a "license" to operate their own land sensing satillites (like French SPOT, which found out what was really going on at Chyrnobyl) because they will pose a "threat to national security" Some day, when Japan develops a comercial launch capability, we can look up, and see the "competition" using, developing, exploring space. I'm sure some Americans, Europeans, Soviets will be along for the ride, in the future Japanese Space companies.... FLAME OFF: (bill) William J. Fulco, ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 1987 11:50-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #173 Gary Allen: I'm not for Mars-first, but I do agree with you in this case. What you say is very close to what I suggested in my testimony to the Ntaional Commission on Space, namely that "If we decide to go to Mars, lets leave something behind when we're done. Let's not say the project is to put men on Mars, let's make it a project to build the first interplanetary SPACESHIP, and then give it a test flight by taking it to Mars..." Goals are important. Apollo type goals are closed. Once you get there it's over. I care not so much where we go and how we do it as I do that we have open goals that lead us forever outwards instead of leaving rusting dreams lying on the sands at Cape Caneveral. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 87 09:59:22 PST X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 25 09:53:19 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: direct measurement of near-Sun environment It occurs to me that we've never gotten any measurements directly of the particles etc. very close to the sun. All we've done is indirectly measure the vicinity of the Sun via emissions (mostly electomagnetic) that can be observed far far away (half an AU or more). What if we launched a Venera/Galileo style probe consisting of a drone that dives into the Sun and as long as it survives it transmits data to a relay craft that is at a relatively safe distance? Would we learn a more accurate model of the corona and surface of the Sun than we get by very-remote sensing? How deep could a well-insulated probe survive, and for how long would it be able to transmit to the relay craft without the conductivity of the Sun's plasma damping out the signal? (Could some particular wavelength get past the plasma better than the obvious ons we use now? Could some non-photo method such as neutrinos or pions etc. be used to communicate between drone and relay-craft?) ------------------------------ From: Eugene Miya N. Date: 31 Mar 1987 1552-PST (Tuesday) Subject: Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts) "We do not live in a scientific society." R. P. Feynman. In Glenn Chapman writes: > Again the USSR is moving ahead. Mean while the congress is now >trying to cut 2.1 billion out of NASA's funds. Is that what we really >want? > Glenn Chapman > MIT Lincoln Lab Excuse my obvious paycheck bias for a moment. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do think a majority of people want this. I don't know this is a depressing topic when with Economic tradewars, new tax forms, and the concern of a TV evangelical sex scandal making news. Students in college only worried about getting jobs which make lots of money. 40% of of our society reads horoscopes fervantly. We have concerns about the so called Rust Belt while we burn petroleum at a good rate. The military space budget is growing. Reminds me of the Twilight Zone Episode "Third from the Sun" and the Outer Limits episode "The Hinterlands (I think)." In some ways, it would be neat of the "scientific" part of society could divorce itself from the rest. I thought about the new Science City in Japan, but one could easily be branded a B. Arnold. The problem is in changing (expanding) everyone's short term bias. Yes, we have to eat, sleep, breath, drink water, and yes we have some longer term goals like producing food and shelter (sound like things we would have to do in space, too?). But what else do we do with our time? Does going into space require some type of totalitarian society or "obvious" political consideration? I would hope not. The Chinese tried democratizing intellect during the 1960s without success, and I doubt many netters would enjoy spending time growing their own food, etc. We want to reach for the stars, but the box we are standing on is too small and too fragile. Much of industry does not want to go into space. Face it, it's a hostile place. Distances are vast (really big!). Lots of unknowns and one false move and who knows? Suggestions (besides writing Cong-persons)? Don't post, send mail, I'll summarize. (We'll see who reads this far.) From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 87 06:00:59 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts) In article <8703312352.AA00525@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >In Glenn Chapman writes: >> Again the USSR is moving ahead. Mean while the congress is now >>trying to cut 2.1 billion out of NASA's funds. Is that what we really >>want? >Excuse my obvious paycheck bias for a moment. Yes, as a matter of >fact, I do think a majority of people want this. From time to time the pro-space organizations will put out literature saying 'polls show the public support space...'. What they rarely do is show the poll in its entirety. Here's a revealing one from the March 30 Time (pg 37), in response to the question ``Should Govt. spending be increased, decreased or kept the same for the following programs?'' Inc. Dec. Kept Same - Health programs for 78 2 18 the elderly - Enviroment 73 5 19 - Aid to homeless 71 5 21 - Health services for 71 5 22 the poor - Nutrition programs for 55 6 34 mothers and infants - Reducing acid rain 54 11 25 pollution - Low & moderate income 54 11 32 housing - Loans & grants to 52 15 29 college students - Food Stamps 33 24 36 - SPACE PROGRAM 33 27 34 <----- - Military 31 25 38 - Star Wars 23 35 26 A public that wants food stamps more than a space program is not going to support the recommendations of the National Commission on Space, the NASA panel, or any other such group, as laudable as they may be. A strong Free World presence in space is going to come about one of three ways: - Military (ick!) - National prestige (Apollo-like) - Profit making private enterprises (yeah!) There is just no political base for the civilian space program. With the exception of a few districts in Texas, Florida, and California, there's no direct benefit. If we follows Murray and Sagan's suggestion to make Mars the center of our civilian space efforts, in 20 years or so we'll have landed men there - and be left with NOTHING again, just like Apollo. Sure, I'll write my congresscritters. But my real hope for getting into space in this lifetime is with organizations like the Space Studies Institute and the university consortium which wants to make shuttle external tanks into a el cheapo space station, not with the gold-plated, ill-supported, and ill-defined NASA Space Station (one plan has full operating capability at 1998 now... and, I have little doubt, it's slipping). -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #195 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA26102; Thu, 16 Apr 87 03:02:52 PDT id AA26102; Thu, 16 Apr 87 03:02:52 PDT Date: Thu, 16 Apr 87 03:02:52 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704161002.AA26102@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #196 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 16 Apr 87 03:02:52 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #196 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 196 Today's Topics: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars Ball Lightning Generators Re: Ball Lightning Generators ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 05 Apr 87 14:15:29 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars It is time again to stirup the Space Digest newsgroup with another crazy idea. I think it should be the national object of the United States to establish a self sustaining and growing colony of 500 Americans on the planet Mars. I've been informed that 500 is the minimum number for a self contained colony which avoids in-breeding problems. These 500 Americans would be placed on the surface of Mars with a habitat and sufficient tools to build new habitats and duplicate the original set of tools. Mars is rich in metals, and has all of the elements necessary for life (unlike the moon). This colony would be established for ideological reasons and **not** for economic reasons. This is where O'Neal's L-5 colony idea fell flat. You can't justify these space colonies on economic grounds. Perhaps after the Martian colony has grown to over a million inhabitants then economics-of-scale will present themselves. This Martian colony should be built by first constructing a space transportation system that can transport material into LEO at a reasonable price, i.e. the National Aerospace Plane. At LEO and geosynchronous orbit the United States should construct large space stations for supporting the Martian objective. The current whimpy space station planned should be replaced by a larger facility. An interplanetary shuttle based on an Inertial Fusion Rocket (IFR) should be constructed and designed for multiple reuse with refueling. This IFR shuttle will transport material either from the geosynchronous station or from a lunar station (using lunar material) to another space station on Phobos. On Phobos using locally acquired material, atmospheric entry vehicles will be constructed for shipping the colonists and their equipment down to the surface of Mars. Their journey to Mars will be ***one-way***, so concerns over long term effects of living in a 1/2 G gravity are not relevant. The project will be directed towards making the colony independent of Earth supply. That way the U.S. could once again do this stupidity of throwing its space program into the trash can, but the colony would still be there and growing. The key concepts are: The project is motivated by ideology and not by hard nosed economics. It's a one shot deal that establishes a permanent presence in space. The project will develope an enormous space infrastructure which can be used in the unlikely chance the Americans have brains enough not to throw it away. The project will have numerous spinoffs that will aid in the politics of funding, i.e. the LEO station can be used for micro-gravity, hard vaccum applications; the geosynchronous station would be a communications, weather monitoring platform; lunar materials could be used to support terrestrial industrial and miliary programs; the IFR shuttle could support many missions other than the Mars program; the Phobos station could serve as a base for outer planet missions; the Mars colony itself when not occupied with the problem of survival could provide scientific data about Mars. The colonists selected should be chosen from regular citizens (NASA, USAF, and other government employees excluded). This will mobilize public support, since the average citizen will see this as an opportunity to get himself or his children to the new frontier. The propaganda to support the Mars colonization should be that the United States is repaying an ethical obligation placed upon it by the earlier colonization of America by Europe. The project time duration should be on the order of 20-30 years. It should be funded separately from NASA or DOD appropriations. It should be purely an American deal, and not international. Let the French and Russians make there own colonies. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 87 00:13:29 GMT From: imagen!auspyr!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars I dunno about waiting for the aerospace plane. Boeing's Jarvis booster looks good. Start now with the infrastructure (gack, what a word), if things get cheaper later, well and good. I saw a plan using an Earth-Mars shuttle. The idea was that you would place this shuttle in an elliptical orbit such that it approaches the Earth and Mars cyclically (anyone have more info on this? it seems to me that it would work pretty well if the ratio of Mars's orbital period and Earth's orbital period was pretty close to a rational number--like 5/3. It's actually about 1.881, which is kind of miserable). Regardless, if this would work, you could catch a ride on the shuttle (meaning that you wouldn't have to lug all that 0-g stuff and life- support around with you. If the shuttle was used a lot, you could make incremental improvements in it. This shuttle might (probably would) have a centrifuge. You'd still need the delta-v to get to and from the shuttle, though). OK. Somehow you get to Mars orbit. Getting down shouldn't be much problem. What to do when you get there may be, though. You need a power supply. Almost certainly it will be atomic, with all the problems that entails (not engineering problems--political problems). What's the composition of the Martian atmosphere? How do you do life support (photosynthesis? boil the oxygen out of the sand? I read a week or so back about some people trying to set up a closed environment dome on earth. The results of that will be very useful). What equipment do you send with your colony? Weight matters. You will want some areosynchronous (sp?) com/weather sats. A couple more sats closer in, to do minerological surveys and that sort of stuff. You will want to set your colony down in an area with a lot of readily available ore-- iron ore especially. You'll want some transportation (probably a flyer of sorts). Medical goods. Hydroponics stuff. Shelter. Mining equipment (note that this doen't necessarily imply bulldozers and explosives, although they would help). Too bad Mars doesn't have trees--it'd make things a lot simpler. Ceramics might work out pretty well--maybe a lot of stuff could be made out of glass. Until you get three or four settlements, an accident could easily wipe out the entire colony. Oops. The colony ought to be extremely labor-intensive. You won't be able to afford the mass to send a lot of machinery. The power source for the machinery would also be difficult (presumably, you'll only have one or two reactors. the machines certainly won't run off of diesel--what would you use? flywheels? fuel cells? chemical batteries? isotopic batteries?). Anyway, it is probably doable, even with conventional technology. Certain advances in technology would help. Fusion would help a hell of a lot. Problems are: getting all that mass into Earth orbit (the Earth-Mars shuttle, fuel, the various Mars exploration craft, and finally the colony equipment and the colony), life support for the Earth-Mars shuttle (transit time would be roughly 9 months), life support for Mars, and the colony itself. I think the Earth-Mars shuttle, if it turns out to be doable, ought to be called Bifrost. You ought to have a lot of shuttles in this scheme. The Earth surface/orbit shuttle. The Earth orbit/transit shuttle shuttle. The Mars transit shuttle/orbit shuttle. And the Mars orbit/surface shuttle. All of them will need to be fueled. Until Mars starts producing fuel, the fuel will have to come from Earth. Expensive. Your proposal said to make the Mars descent stages one-way. That has a number of good points--it gives the colony a source of metal, for one. And you don't have to carry the fuel to relaunch. On the other hand, it might be cheaper to carry the fuel and have a real Mars shuttle. A lot of this has doubtless been thrashed out somewhere else. Anyone have any pointers? Is it in a readily-accessible book? david rickel decwrl!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 87 18:41:06 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!sslvax!bt@seismo.css.gov (Brian Thompstone) Subject: Ball Lightning Generators In sci.space .... Gary Allen (daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU ??) wrote: >An interesting paper that crossed my desk was "A Model for Ball >Lightning and Bead Lightning" (CMA-R11-86) by Karl L. E. Nickel of the >Institut fuer Angewandte Mathematik, Universitaat von Freiburg, West >Germany. In the paper Prof. Nickel presents the theory that ball >lightning is really an energetic plasma contained within a vortex ring >or Hill spherical vortex. [.............] I have never >seen scientific evidence to support this idea and for this reason am >sceptical about the reality of ball lightning. Paul F. Dietz (DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ) wrote: >If someone back in the 1700's could make ball lightning accidently, >perhaps some interested amateur scientist with a small budget could >do the same today. Collecting natural lightning is not difficult, given >patience, a lightning rod and a tall tower or building. Making the ball >lightning is more of a challenge. Any idea what a lightning driven ball >lightning generator would look like? A pair of coaxial helical electrodes? >An exploding coil of wire? It can't be too complex, if it happened by >accident. Record the results with TV cameras & VCRs (shielded and battery >powered). Adventuresome experimenters might want to try different gases >(deuterium could be very exciting). Larry Johnson (larry@leo.UUCP) wrote: >While I was a student at UCSD one of my professors showed several >photographs of ball lightning to the class. [........] >Anybody else ever seen a photo? A film would be even better. Well, have I got News for you. Last year New Scientest carried a story about a Dutch school teacher who had come up with a theory as to what powered Ball Lightning (BL). The theory suggested an apparatus which might generate BL. The apparatus was being built. Since then, I have seen a TV documentary which showed the apparatus working. The BLs produced were small and short_lived, but hi-speed cameras appeared to catch them. Interested? Details (as filtered through my foggy memory): The theory was based on the idea that BL is powered by *fusion*, using deuterium occuring naturally in water vapour. (For stability, see above?) Once started, the BL should survive as long as a steady supply of D is available. How to start BL: something to do with electo/magnetic eddies(?) created in the neighbourhood of a suddenly terminated MASSIVE electric current - and some fog. These conditions might be available in thunderstorms, but we want this to work in any weather, preferably in the garden shed.... The inventor has built a mechanical switch which can (a) pass a large current without frazzling (b) break very quickly. He put it into a circuit where the power was provided by a lot of very big batteries - in fact, ALL of the batteries from one (or was it two) scrap submarines! This all in a large wharehouse in Amsterdam(?). A Dutch/Belgian TV crew went along to film it, and by god it seems to work. Now, all the commentary for the program was in Dutch, in which I am not exactly fluent, so maybe I missed some details - any friends out there in the Netherlands rememeber this? Before you rush out to rip the accumulator out of your car; you need a HELL of a lot of current. The inventor was trying to scrape enough money together to buy another submarine's worth of batteries, because of some non-linear relationship between the current and the likelihood and/or size of generated BL. And I'm sure some of this is patented: he has formed a company to exploit the process, floated shares last year. Because, this could be BIG (if it isnt just a scam). A fusion generator with BL at its heart is so simple that its very difficult to believe. A trigger power source. A switch. A bottle (+ magentic fields) to restrain a little BL. Some damp air. Goodbye Tokomak/JET/lasers! All this of the top of my head: references possible if you want. I am posting this to several newsgroups: 1. sci.space because thats where it was being discussed 2. sci.physics because someone might like to comment 3. rec.arts.sf-lovers because they will all WANT to believe this (I do) in case of arguments: take this ball :-) and run in different directions of you like .... (or mail to me and I'll summarize if I understand it). BT ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 87 02:37:14 GMT From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Generators In article <518@ssl-macc.co.uk>, bt@ssl-macc.co.uk (Brian Thompstone) writes: > Details (as filtered through my foggy memory): > The theory was based on the idea that BL is powered by *fusion*, using > deuterium occuring naturally in water vapour. (For stability, see above?) > Once started, the BL should survive as long as a steady supply of D is > available. No way. You would need to have concentrated deuterium and the absence of anything heavier than helium for this to work. Naturally occurring water, including water vapor in the atmosphere, is only something like 1 part in 5000 of deuterium. This just doesn't cut it, because it means that 4999 out of every 5000 collisions will be nonproductive (actually even worse, because deuterium is heavier, and therefore moves slower at a given temperature). Also, atoms heavier than helium are very efficient at radiating away energy, so even if you had pure D[2]O vapor the oxygen atoms would radiate away all the heat and thus quench the reaction. Having no data on the experiment this person did, I am not in a position to say anything about whether ball lightning was actually obtained, but it is 99.9999..% certain that it did not involve fusion. > Because, this could be BIG (if it isnt just a scam). A fusion > generator with BL at its heart is so simple that its very difficult to > believe. A trigger power source. A switch. A bottle (+ magentic > fields) to restrain a little BL. Some damp air. You're not getting this with damp air, for the reason stated above. However, if you used pure deuterium, or a deuterium/tritium mixture, you MIGHT get better results. . . . > Goodbye Tokomak/JET/lasers! Something cheaper would be nice. . . . > All this of the top of my head: references possible if you want. If any of them are easily obtainable in the U. S., then yes please. I want to believe it, but I won't (for reasons stated above, and because 1 source is not sufficient proof). -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #196 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA29054; Fri, 17 Apr 87 03:02:51 PDT id AA29054; Fri, 17 Apr 87 03:02:51 PDT Date: Fri, 17 Apr 87 03:02:51 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704171002.AA29054@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #197 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 17 Apr 87 03:02:51 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #197 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 197 Today's Topics: Re: Ball Lightning Generators, fusion space power Re: Ball Lightning Generators World Space Foundation & Space Studies Institute ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Mar 87 20:11:56 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Generators, fusion space power In article <518@ssl-macc.co.uk> bt@ssl-macc.co.uk (Brian Thompstone) writes: >In sci.space .... >Gary Allen (daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU ??) wrote: >>An interesting paper that crossed my desk was "A Model for Ball >>Lightning and Bead Lightning" (CMA-R11-86) by Karl L. E. Nickel of the >>Institut fuer Angewandte Mathematik, Universitaat von Freiburg, West >>Germany. In the paper Prof. Nickel presents the theory that ball >>lightning is really an energetic plasma contained within a vortex ring >>or Hill spherical vortex. [.............] I have never seen >>scientific evidence to support this idea and for this reason am >>sceptical about the reality of ball lightning. Ladikov also proposed this model with a poloidal field and Shafranov found that a variation of it was stable with an additional toroidal field and in the presence of a gas blanket which generated additional external pressure. Such things would have limited life since the internal energy is marginal to be a good model for ball lightning, and the toroidal field generating currents would have to operate at the outer boundary of the plasma toroid where they would be scattered by neutrals in a short time (much too short for BL). The all plasma Mantle and kernel (PMK) or PLASMAK(TM) model we have proposed for fusion and other applications gets around these problems, and it would probably make a good model for BL. P. Koloc and J. Ogden, "The All Plasma Spheromak: The PLASMAK," Proc. U.S.-Japan Joint Symposium on Compact Toruses and Energetic Particle Injection, Princeton Univ., 216, Dec. 1979 (No Relativistic Corrections). P. Koloc and J. Ogden, "The PLASMAK: Its Unique Structure, the Mantle," Proc. Third Symposium on the Physics and Technology of Compact Toroids, LANL, LA-8700-C, 204, Dec. 1980. Y. Ladikov, Izvest. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 4, 7, July-Aug. 1960. V. Shafranov, "On Magnetohydrodynamical Equilibrium Configurations," J. Exptl. Theoret. Phys., 33, 710, 1957. Transl. in Soviet Phys.-- JETP, 6, 545, 1958. >>.... . . . . .. . . . natural lightning is not difficult, given >>patience, a lightning rod and a tall tower or building. Making the >>ball lightning is more of a challenge. Actually, that would probably prevent it's formation because of the slow rise time introduced by the stucture's inductance. If you couple it by an inductive means then the whole region must be ionized in the presence of a pre-existing field which provides magnetic helicity. Then if the field generating currents are interrupted the plasmoid MAY be generated. Usually such artificial BL's aren't too long lived, although when U MD cyclotron shorted out in 1970, the ball that was produced (an eighty MEGAJOULE inductive air discharge) lasted almost 20 seconds, was over a foot diameter, rose to about four meters and drifted into a wall (steel beam) at the same height about thirty feet away with a "champagne cork opening pop". The ball's actually energy would have been only a few tens of kilojoules. >>Any idea what a lightning driven ball lightning generator would look >>like? A pair of coaxial helical electrodes? An exploding coil of >>wire? It can't be too complex, if it happened by accident. Record >>the results with TV cameras & VCRs (shielded and battery Forget it! The fields of amateur lightning experimenters is strewn with dead bodies... some professionals too! >powered). Adventuresome experimenters might want to try different >gases (deuterium could be very exciting). Yeah! a real bang and no lightning... Then comes the NRC police, since you can't possess (make) Deuterium oxide (heavy water) legally without a license. One of those loop holes. What do you mean vision, hearing, roof, etc.? >Larry Johnson (larry@leo.UUCP) wrote: >>While I was a student at UCSD one of my professors showed several >>photographs of ball lightning to the class. [........] >>Anybody else ever seen a photo? A film would be even better. Send his address and number, .. anyone? >Well, have I got News for you. Last year New Scientest carried a story >about a Dutch school teacher who had come up with a theory as to what >powered Ball Lightning (BL). The theory suggested an apparatus which >might generate BL. The apparatus was being built. Since then, I have >seen a TV documentary which showed the apparatus working. The BLs >produced were small and short_lived, but hi-speed cameras appeared to >catch them. Interested? His name Gerald Dijkhuis (dickhouse), and he met me a few years ago and the next thing I knew was that the patent office was asking me if I was aware that someone of that name was trying to file patents on a variation of our concept. His theory, as I gleaned from the meager literature, depends on a "Bob Bass like" application of London's equation, and he claims good things by having "negative and positive MOLECULES" doing the work in place of electrons and ions. So far so good, until then he somehow comes out with terrifically high temperatures (plasma regime) and internal pressures of 2000 atmospheres. How could his "molecular plasma" idea work at those temperatures / pressures? All this with a boundary confinement of one atmosphere of appropriate gas. I do NOT think he quite received the picture of just what and how the PMK worked. (heh, heh, heh) The plasmoids he forms are NOT BL since they do NOT have life times of a second or more. When I called him last year, he was amazed to find out that BL Jim Tuck had produced (Tuck is no longer with us) had a life of more than a second and a half and that Tuck's high speed cameras were only running at 48 frames per second and were not the ultra fast type he was using. He thought Tuck's BL was much shorter lived - (it wasn't I have the film and Tuck's notes!). >Details (as filtered through my foggy memory): >The theory was based on the idea that BL is powered by *fusion*, using >deuterium occurring naturally in water vapour. (For stability, see >above?) Once started, the BL should survive as long as a steady supply >of D is available. Yes, deuterium oxide can be distilled from ordinary water and then hydrolyzed to extract the pure deuterium. THEN the pure deuterium can be used to make fusion if the plasma pressure and time conditions can be attained. >How to start BL: something to do with electro/magnetic eddies(?) >created in the neighbourhood of a suddenly terminated MASSIVE electric >current - and some fog. These conditions might be available in >thunderstorms, but we want this to work in any weather, preferably in >the garden shed.... That fog is evident in the brains of the fusion program managers at DoE, and they haven't been hit by lightning yet to test out the theory. Soon I hope. :-) NO! Water, methane, etc. is NOT necessary. Sounds like the brew "a mad scientist or witch" might craft. >The inventor has built a mechanical switch which can (a) pass a large >current without frazzling (b) break very quickly. He put it into a >circuit where the power was provided by a lot of very big batteries - >in fact, ALL of these batteries from one (or was it two) scrap >submarines! The "quick current breaking" is necessary to get the voltages (EMF) necessary to produce the energetic electron currents necessary for artificial ball lightning. However, in this Dijkhuis theory, no such animal exists! My guess is he is just blindly following Tuck's experiments in hopes he'll get something. He is very uncooperative.. I could show him how it's done. The problem with his technique (as lucius alludes to in another follow-up) is the presence of impurities such as oxygen and other electrode material. Those impurities will make it impossible to "burn through" and get the temperatures necessary for fusion. >some details - any friends out there in the Netherlands remember this? If they did can you send me a reference, .. perhaps I can get a copy of the tape. >Before you rush out to rip the accumulator out of your car; you need a >HELL of a lot of current. The inventor was trying to scrape enough >money together to buy another submarine's worth of batteries, because >of some non-linear relationship between the current and the likelihood >and/or size of generated BL. And I'm sure some of this is patented: he >has formed a company to exploit the process, floated shares last year. Dijkhuis tried to patent and failed because of my prior related art, but has decided to patent "peripheral" technology. More importantly he has a business genius that has raised money for his work. GD has a PhD in physics from Stanford so he should know something. >Because, this could be BIG (if it isnt just a scam). A fusion generator >with BL at its heart is so simple that its very difficult to believe. >A trigger power source. A switch. A bottle (+ magnetic fields) to >restrain a little BL. Some damp air. No the magnetic container is already provided by the plasma shell. You just need the plasma gun, a 20 to 40 kv energy storage bank, a cleverly designed electrode set (actually a special plasma gun), the appropriate gas, and a very heavy duty compressor. ... . loads and loads of sandbags if you try it with deuterium. >Goodbye Tokomak/JET/lasers! These never had a chance to begin with.. but they surely keep a lot of scientist busy beating their heads against an engineering impossibility. That's fun?? These projects have created a "funding storm" Just for a number, a PLASMAK(TM) generator will produce 10 gigawatts of 3 phase electric power out with at least a 90% efficiency burning 180 PMK's per second compressed to about the size of a plum. That can get you and another megapound of payload up there using only a few of pounds (a lot of spillage) of Hydrogen Boron-11 fuel and some scooped atmospheric fusion heated air. >All this of the top of my head: references possible if you want. By email if you have them. Thanks! Paul M. Koloc ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 87 03:14:36 GMT From: pyrnj!mirror!xanth!kent@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Generators In response to an excellent discussion of ball lightening, too long to quote here. Conning the NOAA Ship Oceanographer Nothr from the Panama Canal toward homeport in Seattle, off the west coast of Mexico, the activities of a fishing vessel ahead of me gave, plus sighting a round object with a rod protruding from it afloat in the water just ahead of me, game me reason to believe that I might be about to run over a diver. In hopes of washing him away from the ships propellers (there was no time to turn), I threw the engines from full ahead to full reverse in about one second. Major error. The Oceanographer is a diesel electric vessel, with diesel driven generators providing power to electric motors connected directly to the drive shafts, with pilot house electrical control. The vessel displaces about 3000 tons, so even though the generators were supplying power to go astern, the propellors, driven by the water and the ship's inertia, were still making turns to go ahead. The motors, coupled to the drive shafts, now became very effective generators themselves, in opposition to the ship's normal generators. All that electricity had to go somewhere, and it did. It formed a lightening plasma ball about 0.5 meter in diameter, which emminated from the engineering electrical power panels and flew across the engineering power control room, narrowly missing the head of the third assistant engineer. I was treated to a thirty minute session of highly inventive invective by this gentleman. I had no defense; I had been about to run over a tuna fisherman's long line float! Moral: making ball lightening is easy. Explaining it is the hard part! For the enjoyment of the net. ;-) ARPA : kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu Copyright 1987 Kent Paul Dolan. All Rights Reserved. Incorporation of this material in a collective retransmission constitutes permission from the intermediary to all recipients to freely retransmit the entire collection. Use on any other basis is prohibited by the author. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 87 22:46:51 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: World Space Foundation & Space Studies Institute For a long time I've had the addresses of the World Space Foundation and the Space Studies Institute in my desk. Since the latest issue of Omni has an article and an ad on SSI, I thought this would be a good time to post some info on each. I personally contribute a fair amount to each group (I'm an SSI Senior Associate), and think they both deserve your support. Both groups raise money and solicit donations (like booster stages) for projects that NASA can't or won't fund. Principle areas of interest are: WSF: solar sail construction, near-Earth crossing asteroid search SSI: mass drivers, processing of lunar material, SPS design Note that the two groups are synergistic, not duplicative. Here are the addresses: Space Studies Institute 285 Rosedale Road, PO Box 82 Princeton, NJ 08540 World Space Foundation PO Box Y South Pasadena, California 91030 Although both groups publish newsletters, they are really just a series of reports on current projects. Dale Skran ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #197 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01975; Sat, 18 Apr 87 03:02:49 PDT id AA01975; Sat, 18 Apr 87 03:02:49 PDT Date: Sat, 18 Apr 87 03:02:49 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704181002.AA01975@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #198 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 18 Apr 87 03:02:49 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #198 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 198 Today's Topics: New space BBS list ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Mar 87 05:26:38 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!rwb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Robert Brumley) Subject: New space BBS list It's been a while since I first posted my space-oriented BBS list. Since that time, there have been many additions and deletions, so I thought I'd post the revised version to the net. Please, if you have any additional information let me know. Feel free to distribute this list, but please keep my name on it so that I receive any additional information. Thanks. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -*> Directory of Space BBSes <*- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Last update: 3/20/87 From: The Space Network, Alpha, and The Comm-post Compiled by: Robert Brumley +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Alpha PHONE: (303) 367-1935 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Cyro Lord, Robert Galyen, Bill McGuire, Mark Felton, Robert Brumley SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: Tandy 6000 under Xenix 3.0 w/ UNaXcess BBS COMMENTS: allows read access to space and ham related sections of the USENEXT network. Type 'alpha' at login. Only serious users accepted, no fake id's. Also space and ham radio discussions within site. LOCATION: Colorado VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Amsat RBBS PHONE: (512) 852-8194 HOURS: 24 hours/ 7 dys BAUD: 300 - 7 data bits/even parity SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: RBBS COMMENTS: For amateur radio operators. Orbital elements for amateur satellites/space shuttles. Non-radio operators welcome. LOCATION: Southern Texas VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Apple Astronomy PHONE: (713) 526-5671 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: The Houston Museum of Natural History SYSTEM: ? COMMENTS: Sections include: space novel, physics/scientific, visual guide to the sky, what's new in space, experimental/cosmology, online astro news. Many informative files in each section. LOCATION: Houston, Texas VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Astronomer's RBBS PHONE: (305) 268-8576 HOURS: 24 hours/day BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Chuck Cole SPONSOR: Cole Energy Systems SYSTEM: ?, RBBS COMMENTS: Large amount of astronomy info posted. Only serious users are considered for charged, higher access. LOCATION: Ft. Lauderdale VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Celestial RCP/M PHONE: (512) 892-4180 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 (8 Data/1 Stop/No Parity) SYSOP: TS Kelso SPONSOR: None SYSTEM: TRS-80 Model 12 COMMENTS: Caters to all areas of the Space Sciences including Astronomy, Astrodynamics, Celestial Mechanics, and Satellite Tracking. Carries the MOST current NASA Prediction Bulletins (orbital elements) for 40+ satellites along with AMSAT Newsletters and message system. Over two megabytes of space-related software and databases available for downloading. While intended primarily for CP/M and MSDOS systems, source code is available for most programs. LOCATION: Austin, Texas VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: The Comm-post PHONE: (303) 534-4646 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Brian Bartee SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: Tandy 2000 w/ BBS-PC Ver.4.13 w/ over 40 mB online. COMMENTS: SIGS include Astronomy, Tandy 1000, Tandy 2000, TI-Pro. Also jokes and open-forum discussion. Astronomy and MS-DOS programs available for download. COMMENTS: SIGs include Astronomy, Tandy 1000/2000, TI-Pro, Critic's Corner, Restaurant and Recipes, and Open-forem discussion. Many programs, especially MS-DOS. Also several space-related programs and files. LOCATION: Denver, Colorado VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Datalink RBBS PHONE: (214) 340-5850 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Jeff Wallach SPONSOR: The L-5 Society SYSTEM: ? w/ Fido version 14.1 COMMENTS: specializes in topics relating to amateur radio, satellite tracking, decoding of telemetry of N.O.A.A. weather satellites. Also dedicated to furthering the public's understanding and interest in the space program. Supports color/graphics, doors, conferences. LOCATION: Dallas, TX VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Day's End PHONE: (303) 650-5636 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Chris Day SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: Epson Equity I PC w/ 20 meg and Fido version 11W COMMENTS: Astronomy SIG with many astronomy programs and files. Also many other programs and MS-DOS utilities. LOCATION: Colorado VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Digital Newsletter PHONE: (612) 291-0567 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: ? w/ Information Retrieval System (I.R.S.) v 10.00.05 COMMENTS: Supports space and amateur radio news. Space: Soviet space news, NASA/USA space news, space shuttle audio information. Radio: GEARVAKF news, W5YI report, ARLL newsletter, packet radio newsletter. During space shuttle missions up-to- the-day schedules and general info. LOCATION: St. Paul, Minnesota VERIFIED: ? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Galaxy Astronet PHONE: (707) 437-2352 HOURS: 24 hours/day BAUD: ? SYSOP: Donn Gallon SPONSOR: Donn Gallon (JPL and IHW) SYSTEM: ? COMMENTS: For a trial run, enter 175 for the user ID and DASBBS for the password. LOCATION: Eureka, California VERIFIED: Down? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: GAS-NET/ NASA PHONE: (301) 344-9156 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: ? SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: Goddard Space Flight Center SYSTEM: ? COMMENTS: Primarily for Get Away Special (GAS) projects. Non-GAS participants may browse. LOCATION: Maryland VERIFIED: Down until the shuttle is back up. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: International Halley Watch BBS PHONE: (616) 342-4062 HOURS: 24 hours/day BAUD: 300 8 data bits SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: Kalamazoo Astronomy Society SYSTEM: ? COMMENTS: IHW amateur observer's bulletin and astronomy-related programs posted. Lists local planetarium show times and ticket prices. New users run HELP. LOCATION: Kalamazoo, Michigan VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: L-5 Galesburg, Il (Magie) PHONE: (309) 343-3799 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: Prairieland Computer Club of Knox County and the Midwest Information Systems of Galesburg, Illinois SYSTEM: ? COMMENTS: several different SIGs. Network access to Telenet, Tymnet, C-serve, Genie, many others. Various computer SIGs and L-5 info. LOCATION: Galesburg, Illinois VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: L-5 Gateway (MYCROFTXXX Fido) PHONE: (412) 667-3984 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Jim McHale SPONSOR: The L5 Society SYSTEM: PC clone w/ Fido version 11W and 10 MB hard disk. COMMENTS: supports western PA space activist organizations. Information from the Space Studies Institute, the National Space Society and the L-5 Society. LOCATION: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: L-5 HQ BBS PHONE: (602) 622-0383 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: ? w/ FORA COMMENTS: Preregistration required. Call the HQ office at (602) 622-6351 for an account. LOCATION: Tuscon, Arizona VERIFIED: Down? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: L-5 Kansas City, MO BBS PHONE: (913) 788-3224 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: ? COMMENTS: If you have more information, please let us know. LOCATION: Kansas City, Missouri VERIFIED: ? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: L-5 Minnesota PHONE: (612) 920-5566 (612) 927-9743 (voice) HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Scott Shjeffte/ others SPONSOR: L-5 Society SYSTEM: ? Leading Edge w/ RBBS-PC COMMENTS: color/graphics supported. Conferences. Many space bulletins. Sub directories: L-5 Minnesota, NASA press releases, AP news, ESA & Ariane space press releases, satellite info, shuttle status reports and more. Files inteneded from Genie Spaceport can be sent from here. LOCATION: Minneapolis, Minnesota VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: L-5 SpaceNET PHONE: (408) 262-7177 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Bill Dale SPONSOR: California Space Development Council and the L-5 Society. SYSTEM: RBBS/ Molecular Kulge/ ZCMD COMMENTS: Supporting desktop publishing for all space and astronomy organizations with source text in the public domain. Genie Spaceport sysop Launch.CTRL runs this system. Files/msgs can be sent to Genie Spaceport from here. LOCATION: Milpitas, California VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Naval Observatory BBS PHONE: (202) 653-1079 HOURS: ? BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: ? COMMENTS: Requires even parity (Format: 7/E/1) LOCATION: near Washington D.C. VERIFIED: Down for repairs +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: PERMANENT BBS PHONE: (703) 527-8464 (PC Pursuit users use area code 202) HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Mark Prado SPONSOR: PERMANENT, Ltd. SYSTEM: ? w/ TCOMM ver. 2.1a COMMENTS: PERMANENT stands for Program to Employ Resources of the Moon and Asteroids Near Earth in the Near Term. Much info on employing the resources of the moon and asteroids. The BBS provides the following services and products on the PERMANENT program: an executive summary and specific briefs, viewgraph briefings, videocassettes, slides, prints, drawings, and flowcharts. There are also bibliographic, people, and current research and organizations databases. Also supported are computer conferences to discuss the PERMANENT program. This BBS is action oriented and is only for serious users. LOCATION: Arlington, Virginia VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Scooter's Scientific Exchange PHONE: (215) 922-2541 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: Tandy 1000 PC w/ 384 K ram, 2 360K disk drives and 20 meg. hard drive. Running COLLIE Bulletin Board Software ver. 1.20. COMMENTS: Collie Net Node 804/9. Designed to serve as a forum for the scientific community, incl. General, Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, Mathematics, and Physics. Offers a science conference which is networked to other boards. Many computer programs that are helpful to scientists and researchers. LOCATION: ? VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Silent Side PHONE: (602) 962-7698 HOURS: 24 hours/day BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Chris Mitchel SPONSOR: KUPD AZ radio station SYSTEM: ? COMMENTS: Sub-board for the Saguaro Astronomical Club, which posts club announcements and newsletter extracts. LOCATION: Arizona VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: The Space Network PHONE: (303) 494-8446 HOURS: 24 hours/day BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Tom Meyer SPONSOR: The Mars Institute of the Planetary Society, organized by The Boulder Center for Science and Policy SYSTEM: Columbia, 10 MB, TBBS COMMENTS: Space exploration and development. Mars missions, science, research, education, and contest. Information from the Space Studies Institute, National Space Society, Mars Underground, World Space Foundation, NASA Ames Research Center, Jet Propulsion Lab International Planetarium Society, CALTECH, Mars Institute of the Planetary Society. Also the publication list from the American Astronautical Society, this BBS list and more. LOCATION: Colorado VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Space Development Information Clearinghouse BBS (formerly NorthCal L-5 BBS) PHONE: (408) 778-3531 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Chris Winter SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: Morrow MD-3 (CP/M w/ Z80-A) w/ Winterware BBS ver. 6.10 COMMENTS: The purpose of SDI Clearinghouse is "to distribute information pertaining to the human exploration and development of space -- humanity's next frontier." Many space news bulletins. L5 society information, Mars Underground newsletter, list of space interest groups, list of periodical publications on space, shuttle manifest, aerospace database, and much more. LOCATION: Morgan Hill, California VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Star Board PHONE: (303) 455-3113 HOURS: 24 hours/day BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Mark Johnson SPONSOR: Mark Johnson SYSTEM: TRS Model III w/ TBBS COMMENTS: Several astronomy related boards and publications. Astronomy-related computer programs. Additional information is posted by the Denver Astronomical Society. LOCATION: Denver, Colorado VERIFIED: Temporarily down +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Starport PHONE: (203) 698-0588 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Jim Bolster SPONSOR: none SYSTEM: IBM PC XT -- 60 megabytes PC-Board software COMMENTS: All computers welcome. Astronomy, Space, Science Fiction, ParaNet: UFO's, Ham Radio/Satellite, BBS support, Sysops, and Model Railroad conferences. Home of ParaNet Theta. LOCATION: Old Greenwich, CT VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Yokohama Science Center BBS PHONE: (045) 832-1177 (in Japan) DTE ADDRESS: 440881406100 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 (8/1/0) SYSOP: Yoshiro Yamada (?) SPONSOR: Yokohama Science Center SYSTEM: ?? COMMENTS: Satellite orbital elements list (some 50 satellites) and other space/astronomy news. LOCATION: Yokohama, Japan VERIFIED: ?? ===================================== I would like to thank all those who have contributed information to this list. If you know of any additional boards, or have any additional information, please let me know. Address messages to: Robert Brumley POST: 4661 S. Vivian St. Morrison, CO 80465 (303) 978-1838 UUCP: (isis,hao)!scicom!rwb Thanks. ===================================== ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #198 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03062; Sun, 19 Apr 87 03:03:12 PDT id AA03062; Sun, 19 Apr 87 03:03:12 PDT Date: Sun, 19 Apr 87 03:03:12 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704191003.AA03062@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #199 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 19 Apr 87 03:03:12 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #199 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 199 Today's Topics: Impressions of Pittsburgh SDC, Part I: Merger, speakers SOLAR SAILS INFORMATION REQUEST Al2O3 Re: Livermore's IFR Re: Fusion Rockets (IFR) key to space industrialization? Space Sailing Re: Space Sailing space dates Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 APR 87 05:07-CDT From: HIGGINS%FNALB.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Impressions of Pittsburgh SDC, Part I: Merger, speakers As readers of this digest know, Dale Amon and his cohorts in Pittsburgh put a lot of effort over two years into throwing the 6th Space Development Conference. They did a terrific job, and the SDC was even more rewarding than I'd hoped. I thought you might like a report on some of the high spots of the conference. We Chicago space activists have the job of throwing the 8th SDC, in May of 1989, so we attended Pittsburgh with an eye to what it takes to put one of these on. For me the chief value of the SDC was the opportunity to rub elbows with other people, bigshots and little, who are trying to stir up pro-space activity in this country. I soaked up their experiences in solving problems like the ones we've got in Chicago, talking about recruiting, mail campaigns, lecture series, socializing, and of course politics. For others, learning was more important, and the mostly excellent programming on the commercial, technical, legal, military, and even artistic aspects of space development filled that need. And the evangelists among us rose up to inspire the flock, sending the assembled space enthusiasts home full of new conviction that It Can Be Done and new resolve to work harder for what Dale Amon (a not inconsiderable evangelist himself) calls "a return to the vision." THE MERGER-- The merger of the L5 Society with the National Space Society, which has finally happened (the vote was ~1100 for, 72 against), is a matter of great concern to members of these groups, and evokes yawns from everybody else. This was the first SDC of the combined group, and there was a get-acquainted air to the proceedings. To the single "National Space Society" L5 contributes its vigorous chapter structure and a collection of fairly activist members; the old NSS brings prestige (von Braun in the family tree), closer ties to the aerospace industry, a quieter membership, and years of experience operating in Washington. The L5 headquarters staff are packing up for the move from Tucson to the new townhouse NSS office in Washington. Everybody hopes that the new organization, about 15,000 strong, will be more effective. But a couple of curmudgeons warn of "Washington disease": The DC office will be a huge drain on resources, and while NSS's leaders become fascinated with national politics and lobbying, such vital activities as research, education, grassroots organizing, and "keeping the dream alive" may be neglected. We'll see. GOOD SPEAKERS-- Art Bozlee, one of that rare breed who analyze the Soviet space program outside of governments, narrating rare video of the Mir station. The "K-type," Saturn-V-class booster is *really* on the pad this month, kids. ("Art," I asked, "who assigns new Sheldon designations, now that Sheldon's gone?" "I DO!") Bob Forward, visonary physicist-engineer, examining starflight alternatives, and explaining that "I need you people. I need you to build me..." (A solar power satellite & Fresnel zone plate for the Starwisp probe, a 7.2-terawatt laser for his manned lightsail...) George Koopman, of American Rocket, showing us video of his static tests on full-sized hybrid engines, and recounting dozens of payloads gathering dust, waiting to be shot into LEO. Koopman changed my mind on privately-developed launchers; maybe they really do have a chance to succeed. Certainly if a few payloads do go up, money will materialize to back Amroc and its competitors for further development. Tom Rogers, External Tanks, Incorporated, giving a charming and fascinating speech, but somehow avoiding talk about any technical details. He thinks he can develop and sell 'em, but he's gotta get NASA to give him the tanks first, F.O.B. low Earth orbit. (To be continued) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 87 13:25:33 pst From: matsumot@ads.arpa (Michael Matsumoto) Subject: SOLAR SAILS INFORMATION REQUEST I'd like to receive some pointers into the technical literature, if any, on solar/light sails. Outside of an Arthur C. Clarke short story I read as a kid in Boy's Life, I've not seen much on the subject at all. Mike Matsumoto P.S. Does anyone remember the name of the story? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 87 15:14:59 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Al2O3 (Geoffrey Landis) >>> . . . If Al2O3 condenses into a solid at 2100C, >>>then the adiabatic expansion (neglecting supercooling) STOPS at >>>2100C... [and only a small fraction] of the thermal >>>(undirected) energy of the gas has been converted into (directed) >>>kinetic energy.... (Howard A. Landman) >> suppose you mix them? If you use, say, 90% H2 and >>10% Al, doesn't most of the heat from the Al2O3 get transferred to the H2O, >>even when the temp falls below 2400K? Yes. The formula will depend on the ratio of the specific heats. >>Wouldn't the specific impulse of such a mixture be greater than that >>of pure H2/O2? Probably not by much. You can't use a whole lot of Al, or when it condenses it will rob energy out of the H2/O2 reaction. Using H2 at all will be a problem for the original idea, which was to make propellants from stuff available on the moon. A better idea (which I thought of a few days after making the previous posting, but have been too lazy to work through numbers on) would be simply to run the Al/O2 engine rich on oxygen. The excess oxygen would take much of the energy out of the cooling Al2O3 and convert it into useful form. Hydrogen or helium, of course, would be better--even as inert reaction mass--because of its lighter molecular weight. If we assume that the Al203 serves only as a energy source, and the excess O2 serves as the reaction mass, and call the mass fraction of Al2O3 in the exhaust F; then the energy per unit mass of propellant is proportional to F and the reaction mass per unit mass of propellant proportional to (1-F). If Al2O3 has lower heat capacity per mass than O2; for a rough estimate assume all the energy goes to the reaction mass and none is left over in the hot Al2O3. Then Isp=P/M=SQRT(2*M(reaction)*E)/M=SQRT(2*(1-F)*M*F*M)/M = SQRT(2*F*(1-F)) The optimum for Isp is found with equal amounts of energy source and reaction mass. Since Al2O3 is 29% oxygen by weight, this means a fuel ratio of 35% Al and 65% O2. SQR(F*(1-F)=SQR(.25)=.5 --> the optimum engine will be exactly half the specific impulse of a "perfect" (no condensation) Al2O3 engine. This is a very very rough estimate--should be good to within a factor of two with luck. >> Is there a patent waiting for us here? Or maybe a paper for _Journal of Propulsion_ (or at least _JBIS_) (Jordan Kare) > >...these possibilities have been studied.... > practical difficulties of building tripropellant engines (Do you really >want to build a pump -- or an injector -- that handles a suspension of >aluminum dust in liquid hydrogen??) generally make the modest increase >in Isp uneconomical. Obviously not a problem if the inert ingredient is more of the same. In fact, not a problem if the third ingredient is anything that can be simply mixed in with one of the other two, such as adding an inert gas to a H2/O2 engine (which would decrease the specific impulse but increase the total impulse--useful if you are limited not by mass but by the amount of H2 available) For the specific case under discussion, though, adding the H2 and O2 together is probably not a good idea! --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 87 18:31 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: Livermore's IFR You (Gary Allen) wrote: This Inertial Fusion Rocket is the idea that will open up the entire solar system to exploration and commercial development. The major barrier is getting the lasers small, reliable, and efficient. However this is **exactly** what they're trying to do with SDI. Through SDI research, the military will **accidently** provide the key technology that will make the IFR viable. SDI isn't looking at excimer lasers anymore, is it? I thought the efforts had been diverted to things that might get sufficiently entrenched before Reagan leaves, like kinetic kill weapons, and that the only optical laser weapon much money was being spent on was the free electron laser. Talk about spin offs: The vehicle once made could be used for ***many*** missions (and not just to Mars). Here's a nifty spinoff mission: run the engine at lonw thrust while in lunar orbit or while near an asteroid. A very intense, energetic neutron flux will hit the asteroid or moon, producing gamma rays by a variety of nuclear reactions. Detect the gamma rays in a set of directional gamma ray spectrometers to get high resolution maps of elemental abundances. This sheme should have far better statistics than the Lunar Prospector, which depends on neutrons from cosmic rays. Is the martian atmosphere thin enough for this, I wonder? This is exactly the sort of project that could excite the American people into backing a major Apollo type program and get us **permanently** into space. It certainly is attractive, both to the layman and to us technophiles. A real breakout is going to require a cheap way to get into orbit, though. Maybe the work on laser launch systems can help. That could be an SDI spinoff. By the way, I assume when they talk about DT fuel they mean mostly deuterium, with tritium mixed in at the center to assist ignition. Tritium's not cheap. ------------------------------ From: warlord@athena.mit.edu Date: Sun, 29 Mar 87 13:27:14 EST Subject: Re: Fusion Rockets (IFR) key to space industrialization? Subject: Re: Fusion Rockets (IFR) key to space industrialization? In article <1200@husc2.UUCP> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes: >In article <8702261258.AA06415@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >[Quotes excerpts from a rather showy article describing an Inertial Fusion >Drive] >> This is **it** guys. This Inertial Fusion Rocket is the idea that will >> open up the entire solar system to exploration and commercial >> development. The major barrier is getting the lasers small, reliable, >> and efficient. > The problem is trying to get ANY kind of fusion reactor to work. I showed the postings to a friend of mine here at MIT, a grad student in nuclear engineering. I thought the IFR idea sounded like a good solution, but then I'm only an EE. My friend looked through the comments on IFR and was laughing his head off. He wanted to know if this was serious! I assured him that this was SPACE and not SF-Lovers. Then he went through a quick explanation of ICF (Inertial Confinement Fusion) and showed me the problems. He basically said that yes, the problems was the lasers; no, it won't work because we were talking about several orders of magnitudes... Made it sound like the same problem the Bussard ramjet had with interstellar fusable hydrogen concentrations. He did agree that funding was a problem for fusion, but he thought most of the fusion proposals can't break even in the next half-century anyway (he laughed at MCF, too): "You can build reactors... study the nuclear reactions and make the military happy... but generate net power?! Come on!" About the only idea he didn't laugh at was aneutronic... Edison Wong ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 87 18:28:17 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Subject: Space Sailing Hmmm, a few weeks ago I woke up about 4 AM with the image of a solarsail probe in LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and I was having a devil of a time trying to sail the bloody beast out of orbit. After waking up a little it became obvious that LEO is a hell of a place to be trying to sail a probe. But even upping the orbit to GEO (Geosynch Earth Orbit) unless the sail produces enough change in momentum to simply "fly" out of the ellipse, your going to have to orbit the Earth a few times to acquire sufficient velocity to change to cruise off. These orbits are going to require constantly changing angle of attach between sail and the Sun. In fact, during part of the orbit your going to have to "luff" the sail so that it produces no momentum change. So, what I havn't been able to figure out is how do you steer the critter? Do you have to carry AUX thrusters or can you do the complete maneuver with clever positioning of the sail? [BTW don't know how to sail a boat so its not surprising that I can't figure out how to sail a space probe. I'm also not responsible for my dreams, I never have been able to control them.] Fred Mendenhall ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 87 01:58:51 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Sailing > So, what I havn't been able to figure out is how do you steer the > critter? Do you have to carry AUX thrusters or can you do the > complete maneuver with clever positioning of the sail? You can do it with the sail, pretty much. To control roll (around the payload-sail axis), you need a vane or two on the sail that you can shift. On the other two axes, you could use vanes, but depending on the design it may be simpler to shift the payload-sail axis with respect to the thrust line (which is perpendicular to the sail) by changing lengths of shroud lines. As I recall, the World Space Foundation sail project has two vanes for roll control and uses axis-shifting for pitch and yaw. Maintaining control while in shadow, or luffed (sail roughly edge-on to Sun) might involve some problems. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 87 09:07 EST From: Chris Jones Subject: space dates To: Dave Rickel , Space@angband.s1.gov Date: 27 Mar 87 01:58:06 GMT From: pyramid!amdahl!dlb!auspyr!sci!daver@decwrl.dec.com (Dave Rickel) Some corrections... 0/2/27/1967 Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, Ed White die in Apollo I fire. January, not February 0/5/20/1976 Viking 1, Mars landing. July, not May 0/2/24/1986 Voyager 2, first Uranus flyby. January, not February ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 87 19:12:20 GMT From: mcnc!ece-csc!uvacs!hsd@seismo.css.gov (Harry S. Delugach) Subject: Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel In article <889@laidbak.UUCP> gerryg@laidbak.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) writes: > We certainly shouldn't clutter up LEO with junk, so >that it becomes more dangerous than it already is, not to mention how bad >it is to move warfare off the planet. I for one am interested in colonizing >space, and I would much rather it remain peaceful. > >Does anybody know if space junk is/will be a problem, just how big is near >space? The latest issue of Air and Space Smithsonian has an article about NORAD's tracking of space junk. It contains a picture of damage to the Solar Max satellite caused by collision with a paint chip. There is also some mention of the fact that Shuttle windows have been scratched by debris, and there is a possibility that a space suit could be punctured during an EVA. The article is mostly about NORAD's tracking task, and how much junk there is. I found it interesting that NORAD doesn't actually objserve its thousands of objects simultaneously -- once an orbit has been determined, its computers keep track of it assuming no change in orbit. Every so often, an object is spot-checked, just to see if it's where it's supposed to be. Harry S. Delugach University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!cbosgd!uvacs!hsd or ..!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!hsd INTERNET: hsd@uvacs.cs.virginia.edu ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 87 01:41:20 GMT From: pyramid!necntc!adelie!munsell!infinet!rhorn@decwrl.dec.com (Rob Horn) Subject: Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel In article <310@ka9q.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.UUCP writes: > ... Space isn't >THAT full of junk, at least not yet. [...] >with practical antennas. Once a satellite dies, it disappears from its >slot as far as the allocation is concerned, although it is of course >still up there physically. Basically correct. The slots are driven by antenna capabilities. But, shortly before dying, the last few pounds of the satellite's fuel is used to boost it into a non-synchronous permanent parking orbit. When left without fuel or regular operational control, the satellite will normally start sweeping back and forth due to the effects of the non-sphericity of the earth. The risk of collision is higher than the extra cost of pushing it a few hundred miles away. Rob Horn ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #199 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04231; Mon, 20 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT id AA04231; Mon, 20 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT Date: Mon, 20 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704201003.AA04231@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #200 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 20 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #200 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 200 Today's Topics: Re: space sailing (solar sailing) What's Geostar? Kaon Oscillations, Black Holes Ball Lightning? Fusion Experiments and Investments AAS Terra-forming Terra-forming Glossary Observing Low-Earth Satellites Visually Another Russian space achievement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 87 13:37:54 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: space sailing (solar sailing) Newsgroups: sci.space All this solar sailing posting is interesting (I've always like the idea). But I wonder how many people would trust a solar sail made by some one who did not sail? How much intuition (right word?) is involved? I note that I just started sailing a year ago to better understand fluid dynamics (lots of fun, too.) I mean I know there are noted oceanographers who schooled in Boulder, or chemists who have never been in a lab (theoretical molecular types, formerly physicists). Re: those tacky bumper stickers: Computer people simulate it. (you know what) From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 87 23:48:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: What's Geostar? What is Geostar? --Peter ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Apr 87 14:29 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Kaon Oscillations, Black Holes I wrote: >> perhaps there are contributions from quantum gravity that >>might cause antimatter to experience a stronger attraction to the earth >>than normal matter (this will be tested soon at CERN). Matthew P Wiener replied: >To date, this has been best tested within the K0-anti-K0 system, which >undergoes strangeness changing oscillations much like the conjectured >baryon-number changing oscillations. I don't have the numbers handy, >but the limits are stringent. I don't understand. Why should the neutral kaon system test for baryon number dependent forces? K0 and K0-bar both have one quark and one antiquark. I could understand the system testing for a force that couples to hypercharge (indeed, supposed anomalies in neutral kaon data were one of the original motiviations for reexamining the Eotvos experiment), but I understand that's been ruled out in its simplest form by charged kaon decay experiments. >The best way to change baryon number is to have a good-sized black hole >handy, all set to explode. But given that, you could turn an asteroid >into fuel for a ship, always keeping the mini black hole at a critical >mass, constantly radiating energy. No, because of the problem of getting mass *into* the hole. If it's light enough to radiate appreciable power, it will be an impossibly small target (radius of a black hole is proportional to mass) and the pressure of outgoing particles will prevent anything from being absorbed anyway. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 87 08:42:10 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Ball Lightning? Fusion Experiments and Investments In a previous posting <577@prometheus.UUCP> Gerald Dijkhuis's company Convectron with its variant of ball lightning fusion was discussed, and now from Holland there is a news report on the latest developments. ---------start Netherland Newspaper article: "Convectron has money for ball lightning" AMSTERDAM, 28 March -- Convectron N.V. [=Ltd.] has attracted enough money with its recent stock offering to proceed with the most important parts of the plan to build a small scale nuclear fusion reactor, so the enterprise has declared in a press statement. In April last year, when the business last made itself heard, it was stated that the offering, already extended once, had only yielded three million of the goal of five million guilders. Dr. [=Master of sci/eng?] K. W. Wevers of Convectron declared yesterday, when asked, that since then little has been added, even though the offering is still open. The press statement states that the offering has yielded enough "in spite of vociferous opposition from various sides." That points mainly to a scientific report by Professor Braams that tears to shreds the theory developed by Convectron about nuclear fusion in artificially generated ball lightning and fire balls. According to the enterprise "an unambiguous proof of principle" of the Convectron concept for controlled nuclear fusion is now in the near offing. The experimental set-up in the Rotterdam Waalhaven [Waal harbor], with which artificial fire balls were generated in the first project phase, has now been enhanced with a second complete submarine accumulator battery. At the end of December the short-circuiting experiments were resumed with the new set-up. In the same month the pressurized gas equipment was delivered with which the conditions and chemical composition of the fire balls are brought to the desired values. Each of the two separate installations is working now according to the specifications, and Convectron is preparing for combining them in the decisive experiments of project phase 2. (ANP) ----------- ende -- translated L. Meertens seismo!mcvax!cwi.nl!lambert (Lambert Meertens) Professor Braams is probably: C. M. Braams FOM-Instituut voor Plasmafysica Edisonbaan 14, NL-3439 MN Nieuwegein Netherlands Since our patents were written broadly, they cover this technology. The physics theory of the two concepts differs and we agree with Prof. Braams that Dijkhuis's experiment will not work as described in his technical papers. Still he is way out front, having raised the investment money to do some serious work. We are green with jealousy on that point. ==== >In article <1200@husc2.UUCP> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes: >> The problem is trying to get ANY kind of fusion reactor to work. In article <8703291827.AA14598@TEELA> warlord@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Edison Wong) writes: > I showed the postings to a friend of mine here at MIT, a grad >student in nuclear engineering. I thought the IFR idea sounded like >...comments on IFR ..laughing . ... won't work because we were >talking about several orders of magnitudes... . . . >..but he thought most of the fusion proposals can't break even in the >next half-century anyway (he laughed at MCF, too): "You can build >reactors... study the nuclear reactions and make the military happy... >but generate net power?! Come on!" About the only idea >he didn't laugh at was aneutronic... From an engineering and biological point of view burning aneutronic fuels is a big advantage ---- the lack of or huge reduction in damaging neutron radiation. B U T ... such fuels require much more stringent plasma parameters to ignite in the first place. On the other hand, the adiabatic compression and thermal scaling in the PLASMAK(TM) generator is such that the fully compressed plasma achieves parameters which are ideal from the point of view of very high burn densities ( ==> compact ) and for use as a sixty hertz electric or propulsion power driver. There are only two candidates that may burn aneutronically, without a "neutronic fusion" booster stage, namely, Maglich's MIGMA and our PLASMAK generator. The Air Force Review Board has been presented with these concepts, as well as background on the current state of fusion energy, and is currently considering the final report. There has been objection to the report by the contingent from Princeton. (Tight competition for shrinking fusion funds, and the danger of a premature announcement of an "outside technological breakthrough" could bring the budget crashing down to a fusion liaison function.) The recommendation will be to move into Phase II and broaden the search to include advanced fuels (that would include fuels that reduce neutron emission by only 50%, such as deuterium). Phase II would get a handle on the development time and costs of a wider range of concepts, and then the recommendation to go into Phase III would be for funding of one or two low cost but very high pay off concepts in order to get some early exploratory results. Incidentally, Spheromak work at Princeton will be stopped under the rule that "start a new machine must toss out an old one". They have to keep burning some money so they must charge ahead with the building of a "CIT (Coppi's basic version) Compact Ignition Torus. BUT.. the Spheromak is a tough one to give up, even the fluffy version at Princeton, because it can direct the applied pressure to the plasma so very much better than a tokamak. They are attempting to quickly do conversions in order to do a compression and check its scaling, then show the DoE that they may be throwing away a "super" winner. The University of Maryland is cranking up its second generation Spheromak. | Paul M. Koloc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Apr 87 17:01 EST From: KGEISEL%cgi.com@relay.cs.net Subject: AAS Does anyone know how I can reach the American Astronautical Society? I seem to have misplaced everything with their address or phone number on it! Better yet, do any net readers have anything to do with the AAS? I ordered proceedings from the October conference and haven't seen them yet. I dare say they are overdue. I have heard of some proceedings taking a long time to prepare, but this is ridiculous. Anyone have any insight? - KGEISEL%cgi.com@relay.cs.net ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 87 01:11:10 GMT From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gerry Gleason) Subject: Terra-forming In article <8704071302.AA10182@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes: >Earth-like worlds would be nice, but are "pie in the sky", not worth >worrying about. Plenty of ugly horrible worlds we can make nice, and >lots&lots of empty space with just debris and energy we can harness. Come to think of it, wasn't the earth ugly and horrible before life evolved. We have just begun to realize that our actions can effect climate, etc. over the long term, although most of the effects seem to have been negative so far. Anyone care to speculate about how to convert Mars or Venus into planets that can support life? gerry gleason ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Apr 87 23:54:33 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Terra-forming Newsgroups: sci.space Gerry G. asks about Terraforming Mars and Venus. There are several sci-fi stories including most recently the film Aliens which talk or show a little it about it. Carl Sagan also notes it in his Cosmos TV series. Terraforming Mars would be considerably easier than Venus, but I will address both. Basically, you want to make either planet more earth-like (hence the Terra). So where do you begin? First, you need a more Earth like atmosphere (roughly 78% N2, and 20% O2, and other gases), but this is harder to achieve on a smaller planet (less gravity) like Mars than say Venus. Jon Leech at Caltech might give a description of the planetary atmospheres class he took. The composition only has to be close so you can breath it, but you also need adequate partial pressures as any people who have been above 8,000 feet could tell you. An atmosphere must do things like shield you from radiation (UV, strong IR, and other particles from solar wind, etc.). It also keeps longer wave radiations (IR) in. Note there are different theories about how atmoaspheres came to be (straight condensation) to volcanos, etc. Mars has a good portion of CO2, but very low partial pressures. Venus has the problem that we don't have good samples of the atmosphere and you would have to get rid of the H2SO4 which is detectable. As well as the excess heat. (I posted a little something about this in sci.astro: energy balance models of atmospheres.) On the more long term, you will need water. I like the way Sagan points out that a lot of Terraforming can be done with plants (like green) rather than the mechanical contraption in that popular summer movie. You have to use plant succession first starting with lichens, and move upwards, and you should be patient (after all the Earth was not formed in a day 8-). You should realize you have to keep the water in a liquid form. There is more to Terraforming than this. There are other problems, these are exercises left to the reader. There is also a longer-term problem with Mars. Sagan and other planetary people point this out. We have samples from two data points on Mars. Life there is still inconclusive. Much of the planetary community points out that if there is life on Mars, even if it is only small microbes. Those life forms should be allowed to exist undisturbed. The crust of Mars is not some mineral rich planet which you will just go to excavate. It's a lot like the desert surface of the earth consisting of lots of Feldspar and SiO2. Let's not make some of the mistakes in space that we made on earth for us and our children's children's children. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 87 15:46:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Subject: Glossary We need a glossary for this newsgroup. What is 'nanotechnology'? --Peter ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 87 01:44:25 GMT From: turtlevax!weitek!wallis@decwrl.dec.com (Bob Wallis) Subject: Observing Low-Earth Satellites Visually With the arrival of spring, the best time (in the northern hemisphere) for observing low earth satellites visually is approaching. I have a few questions for any satellite observers out there: (1) Has anyone attempted to compile a catalog of the NORAD #s for the most visually "interesting" satellites (i.e. bright, tumbling, disintegrating, etc.)? I recall seeing a posting from Don Barry (sp?) of GIT about such an undertaking a while back, but haven't seen anything since then. (2) Does anyone know of an on-line source for NORAD orbital elements? There is a BBS in Austin Texas (512-892-4180) run by T.S. Kelso which maintains a large number, but most are of interest only to ham-radio enthusiasts, and not very exciting to watch visually (except for the Russian space stations, and the Japanese mirrorball). I've heard rumors that NASA intends to put its prediction bulletins on a BBS eventually. Even though the chances of success are minuscule, I'd love to catch a satellite re-entering. The only hope would be with predictions derived from a list of fairly current elements for big objects with high decay rates. (3) What sorts of public domain tracking software is available? I downloaded a copy of NORAD's very accurate SGP4 (Simplified General Perturbations) program from the aforementioned BBS is Texas and converted it to C. It works very well. However, I have a problem selecting favorable orbital passes in which the satellite is in sunshine and the observer is in in darkness (the obvious brute force approach is too slow). I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has an efficient method for doing this. The scheme I use is very fast, but not very reliable, since it sometimes permits favorable passes to escape detection. The final result of my tracking software is a "finder chart" on a graphics display with the predicted trajectory across a start chart plotted from the Yale catalog. When everything works properly, it is quite satisfying to watch the satellite appear and eclipse exactly as predicted. Bob Wallis UUCP {turtlevax,pyramid,cae780,apple}!weitek!wallis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Apr 87 15:33:27 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Another Russian space achievement Here is an interesting bit of trivia for the group's amazement. What do the following satellites of the Russian Cosmos series have in common: 156, 209, 367, 402, 469, 516, 626, 651, 654, 723, 724, 785, 860, 861, 952, 954, 1176, 1249, 1266, 1299, 1365, 1372, 1402, 1412, 1579, 1607, 1670, 1714, 1736, 1771? Here's a clue: A satellite from this group, Cosmos 1402 decayed from low Earth orbit and scatterd radioactive material in a remote spot in Canada. Two other satellites from this group (Cosmos 954, and 1714) also reentered. The astonishing answer to this question is: All of these satellites have a nuclear reactor on board with 49 kilograms of transuranic fuel plus assorted highly radioactive fission products. This comes to a total of 2917 lbs of glow-in-the-dark radioactive waste that is currently flying over head in spacecraft that are mostly defunct and uncontrolled. The Russians are currently launching new nuclear reactors into orbit at a rate of two per year. Gary Allen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #200 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05974; Tue, 21 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT id AA05974; Tue, 21 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT Date: Tue, 21 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704211003.AA05974@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #201 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 21 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #201 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 201 Today's Topics: Re: Another Russian space achievement Big problems with Soviet Space Station docking re: Troubles with MIR/KVANT Re: Soviet module dock to Mir & Russian Reuseable Spacecraft Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts) Soviet EVA saves Mir/Kvant Re: superconductor applications Re: The Cold Rush of 1987 Re: The Cold Rush of 1987 Superconductors in space Another (and better) impossibility proof against Sky Hooks (space elevators) Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations Re: Emergency evacuation of planet Re: Emergency evacuation of planet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Apr 87 14:48:13 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Re: Another Russian space achievement The spacecraft described in the previous article do contain fission reactors, but they are contructed in an unusual manner. The reactor is in a separate container on the top of the satellite, with a small solid rocket motor attached under it. When the satellite's orbit decays, the solid fires, boosting the reactor up to a safe high orbit. This mechanism obviously failed on the satellite that reentered over Canada. The Soviets never intended the reactors to reenter the atmosphere. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Apr 87 07:35:09 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Big problems with Soviet Space Station docking The Soviets have big problems on their space station. The 20 Tonne Kvant module has docked with Mir, but the docking was very bad (there were some indications of that yesterday). The rear docking port, where they are connected, cannot be pressurized. The umbilical connections between the two systems are also not connected. You can tell it is bad when they use the phrase "the situation is complex" - a key phrase for problems in all Russian press releases. They say that the engineers are studying the problem. Now they have two 20 Tonne systems which are not correctly connected. Have they damaged the rear port - that could cause major problems with Mir. At least they have remained open in their statements - the report of the problems was less than 12 hours after the initial docking statement. I was wrong yesterday. This may become a major set back for the Russian program. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 87 15:42:06 GMT From: monstr.dec.com!hughes@decwrl.dec.com (Dyslexics have more fnu!) Subject: re: Troubles with MIR/KVANT Regarding Glenn Chapman's observations on Mir & KVANT, some British magasines I was reading last night showed the module docked at the rear port (diagrams) like the previous Star modules which made me wonder a little. I had assumed it would be using the multiple docking adaptor (to steal a phrase). The module apparently has solar panels which may be a workaround to the battery limitations. Soyuz docking systems are not androgynous, i.e. there is a polarity to the ports, as there was with Apollo. An androgynous docking system was developed for ASTP but neither side adopted it after the ASTP flight. Since the rear port of the Mir will accept a Soyuz, the KVANT module must have the Soyuz side of the docking mechanism so I doubt a Soyuz could dock with the front of KVANT. If there is a rear port accessible (unclear, but the article implies that there is one but it is occupied by the return module) the Soyuz TM-2 or a Progress could dock with it and the assembled KVANT/Progress or KVANT/Soyuz TM could possibly dock under control of the Progress or Soyuz TM guidance. The new Kurs guidance system may be capable of being reprogrammed to deal with this. Maybe they would have to abandon the return module of KVANT to do this. Their demonstrated rapid launch capability gives them a few options. It is interesting that they are so open instead of the old 'is glorious success, meeting all test objectives' approach. They must be fairly confident of getting something to work. I suspect the pressure is on to make it work given the amount of instrumentation from other countries on board KVANT. Plus, NASA have shown that the ability to recover from this sort of failure is good PR and it would demonstrate that the Soviets are getting closer to routine operations in space. Gary Hughes ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 87 18:32:27 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: Soviet module dock to Mir & Russian Reuseable Spacecraft Glenn Chapman writes: ....... much deleted ....... > The Soviets take their space problems in stride and work to overcome them > as quickly as possible. This country should be doing the same thing with > its program. Otherwise we will be left behind. ^^^^ !!!! A "space station" in orbit for, what?, years? Frequent, successful manned launches. A re-usable vehicle program, apparently well under-way. Will ?? Perhaps ARE is more accurate. John M. Pantone jnp@calmasd.GE.COM ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 87 06:21:45 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!lasibley@seismo.css.gov Subject: Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts) In article <2185@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jon@oddhack.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes: > Sure, I'll write my congresscritters. But my real hope for getting > into space in this lifetime is with organizations like the Space > Studies Institute and the university consortium which wants to make > shuttle external tanks into a el cheapo space station, not with the > gold-plated, ill-supported, and ill-defined NASA Space Station (one > plan has full operating capability at 1998 now... and, I have little > doubt, it's slipping). This is great for you Americans, but what about we Canadians who support your space program? We have, as you are no doubt aware, a *pitiful* space program. Now, before my fellow Canadians flame me to death, face the facts. We have had one man in space (Marc Garneau) and we have a few satellites, thanks to organisations such as Telesat, and probably Bell Canada and Environment Canada as well. What can we do to help? Lance A. Sibley ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Apr 87 07:22:13 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet EVA saves Mir/Kvant The USSR today (Saturday) ran an EVA that saved the Mir/Kvant complex (see previous postings for details of the problems). The 20 Tonne Kvant addition to Mir had docked on Thursday, but immediately they had difficulties - the docking port would not take air and the electrical systems would not interconnect. Starting 7:00 pm EDT the two cosmonauts ran a 3.5 hour EVA to try and repair this. In this space walk they had ground control move the Kvant module back several centimeters so that it was suspended on some hooks. The cosmonauts found a "plastic alien object" stuck in the docking port, removed it, then with the EVA still on they observed the docking. The mechanical and electrical connections were correctly made this time. By the way this EVA was given hourly updates on the shortwave in the spirit of glasnost. In one interesting coincidence this EVA was run on Apr 12th in Moscow, the 26th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's space flight. The Russians fell, but they recovered in a few days. I wish we would do the same with the shuttle. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 87 17:37 EST From: Mark Purtill Subject: Re: superconductor applications Superconductors might also make a lunar mass-driver shorter and/or cheaper. Most of the materials in these new ones are (I believe) found on the moon. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 87 16:56:59 GMT From: dayton!rosevax!carole@rutgers.edu (Carole Ashmore) Subject: Re: The Cold Rush of 1987 240K! -27F! My God, man, I'm from Minnesota; and around here that IS room temperature. Well, almost. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 87 05:52:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: The Cold Rush of 1987 That's a superconductor in "ambient space", like Low Earth Orbit behind a sun screen! -- Ken Jenks ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Apr 87 19:20:22 SA From: Tero Siili Subject: Superconductors in space The real reason, why it would be EASIER to use usuperconducting materials and components in space is that vacuum is the best thermal insulator existing. If you surround a superconducting cable with a coating with high emissivity(Al, for instance) and perhaps with two layers, the need for heat removal is much smaller than in Earth conditions, where you may have to worry about conductive heat transfer much more. Sun can really be isolated thermally with reflective coating. TS. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Apr 87 11:49:58 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Another (and better) impossibility proof against Sky Hooks (space elevators) I've been watching the debate on sky hooks (space elevators) with some dismay. This is a concept that was proven impossible about 20 or 30 years ago. Proving the impossibility of a sky hook of uniform area, in a uniform gravitational field is a standard homework problem for a first year graduate structure's course. Dave Chassin has already proven impossibility of sky hooks with an exponential area function in a uniform gravitational field in his posting of Vol. 7, No. 178. I will now prove impossibility for a sky hook in a 1/r**2 gravity field with an area function of r**2. It so happens that this area function is analytic which is why I selected it. If someone can **prove** what the optimal area function is then I'd be glad to see it, and will perform the numerical calculation for it as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Skyhook Impossibility Proof for the r**2 Area Function ---------------------------------------------------------------------- let the area function be: A=As(Y/Ys)**2 equ(1) Where Y is the altitude, A is the sky hook cross section area at altitude Y, "As" is the cross section area at geosynchronous altitude, and Ys is the geosynchronous altitude. The ODE to be solved is: dF/dY = rh*mu*A/((R+Y)**2) equ(2) Where F is the force at altitude Y, rh is the density of the sky hook's material, mu is the gravitational parameter, R is the radius of the Earth Integrate equ(2) from Y=0 to Y=Ys and nondimensionalize the solution. The result is: K = ((1+x)/x)-((2/(x-1))*ln(x)) equ(3) Where the nondimensional parameter x is the ratio of the geosynchronous radius divided by the Earth radius: x=(Ys+R)/R equ(4) The nondimensional parameter K shall be called the "skyhook number". It is defined as: K=Ys*F/(rh*mu*As) This skyhook number must have a value greater than or equal to the value defined in equ(3), otherwise the structure will fail. The value for x is easily calculated and is x=6.6 . The limiting value for K is found by pluging x=6.6 into equ(3) giving K=0.47756 . We now calculate skyhook numbers for different materials: Steel: K = 7.98E-4 Kevlar: K = 8.66E-3 We observe that steel's skyhook number is three orders of magnitude smaller than the minimum allowed. Kevlar is two orders of magnitude smaller. Materials based on "whiskers" which are based on materials like silicon carbide and other diamond hard substances have skyhook numbers only slightly higher than Kevlar. We may treat 1E-2 optimisticly as the skyhook number upper bound. Noises about "nanotechnologies", "atomic bond materials", and similar twattle should be restricted to the SF-LOVERS newsgroup. There is no material in existance today or likely to come into existance that has a skyhook number of greater than K=0.47756. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 87 18:19:19 GMT From: tektronix!reed!psu-cs!omepd!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Howard A. Landman) Subject: Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations In article <1020@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: >As some of you might know I recently posted an article about the >absolute limit on the length of a cable. That was, for a non-varying >cross section, 2.7 miles. Here is the solution for the perfect cable >(one that only supports what is necessary): [derivation deleted] > A(x) = W/Ft.e**(r.x/Ft) plug in the values of > steel Ft=50000, r=.29 Steel? Excuse me while I barf! The important quality for such a cable is the ratio of tensile strength to density. Steel is just too heavy; this has been well known for decades; ever notice how people build airplanes out of titanium and so forth? For a somewhat realistic substance that we may be able to make in the near future, try monofilament diamond fiber. No, that's too exotic. How about graphite whiskers, which we already make? Substance Density Ultimate Strength --------- ------- ----------------- Steel 7.8 225,000 - 600,000 Graphite wh. 1.7-2.23 3,000,000 The strength to weight ratio of graphite is 17 to 61 times better than steel, depending on which numbers you choose above. Let's assume 40 times. That reduces your area by, let's see, 40 * e**40, I think? Is that practical yet? Copyright (c) 1987 Howard A. Landman. Transmission of this material constitutes permission from the intermediary to all recipients to freely retransmit the material within USENET. All other rights reserved. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 87 01:47:25 GMT From: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim@locus.ucla.edu (Tim Smith) Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet In article <1240@kolvi.UUCP> jku@kolvi.UUCP (Juha Kuusama) writes: >I admit knowing about nothing about spaceship building, but I do know >something about humans! >My bet is that even if we assume cooperation between nations, the >answer is either zero or all, and that means zero. Humans are >infinitely jealous. The rescued group is obviously limited. No project >as big as that can be completed in arised social situation. I think that the first step in a project to evacuate the earth would have to be to kill enough people to get the population down enough so that everyone remaining can leave. Then there wouldn't be a problem of jealousy over who gets to go and who has to stay. This raises interesting moral questions. Tim Smith ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 1987 16:44-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet I expect all of the soviet leadership and politically pure science and engineering personnel would escape on an series of Orion rockets. They could certainly be built in a year. No one from America would make it because they'd never get the environmental impact statement done in time. And even if they did, it would take years to legislate the appropriate affirmative action quotas for the ships. If everyone actually did cooperate, even the ones who weren't going, probably several millions could be lifted off in one year. AN Orion is DAMN EASY to build: just a lot of steel and a bunch of mini nukes. It's not high tech, it's brute force. Each ship can raise about 10KT(?) to escape velocity. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #201 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07898; Wed, 22 Apr 87 03:02:48 PDT id AA07898; Wed, 22 Apr 87 03:02:48 PDT Date: Wed, 22 Apr 87 03:02:48 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704221002.AA07898@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #202 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 22 Apr 87 03:02:48 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #202 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 202 Today's Topics: Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations Re: Another (and better) impossibility proof against Sky Hooks (space Tethered Satellite contract let Re: Emergency evacuation of planet Orion reference Re: Emergency evacuation of planet Re: Emergency evacuation of planet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Apr 87 04:31:18 GMT From: doug@ngp.utexas.edu (Doug Miller) Subject: Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations In article <1020@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: [...*excellent* articles on math of long cables, though he did use those pesky English units :-) ...] In article <544@cpocd2.UUCP>, howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes: > Steel? Excuse me while I barf! The important quality for such a cable [...explains that steel is bad, other things are better (I wouldn't know, personally)...] > No, that's too exotic. How about graphite whiskers, which we already make? > > Substance Density Ultimate Strength > --------- ------- ----------------- > Steel 7.8 225,000 - 600,000 > Graphite wh. 1.7-2.23 3,000,000 I'm guessing that the units you are using here are gm/cc for density and tensile strength in psi. Seems about right, though I don't understand where you got that "Ultimate Strength" for steel. > The strength to weight ratio of graphite is 17 to 61 times better than steel, > depending on which numbers you choose above. Let's assume 40 times. That > reduces your area by, let's see, 40 * e**40, I think? Is that practical yet? Curiously, no it isn't. Let's do the math. I'll assume everybody got Dave's article in which he derives the equations I am going to use. I looked at it myself quite closely, and I, for one, am convinced. A = area, T = tensile strength, r = density, g = 9.8 m/s^2, and geosynchronous orbit is x = 5.76E+7 meters (I got this from Dave's article, is it right?) I'll assume a one kilogram weight (ridiculously small) at the end of the cable. W = 1 Kg * (9.8 m/s^2). From Dave Chassin's article, W A = --- exp( r g x / T ) T Convert T = 3,000,000 psi to ~2.0E+10 N/m^2, and r = 1700 Kg/m^3 Now we just plug and chug: A = 4.9E-10 exp(1.7E+3*9.8*5.76E+7 / 2.0E+10) and blammo.... A = 4.9E-10 * 6.88E+20 m^2, hence A = 3.37E+11 m^2 That's about 3 x 10^5 Km^2, giving us a diameter of 656 Km, or just under 400 miles. You tell me whether or not this is practical. The mass of this object is not trivial either, though the integral to find it is (hope I did it right, someone is sure to point it out if I didn't. :-) A = A0 exp( a x ), where A0 = W/T = 4.9E-10 m^2, and a = r*g/T = 8.33E-7 m^(-1). /\ | Then integrating | r A dx = S[0,5.8E+7] (r*A0*exp(a*x)) (from 0 to | x = geosynchronous orbit) \/ S = pitiful integral sign we get a mass of about 6.9*10^20 Kg, which can comfortably be described as "hefty". A sphere of equal mass composed of graphite whiskers would be 550 miles across. Truly, an engineering exercise of astronomical proportions. We are talking about a doohickey 100,000 *times* more massive than a cube with each face as high as Mt. Everest. While I'd never dream of stepping down from the ivory tower of theory to the grubby world of practical considerations, I do think we've got a ways to go before building this sort of thing becomes commonplace. Doug Miller ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 87 11:16:09 GMT From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: Another (and better) impossibility proof against Sky Hooks (space In article <8704010951.AA26673@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > elevators) > > I've been watching the debate on sky hooks (space elevators) with some > dismay. This is a concept that was proven impossible about 20 or 30 > years ago. Have you a reference? > .... I will > now prove impossibility for a sky hook in a 1/r**2 gravity field with an > area function of r**2. > ... > let the area function be: A=As(Y/Ys)**2 equ(1) This IS the wrong function... why? Because a good design uses the proper amount of material for the job - so area (by design) should be proportional to force. > The ODE to be solved is: > > dF/dY = rh*mu*A/((R+Y)**2) equ(2) No it isn't. The earth turns, and that's why there IS such a thing as geosyncronous altitude. You have to add a centrifugal acceleration term. You get an equation of the form dF/dY = (rh*F/tensile.strength)*( mu/(R+Y)**2 - omega**2 *(R+Y)) amended equ(2) omega is Earth's rotation speed in radians per second. Multiply both sides by dY/F and integrate to geosync, and you get F.geo = F.surface * exp( (rh/tensile strength) * ( mu/Rs + 0.5*(omega*Rs)**2 - 1.5*(mu*omega)**(2/3) ) ) new equ(3) Again, by design, the area is proportional to the force, so we can plug in Earth numbers and get: Area.geo = Area.surface * exp( (rh* 9.8m/s2 * 4930Km /tensile.strength) ) new equ(4) defining support length as Ls == tensile.strength / ( density * 9.8 m/s2 ) new equ(5) we get Area.geo = Area.surface * exp( 4930Km / Ls ) new equ(6) Support length for Kevlar 49 is about 190 kilometers. (p.s. it's 3 am. please check my math!) ---- There is no "impossibility", though for materials that are now commercially available there is "impracticality" . Better materials are being worked on in the labs. I suspect Ls=1000 Km is likely to appear before the end of the century, which would result in a taper ratio of 140. As has already been mentioned, there are better structures than passive skyhooks. Such beasties could be built with presently available materials, but the simple skyhook still makes an interesting and revealing thought experiment. > Noises about "nanotechnologies", > "atomic bond materials", and similar twattle should be restricted > to the SF-LOVERS newsgroup. There is no material in existance today > or likely to come into existance that has a skyhook number of greater > than K=0.47756 . > Gary Allen Be careful about using the label "twattle" in the presence of other technical folk; some may be offended and demonstrate where the term really belongs, with damaged reputations resulting. Keith Lofstrom MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Apr 87 10:31:04 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Tethered Satellite contract let For those interested in space elevators: the press release just went out for the granting of the Tethered Satellite (A first step). The grant was given to a mixed team headed by Banks at Stanford. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 1987 13:58-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: scubed!sdcsvax!calmasd.GE.COM!jnp@seismo.css.gov (John Pantone) Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet Imagine a giant (>100m or maybe it was 500m?) spherical iron chamber with a hole in one end and a thick push plate on the other, with tons and tons of payload beyond it. Drop small nukes into the chamber at rapid intervals and time the to explode at the center of the chamber. A few Kt each. I'm sure Gary or Paul would have the exact sizes and yields handy. I don't have any papers on them because I was only about 9 or 10 when it was being talked about seriously. The only good rendering I ever saw was a color two page spread in Life magazine circa 1959-60. (Same picture showed an artists conception of a solar sail also, but that was pretty far off base) Small scale non nuclear tests of the Orion concept were done in the late fifties out in the desert. Just a few explosions, but it works. So I was told by someone who was there. And it goes like a bat out of hell. The project was killed by Kennedy because it was being done by the USAF at a time that JFK wanted to put a civilian face on space to counter balance his massive missile buildup. The build up was necessary because he had run for office on a phony missile gap, and had to do something. I think the soviets actually had about 0 ICBM's, but even given their secrecy, JFK knew they didn't have more than a hand full. Nonetheless, the choice was made for a massive deterence philosophy with arms control as an adjunct to answer soviet propaganda. The combination of the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty and the banning of weapons of mass destruction in space made orion untenable although not quite illegal. I seem to remember that the Soviets made sure that the use of nuclear explosions for geophysical and contruction purposes remained legal. And the charges used for an Orion are not necessarily legally weapons of mass destruction and more than any rocket. But I'd hate to try to convince the media of that... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Apr 87 16:03:06 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Orion reference bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa> >I saw your posting about Orion. I am interested in this, as it is the >ONLY existing technology that has any chance of getting us somewhere in >space in the near future. It is also the only technology that we have >for getting a lot of stuff up into low earth orbit quickly, although I >would only use it in an emergency, for obvious reasons. What issue of >Physics Today was Dyson's article in? Freeman Dyson, "Interstellar Transport", Physics Today, Oct., 1968. This is also, of course, the title starship of the book "The Starship and the Canoe" by Kenneth Brower (which is a book about George and Freeman Dyson, not a technical book); and is featured in "The Curve of Binding Energy" by John McPhee (which is a book about Ted Taylor, who wrote the article about bombs just refered to.) The Dyson article gives a few further technical references. There are not very many, unfortunately. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 87 05:23:50 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet In article <544388303.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Imagine a giant (>100m or maybe it was 500m?) spherical iron chamber >with a hole in one end and a thick push plate on the other, with tons >and tons of payload beyond it. Drop small nukes into the chamber at >rapid intervals and time the to explode at the center of the chamber. A >few Kt each.... Assuming this is supposed to be a description of the Orion spacecraft, it is partly correct. The pusher plate would be flat to hemispherical; there is no "spherical chamber" as such (although building a steel sphere to contain a small atomic explosion is perfectly feasible; that's one of the problems with verifying a nuclear test ban...) >The only good rendering I ever saw was a color two page spread in Life >magazine circa 1959-60. (Same picture showed an artists conception of >a solar sail also, but that was pretty far off base) That's rather remarkable, since the project was classified until 1964.... But I guess if Aviation Leak can do it, why not Life? >Small scale non nuclear tests of the Orion concept were done in the >late fifties out in the desert. Just a few explosions, but it works. So >I was told by someone who was there. And it goes like a bat out of >hell. >The project was killed by Kennedy because it was being done by the USAF >at a time that JFK wanted to put a civilian face on space to counter >balance his massive missile buildup. The build up was necessary because >he had run for office on a phony missile gap, and had to do something. >I think the soviets actually had about 0 ICBM's, but even given their >secrecy, JFK knew they didn't have more than a hand full. >Nonetheless, the choice was made for a massive deterence philosophy >with arms control as an adjunct to answer soviet propaganda. Whatever one may think of Kennedy's politics, it is unlikely that he personally killed Orion. Freeman Dyson has discussed the demise of Orion in print several times. By coincidence, I just yesterday came upon his first such discussion, in Science, 9 July 1965, V149 #3680 p.141, titled "Death of a Project". [By an even better coincidence, I found this article while looking up an article by Luis Alvarez on the true probabilities of unlikely "psychic" coincidences, like thinking of an old friend just before hearing from him -- or thinking of an old project just before finding an article about it :-) :-)] The article is too complex to summarize here, but basically he attributes the failure of Orion to its failure to find a constituency: it didn't fit into the plans/budget/mission of any powerful individual or group, so it was dropped. >combination of the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty and the banning of >weapons of mass destruction in space made orion untenable although not >quite illegal. >I seem to remember that the Soviets made sure that the use of nuclear >explosions for geophysical and contruction purposes remained legal. And >the charges used for an Orion are not necessarily legally weapons of >mass destruction and more than any rocket. But I'd hate to try to >convince the media of that... Actually, under the terms of the treaties involved both testing and flying an Orion spacecraft would almost certainly be strictly illegal. Not weapons of mass destruction? I'd hate to try to convince the Russians of that.... Treaties would naturally be irrelevant if we really _needed_ an Orion... Incidentally, Dyson has long since noted that, given that the fallout from an Orion (even an Orion starting in Earth orbit) would cause some small number of cancer deaths, it is perhaps just as well the project was cancelled. Alas... For the curious, Poul Anderson's book "Orion Shall Rise" involves a well-described Orion spacecraft, as does "Footfall" by Niven and Pournelle. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 87 02:10:46 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet > Given a catastrophic need, how many space ships could be built > and how many people could be evacuated from earth within the next > year? ... While you're at it, to grasp what we have lost, make the same evaluation for twenty years ago, when such a project could use the Saturn V. My first guess is that the correct answer for today is "none" and for twenty years ago is "maybe a handful". Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #202 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13378; Thu, 23 Apr 87 03:03:06 PDT id AA13378; Thu, 23 Apr 87 03:03:06 PDT Date: Thu, 23 Apr 87 03:03:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704231003.AA13378@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #203 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 23 Apr 87 03:03:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #203 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 203 Today's Topics: Space elevators may not be impossible (see the math, live!) The new superconductors and launching loops Re: Space elevators may not be impossible (see the math, live!) Re: The new superconductors and launching loops Re: Space elevators may not be impossible (see the math, live!) Space elevators (synchronous skyhooks), Final (?) equations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Apr 87 17:53:58 GMT From: doug@ngp.utexas.edu (Doug Miller) Subject: Space elevators may not be impossible (see the math, live!) SPACE CABLE PROBLEM, PART II: In Which I Eat Humble Pie, (But At Least I Cooked It Myself) Looks like I was a shade premature with my last posting. I was working under the assumption that gravitational attraction = constant, but for the space cable, that doesn't seem appropriate. What follows is a derivation with the inverse square law for gravity thrown in, and the results are surprising, to say the least. In fact, I'm not sure I believe them. Many thanks to Dave Chassin for pointing out some of my more bone-headed errors during our private correspondence, and to my girlfriend Debbie Callahan (Hi, Debbie!), who also caught some of my errors. A = minimum area, T = tensile strength, F = force on the cable, rho = density G M = grav const * earth mass = 4 *10^14 Newton-meters^2-Kg From the physics of the problem we get: rho G M A(r) dr A = F/T, and F = S[0,geosynch orbit] ---------------- ^ r^2 | integral sign differentiating both sides of both equations, dA/dr = (1/T) dF/dr, and dF/dr = rho G M A(r) / r^2 d A(r) w A(r) So, ----- = --------, where w = rho G M / T, for steel w = 9.83E+9 meters d r r^2 (rho = 8400 Kg/m^3 and T = 3.43E+8 N/m^2). The solution is A(r) = A0 exp( w [1/Ro - 1/r] ), where Ro = earth radius. It is clear that we need a boundary condition. At the earth's surface we pick the area we need to hold up some load. I'll pick a 1000 Kg object. Earth radius is 6.38*10^6 meters, so... A0 = A(6.38E6 m) and we know that the area we need is A = F/T = (1000 Kg * 9.8 m/s^2) / 3.43 * 10^8 Newtons/meter^2 = 2.85 * 10^(-5) m^2, so A0 = 2.85E-5 m^2. A(Rgeo) = A0 exp(w [1/Ro - 1/Rgeo]), which for steel gives A(Rgeo) = (2.85E-5 m^2 )*exp(9.83E+9 m * [1/6.38+6 m - 1/5.76E+7 m ]) Alas, A(Rgeo) ~ 10^563 m^2, which doesn't seem practical. But Howard Landman puts forth a material called graphite whiskers (I'd never heard of it before, but then this isn't my usual area). He tells us that it has a density of 1700 Kg/m^3 and a tensile strength 3,000,000 psi which gives T = 2*10^10 N/m^2. With this stuff we get very different numbers. Using the same 1000 Kg mass, the area at the earth is A(6.38E6 m) = F/T = 9800 N/ 2*10^10 N/m^2 = 4.8 *10^(-7) m^2 The w for this stuff is w = 3.4*10^7 m. From which we get an A(Rgeo) of A(Rgeo) = 4.8E-7 * exp(3.4E+7 m * [1/6.38E+6 m - 1/5.76E+7 m ]) = 5.8E-5 m^2 That's less than one square centimeter at the top. And that's as big as it ever gets, it tapers all the way down. The mass of the thing is *under* 6*10^6 Kg, which is not prohibitive (i.e., it is within the realm of reason to produce this much building material). Frankly, I don't know that I believe it. I'm not an engineer. What do y'all think? Please note that this does not cure any of the vibration problems, nor a plethora of other difficulties--it merely suggests that tensile strength may not be a limiting factor. If I've missed something here, I would greatly appreciate someone coming forward to set me straight. Doug Miller doug@ngp.utexas.edu ...ihnp4!ut-ngp!doug ------------------------------ Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA Subject: The new superconductors and launching loops File-Id: Munck.Office-AT.space.1619 Date: Fri, 03 Apr 87 16:52:30 EST From: Bob Munck In all the discussions of the possible uses of the new high-temp superconductors, I've seen no mention of the "launching loop" or "Lofstrom (sp?) loop" (haven't I seen traffic from someone with that name from Tektronics?). In case you don't know what I'm talking about (or I don't), I'll try to describe it: The loop is an iron or steel hoop approximately 2 cm thick, 10 cm wide, and 3000 km (NOT cm) in circumference. It's suspended magnetically in a narrow oval along the Equator and spun to a very high speed. The "U-turns" at each end of the oval are wide enough relative to the 2x10cm size of the hoop that flexing is insignificant. When the hoop gets up to a speed on the order of 8 kps (18,000 miles/hour), the east-bound side, with the assist of the Earth's rotation, is moving faster than orbital speed at that altitude. If part of it is not held down, it will rise (!) to the right orbital height for its velocity, possibly as high as LEO. We can now couple a payload magnetically to the loop at the western end such that it is accelerated along it and up into orbit. An orbital escalator! Sounds like a fine idea, A Mere Matter of Engineering that maybe would be a lot easier and cheaper with the new superconductors. Is there some "spoiler" or basic flaw in the concept that I haven't heard about? Maybe just too freaking much kinetic energy in that piece of iron to handle? If not, anyone interested in investing in the idea? -- Bob Munck ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 87 21:30:56 GMT From: doug@ngp.utexas.edu (Doug Miller) Subject: Re: Space elevators may not be impossible (see the math, live!) You just can't let some problems go, you know? I've been playing around with the mass function for the space cable. This is the latest version, in which the area of the cable as a function of height is A = A0 exp(w[1/Ro - 1/r]), Ro = earth radius, A0 = area of cable at earth's surface w = density G M / T The mass is then the integral of the area times the density times over the distance Ro to Rgeo, Rgeo being the 36000 miles to geosynchronous orbit (which I still haven't checked--36000 miles *is* the right number, isn't it?). It turns out that this must be done numerically (or at least *I* couldn't do it analytically :-) Mass = S[Ro,Rgeo] rho A0 exp ( w [1/Ro - 1/r]) We take A0 out of the integral for reasons that will be abundantly clear later. Using the value for w that one gets using the graphite whiskers first mentioned by Howard Landman, ( density = 1.7 gm/cc, T = 2E+10 N/m^2) we get w = 3.4E+7 meters. Doing the integral numerically for this value of w, we get Mass = A0 * 5.67*10^12 Kg/m^2. Think about that. The area at the bottom of the cable depends on how much mass you want to support, according to A = F/T. The mass increases only linearly with increased area, but the multiplication factor is six trillion. So, if you want to support a mass of 1000 Kg with the carbon whisker cable you only need about 3 million kilos of carbon whisker to do it, but if you want to hang something substantial on, like an elevator, well that is quite a different story. If we assume a mass that seems more reasonable to me, say that of a small ship, about 5000 tons, then we need billions of kilos of material. Is this still reasonable? What are modern production capacities? Any of you practical types know? Doug Miller doug@ngp.utexas.edu ...ihnp4!ut-ngp!doug ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 87 22:17:58 GMT From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: The new superconductors and launching loops Yes, I'm out here. Still grinding away on Launch Loop. Working on stability problems (mathematically) and position sensors (in the lab). Sure takes a while. Any polynomial mathematicians or control theory types out there with some spare time? Anyone have some 1 cm, .1% resolution-and-drift, 10 KHz non-contact position sensors. In case anyone is wondering what a Launch Loop is, find a copy of the December 1983 Analog magazine. A more mathematical description can be had by requesting such via Email (perhaps a couple of times, I lose things). ---- I considered superconductors for the turnaround magnets at the ends of the Loop, but a breached cooling system worries me far more than the energy loss in normal copper-wound magnets (25-100MW depending on the design). I would want to see a superconductor that stayed superconducting up to 100C or so, and I suspect we'll have to wait quite a while for that. There would be no major effect on system cost, unless the material turns out to be cheaper to use than copper. Most of the cost of the Loop is power switching systems (I need to switch on and off about 10GW in different places). Josephson devices are lousy power switches, which is why they are such dandy computer elements. They might be useful as sensors, but there's that dependence on cooling again. One other possibility that could easily use higher temperature superconductors is a power storage loop - a Launch Loop buried underground, storing energy from the electrical grid. Superconductors could make one of these VERY efficient and quite cheap. Since there will be cooling and other failures, it has to be buried hundreds of meters deep to contain the pieces when it breaks. Cheap superconducting magnets would allow this system to be scaled down, perhaps to the point that the tunneling becomes affordable (it isn't now). A similar scheme using a ring (darn physicists are always drawing circles) is being promoted by John Hull at Argonne Labs. Since his design requires a "rotor" cooled by paramagnetic cooling and black body radiation, a 10x improvement in temperature should yield a 10,000x improvement in ease of cooling. I imagine he is turning cartwheels these days. Well, back to the math. Anyone have some good guidelines for stabilizing a fourth order nonlinear differential equation with eight degrees of freedom, with real-world accuracy and digitizing constraints? I'd settle for inexpensive source for a good symbolic math program... Keith Lofstrom MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 87 07:31:28 GMT From: ubc-vision!van-bc!sl@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Stuart Lynne) Subject: Re: Space elevators may not be impossible (see the math, live!) In article <4948@ut-ngp.UUCP> doug@ut-ngp.UUCP (Doug Miller) writes: >trillion. So, if you want to support a mass of 1000 Kg with the carbon >whisker cable you only need about 3 million kilos of carbon whisker to do .... >reasonable to me, say that of a small ship, about 5000 tons, then we >need billions of kilos of material. Is this still reasonable? What are >modern production capacities? Any of you practical types know? There is no current north american source of flake graphite although there is a mine scheduled to open in Ontario later this year or early next year ('88). Projected production will be between 10,000 and 15,000 tons per year. Flake graphite sells for between $800 and $1200 US per ton. The current supplies come from Korea, Sri Lanka, Norway, China. Amorphous graphite production is quite a bit higher than flake, but I'm pretty sure that flake is what is used for material mentioned (carbon whiskers). All of these figures are off the top of my head, from a presentation I saw about a year and a half ago. If anyone is REALLY interested I can get more accurate ones, the company that owns the mine is based here in Vancouver. Stuart Lynne ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 87 06:21:01 GMT From: pyramid!amdahl!ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@decwrl.dec.com (Russ Cage) Subject: Space elevators (synchronous skyhooks), Final (?) equations In message <1020@rpics.RPI.EDU>, chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: [comments about previous post deleted] > We have two equations: > >(1) A(x) = (W + W(x))/Ft where A(x) is the area function >W is the load we wish to carry, W(x) is the weight of the cable function >Ft is the yield stress > and >(2) W(x) = S[0,x] rA(x)dx where r is the density of the cable >S is a pityful impersonation of an integral >so integrating (1) and (2) we get >(3) dA/dx = 1/Ft dW/dx >(4) dW/dx = rA(x) >juggle (3) and (4) and we get > A(x) = A(0)e**(r.x/Ft) where A(0) = W/Ft Okay, Dave, I have some arguments with your analysis. To wit: 1.) You assume that the weight/mass ratio (acceleration) is constant. It is not; the equation for the radial acceleration of a point suspended in a 24-hour orbit decreases with increasing radius, according to this formula (r = kilometers, a = m/sec): a = -4.02e8 * (r^-2) + 5.29e-6 * r. (coefficients approximate) The inverse-squared component is gravitational, while the proportional-to-radius component is the omega-squared-r centrifugal force from the rotation of the skyhook. If you fill in r = 4.23e4 km (6400 km radius of earth plus 22,300 miles * 1.609 km/mile), you get approximately zero radial acceleration (a geosynchronous orbit). You have to use this formula in your exponential, not your constant weight figure. Notice that this complicates the computations considerably! The rest of your computations go into the garbage after this, so I'll fill in with my own later. But first, about materials: >I think this sufficiently prooves the impossibilty of such a cable. I >would also add that Kevlar is not a better choice for two reasons. >First it is heavier for its yield stress (Lmax=.79 miles; steel >Lmax=2.7miles) Second elasticity is a SEVERE problem. If you think >vibration due to the coriolis force is a problem try elastic >oscillations. Even in steel they're severe at any great length (this is >what limits bridge span among other things). I think you're using the same density for Kevlar as for steel. This is *emphatically* not the case! Here's a table of strengths and densities for you. I don't have any figures for strength of graphite fibers handy, so I'm going to assume that they have the same relationship to whisker strengths that steel wire does to iron whisker strengths. I have no figures for Kevlar, unfortunately. All figures are from the CRC "Handbook of tables for Applied Engineering Science", 2nd ed, page 182, hacked to MKS units for convenience. Material Ultimate strength, Density, N/m^2 kg/m^3 Cr 0.18 stainless 1.24e9 7.8e3 steel, heat-treated High-carbon steel, 4.14e9 7.8e3 fine wire Graphite fiber 6.90e9 1.4e3 Graphite whisker 2.07e10 1.4e3 Note that graphite fiber is stronger than the strongest steel wire, at less than one-fifth the mass. This changes the ratios *a lot*. Untapered rods of the above materials, under 9.81 m/sec^2 acceleration, can support these lengths: steel, 1.62e4 meters (10 miles), steel wire, 5.41e4 meters (33.6 miles), graphite fiber, 5.02e5 meters (312 miles), graphite whisker, 1.51e6 meters (937 miles). This length is equal to strength/(density*acceleration). Your comment about oscillations only applies to structures which are poorly damped and exist in a fluid flow. Presumably we can damp oscillations against the earth's magnetic field or in some other manner (moor the bottom end to a buoy and use viscous damping, or even active damping). In any case, only the first ten miles or so have problems with wind oscillations. Coriolis acceleration is only a problem if the cargo mass moving up and down is both large and not symmetrical. This can be avoided. Back to the math... The required area of the cable at any point is equal to the force transmitted divided by the working strength of the cable. Assuming that we're using some working strength Sw for the cable, we get: A(x) = F(x) / Sw where Sw is the working strength of the cable, A(x) is the area function, and F(x) is the force (tension) function. dF = A(x) * Acc(x) * D where Acc(x) is the acceleration function above, and D is density of the cable. Combining terms, we get: dF = (D/Sw) * F(x) * Acc(x) Dividing by F(x), we get: dF/F = (D/Sw) * Acc(x) Integrating both sides... ln F = (D/Sw) * (-4.08e14/r - 2.65e-9*r^2) + C, or (using Iacc as shorthand for the integrated Acc function) F = K * exp([D/Sw] * [Iacc(r) - Iacc(r0)]) Basically, this means that the ratio of forces (and cable diameters between the ends) is proportional to the exponential of the integral of the acceleration times distance over the cable length, and that the ratio is also proportional to the exponential of the density to strength ratio (double the density and the ratio *squares*). In this equation, K neatly becomes F(r0), and we're off. Okay, we can plug in some numbers. For the range of r from the surface of the earth (6400 km) to geosync (42,300 km) the integral of Acc is 4.95e7 m^2/sec^2. Using a working strength of 80% of the ultimate strength for our materials, the ratios are: Material Ultimate Density, Area strength, N/m^2 kg/m^3 ratio Cr 0.18 stainless 1.24e9 7.8e3 1.08e169 steel, heat-treated High-carbon steel, 4.14e9 7.8e3 4.25e50 fine wire Graphite fiber 6.90e9 1.4e3 283000. Graphite whisker 2.07e10 1.4e3 65.7 Note that things which are utterly impossible with steel, even with the strongest steel wire, become child's play with materials as strong and light as graphite whisker. Even graphite fibers, at a working strength of 800,000 psi, may be marginally practical, and our labs can make these *today*; what will tomorrow bring? If the cable is designed for a tension of ten thousand tons (approx. 1e8 newtons) at the bottom and is made of graphite fiber, it would have an area of 1.81e-2 square meters at the bottom (181 square centimeters) and an area of 5,120 square meters at the top (about 72 meters square). Such a cable could support many 2-ton elevators crawling up and down, carrying passengers and cargo. All we need is the ability to make enough strong fibers, and we can build it. But we must be in orbit *first*, because this thing has to be built in space! For rotating skyhooks, the integral of acceleration over length is much smaller than for synchronous skyhooks, and the ratio of areas is also much smaller. (I guess I should mention here that I worked this up in an evening, that I love working with things space-related, and that I'm looking for a job in the field if I can find one to replace my current consulting. I'm designing an OTRAG-like el cheapo booster as a mind-stretcher. Anyone out there need a computer-physics-rocket buff?) >chassin@csv.rpi.edu | Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #203 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15439; Fri, 24 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT id AA15439; Fri, 24 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT Date: Fri, 24 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704241002.AA15439@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #204 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 24 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #204 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 204 Today's Topics: RAM accelerator Re: RAM accelerator Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble Re: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations Colonizing space/environmentalism ELV companies Re: RAM accelerator Re: The new superconductors and launching loops Hollow tubes for space elevators An additional proof that bulk antimatter storage is impossible Re: An additional proof that bulk antimatter storage is impossible ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 87 18:51:35 PDT From: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: RAM accelerator I attended a very interesting seminar this morning given by Abraham Hertzberg from the University of Washington at Seattle. He reported on the results of a relatively small scale research program exploring the properties of a ramjet-in-a-tube concept. The basic idea is to inject a projectile the shape of a normal air breathing ramjet core into a tube filled with a premixed gaseous fuel and oxidizer mixture. The tube acts as the ramjet cowling and the projectile and burn region travel together down the tube with nearly uniform acceleration. He has obtained experimental results in which a 75 gram hollow, aluminum projectile about 1" by 3" in size was accelerated from about 1 km/s to 2 km/s. They have achieved excellent agreement between measured and calculated performance. He claimed to be working on a modification that would allow supersonic combustion. It would be most interesting to see how this work progresses. Is anyone from UW on the net and able to keep the space digest apprised of progress there? Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 87 22:48:04 GMT From: imagen!auspyr!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: RAM accelerator In article <8704090151.AA04770@galileo.s1.gov>, ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes: > The basic idea is to inject a projectile the shape of a normal air > breathing ramjet core into a tube filled with a premixed gaseous fuel > and oxidizer mixture. The tube acts as the ramjet cowling and the > projectile and burn region travel together down the tube with nearly > uniform acceleration. Anyone read The Inventions of Daedalus (or perhaps see the original in The New Scientist?). This seems to match exactly one of his inventions. david rickel decwrl!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 87 04:10:15 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!looking!brad@seismo.css.gov Subject: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble I don't think the math on the cables is all that important. None of these cables are very strong when it comes to stress perpendicular to their axis. A space elevator, stationary wrt the Earth, would eventually be smashed into by almost EVERY BODY IN ORBIT. The only things that wouldn't hit it would be satellites with precisely timed orbital precessions. Some would take a while, some would be soon. One would be enough. Could we really clear all of space from 26,000 miles on down? (geosynchronous orbit would be OK, that would not hit) Would we want to? It might be worth giving up all satellites for a space tower, but it's a tough call. What if we miss something? How big does it have to be? What about new bodies, specks of sand, captured by the Earth? You can't just blast with a fancy laser. Momentum remains the same. You can't blow them up. Each body would have to be diverted away from the Earth or into the atmosphere. It's an old SF cliche, but what about meteors? Hit kevlar laterally at 30 miles/second with a tiny pebble and what happens? Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 87 17:20:20 GMT From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble In article <776@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP writes: > ... > A space elevator, stationary wrt the Earth, would eventually be smashed > into by almost EVERY BODY IN ORBIT. The only things that wouldn't hit > it would be satellites with precisely timed orbital precessions. If you know where the satellite is, you "simply" give the ground end of the cable a shake to the side at the appropriate time. A large ripple propagates up the cable and passes the collision point at the same time the satellite does; that is, the cable moves aside. If this is done slowly enough, the payloads won't shake off the cable. The cable is tapered, and lossy, and over long distances a dispersive medium; well, this is a "mere engineering detail" as physicists are wont to say when the answers get messy. > ... > It's an old SF cliche, but what about meteors? Hit kevlar laterally > at 30 miles/second with a tiny pebble and what happens? This is what "meteor bumpers" are for; say an outer covering a millimeter thick, about 3 centimeters away from the load-bearing cable. The meteor hits the outer covering, punches a hole, and vaporizes. Yes, the vapor is still moving, but the momentum is negligable. Meteor bumpers are used on some present-day satellites. Again, I don't think the space elevator cable concept will be used because I think there are better ways to do the job. Nonetheless, certain problems with skyhooks do have semi-plausible solutions. The solutions, which may have application to something more practical, are a good justification for thinking about things like this. Keith Lofstrom MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 87 18:13:06 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations > ... A hollow pipe has more vertical strength (so I am told) than a > solid rod, assuming the same amount of material per unit length is > used for each. If this is really the case, I think it would also > allow us to sustain longer elevators... This is an accident of the properties of some materials, not a fundamental fact of physics. Things like steel are generally stronger at their surfaces than in bulk, so maximizing surface maximizes strength. (For the same reason, steel wire is much the strongest form of steel.) The structural material for a space elevator is likely to be thin filaments anyway, so the gross shape of the composite made from it probably won't be much of a consideration. "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Apr 87 19:30:29 SA From: Tero Siili Subject: Colonizing space/environmentalism Someone commented on the desirability of space colonization, so that we can leave Earth alone. Nice thought, but it just may be oversimplified: space colonization - even start of - may require too much of Earths resources to fulfill the aim, you're talking about. TS ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 87 06:36:48 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: ELV companies As a result of a discussion last night, I have become interested in the companies that are pushing private commercial launches. Who are the major companies these days who are preparing for private launches, are they public or private corporations, where can I find out more about them, etc.? How close are some of them to launching? Five years? Ten? --Rod ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 87 17:44:00 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!silver!seiffert@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: RAM accelerator Anyone read The Inventions of Daedalus (or perhaps see the original in The New Scientist?). This seems to match exactly one of his inventions. david rickel ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 87 19:54:14 GMT From: ulysses!gamma!mb2c!edsdrd!edstb!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: The new superconductors and launching loops In article <9943.544485150@mbunix> munck@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (Bob Munck) writes: [describes launch loops] >Is there some "spoiler" or basic flaw in the concept that I haven't >heard about? Maybe just too freaking much kinetic energy in that piece >of iron to handle? If not, anyone interested in investing in the idea? As I understand it, the difficulty with launch loops isn't the kinetic energy, it's the stability of the system. In order to stabilize the loop against "kink" instabilities, the loop tension must be very high; enough to hold it down to earth, in other words. Active stabilization may work, but I've heard that we can't do it yet. This only applies to the guided portions of a loop, which are the portions in which the ribbon is held to a track. However, such sections are required for the runs up and down through the atmosphere (sigh). The 2000-mile in-space run could be trackless, but being able to aim the ribbon at the target bending magnet, 2000 miles away, with an inch or so of error, doesn't seem like it's any more tractable a problem than stabilizing a track-borne ribbon. Jacob's ladders and skyrails appear to have the same or similar difficulties. <> Russ Cage ------------------------------ Date: 15 Apr 87 18:51:31 GMT From: itsgw!csmbox!rpics!chassin@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Dave Chassin) Subject: Hollow tubes for space elevators Someone recently posted a response saying that hollow tubes are stronger than solids. Since we were discussion a tension member I must remind people that this is not true. It is true that hollow tubes are stronger than bulk members (for equal material) when we are discussing compression, bending, or torsion members because these involve the moment of inertia (the geometry) of the member. The strength of a tension member is not affected in any really important way by the shape of the member, only the cross sectional area. David P. Chassin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Apr 87 12:39:35 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: An additional proof that bulk antimatter storage is impossible In Vol. 7, No.182 Geoffrey A. Landis responded to my early treatment on the impossiblity of antimatter storage. Geoffrey checked and verified my eariler calculation (thanks Geoffrey) and made the interesting observation that tungsten outgasses at about 1 atom/universe. In my Gedanken experiment I used diamond which has an even lower outgassing rate than tungsten (check a CRC handbook if you don't believe me). However one should remember that these low rates are only true if the diamond or tungsten is cold. Local heating due to an antimatter reaction will liberate more atoms. Both tungsten and carbon will vaporize if you throw enough heat at it. Also we don't really know what the partial pressure of tungsten is at 1 deg. Kelvin. Current vacuum measuring techniques are limited to pressures many orders of magnitude higher than what we are talking about. It is quite possible that quantum limits place minimum tungsten partial pressures at above the 1.0E3 value that I mentioned. However this is a lame response to Geoffrey's point. I shall demonstrate that a perfect vacuum is impossible in a fuel tank based on a cosmic ray argument. Cosmic rays because of their energies are almost impossible to shield against in a space ship. Cosmic ray intensities on the surface of the Earth are 45E-3 Rad/year. Assume a cylindrical fuel storage tank made of tungsten that has a diameter of 2 meters, a height of 1 meter, and walls 1 mm thick. Assume that only singly charged particles are produced by a cosmic ray interacting with the container. By knocking off one electron, the cosmic rays will produce 3.81E12 ions/day. Assume that only 1% of the ions escape the tank's walls and half go in and half go out. The flux of ions going in is 1.91E10 ions/day. However the number of particles necessary to fill the conatiner with a gas density 1.0D3 particles/cc is 3.14E9 particles. Therefore the container will reach this gas density starting from a pure vacuum in a little less than 4 hours. At that point my earlier calculation showing antihydrogen melting and storage failure could be employed. The conclusion stands: Antimatter storage is impossible. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 87 19:52:49 GMT From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Wayne Throop) Subject: Re: An additional proof that bulk antimatter storage is impossible > ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET (Gary Allen) > [...cosmic rays impact containment vessel, generating ions...] > [...] the number of particles necessary to fill > the conatiner with a gas density 1.0D3 particles/cc is 3.14E9 particles. > Therefore the container will reach this gas density starting from a > pure vacuum in a little less than 4 hours. At that point my earlier > calculation showing antihydrogen melting and storage failure could be > employed. The conclusion stands: Antimatter storage is impossible. Far be it from me to claim that antimatter storage is just a SMOE at this point. But surely everyone caught the flaw in this "proof"? We are assuming that we are all sitting around on our metaphorical thumbs while the gass pressure in the containment is building up until... BLOOIE. So, an ionized plasma is building up on there, right? Well, we are already granting technology to reach "perfect vacuum" (or, perfect enough), right? The limiting factor is thus how fast we can pump the plasma out (with magnetic fields or whatnot, handwave, handwave). Again, I stress that I am NOT claiming that it IS possible. Just that this rather odd scenario where we pump out the container, put the antimatter in there, and then just put our pump away and watch the pressure climb until all our hard work is lost, doesn't "prove" diddly. Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #204 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17141; Sat, 25 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT id AA17141; Sat, 25 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT Date: Sat, 25 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704251002.AA17141@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #205 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 25 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #205 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 205 Today's Topics: Comments re antimatter propulsion Is Antihydrogen Stable? Re: Kaon Oscillations, Black Holes Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 05 Apr 87 14:40:39 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Comments re antimatter propulsion cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu > >> A combination of a long ship and shadow shielding can get the >>mass down to where it's manageable. >Down to where it's manageable? Hahaha. Now *why* is this man laughing? I don't know. The proposal I saw was for a ship with the engines in front, pulling the crew compartment on a kilometers-long tether (engines appropriately angled so that the exhaust doesn't impact the crew compartment, of course) With this geometry, a very small shield close to the engines can shield a very large area of ship. >> I've seen a properly-shielded >>proposal for an antimatter-powered ship capable of 90+% of the speed of >>light. >Why do I hear people throw off .9c without blinking? Grr, it worries >me. You say this ship is capable of .9c? Do you know what this >entails? Have you done the physics? .9 c seems a little high for practical ships. The mass ratios get excessive, and the acceleration times very long. And yes, I have done the physics. >(For the lazy, just look it up in >J Ackeret "Zur Theorie der Raketen" Helv Phys Acta 19:103 (1946)) there are better places to look if you want to find it in English, although very few with all of the equations in the same place. See the references in my recent posting on starflight. >In units where c=1, to obtain final velocity v, assuming utter >perfection energy-wise, the ratio of payload to entire ship is >sqrt((1-v)/(1+v)). Assuming one wants to decelerate back to zero at the >end, one must square this quantity. This gives 5.26%. I figure the mass ratio for apollo is about 5000, so the ratio of 19 you calculate here doesn't seem too improbable. Of course this is a ratio of 19:1 where the 19 consists of 50% *antimatter*, which is a lot harder to hold in tanks than liquid hydrogen... >travelling at constant acceleration a, the distance travelled is >(cosh(aT)-1)/a). (T here is proper time...) Your note made it sound as if in some cases you were considering travelling at a constant 1g--ie, no coast time between accellerating and decellerating--note that this is a very very inefficient use of mass ratio. >If fraction eff of emitted energy is useful, and the rest is just dumped >(this includes inefficiencies and stage separations, etc), we must raise >this ratio to the 1/eff power... >... payload ratio becomes .00004% for eff=.2, and .000000000016% for >eff=.1. Frankly, I think anyone seriously expecting eff>>.2 to be >achieved is a raving lunatic. Efficiency for an antiproton propulsion drive should be 66.7%. Antiprotons annihilate into pions with essentially equal probability of pi plus, minus, and zero (this is not obvious, but it is true); the pi plus and pi minus can be channelled by magnetic fields. (Due to time dilation, their lifetimes are long enough to do this.) I don't know if there is a good reason to expect other losses to lower the efficiencies, about the only other loss I can think of is leaky magnetic nozzles or partially unburned antimatter. I think both of these losses should be able to be kept low. >Now, if one were planning to return .... Yes, the mass ratio squares again. There is a BIG problem if you want to carry fuel to get back, and I think it unlikely that you will be able to make an antimatter factory at the destination. For the forseeable technology, star travel must be one way. >One is going to have to practically *crawl* through the Oort cloud. The word "Cloud" is a misnomer. If you define one "solar system volume" as the volume of space contained in a sphere with a radius of the sun-pluto distance, the density of comets in the Oort "Cloud" is on the order of one per solar system volume. One would be unlikely to hit one. >Note that I don't think interstellar travel is impossible. Just a lot >harder and far more expensive than I think most of you want to realize. I agree with this >Nothing less than planetoid-sized and extraordinarily slow arks seems >feasible according to known physics. But not with this. 0.1 to 0.3 c seems feasable; this is not "extraordinarily slow". >>suggestion that at really low temperatures--like 0.0001 K--antimatter >>could be handled with normal matter, because the wave functions don't >>overlap enough to produce a reaction. I'm not enough of a physicist to >>check that one. >I'm not enough either, but it sure sounds like wishful thinking. This seems unlikely to me, too; there is no Pauli exclusion principle to repel, and all the ordinary forces (correlation energy, electrostatic, van der Waals) are attractive. I've seen this speculation promulgated by somebody at Brookhaven who ought to know better, but I still think it's pretty damn unlikely. I've also heard the speculation that it may be possible to store antihydrogen in crystals. This seems more likely; many=body effects allow both positive and negative potential minima in crystals. To prevent the positrons from annihilating, you'd have to use ionized antiprotons, not antihydrogen. I still think electrostatic containment sounds simpler. >> The studies funded by outfits like the USAF have concluded >>that storing the stuff is not an insuperable problem; low temperatures, >>hard vacuum, and handling by magnetic or electric fields will suffice. >Someone should tell the physics community! The physics community is aware. >> the proton-antiproton reaction does *not* yield >>gammas immediately. >But does this make a difference? Yes. Gammas are uncharged and cannot be channelled by magnetic fields. Charged pions can be. >> A large fraction of the energy is temporarily in the >>form of charged particles, which a magnetic nozzle can handle. >A "magnetic nozzle"? Now what is that? And how can it handle reaction >times on the order of 1e-23 to 1e-10 seconds? (You did say Where did these numbers come from? Lifetime of a charged pion (which is the reaction product of proton-antiproton annihilation) is about 25 nanoseconds, increasing to 70 ns due to relativistic effects (they are produced at high energy) >"temporarily"?) And just how does it aim a mixture of positive and >negative particles of various masses and momenta in the same direction? A magnetic nozzle is a magnetic mirror such as has been proposed for fusion reactors, essentially a configuration of magnetic field such that the field density is higher in the direction where you don't want the particles to go. Since charged particles' trajectories curve in a magnetic field, regardless of whether they are plus or minus, they are reflected back the way they came from. Since this has a lower field density, the particles can exit. >Yes indeed, this sounds like a classic way to revolutionize all of >modern high energy physics. Perhaps they should tell someone.... I don't understand your comment. This is the stuff plasma physicists deal with every day. >> Please read some of the work that >> has been done before denouncing it as impossible. A good reference is R. Forward, "Antiproton Annihilation Propulsion", in _Journal of Propulsion, 1:5, Sept-Oct 1985, page 370. >Note that I don't think the storage of vast amounts of antihydrogen is >impossible. Just very very difficult, with nothing exotic about it >either. Agreed. >Humph. I've got a much more practical suggestion for getting to the >stars. First, find a good-sized black hole (say this big --->> . <---) Black holes do, in fact, produce energy very efficiently. But they may be even harder to handle than antimatter. In particular, very small black holes emitting Hawking radiation have cross sections too small to be efficiently "fed" matter to keep the things from blowing up. If I get some time I'll see if your derivations are any different from mine; I'm a bit swamped at the moment. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Apr 87 09:18:58 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Is Antihydrogen Stable? > is it "reasonable" to say that the chemistry of antihydrogen will be > just like hydrogen's? Probably, but I can imagine charge conjugation > symmetry violations that show up and effect the long term stability of > antihydrogen. Yes, it is reasonable. Keep in mind that antimatter is *NOT* something new that has been recently discovered--the positron was discovered over fifty years ago. Many experiments have been done. There are very very stringent limits on how much the electromagnetic interaction can violate parity, and the amount is *small*. Atoms are only affected by the electromagnetic interaction. Even the "strong" interaction is too short range to have any effect on atomic stability, and that is parity invariant too. The weak interaction is the only one that does not conserve parity, and it is very very very weak, and short range. Also, note that CPT invariance says that an antihydrogen is like looking at a hydrogen in a mirror and playing the videotape backwards (with the charges labelled backwards too). If you try this, you will find that the hydrogen atom is still stable viewed in the mirror. CPT invariance is very fundamental. It's hard to believe that it would be grossly violated by something as simple as an antiproton plus a positron. >In other words, a lot of basic research is going to be needed when Right >we start investigating antimatter in detail, and much of it is going to >confirm the expected, but little kinks will have to be looked for. Yes. but unlikely something as dramatic as this. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 87 15:13:35 GMT From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: Kaon Oscillations, Black Holes >>> perhaps there are contributions from quantum gravity that >>>might cause antimatter to experience a stronger attraction to the earth >>>than normal matter (this will be tested soon at CERN). [Paul F Dietz] >>To date, this has been best tested within the K0-anti-K0 system, [me] >I don't understand. Why should the neutral kaon system test for baryon >number dependent forces? [...] [PFD] Huh? You were discussing possible gravitational differences between matter and antimatter, and so was I. Yes? >>[stuff about black hole powered propulsion] >No, because of [...] That was a joke, son. Honest. "That's what particles and fields are all about. Dum dee dum.... here come's the Brahms gang..." +-----------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Matthew P Wiener, President (415) xxx-none | BLACK HOLE PROPULSION | Brahms Gang, UnLtd.; Berkeley, CA 94720 | this | | ucbvax!brahms!weemba weemba@brahms.Berkeley.EDU | decade | +-----------------------------------------------------+--------+ ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 87 19:38:03 GMT From: tektronix!tekgen!tekigm2!dand@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Duval) Subject: Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion In article <8704061043.AA07702@angband.s1.gov>, usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (USENET News Administration) writes: > ... The following are the basis for my > position that 50 light years is the upper bound for interstellar travel: > > 1) The surface of a sphere grows as r**2 while the volume grows as r**3. > 2) Because of the speed-of-light limitation, star travel is expensive > and travel time from one star to another takes about a century. > 3) Worlds producing starships will eventually be insulated from the > frontier by nearer colony worlds created through earlier star missions. > 5) The home worlds will change significantly as the radius of > colonization expands. For the sake of keeping this under ten thousand words/lines/pages, I'll grant you these. 1-3 are physical laws, 5 is intuitively clear (stagnant civilizations die.) > 4) Star travel will be ideologically motivated and will provide no > economic return. This may or may not be true. Citing an example: In the 1830s and 1840s, Texas was not producing huge herds of cattle for sale to end up as steaks in the East, because of the transportation problem. When the railroads reached the towns of Kansas (places such as Wichita, Dodge City, and the like), suddenly there was a market for beef on the hoof in Kansas, so herds of cattle were built up, driven to Kansas, and sold to brokers who used the trains to get beef to the East for sale. This particular segment of the economy didn't really exist until the transportation system existed (Granted, there was some beef moved by sea, but never of the magnitude of the cattle baron days.) Suddenly coming to mind is yet a better example. In the Dark Ages, food was bland. Local herbs provided the only means to add a bit of spice to food. Part of the rise of cities during the period 1200 to 1450 came about due to the spice trade through the Near East. Here were some commodities never before seen in Europe which suddenly became the way to become rich. Again, due to a transportation link that didn't exist before. Now I can't claim that there will be some wonder beyond the next star that will be so valuable that even the expense and time of fractional-light travel is reasonable, but then did anyone in Europe expect the spice trade? Or the tea trade? Or maybe someone in New York anticipating the cattle boom? If Terra were the only planet in the universe with anything interesting on it, I'd be happy to grant you this point, but I haven't yet run across anyone who can make that claim with any credibility. The thing is that we don't know. Economics can be real funny, such as when IBM can set a world standard based on something as brain-damaged as an 8086 (yep, I stepped in it there. Send flames to me; I'll ignore 'em.) > Please do not waste my time and other reader's time with boring > sermons about Christopher Columbus. The Santa Maria didn't cost a > trillion dollars nor did it take a century to get to a America. If > someone can come up with a counter-argument recognizing the above five > points then the discussion will be worthwhile. > Gary Allen Don't poo-poo Columbus. A trillion pounds sterling today is the entire wealth of some small nations. A trillion pounds in 1492 was many times the entire wealth of the planet. Value is relative. At a modest inflation rate, a trillion dollars will not quite buy a loaf of bread in a thousand years. If you recall, there is a non-trivial portion of our government that is seriously talking about spending a trillion dollars on a space defense system. That's merely one nation of many on the Earth (though it is one of the richer ones.) And the several month voyage across the Atlantic was many times longer than any of those crews had ever been out of the sight of land before. All this stuff is relative. Sending a message to Australia should take no longer than a few seconds today; a century ago it was a four month sail from the West Coast. Relative worth is hard to predict into the future. Anyone want to buy an Edsel? Dan C Duval ISI Engineering Tektronix, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 87 19:34:37 GMT From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Clayton Cramer) Subject: Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion > Suddenly coming to mind is yet a better example. In the Dark Ages, food was > bland. Local herbs provided the only means to add a bit of spice to food. > Part of the rise of cities during the period 1200 to 1450 came about due to > the spice trade through the Near East. Here were some commodities never before > seen in Europe which suddenly became the way to become rich. Again, due to > a transportation link that didn't exist before. I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on this. The transportation link did exist before -- the Crusades created an awareness of commodities (like spices) that weren't previously known. The transportation systems improved in response to a commercial need to have such a link. Once again, war, for all its evils, had some positive benefits. Clayton E. Cramer ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #205 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18430; Sun, 26 Apr 87 03:02:44 PDT id AA18430; Sun, 26 Apr 87 03:02:44 PDT Date: Sun, 26 Apr 87 03:02:44 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704261002.AA18430@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #206 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 206 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #188 50 L.Y. limit?? Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Apr 1987 22:32-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #188 Gary Allen has stated five assumptions. I don't agree that they are all valid, but even if they are it doesn't matter. We still fill the galaxy in a finite time. The equations I have included are to indicate the general direction of a more formal enquiry and are not intended to be the last word. They simply make it easier for me to state my arguments. 1) The surface of a sphere grows as r**2 while the volume grows as r**3. This presumably means that the number of starships in existance at any given t is bounded by a lower limit of: kr^2 where k is the number of starships built per unit surface area per 'generation'. If we assume that generation ships are not discarded but are always reused and none are ever destroyed (it takes a lot to destroy or cause the discarding of a several kilometer diameter vessel worth the proposed large portion of a GNP) then the number is more like: kr(t0)^2 + kr(t1)^2 + .. + kr(tn)^2 where tn is the generation. This assumes that a world never produces another starship again, even after 500 years and a brand new culture takes over. A more likely scenario, given Gary's very high costs per unit, is that worlds build starships at a relatively low constant rate over time. Perhaps they build 3 and then no more for 500 or 1000 years. So we say that every world turns out 3 starships/1000 years. Too many? Make it 3/10000 years then. Doesn't matter much to me. We still have the number of starships at any given time as at least: k1 * r^3 Where k1 is the number of starships produced per unit volume per generation. k1 * r(t0)^3 + k1 * r(t1)^3 + ... k1 * r(tn)^3 Is the upper bound to the number of starships existing at generation n. If we are going to propose a limit of 50 light years, we must propose a means for getting rid of an awful lot of very big ships; ie we must propose a consumer process that grows faster than the producer process. I have seen no such process described. 2) Because of the speed-of-light limitation, star travel is expensive and travel time from one star to another takes about a century. The assumption is not too unreasonable except for the expense part. I'm not sure that a culture of 1000 years from now will consider the building of one of these vessals to be a significant expense. And once built the ship is by necessity self supporting. The cost to operate is zero to the builders once it has fired it's engines for the outward trip, particularly if it uses a fuel technology that allows the ship to refuel from a convenient comet, asteroid, ice moon or atmosphere of a gas giant. 3) Worlds producing starships will eventually be insulated from the frontier by nearer colony worlds created through earlier star missions. True. And if star travel is as Gary says, every millenium or so, the new civilization on each planet will dream of ancient glories and do it all over again, assuming there is no handy ship hanging around from the last visit someone paid. There will be a slow but continuous creation of ships in the interior worlds which will diffuse outwards via brownian motion. 4) Star travel will be ideologically motivated and will provide no economic return. Even if true it is irrelevant. Any given world will have the appropriate ideology once every few thousand or tens of thousands of years. 5) The home worlds will change significantly as the radius of colonization expands. They will change, decay, rebuild, forget. After a few thousand years most of them won't even know where the 'center' is. I agree that as time goes on there will be more and more ships travelling within the existing volume. But a few of the thousands or millions of ships are bound to head outwards and that is all it takes to guarantee we will eventually fill the galaxy. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Apr 87 04:37:11 PDT X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 April 09 03:33:29 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: 50 L.Y. limit?? Date: Mon, 06 Apr 87 11:40:45 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion I'm going to give the 50 light year limit argument one more try ... 1) The surface of a sphere grows as r**2 while the volume grows as r**3. Yes, but that's moot for your question because the subsequent starships come not from the center but from the edge. Fact #1 does mean that we have a "fairy ring" effect, the center is dead, only the frontier is alive, after sufficient time has elapsed. 2) Because of the speed-of-light limitation, star travel is expensive and travel time from one star to another takes about a century. I'd say half a century if stars are 5 LY apart (at 0.1 C most of the trip; rapid acceleration to 0.1 C, then coast for 50 years, then aerodynamic braking), but maybe 0.5 C is the best that is feasible so I'll accept your limit on speed. 3) Worlds producing starships will eventually be insulated from the frontier by nearer colony worlds created through earlier star missions. I disagree. Worlds formerly producing starships will transfer starship-making duties to their colonies once bootstrapping of technological infrastructure is complete. Since the purpose of making colonies is primarily survival through children, it's analagous to elderly people letting their children have children instead of continuing to make children themselves, except here the limit is physical (fairy ring) rather than biological (deterioration of bodies). 4) Star travel will be ideologically motivated and will provide no economic return. If the drive to survive is an ideology, yes. (Gee, does that mean you consider bacteria to have ideologies, because they have the drive to survive?) 5) The home worlds will change significantly as the radius of colonization expands. Yup, they become proud parents watching their children go off on their own, then grandparents, etc. until they die out due to their star dying. All of my conclusions leading up to the 50 light year limit are based on these five points. The fault with your logic is that you assume the colonies remain dependent on the central civilization, that they develop the ability to survive semi-independently on remote stars hundreds of years from home, yet never develop the technological infrastructure to do things truly on their own like build starships. That's like assuming after Columbus discovers America and people move here and start clearing forests and growing food and running industry, they never ever ever build sailing ships because somehow they are just colonies and unable to build their own ships. (True, generation ships are a lot more expensive than sailing ships, but indeed America not only build sailing ships, but it went on to build things never built by England France or Germany such as Apollo and STS, once it built its technological infrastructure to be a world leader in technology.) Date: 7 Apr 87 05:47:09 GMT From: cullvax!drw@xn.ll.mit.edu (Dale Worley) Subject: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion The underlying question is "generation time"--how long does it take from colonization of a planet until it can send out its own colonizing ships? Yes! Is this short enough that the culture doesn't change completely between colonizations? I would think only a couple of hundred years if the culture and technology of colonizing new worlds is well developed. 200 years from first reaching a particular star system with a colony ship, until the colony has grown to the point where it can build its own ships. Perhaps. Maybe it takes longer, like 300 years. So the scenerio may be that 300 years after a colony is established, it sends out its own ships, which are refueled at outer colonies which have the infrastructure to refuel ships but not to build their own, until the ship reaches the colonization front, where it asks the local systems for directions to a star system not yet occupied nor with occupants en route to it, makes that one last hop, and sets up a colony there. If the hop-by-hop trip visiting existing colonies to take on supplies proceeds essentially at 0.5 C (layover isn't significant), we may find colony ships passing by any given colony nearly as soon as it is colonized, and the critical delay might not be bootstrapping at the colony that generated the colony ship but rather waiting at the next to last stop for that colony to build a refueling station to permit the last hop. Perhaps the rate of expansion may be nearly 0.5 C overall. Anybody have more carefully thought-out guesstimates on overall critical path to permit calculation of true effective rate of expansion? ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 87 21:45:37 GMT From: tektronix!tekgen!tekigm2!dand@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Duval) Subject: Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion In article <1511@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> Part of the rise of cities during the period 1200 to 1450 came about >> due to the spice trade through the Near East. Here were some >> commodities never before seen in Europe which suddenly became the way >> to become rich. Again, due to a transportation link that didn't exist >> before. > > I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on this. The transportation > link did exist before -- the Crusades created an awareness of > commodities (like spices) that weren't previously known. The > transportation systems improved in response to a commercial need to > have such a link. We can travel in space now. Making a round trip to a star system of your choice is nothing more than an improvement on an existing capability, if you want to look at it that way. Yet, I would not want to downplay the time, expense, and effort involved in the star trip, any more than I would downplay the efforts put out by the Italians in establishing the necessary political changes to allow a full-scale trading business through the Near- and Middle-East, not to mention the expenses in building ships, establishing brokers in the appropriate markets, and beating back pirates, tax collectors, and other assorted thieves. The situations are exactly parallel. The Venetians knew they could build ships, even though hideously expensive at the time, as we know we can build starships, though hideously expensive. Italian ships initially made their crossings in order to drop Crusaders off on the coast of Palestine/Israel; our starships will be dropping off settlers -- in other words, the initial purpose for building the ships was not for the purpose that many of them end up fulfilling. A commodity was found at the other end that had economic value among the teeming masses back home (though I'm speculating on the possibility for the starships) and, rather than bring them all there, they took the commodity back home. Rather than quibbling about which analogy might be valid and which not (for whatever reason), I'd rather worry a lot more about some of the other possible parallels. You see, the spice ships also brought the Black Death to Europe. I'm not sure how the rest of you folks feel, but a case of Denebian Dysentary would ruin my whole day. Or how about the mighty states of the 12th Century that were rather quickly bypassed by the states become rich in the spice trades. 15th Century Spain was recovering from the effort of pushing the Moors back into Africa, when they got a lock on the wealth of the Americas. 16th Century Spain was a much more powerful animal with which to deal. My original point was to deny the contention that there would be no economic value in building starships. The thrust of that point is that one would be foolish to assume there is no economic value to be gained from whatever is in the next gravity well, any more than if one made the same assumption about the next valley over, without some idea about what's actually over there. The independant states of Italy and the French throne made that mistake in the late 15th Century and Spain got all the gravy. I don't deny that demand is as important as the transportation link, but, in the case of starships, that is more of a reason not to build 1000 freighters in the hope of finding a commodity to haul than to decide not to ever go more than 50 lights away from Earth. The point still is, that unless your Ouija board is much better than mine, denying that there may ever be an economic value to interstellar travel is just plain foolish. (By the way, it might be better to continue this by mail. I'll be glad to talk history with just about anyone, except Lyndon LaRouche; but it's cheaper to do it via email than the net.) Dan C Duval ISI Engineering Tektronix, Inc. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #206 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21139; Mon, 27 Apr 87 03:03:31 PDT id AA21139; Mon, 27 Apr 87 03:03:31 PDT Date: Mon, 27 Apr 87 03:03:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704271003.AA21139@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #207 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 207 Today's Topics: Antimatter; Gary's Claims Re: colonization of Mars Gold Class M Near Earth Asteroids Discovered Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova Orbital Art ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 87 08:56 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Antimatter; Gary's Claims Some more responses to Gary Allen... Gary Allen acknowledged that he had overestimated the energy deposited in a tiny piece of solid antihydrogen by annihiliation products. He then recalculated the equilibrium temperature, assuming 10% of the energy would be absorbed as heat. He argued he had made many assumptions favoring cooling. However, even 10% energy absorption is much too high: if annihilation radition travels meters in antihydrogen, and the pellet is microns across, perhaps 1E-6 is a better estimate to the heating efficiency. Gary also only considered thermal radiation as a means of cooling. There is at least one other: sublimation. This would be inappropriate if the pellet is to be stored indefinitely (unless the escaping vapor could be trapped, cooled and recondensed) but a continuous flow of antimatter is desirable in a starship. One has to run the engines, after all. Is the heat of sublimation of solid hydrogen high enough for this to be important? Gary stated that the best vacuums attained on earth were around 1E10 cm**-3, but electron storage rings typically operate at a nanotorr or so (about 3E7 molecules/cc). It is also not clear why vacuum conditions attainable on earth are at all relevant to conditions attainable in space. He stated that the thermal velocity of a carbon atom at 1 deg. K is 1 m/sec; it is actually about 37 meters per second (did he mean a millikelvin?). I expect the vapor pressure of many solids to be nil at low temperatures, and radiation from annihilation will mostly be absorbed deep in the structure (or go right through), so it won't sputter many atoms. More of a worry would be adsorbed gas, but that can presumably be baked off in space. >> Gary Allen claimed interstellar colonization was impossible. >I've never claimed that interstellar travel is impossible. I said colonization, Gary, not travel. Gary claimed colonization beyond 50 light years was impossible. Gary's 50 light year colonization limit has an immediately obvious flaw: stars move! Even if Gary's scenario is correct and colonization runs into a wall at 50 light years, the stars in that colonized volume will continue moving relative to one another. At 30 km/sec (and some nearby stars move faster than that relative to us), a star will move 50 light years in 500,000 years. I suppose Gary is assuming that the civilizations around all the colonized stars will die out or stagnate permanently in less than O(1 million) years. >>> The basic assumptions are that starships can never travel faster >>> an than ten percent of the speed of light, and are enormously >>> expensive. >>We've already handled the first. About the second, expense is >>relative to the capabilities of a society. >Paul has not handled the first problem. In arguing for anti-matter >rockets and Forward's light sails, Paul has not demonstrated >feasibility nor has he shown the capability of relativistic velocities. >Expense is relative, but a trillion bucks is still a trillion bucks. >If you divide a [trillion] dollars over the entire American population >you will be giving every single person $4000. Would you pay $4000 so >someone elses grandson could make it to Tau-Ceti? I'd pay $4000 for my >grandson (and $40,000 for myself). However I'm a space fanatic. From >John Q. Public, you'd be lucky to get forty cents. I have handled the first problem, in the sense that I have shown that Gary has not proved light sails to be impossible. I'm not saying they are certainly feasible, only that they don't contradict the laws of physics as we currently understand them (as FTL does), and don't seem to require theoretically impossible materials (as the original ramjet does). Gary seems to be taking the position that unless we can demonstrate now how to solve all the engineering problems, the problems are inherently unsolvable. Gary's attitude would be appropriate if someone were proposing to build, right now, a relativistic starship, but is inappropriate when attempting to set limits on what will be technically feasible in the far future. Gary's comment about $4000 per person is plain obfuscation. Gary assumes that the starship would be built by a civilization of size comparable to the current American population. This assumption is absurd -- even today, the US population is only 5% of the world population. The solar system can support many orders of magnitude more people. If, for example, a 2.5 trillion person economy builds one starship per year, and that starship costs $1E12, that's 40 cents per person per year -- just the level Gary said I'd be lucky to get from John Q. Public. Even today, NASA's yearly budget is around $40/US citizen, some 100 times this figure, and future productivity and real incomes are likely to be much higher. What data we have shows that Gary's claim about the likelihood of obtaining funds (at least from the government) is simply false. Is my assumption about 2.5 trillion people living in space optimistic? Hardly! Assume each person requires 1000 tons of material for living space, associated productive capacity, and so on (a quite generous assumption). That's 2.5E15 tons of material, or, if that material has a density of 2 gr/cc, a cube of material 110 km on a side. The large asteroids could easily supply that; very much larger populations are possible if the material in moons and planets can be fully exploited (I think it eventually will be; a planet is a terribly inefficient way to use matter). I assume materials are efficiently recycled. Is my assumption about 2.5 trillion people necessary? No! Assuming we can bring the world population to 10 billion people, at an average per-capita income 10x that of the current US level. Scaling NASA's ("WASA's"?) current budget proportionally, that budget would be some $4 trillion per year. Scaling the Soviet space program would give an even larger figure. > Paul, you're the one that's wrong. It's clear that I meant these > stars couldn't evolve life. Of course they can support life that > travels to it, but what idiot civilization would send a star ship to a > barren system? We got plenty of dead worlds in the solar system, and > it costs a whole lot less to stay here. The extreme expense of star > travel is justified only if you can go to an earth-like world. Gary is showing his planetary chauvinism. Why should a system without life bearing planets be considered "barren"? If the vast majority of persons in the starship building civilization are living in space habitats, would they consider the lack of a lifebearing planet a strong argument against colonization? We certainly have many dead worlds in this solar system, and they will be studied and used. But why should this prevent colonization of other "barren" systems? Gary asks: why should an "idiot" civilization colonize a system without lifebearing planets? Many reasons: to determine if it really is lifeless (how would you tell for sure without visiting?), to gain further data on the formation, evolution and properties of stars and planets, to conduct large scale engineering projects in an unpopulated star system, to conduct experiments in terraforming, as a stepping stone to more distant systems, as insurance against disaster, for political prestige, for ideological reasons, to prevent others from colonizing the system, for military reasons, etc. Gary again claims the cost of building a starship is extreme. Nonsense! To a large space-inhabiting civilization utilizing the resources available in this solar system, the per-capita cost of building one starship is TRIVIAL. It could very well be the case that the capacity would exist to build many more starships than there are reachable target stars, in which case arguments about the undesirability of "barren" star systems lose credibility. > No, but they could (and probably will) do something much worse. A > society could regress and become no-growth. How Gary can make such pronouncements about the probable behavior of civilizations is beyond my understanding. We can't make any such predictions about our species, let alone hypothetical aliens about which we have zero data. If Gary insists on doing so, it would be intellectually cleaner to just assume that all civilizations destroy themselves or stagnate before any starships can be sent out. An equally valid (that is to say, entirely speculative and unsupported by evidence) prediction about the future behavior of civilizations is that they would become less materialistic and more concerned with the gathering of knowledge. Such a civilization would eagerly send colonists to on interstellar trips for the knowledge such trips would provide. > If someone can come up with a counter-argument recognizing the above > five points then the discussion will be worthwhile. Gary's point 1 [volume of sphere increases faster than the surface area] is true but I don't understand what it has to do with anything. So what if there are many more interior systems than frontier systems? There is no claim being made that all population growth on interior systems need be exported, and there is no plausible motivation for sending ships only to already colonized systems. Moreover, assuming starships have limited range, once the colonization sphere becomes large enough most of the interior systems are unreachable from the frontier. In the limit the radius of curvature of the colonization sphere is much larger than starship range, 1/2 of the systems reachable from a frontier system will already have been colonized, and each frontier planet need colonize only 1+epsilon new star systems to keep the wave going. Point two is really two points: starships tax the resources of a star system (doubtful) and starships are inevitably slow (not proven, and, indeed, not provable, unless Gary is willing to correctly predict all relevant future technological and scientific advances.) Point three [that systems producing starships are eventually insulated from the frontier] is true, but irrelevant (see point 1 above and point 5 below). Point 4 [that star travel is ideologically motivated and will provide no economic return] may be true, but there could be other reasons (political, for instance), and the relative cost will be so low for a large civilization that the lack of economic return wouldn't be important (after all, what's the economic return from particle physics? from today's space programs? from organized religion?). Enough of today's government spending (and personal spending, for that matter) is ideologically motivated that this is no counterargument. Moreover, point 4 is sensitive to the level of interest rates. In an economy with low interest rates it may well be economically feasible to send colonists to nearby star systems. The export from the colony would be information: scientific, or even entertainment programs. That the original investors would not live to see the project completed is not an objection, since stock can be traded before that point. Point five [that the home system will change significantly as the radius of colonization expands] is irrelevant. Once a system is far from the colonization front, what it does is unimportant to the progress of the wave, since it is no longer a source of starships. As an explanation of the Fermi paradox, this hypothesis is also methodologically dubious: lacking a scientific theory of alien sociology, such explanations cannot be proved, and in the absence of observation of alien societies no such theory can be formulated. Paul Dietz ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 87 23:23:26 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: colonization of Mars Graham Bromley writes: > Colonization of Mars is a silly idea for the forseeable future, > because it would be enormously expensive, and there would be no > immediate economic return at all. ... more description of the "silly > idea" ... Notions like this never cease to amaze me. Less than 85 years ago the newly demonstrated heavier than air flying machine was hailed as a curiosity; Little value, surely no real use. Now, as we routinely fly thousands of miles in hours, we complain because the food served is not high enough quality. A governmental body (I wish I could remember which one) decided in the late 1940's that computers would never become a major industry - surely only a handful would ever be needed. Steel ships would never float, and if they did they would be too expensive. Steam-powered railroads? Why not just use the canals? Steamships, Television, radio, telephone, telegraph, etc. etc ad nauseam. I believe that it was Issac Asimov who said (or maybe just repeated): The only thing that can accurately be predicted about future technology is that it will far exceed your wildest prediction. I don't for a minute doubt that my children will be traveling interplanetary space, almost as routinely as we catch the night-flight to the east coast. John M. Pantone ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Apr 87 09:35 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Gold Gary Allen said ERPM has 6 gram/ton gold ore, cheap labor, but is still losing money, so any ET ore would have to be at least that rich. Russ Cage wrote: > This assumes that you're using the same technology to separate the > gold from the asteroid metal that the ERPM is using. I really doubt > this. I would imagine that large-scale electrolytic refining could > yield economic amounts of gold inexpensively, particularly if you > are also refining silicon for solar cells (which you might) and have > practically unlimited sunlight available (which you would). It find it hard to believe that an industrial process that would require complete melting and electrolytic processing could compete with the cyanide leaching techniques used to extract gold from terrestrial ores, especially when terrestrial ores have already been concentrated by natural processes. Russ repeats the oft-heard non sequitur about unlimited sunlight ==> cheap electricity. Have you heard of capital costs, Russ? Solar cells are not cheap; with technical advances, they may make electricity in space at costs somewhat below (but not many orders of magnitude below) terrestrial costs, ASSUMING we can make, deploy and maintain the cells in space as cheaply as we could on earth (a big assumption, requiring the presence of a large space infrastructure). The cost of power on the space station will be something like $90/kilowatt-hour, a thousand times higher than the cost of power on the ground. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Apr 87 15:55 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Class M Near Earth Asteroids Discovered E. Tedesco and J. Gradie report (Astrophysical Journal, 93(3), March 1987) the detection of the first two M class near earth asteroids. Colorimetry, visual and IR photometry and 10 and 20 micron radiometry were used to classify the asteroids 1986 DA and 1986 EB. 1986 DA's orbit crosses Mars but not Earth, making it an Amor object, while 1986 EB's orbit crosses Earth (and Venus) and has a semimajor axis < 1 AU, making it an Aten object: 1986 DA a = 2.811 AU q = 1.166 AU (MPC 10628, 1986) 1986 EB a = .974 AU Q = 1.247 AU (MPC 10625, 1986) (a = semimajor axis, q = perihelion, Q = apohelion, MPC = Minor Planets Calendar) Both are about 2 km across. Class M asteroids are believed to be mostly metal. Radar observations of 16 Psyche, another class M asteroid with similar spectra, are indicative of a largely metallic body. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 87 01:44:25 GMT From: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim@oberon.usc.edu (Tim Smith) Subject: Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova In article <2164@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> palmer@bek-mc.UUCP (David Palmer) writes: To: Subject: Orbital Art The discussion about the orbital-art seems to be losing its grip. Art isn't really a precedent for advertising space. I can understand where there is concern over losing our night sky to the PR committee, but such displays as the famous "Real Thing" wave of Coca-Cola will not be a reality for a bit. However, when they do bcome feasible, I agree that they shall be an eyesore. Again, if whatever object we end up with gets into orbit, won't it have a prescribed orbit just like everything else? Then astronomers will be able to avoid it just as they avoid the moon. If I remember correctly, the French design will break up after a while, so it will not be a problem for long. But, such forceful sights as billboards and Funeral Satellites, Inc., which shall demand non-overlapping orbits, could fill up the sky, and will be designed to last for decades. These should be outlawed, or given a special polar orbit for advertising only. Can you imagine NASA & ESA & Russia assigning orbits the way the FCC assigns radio wavelengths? Another thing: What if an AdSat interferes with an astronomical observation at the moment of best observation. "Sorry guys, we missed the eclipse because of that !#?$%! AdSat." That would be intolerable. Jacob Hugart -- University of Iowa ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #207 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23667; Tue, 28 Apr 87 03:03:47 PDT id AA23667; Tue, 28 Apr 87 03:03:47 PDT Date: Tue, 28 Apr 87 03:03:47 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704281003.AA23667@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #208 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 208 Today's Topics: Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova Re: frozen stars AdSats etc Re: CSICOP Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit More on MMU plumbing re: colonization of Mars Life on Mars or Venus ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Apr 87 09:43:32 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!ccplumb@seismo.css.gov Subject: Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova In article <764@viper.UUCP> dave@viper.UUCP (David Messer) writes: >In article <2164@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> palmer@bek-mc.UUCP (David Palmer) writes: >>Time magazine had an interesting quote, which says a lot about >>journalists' ability to comprehend orders of magnitude. Quoting from >>memory "The supernova makes Mt St. Helens and Krakatoa look puny by >>comparison." > >Are you saying it doesn't? :-) I think it's more like "there's no comparison." What is it, about 10 orders of magnitude? I remember a nice chart in a time-life book that went from a fly's wing-beat to a supernova, but it's in a different city. Perhaps someone who knows can tell me - I'm not so hot with numbers this big, either. Wait a minute! I can approximate this myself! How about comparing the kinetic energies of the debris produced? Time for elementary physics: Frist, what is a solar mass? No idea, but... - G=6.0*10^-11 - radius of earth's orbit=1.5*10^11 m (93 million miles * 5280 * 12 * 2.54 / 100) - circumference of earth's orbit=9.4*10^11 m - period of earth's orbit=3.2*10^7 s (365.24 days * 24 * 60 * 60) - velocity of earth=3.0*10^4 m/s - centripetal acceleration due to the sun=5.9*10^3 m/s^2 (a=v^2/r) - Thus, mass of the sun=2.2*10^30 kg (f=G*m1*m2/r^2, so a=G*m/r^2, so m=a*r^2/G) Thus, assuming 4 solar masses (I have *no* idea if this is accurate, but I think it's in the right range), mass of supernova=10^31 kg. Now, what was the mass of Krakatoa? I heard the figure `5 cubic miles' somewhere, so - Density of rock = 3g/cc (another guess) - 5 cubic miles=2.1*10^16 cc (cm^3 if you're fussy) (5 * 5280^3 * 12^3 * 2.54^3) - mass of Krakatoa=6.3*10^13 kg I've also heard that a supernova throws away "most" of its mass, so that means that a supernova throws away about 1.5*10^17 times as much mass a Krakatoa did. However, a supernova also throws it away faster. Let's take 10*speed of sound as an upper bound on Krakatoa's outburst, and .01*c as a lower bound on the expansion rate of the new nebula, giving - Speed of sound=335 m/s (1100 ft/s * 12 * 2.54 / 100) - c/100=3*10^6 m/s Since kinetic energy goes as the square of the velocity, this puts the ratio between the two of (kinetic energy/mass) at 8.0*10^7. Thus, the ratio of kinetic energies is at least 1.6*10^25, and probably a lot higher. Oops. 10^10 is off. I hope I redeemed myself by working it out. I hope even more that I didn't screw up. Anyway, "puny" is not the word. "Nonexistent" is more like it. -Colin Plumb (watmath!watnot!ccplumb) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 87 18:43:06 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!jmlang@seismo.css.gov Subject: Re: frozen stars In article <870402092920.00001A93.AJFE.VE@UMass> Cyberma@UMASS.BITNET (Andy R. Steinberg) writes: >The is one thing that has been bugging about black holes for a long >time. A black hole can only have 3 properties, mass, charge, and >rotation. A static black hole has 1 event horizon, whereas a charged or >rotating black hole has 2 event horizons. I don't understand how there >can be 2 places where time stops(relative to an outside observer) and >the escape velocity = c. I have heard somewhere that the outer event >horizon is the ergosphere, but I don't know what an ergosphere is and >can't find any reference to it. At the risk of doing a gross oversimplification: An event horizon is a boundary through which you cannot come back: i.e. any thing that goes in cannot go out even light (hence the black in the name Black hole). The ergosphere is somewhat different. It is a region in which you cannot stand still with respect to (say) the distant stars. Let me elaborate a bit. A non-rotating black hole (the first type that was discovered ) has an event horizon : anything that goes in cannot come out. You can, however, stand still w.r.t. the distant stars, provided you are outside the event horizon. It will take some expenditures in energy though, you have to counterbalance gravity. It is like stopping a satellite in the sky - i.e. prevent it from orbiting - and yet keep the rockets firing to prevent the satellite from falling down. For a rotating black hole however, things are a bit more interesting. You still have an event horizon, as before, but this time it is distorted a bit as compared to the non-rotating BH. -- nothing magic here, it is similar as to why the Earth has a bulge, you can think of it as the effect of the centrifugal force. There is something new in this case however. Remember the picture associated with a BH, i.e. that of a ball distorting a sheet of rubber -- hence the popular "gravity wells" that are sometimes printed on t-shirts. Now set the ball rotating around (say) the vertical axis. The rubber sheet is dragged along with the rotation, that is, it rotates with the ball. (Well up to a certain point, this is only an analogy). Something similar happens around a rotating black hole. The space-time is dragged along with the rotating black hole. Now, lets get back to that satellite, or rocket. Not only does it have to fight against the downward gravity to lay still w.r.t. the distant stars, but in addition it has to fight against the rotation of the space-time itself. The problem is, can it succeed. The ergosphere is the region where even with infinite energy, the rocket fails to maintain a fix w.r.t. those stars. Note: it does not mean that you cannot get away from the ergosphere. Provided you are outside the event horizon, you can still get out, even if you are inside the ergosphere. As an interesting side effect, it also means you can steal energy from a rotating black hole, by stealing some of the energy stored in that rotating space-time. (You don't have to go in the ergosphere to do it). -- A yeah, quantum gravity also predicts energy can be emitted from any BH through Hawking's radiation. This is already long enough. I hope this clears up a few hazy notions. I choose the stars. Je'ro^me M. Lang ------------------------------ Date: Sunday 12 Apr 87 2:05 PM CT From: To: Subject: AdSats etc I can understand why people are complaining about adsats and other non-scientific packages in orbit. I do not agree with sending up such light shows when it comes time for astronomy, but I must confess that the thought of such a naked-eye sight as a circle of lights with an apparent diameter equal to that of the moon does sound interesting. In terms of avoid adsats by good timing: yes, I see the difference would be a tremendous pain. But if adsats ever get off the ground, it will become a reality we shall have to face. I apologize if I seemed to be in favor of the adsats, for I understand what a problem they could be. Why do I think people are complaining? I know why; the question is Who should they complain to? Whom must we convince if we are to stop adsats? If you recall, I mentioned a joint NASA/ESA/Russia group that would probably end up assigning orbits to adsats. Does such a group exist now, with the power to say something about this? BWCHUGPB@UIAMVS.BITNET Jacob Hugart -- University of Iowa Data Base Consulting Group, Weeg Computing Center ------------------------------ Sender: "James J. Lippard" Date: Tue, 14 Apr 87 14:07 MST From: Lippard@mit-multics.arpa Subject: Re: CSICOP Reply-To: Lippard@mit-multics.arpa To: <@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA:Space@angband.s1.gov> > Date: 7 Apr 87 22:10:31 GMT > From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A Andrews) > Subject: CSICOP (sic) > Yes, I know that the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims > of the Paranormal uses the acronym CSICOP. But those of us who have > had "encounters" with their people or their tactics prefer the name > PSICOP, for Pseudo-Scientific Inquisitors of Claimants of Paranormal. > (There I was in Austin, feeling like the Devil at a revival meeting, > with ASTOP going full blast: loud, rude and strident.) ASTOP has no affiliation with CSICOP. ASTOP is an autonomous local organization with similar aims. The "PSICOP" acronym does not represent the stated goals or methods of inquiry endorsed by CSICOP. I have never seen any evidence that CSICOP has engaged in any witch hunts. Perhaps you would care to back up your statements with some facts? > How strange and puzzling that otherwise seemingly calm, educated and > intelligent people froth at the very concept of extraterrestrial life, > at unidentified aerial phenomena, at subtle talents of the mind. This is also a misrepresentation. Members of CSICOP do not "froth" at those ideas. They simply desire to see the evidence for them investigated thoroughly and scientifically, rather than by crackpots and charlatans. Over the last several years, CSICOP has developed very good relations with some leading parapsychologists such as Charles Honorton, Helmut Schmidt (who spoke at last year's conference in Boulder), and John Beloff. These people support CSICOP's attempts to improve the quality of parapsychological experimentation and eliminate sources of fraud and error. CSICOP takes no position whatever on the existence of extraterrestrial life. The recent CSICOP conference in Pasadena (April 3-4) had a panel on "The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence". Two of the three speakers were from the SETI Institute. One of them, Frank Drake, said he believed the probability of extraterrestrial life was 1. CSICOP's primary objective is to investigate scientifically, not to debunk. I believe most people associated with CSICOP would *love* to find good scientific evidence for ESP. But so far that evidence just isn't there. The same is true for the hypothesis that UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors (J. Allen Hynek, by the way, spoke at the 1984 CSICOP conference at Stanford). > (Did anyone witness Randi's problem on the Oprah show last week? > Heard it was rather funny...) I saw it. The only "problem" Randi had was that Amazing Grace, a charlatan "faith healer", kept interrupting him every time he tried to speak. I spoke to Randi at the CSICOP conference about this show. It seems that after the show, he tried to go down into the audience to speak with the woman who claimed to have been healed of cancer by Amazing Grace. Grace blocked his way, allowing the woman to escape. Later, however, someone identified the woman for him. Randi contacted her doctor and found that she has not been cured of cancer, and has a life expectancy measured in weeks. (Grace, by the way, claims to have the "word of knowledge" from God. That is, when she "calls out" people from her audiences to be healed, God directly informs her of their names and ailments. One of the things that occurred during the Randi's investigation of her (for the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, not CSICOP) was that she healed Bay Area Skeptic member Don Henvick of an ailment he didn't have, under a name that was not his own. Either God lied to Grace or Grace lied to the audience.) > If any more comments, let's move it to mod.psi or talk.religion.newage. I don't read those groups, and I thought your comments deserved some response here. > --Arlan Andrews Jim Lippard at MULTICS.MIT.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 87 10:37:41 PDT (Tuesday) From: Colvin.PA@xerox.com Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit Cc: Colvin.PA@xerox.com > I've noticed in photos of the MMU in action that the wearer has a pair > of "windshield wipers" sticking out in front. > > I'm guessing that they are in fact some kind of MMU status display. > Anyone know if this is true - and what info is displayed ? If I recall correctly the "windshield wipers" are fiber optic cables(?) that allows the user to "see" the firing of the maneuvering jets (I'm not sure what they "see" since there is no flame, just a puff of gas. Maybe condensation?). During testing they discovered that people could maneuver better if they had some indication of when the jets were firing. -- Craig Colvin colvin.pa@xerox.COM ------------------------------ Date: Wed 15 Apr 87 00:24:26-PDT From: John Sotos Subject: More on MMU plumbing Anyway, In 1982 I had occasion to speak to an employee of Hamilton-Standard, the company that makes the NASA space suits. Apparently their engineers, after no small amount of effort, did in fact devise a "dry" method for collecting urine from women. I don't know the particulars of the device, but it supposedly looked much like a Venus fly-trap ("teeth" and all) and required placement somewhere delicate. They were all ready to test it out, but every time they approached a woman ("secretary," as it was told to me) asking her to try it, as soon as the woman got a look at the thinmg, she refused! Thus, the project was scrapped, and the DACT was born. John Sotos SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU Stanford Computer Science ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 87 23:10:19 GMT From: tektronix!orca!hammer!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Graham Bromley) Subject: re: colonization of Mars Colonization of Mars is a silly idea for the forseeable future, because it would be enormously expensive, and there would be no immediate economic return at all. It would be far cheaper to colonize the Sahara Desert, Antartica or the ocean beds. The only kind of manned presence anyone living today will ever see on Mars will be a small research outpost, perhaps several persons. If the NASA budget is at breaking point to fund a stripped-down space station, where would the trillions for Mars colonization come from? The only conceivable way to explore Mars is by robot rover vehicles, and that probably won't be done for decades either, due to the insatiable appetites of shuttle, SDI and space station budgets. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 87 07:19:45 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Life on Mars or Venus In article <924@laidbak.UUCP> gerryg@laidbak.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) writes: >to have been negative so far. Anyone care to speculate about how to >convert Mars or Venus into planets that can support life? This doesn't address your question, but... On very long time scales (10000 years?), we may take them apart to make smaller habitats out of - that's an awful lot of mass being wasted just to provide gravity. Besides, what good is a space habitat which you can't easily control the temperature, gravity, air, orbit, etc. of ? (1/2 :-) First we have to run out of asteroids, comets, and small planetary satellites, though. Having a strong interest in planetary science as well, I think it would be a good idea to leave them mostly alone until that time. There aren't many planet-sized laboratories available around here! -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #208 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01407; Wed, 29 Apr 87 03:04:35 PDT id AA01407; Wed, 29 Apr 87 03:04:35 PDT Date: Wed, 29 Apr 87 03:04:35 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704291004.AA01407@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #209 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 209 Today's Topics: Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars re: colonization of Mars Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars density of Venus Status of JPL Re: SPACE Digest V7 #198 Soviet Mir/Kvant docking problem - a plastic bag Re: Summary on "what we [US] want" and what to do [was USSR Mir] Re: Status of JPL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Apr 87 16:00:23 GMT From: adelie!mirror!hpwalf!boba@xn.ll.mit.edu (Bob Alexander) Subject: Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars In article <8704051217.AA05611@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > This Martian colony should be built by first >constructing a space transportation system that can transport material >into LEO at a reasonable price, i.e. the National Aerospace Plane. I think you're jumping to conclusions about the NAP. All the claims they're making for it (low cost, regular and routine operation) I've heard before for the shuttle. Considering their lousy record of living up to claims for the shuttle (so lousy, in fact, that heads should roll, starting with James Fletcher's), plus the soaring cost estimates for the space station, I expect the National Aerospace Plane to be another expensive boondoggle. >At LEO and geosynchronous orbit the United States should construct >large space stations for supporting the Martian objective. The current >whimpy space station planned should be replaced by a larger >facility...another space station on Phobos. Do you have any cost estimates for this whole thing? Three stations (which require constant visits for supplies) an interplanetary shuttle, Mars shuttles, and enough trips to move 500 (!!) people! Sounds like SDI is cheap in comparison! (Please, lets not debate the relative merits of SDI vs. Mars colonies.) Any mistakes you make in the colonization effort will be *very* costly. >The key concepts are: The project is motivated by ideology and not by >hard nosed economics. You can't dismiss economics so quickly. Money represents resources: raw material and labor. When a company or the gov't loses money, it means it's taking valuable resources and producing something less valuable. Companies do it in hopes of future profits. The government does it for ideological or political reasons. But something as big as colonizing Mars just doesn't have enough ideological support to get funded. I believe the private sector is the way to go. When something is profitable, it will get done. Satellites are profitable and as a result, they are now plentiful. A few private companies are developing space factories and concepts for cheap space stations. Once these become profitable, they will become common. Same with private launch companies. True, private companies won't colonize Mars in the next 20 years, but they'll move into space steadily and intelligently. They won't abandon their investments like the U.S. government has done; they won't pursue flashy but foolish policies (like abandoning ELVs and launching everything on the shuttle, or the Aerospace Plane); and they'll continually strive to bring down the cost of getting into space (unlike NASA, where the more money they can spend, the happier they are.) Bob Alexander Hewlett-Packard Waltham, MA ...hplabs!hpwala!boba ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 87 18:19:58 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars > ... This Martian colony should be built by first > constructing a space transportation system that can transport material > into LEO at a reasonable price, i.e. the National Aerospace Plane... Ho ho. To approximately quote Gary Hudson: "The Aerospace Plane is going to be a combination of the Concorde and the Space Shuttle. This does not sound cheap to me." Agreed that cheap LEO transport is important to Mars colonization, and to a lot of other things, but the NASP is most unlikely to provide it. > At LEO and geosynchronous orbit the United States should construct > large space stations for supporting the Martian objective... You don't want to put a space station in geostationary orbit; it is in the fringes of the outer Van Allen belt. Besides, why bother? That orbit's only real uses are for Earth-oriented work; it has no advantages for Mars projects. "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 87 18:00:00 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!silver!seiffert@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: re: colonization of Mars How much do you think it will cost to try and keep this planet's rapidly depleting recources from running out? Do you honestly believe that this planet can continue to support the present population for the next 100 years? And when the smaller nations start rise in unison against the larger nations that have all the food and resources, how much will it cost for the larger ones to use the dwindling commodities of food, energy, and minerals to beat back the small ones? How much will it cost to move the coastal cities of the world inland if the poles start to melt? How much will the medical expences be for the cancer caused by ultraviolet radiation? You may consider these alarmist questions to media hype. But do you really believe that we can keep dumping PCB's into our backyard and not get hurt? There is a point where the planet will break. But one hope besides changing our habits now is to look to other places. Use the resources of other worlds to relieve our own for a while until we can reverse the damage. We may even learn some valuable information about terraforming our own planet based on the efforts a Mars colony. I'm not saying run out on old Mother Earth, but these efforts could buy us the time we need. We may not be able to afford to do this. But can we afford not to? We have already gone too far on borrowed time and money. The debt is due. -- Kurt A. Seiffert seiffert@silver.bacs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 87 19:39:01 GMT From: ulysses!gamma!mb2c!edsdrd!edstb!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars In article <8704051217.AA05611@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >It is time again to stirup the Space Digest newsgroup with another >crazy idea. "Crazy" is right. See below. >I think it should be the national object of the United States to >establish a self sustaining and growing colony of 500 Americans on the >planet Mars. [...] This colony would be established for ideological >reasons and **not** for economic reasons. The last time we did something for ideological/scientific reasons, we were earth-bound again in 2 decades because there was no return on the investment. Never, ever again! >This is where O'Neal's L-5 colony idea fell flat. You can't justify >these space colonies on economic grounds. This is where you're wrong. The colony's purpose was to build solar power satellites from lunar or asteriodal materials. When the concept of solar power satellites was considered and then dismissed, the idea of using non-terrestrial resources was not even given a hearing. *This* is why the idea fell flat, not on economic grounds. The idea is just as sound today as it was in the mid-70's. [details the transportation system to establish the colony, including an aerospace plane and fusion rocket interplanetary transport.] Remember, anything that kills the development of the NASP or the IFR kills your colony too, and a lot can go wrong in 15 years. In this time of budget cuts, betting on a national consensus for that much spending is betting the rent. Never, ever again! >That way the U.S. could once again do this stupidity of throwing its >space program into the trash can, but the colony would still be there >and growing. Or there and dying, if not enough homework was done. Or all the colonists could be called home if Washington thought it cost too much to maintain them umpteen million miles from earth. >The key concepts are: The project is motivated by ideology and not by >hard nosed economics. It's a one shot deal that establishes a >permanent presence in space. Doubtful. It has too long of a lead time and doesn't have any returns along the way. It's too vulnerable to survive. The ideology wouldn't survive the fiscal concerns. Economics is a better base for such a venture; make it pay off, and *someone* will do it. Russ Cage ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 87 02:59:48 GMT From: stro@cs.rochester.edu (Steve Robiner) Subject: density of Venus Question: Since the mass, and subsequently density of planetary objects are determined by the speed of their moons ( I think this is true ), how was the mass / density of Venus determined before sateliites / probes were sent there? The must have had to know this information, but Venus has no moons. Anyone know how anyone knew? I assume the current mass/density of Venus is derived from obital probes which have already been sent. robiner@usc-oberon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Apr 87 16:54:25 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Status of JPL The recent NOVA program on the Galileo project delays caused me to think about JPL, and I realized that I didn't know just how it fits into the US space-effort structure. Is JPL a US Government facility (and, if so, is it part of NASA or a separate activity), or is it a contractor to NASA, or is it part of Cal Tech and really an academic institution, or is it a completely indiependent private corporation (profit or non-profit)? Or something else entirely? Are JPL employees US Government GS-series people, or are they CalTech employees, or do they actually work for some contractor, or what? Regards, Will Martin wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (on USENET try ...!seismo!wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA ) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 1987 16:57-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #198 ADDITION TO BBS LIST: Pittsburgh L5 has two systems. The one listed is our mail gateway, but the primary public information outlet is the older one at 412-464-1397. This is actually the very first L5 bulliten board to ever come on line. SYSOP is currently Dr. Steven Shulik. First SYSOP was Beverly Freed. The original system was a homebrew basic brogram on a Trash-80. This was replaced by a donated Apple Lisa running Red Ryder. 300/1200. Note to Robert Brumley: our L5Net Gateway may be off line for a few months. Check with the SYSOP. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Apr 87 15:34:22 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet Mir/Kvant docking problem - a plastic bag The Soviets have announced what the "plastic alien object" was that caused the problems in the docking of the 20 Tonne Kvant module to the Mir space station (see my previous postings for more details on the docking and the fix up space walk). They describe it as a plastic bag, some 17 cm by 14 cm in size. They did not say where it came from but it sounds like some one forgot to remove one of the plastic covers from the docking mechanism before it was inserted into its launch shroud. On interesting point, I have heard from some one that at least part of the space walk done to repair this problem was shown live on Russian TV (hourly reports were given on the short wave so that is not so unbelievable). It seems to me the same thing was done in the Skylab 2 walk to open the solar panels. As man works more in space more of these repair/rescues will occur. Again the capability of humans to save expensive space equipment has been shown. I wish that some of the networks would have broadcast part of this latest rescue on their news shows. It might help convince some of the robot only crowd that mankind is still the most flexible system we can put in space. The Soviets have learned that lesson well, it took them less than 2 days to look at the situation, and plan a space walk to see if it could be fixed. If the Kvant/Mir docking had failed it would probably have set their program back one or more years (as in the case of the Skylab rescue). They got several years more life out of the Salyut 7 station the same way. We need our own people up there to do the same thing. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 1987 20:27-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Summary on "what we [US] want" and what to do [was USSR Mir] Gene: I missed your first go around on feelings about MIR, so I figure I'll just throw my feelings out to everyone. First, I would say that the Soviets are doing a damn good job. I recently saw video tapes of the interior of the station. It may not be the technological marvel of the US station, but it exists and is in orbit. I begin to wonder if our oft revised paper marvel ever will be. And even if it does get in orbit and is manned by 1996(97? 98? 00?) or so, it will be too little, it will be too late and it will have cost far, far too much. We are being left in the dust. My faith in our government has been somewhat thin for a long time, but my faith in NASA lasted even through Challenger, although I've always had a preference for the private approach in most areas. But the lack of guts in NASA and the lack of vision in our government have broken that thread. We are governed by grovelling wimps. I no longer feel that NASA or the US government are capable of taking humanity to the stars, or even to the moon. You might say that the private sector won't do it. I very much hope you are wrong, because if you aren't, the solar system belongs to the Soviets and we are just has-beens who haven't the decency to realize it and get out of the way. Maybe freedom really is an historical anomaly that self destructs. The stars belong to those with the guts and the fortitude to go for them. I used to think it was obviously us. After the last year I'm not so sure. But I'll keep on fighting for it to my last breath. I propose an open conspiracy. Many of us on this net will in 15-20 years be in positions of power in hundreds if not thousands of corporations and government agencies. I suggest that when the time comes, you simply direct whatever resources you can towards the goal of space flight. If we (the space movement) can control the use of about $10-20G/year, we can do it regardless of political priorities. Screw the politicians: they've screwed you! Maybe you decide on a particular research project over another because it will help solve a problem relevant to space settlement. Maybe you preferentially invest mutual fund money or venture capital resources into small space firms. There are a million small ways to make pieces of it happen. You needn't talk about it. Just follow your heart and act when the moment comes. Dale Amon, space activist PS: Donate to the Space Studies Institute. You get a lot more bang for your buck. They only have one center so there is less money wasted in feudal infighting. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Apr 87 05:59:21 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Status of JPL In article <8704142232.AA22109@angband.s1.gov> wmartin@almsa-1.arpa (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes: >Is JPL a US Government facility (and, if so, >is it part of NASA or a separate activity), or is it a contractor to >NASA, or is it part of Cal Tech and really an academic institution, >or is it a completely indiependent private corporation (profit or >non-profit)? Or something else entirely? To quote from the Caltech (please, spell it right!) catalog: Jet Propulsion Laboratory: Administered by the Institute; owned and supported by NASA. JPL has also taken on an increasing amount of non-NASA (military, in part) work in recent years, resulting in some changes in their relation to Caltech people. When Lew Allen came in as Director, he said there would be no changes in accessibility of JPL to Techers. Shortly thereafter, Caltech ID alone became insufficient to gain access to JPL. Perhaps his former military background showing through? In fairness, I should mention that the amount of military work going on is relatively small; I believe there is a limit of ~20% set by the Caltech Trustees. Caltech faculty has proven to be very protective of JPL's status in the past; a few years ago, the Army wanted to establish some sort of strategic think-tank associated with JPL. The faculty found out about this and forced the Caltech administration to refuse. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #209 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03291; Thu, 30 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT id AA03291; Thu, 30 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT Date: Thu, 30 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8704301003.AA03291@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #210 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 210 Today's Topics: KVANT and MIR visual observation The Search for Life in the Universe High Tc Superconductor News condensed space news from Feb 2 AW&ST predictions of future technology Private Colonization Efforts Space developement must recognize political reality ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Apr 87 13:02:41 GMT From: sase.dec.com!biro@decwrl.dec.com Subject: KVANT and MIR visual observation -< Watch For KVANT in front of MIR >- KVANT has been spotted by several people, but here in New England it has been either raining or cloudily when MIR/KVANT is visible. Look for any orbits after sunset till 9:30 pm local time after that MIR/KVANT will be in the earth shadow. This is a separate unit form the astrophysic module, it separated about 2 hours after the successful linkup. most likly international obj 87-030a NASA obj # 17845 is the KVANT AUX BLOCK unit KVANT has the following orbit vs MIR's S.M.A. = 6731.2491 vs MIR's 6731.600 KM apoggee = 361.848 vs MIR's 363.273 KM perigee = 345.096 vs MIR's 343.607 KM KVANT leads MIR and is apx 11 tons and has a docking port. It is not as bright as MIR but can easily be seen by the naked eye as a separate dimmer object. I have not seen any official explanation of what KVANT AUX BLOCK will do, but the most likely would be a semiconductor processing unit or a space tug for a semi processing plant. I f this is true , then the Russians are now out of the prototype stage and into true productions of space grown xtals. john ------------------------------ Posted-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 87 21:46:42 PDT From: Craig Milo Rogers Reply-To: Rogers@venera.isi.edu Subject: The Search for Life in the Universe Date: Tue, 21 Apr 87 21:46:42 PDT Mr. Larry Atkins of Santa Ana Community College will present a lecture on extraterrestrial life at 7:00 PM on Saturday, May 30th, in the Planetarium at Santa Ana Community College. The search for life away from the surface of the Earth has long been a concern to mankind. This lecture will cover possible historical and modern evidence for extraterrestrial life, and current programs, such as SETI. The college observatory will be available for use at the conclusion of the program. Mr. Atkins teaches astronomical observation for Rancho Santiago College District, and performs research in electronics for Rockwell. This lecture is one of many activities sponsored by the Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and Settlement (OASIS). The organization is a non-profit educational group which promotes space development. The public is invited; there is no admission charge. Santa Ana Community College is located at the intersection of Bristol and W. 17th Street in the city of Santa Ana. For more information about this lecture or other OASIS activities call Craig Milo Rogers at (213) 419 - 0561, or send a message to . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Apr 87 22:17 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: High Tc Superconductor News Panson et. al. at Westinghouse [Appl. Phys. Lett 50(16), 4/20/87] have estimated microscopic superconductivity parameters in La(1.8)Sr(0.2)CuO(4) and have estimated a depairing critical current density of roughly 500,000 amperes per square centimeter at low temperature and zero magnetic fields, although the granular samples they actually measured were not optimized and showed lower values (several kiloamps/cm**2). They state that microelectronic applications appear practical, assuming films of the stuff are stable, while large scale high current applications (such as magnets) are less clear at this point. Cava et. al. at Bell Labs [Phys. Rev. Lett 58(16), 4/20/87] have measured critical current densities of at least 1,100 amps/cm**2 in samples of YBaCuO at 77 K and zero magnetic field, substantially higher than in LaSrCuO at similar T/Tc (where critical current densities about two orders of magnitude lower were measured). This measurement was limited by the contacting technique used to put current through the sample. It would be interesting to see what Jc is for YBaCuO at liquid helium temperatures. Workers in Japan and at Argonne National Labs have independently formed fine flexible superconducting wires out of the materials. The wires are prototypes that so far have impractically low critical current densities. The British journal Nature [4/16/87, page 630] had an amusing photo of a Japanese physicist's hand holding a permanent magnet, over which floated an 8 gram, 4 cm diameter disk of YBaCuO, levitated in midair by the Meissner effect. The disk had just been dunked in liquid nitrogen. Current density in the disk was estimated to be about 200 amps/cm**2. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 87 23:26:18 GMT From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@AMES.ARPA (Henry Spencer) Subject: condensed space news from Feb 2 AW&ST [The responses on preferred format for these articles have pretty much stopped coming in, so sometime in the next few days I'll take a look at the stack and summarize them. Life has been hectic lately. -- HS] Editorial criticizing the Reagan administration for not giving NASA more voice in space policy, and Fletcher for not fighting harder for it. France starts construction on 50-m tower to provide 5-6 s of free fall for microgravity experiments. NASA space-goal studies under Sally Ride are focusing on five choices of major direction: lunar base, intensive study of Earth from space, Mars sample return leading up to manned Mars mission, manned Mars mission, and Mars sample return as part of ambitious unmanned planetary program. The probable result will be a mixture. [Micro-editorial: What NASA really needs to do is to pick one and push it hard, not compromise on a watered-down mixture that can be gradually nibbled to death by the bean-counters. -- HS] Space station facing more delays: NASA has not completed a report to Congress that is a precondition for funding hardware contracts, and the steadily-rising cost estimates will cause trouble too. JPL releases two-minute movie based on a single Landsat photo: a 3-D high-speed aerial ride over southern California. This was a technology demo for work on global cloud-cover studies; the image enhancement took several days of mainframe computer time. Several Congressmen charge that the Reagan administration has no space policy and is providing no leadership at a difficult time. Initial MLV contract -- 7 Deltas with option on 13 more -- specifies large penalties for failures: one failure loses the entire $60M incentive bonus, two cuts profits in half, three eliminates McDonnell-Douglas profit entirely. NASA unhappy about erosion of its ability to lead the space program. Too many other agencies, peripherally involved and largely ignorant, are getting involved in decision-making. Really silly micromanagement is in prospect, such as Treasury Secretary Baker recently questioning the designation of Spacelab as a Shuttle-unique payload [!!!]. Space companies are equally unhappy about some of the ignorant clods they now have to deal with. USAF plans to resume launching KH-11 spysats from Vandenberg this summer. The last KH-11 in orbit is over two years old, and measures to extend its lifetime have resulted in a considerable backlog of imaging requests. The problem is that inspection of Titan SRB segments has turned up several more with debond problems like the one that caused the failure a year ago, and the USAF is working hard to assemble one or two known-good sets of segments. General Dynamics proposes Advanced Launch Vehicle, $600/lb for up to 100klb into LEO. Basic design is a cryogenic core (using expendable derivative of SSME) plus a variable number of solid strap-ons. Later upgrades would add new low-cost oxyhydrogen engine and/or a winged flyback booster using LOX and kerosene. Both could allegedly use Shuttle launch facilities. McDonnell-Douglas says commercial version of the MLV Delta will be cheaper than Ariane, Proton, or Long March 3. [I'll believe it when I see it. -HS] Sales will obviously depend on satellite size; Delta could not handle a big lump like an Intelsat 6. Customers are concerned about whether their loads could be bumped by military payloads; the answer so far from McDD is "yes", but they suggest that Delta's record of fast recovery from failures will minimize the impact. One unknown for early commercial use is whether McDD will be allowed to use Thor engines the USAF has in storage. Orbital Sciences sells another TOS upper stage, for the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite, subject to Congress again reinstating the ACTS program despite Administration decision (again) to cancel it. Rockwell's candidate for a heavy-lift launcher revealed: essentially a shuttle with the orbiter replaced by a thin flat recovery glider with a roughly cylindrical payload pod on its back. Capacity 139 klbs into LEO from KSC, payload diameter same as shuttle and length 15 ft longer. The glider, weighing 90 klbs (shuttle orbiter landing weight is 220 klbs), is the simplest way of recovering the SSMEs and avionics; the recoverable modules seen in other shuttle-derived designs have their problems. It would not be capable of bringing a payload back with it. A bonus of this concept is that tank-attach points etc. are the same as an orbiter. Rockwell is also looking at in-line designs with engines under the ET and payload on top. Britain is designing its own electronic eavesdropping satellite, codenamed Zircon, to reduce its dependency on US electronic intelligence. It was to be launched under the cover of being another Skynet military comsat; the real story came out when a BBC documentary on excessive secrecy in government was cancelled [!!!], causing political uproar in Britain. Picture of Challenger debris being lowered into storage in an unused silo at the Cape. Roger Boisjoly files $1G lawsuit against Morton Thiokol, alleging harm to health and career from M-T management action against him after his testimony on the Challenger disaster. GTE Spacenet signs contract for Ariane launch of GStar 4 comsat in 1989. GStar 4 will carry a Geostar navigation package as well. USSR named Romanenko and Laveykin as next long-stay crew on Mir. Terasat signs with China to launch Western Union's Westar 6S on Long March in Feb 1988. Terasat will pay for the launch in return for partial ownership of the payload. USAF modernizing the Eastern Test Range (KSC and the Cape) to support the future higher launch rate of shuttle and expendables, replacing old gear and adding new facilities. Two letters of interest: "It really upsets me that the families of the Challenger crew made claims and received a settlement ... I hope that in a similar situation my family would put honor ahead of greed. -- Martin Rollinger Captain, USMC" "...America's manned space flight program no longer deserves the name ... The space station project slips nearly every month by another year, decreasing at the same time in size and importance ... What if another accident happens? ... Europe has invested more than a billion dollars in the shuttle and shuttle payload compatibility. Now the contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. Spacelab, Ulysses, Rosat, Eureca... The American spirit of enterprise once stimulated the world. This spirit is history. Now it's the age of the irresolutes -- the time of beancounters and bookkeepers. -- Eugen K. Reichi" Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Apr 87 15:40:58 GMT From: decvax!necntc!cullvax!drw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dale Worley) Subject: predictions of future technology jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: > A governmental body (I wish I could remember which one) decided in the > late 1940's that computers would never become a major industry - > surely only a handful would ever be needed. This may be true, but the version I heard (from some reasonably accurate printed source) was that it was *IBM*. Apparently they decided that they'd better make a few computers to keep up their reputation in the business data-processing market (when "data-processing" meant electromechanical punch-card processing machinery). So they priced it high to recover the development costs with a few units and sold far more than they ever expected. That's when IBM realized it might make money in computers... I remember when a large mainframe had 1 megabyte. Now the PC on my desk has that much. (And it isn't enough!) "The amount of technological change in the next 50 years will be approximately the same as the total for all of past history. This is true for each successive 50 year period." Dale Worley Cullinet Software ARPA: cullvax!drw@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Apr 1987 23:38-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Private Colonization Efforts Bob Gray: I'd like to point out that most of those early colonies in North America were chartered private groups, incorporated in England. Some of them were LITERALLY planned company towns for exploiting the wilderness. Some were religious enclaves like Plymouth. England supplied control of the seas. Private money did nearly EVERYTHING else; supplied the people, the tools, the transport, the food stuffs, the insurance... The situation in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies was considerably different I think. They were more interested in extending the landed aristocracy and lording it over the heathen than in building a new nation. I think the English approach to colonization has far superior results. Dale Amon National Space Society Board of Directors (So where can I get my charter for lands bounded by Mare Crisium to the east ...) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Apr 87 10:40:07 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Space developement must recognize political reality John Leech's article in Vol. 7, No. 195 of Space Digest on relative pulic support for the Space Program, hit the nail solidly on the head. John demonstrated that while it is true that 67% of the public wants the space budget held at current spending levels or increased, it is also true that 69% wants Food Stamps held at current spending levels or increased. This is particularly poignant, since for years we spent more on Food Stamps alone than on the entire NASA space budget. I still have vivid memories from my days at Berkeley watching the Telegraph Ave. bums paying off their heroin debts to the local pusher with freshly acquired food stamps. The Food Stamp program is money down the toliet, and yet it has more public support than the Space Program. Public support for the Space Program is very, very soft. The public will **not** support a major space project (like my earlier proposed Mars colonization idea) unless the project is being actively pushed by a charismatic president (a Kennedy or Reagan clone) and based on some sort of gut simple propaganda, i.e. "let's beat the Russians". The sad truth is your basic John Q. Public, man-in-the-street isn't all that intelligent or all that well educated. Talk to him about space and he'll come back about Luke Skywalker and R2-D2. SDI was politically viable (from the standpoint of internal politics) because zapping a Russian satellite with a laser is something any idiot could understand. The political fact-of-life is public support for space is weak, and major space projects will occur only through direct presidential support for one flashy, expensive, one-shot project. Educating the public about space is an obvious long term goal for the Space Movement. However this educational task is severly hampered by the extremely low quality of science education in America. How can you convince someone that we should go to Mars if the idiot doesn't even know that Mars is a planet? I agree with other readers of Space Digest that we should have a permanent presence in space. However if this is to be done through the political process (and I believe space travel is currently too expensive to be done any other way) then it will have to be done through a flashy, expensive, ***one-shot*** project like the Apollo program. The only project that I can imagine that would lead to a permanent space presence which is based on one-shot funding would be the 500 man colony on Mars that I described in an earlier posting. Gary Allen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #210 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01631; Fri, 1 May 87 03:03:17 PDT id AA01631; Fri, 1 May 87 03:03:17 PDT Date: Fri, 1 May 87 03:03:17 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705011003.AA01631@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #211 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 211 Today's Topics: Re: Private space again More on Martian colonization Re: Private space again escape Re: mars colony Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars Re: Space developement must recognize political reality ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 87 01:46:04 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Private space again Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <545542725.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale writes: > >I'd like to point out that most of those early colonies in North >America were chartered private groups, incorporated in England. Gee, what's happened to private enterprise since then? Sorry if this sounds too sarastic. I am looking for paralellels. >. Some were religious enclaves like Plymouth. Gee, where's religion when you really need it? >The situation in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies was considerably >different I think. Parallels to Soviet views? > Dale Amon --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Apr 87 16:53:34 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: More on Martian colonization In Vol. 7, No. 198, Dave Rickel responded to my crazy idea of making a permanent Mars colony with 500 people. Ray addressed the question of a Mars shuttle: >I saw a plan using an Earth-Mars shuttle. The idea was you would >place this shuttle in an elliptical orbit such that it approaches the >Earth and Mars cyclically? My original posting called for using an IFR rocket as a basis for the Mars shuttle. This has the advantage of getting one to Mars in a couple of months, thereby reducing biological problems with zero gravity and solar radiation. However the IFR is a speculative technology which assumes success in high energy lasers. Just a plain old dumb space station in a resonant orbit between Mars and Earth could do the trick also. You could place components into this resonant orbit using chemical rockets or nuclear-ion propulsion. This space station would have a closed life support system, be powered by solar energy, have a "storm cellar" that the passengers could go to in the case of high radiation due to a solar disturbance. You'd have the thing in two sections, suspended by a tether and spining about its center of gravity. This would reduce the zero G problem. You would use an OTV to transfer the passengers from a geosynchronous station to the Mars shuttle. The OTV would later (after one cycle) return to the geosynchronous station to be refueled. The passengers could either be dumped directly into the Martian atmosphere in a cheap use-once-throw-away entry body, or aerobrake into Martian orbit to a Phobos station. Cost would determine the best tactic. If you go directly into the Martian atmosphere then you lose the entry body which originated from Earth. If you aerobrake, then the aerobraking vehicle could be reused, and a cheap entry body made from material acquired from Phobos (silicon foam for example). My educated guess is it would be cheaper to just dump directly into the atmosphere and forget Phobos. >OK. Somehow you get to Mars orbit. Getting down shouldn't be much >problem. What to do when you get there may be, though. You need a >power supply. Almost certainly it will be atomic, with all the problems >that entails (not engineering problems--political problems). What's the >composition of the Martian atmosphere? How do you do life support >(photosynthesis? boil the oxygen out of the sand? You're right, in the beginning you'd do everything with nukes. However the colony couldn't grow on nuclear fussion (the tech is too high for a small colony). The political problem isn't that bad. Nuclear reactors aren't dangerous if they've never been powered up. To grow, you would have to go totally on solar power. Fossil fuels don't exist on Mars. Even if they did you couldn't burn them (no free oxygen). The atmoshere is mostly Co2 and nitrogen. Setting up a pressurized green house would be relatively easy if you could keep it warm. Two possible fixes for the Martian energy problem would be "geothermal" or maybe nuclear fission. Mars has lots of volcanoes so "geothermal" is a strong candidate. Mars had rivers and lakes many millions of years ago. Viking 2 (?) landed in an old alluvial fan. Transuranic elements might be available. However fission is a long shot because the tech is too high. >What equipment do you send with your colony? Weight matters. You will >want some areosynchronous (sp?) com/weather sats. A couple more sats >closer in, to do minerological surveys and that sort of stuff. You will >want to set your colony down in an area with a lot of readily available >ore-- iron ore especially. You'll want some transportation (probably a >flyer of sorts). Medical goods. Hydroponics stuff. Shelter. Mining >equipment (note that this doen't necessarily imply bulldozers and >explosives, although they would help). Too bad Mars doesn't have >trees--it'd make things a lot simpler. Ceramics might work out pretty >well--maybe a lot of stuff could be made out of glass. You try and send just human bodies and build your equipment on Mars. It is almost impossible not to find iron on Mars. The reason why the Red Planet is red is because it has so much iron (iron oxide to be exact). Mars does have weather. Mars can have fairly nasty dust storms. A complete survey of the planet would be necessary before the first colonists arrived. Explosives, particularly nuclear explosives would help in the beginning. Mars has nitrogen so one could make chemical explosives from nitric acid. Mars will (and must) have trees inside pressurized green houses. >Until you get three or four settlements, an accident could easily wipe >out the entire colony. Oops. You pays your money, you takes your chances. I'd volunteer, would you? >Until Mars starts producing fuel, the fuel will have to come from Earth >Expensive. Energy is problem number one against growth for the colonies. Energy density from solar is lousy on Earth and worse on Mars. Nukes require too high a tech. The next Martian orbiter should have a high resolution thermal imager to look for hot spots on the planet, and a gamma ray spectrometer to look for transuranics. To make this idea work, you must assume complete support and supply independence from Earth once the colony is established. Funding would be possible only if you could demonstrate that the deal was a one-shot that the U.S. could walk away from once the colony was setup. However I suspect that if the colony was successful then there would be even bigger public demand to send more people. In 30 years the Earth is going to be a very crowded and unpleasant place to live. A virgin planet (even if it is unhospitable) will be attractive to many people. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 16 Apr 87 13:56:53 GMT From: milano!mcc-pp!patrick@im4u.utexas.edu (Patrick McGehearty) Subject: Re: Private space again In article <8704160946.AA08766@ames-pioneer.arpa>, eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > In article <545542725.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale writes: > > > >I'd like to point out that most of those early colonies in North > >America were chartered private groups, incorporated in England. > > Gee, what's happened to private enterprise since then? Sorry if this > sounds too sarastic. I am looking for paralellels. A parallel worth noting is that those early charter groups mostly lost their investments. Jumping on a new idea too soon is often a way to lose a bunch of money. It also paves the way for later followers to make things happen. > >The situation in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies was considerably > >different I think. Yes, those colonies were motivated by greed also, in the form of gold. The vast gold and silver mines of the Spanish colonies confirmed Spain as the leading power of the 16th century until the superior naval technology of England (and some luck) led to the defeat of the Spanish Armada. > > Dale Amon > --eugene miya It seems America's leadership position is being seriously challenged in space and technology by the Russians and the Japanese. A charasmatic leader could use the situation to launch a visionary project. However, it needs to be doable within the funding lifetime of his/her presidency. Otherwise, it will be cut/delayed/etc when a new leader with new programs comes to office. Rather than a 20 year colony on Mars project, how about a 10 year, colony on the Moon project. Such a colony would be much more immediate, making it easier to develop support. A key factor among the activist core is a hope that they personally might make it into space. I like the idea that I might be able to retire to the Moon when I am 65 for the last half of my life, escaping from the health hazards of high gravity. I have no expectation of being able to migrate to Mars in my lifetime. Once the basic technology for moving mass to the Moon is in place, business will move in to establish a tourist industry. :-) Patrick McGehearty (McGehearty@MCC) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Apr 87 13:56:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Subject: escape >How much do you think it will cost to try and keep this planet's >rapidly depleting recources from running out? Do you honestly believe >that this planet can continue to support the present population for the >next 100 years? And when the smaller nations start rise in unison >against the larger nations that have all the food and resources, how >much will it cost for the larger ones to use the dwindling commodities >of food, energy, and minerals to beat back the small ones? How much >will it cost to move the coastal cities of the world inland if the >poles start to melt? How much will the medical expences be for the >cancer caused by ultraviolet radiation? So we should spend zillions of dollars (I have no idea what it would really cost but the Apollo program ran about $25-30 billion in the sixties and colonizing Mars is a much bigger project and there's been a lot of inflation in the last 25 years ). Just so a few hundred or a thousand priveleged individuals can escape all this. I believe we should try to solve our problems here. If we can't agree on doing that then.. 1) Most of us are doomed anyway so how are you going to get the sort of public support needed to launch such a massive project as Mars colonization? ..and 2) If our species is so disagreeable and warlike and uncooperative and just plain stupid that it can't recognize its own self-interest in not fowling its nest, then what is your justification in trying to preserve it on an extra-terrestrial colony? As a good bad example to aliens? > I'm not saying run out on old Mother Earth, but these efforts could > buy us the time we need. It sounds to me like you ARE saying 'run out on Mother Earth'. Attitudes of people like you are how we got into this mess in the first place. When you've finished polluting someplace you just move on to 'someplace else'. But you can't run away from yourself. And besides, 'buy us the time we need' for what? How are we going to use that time? To make better technology? Technology isn't the issue; its a smokescreen. WE are the problem and we've got to face that and stop thinking that our technology is going to save us from ourselves. --Peter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Apr 87 19:23 EDT From: Mark Purtill Subject: Re: mars colony There is one big problem with this idea of putting a colony on Mars. Money. I really can't imagine congress coughing up what this would cost unless the USSR (or even better, Japan) had one already. (If Japan has one, of course it has to be contributing to the balance of trade deficit.) Anyway, the moon is probably a better place to plant a colony than mars. (Not that I expect congress to fund that either.) First off, its got lots of oxygen (~40% of lunar soil by mass). Not only is oxygen useful for breathing, but it is 7/8 of rocket fuel by mass. As the SSI likes to say, the moon is the saudi arabia of space. Secondly, it's a lot cheaper to get to the moon. It costs 50 times more to put a colonist on Mars than to put that same colonist on the moon (SSI figure, from memory). That means instead of putting 500 people on Mars, we could put like 25,000 on the moon, or alternatively spend 50 times less and get 500 on the moon. (This is energy cost I believe; however, the costs to develop a earth-moon system are cheaper than a earth-mars system anyway.) Note since it costs less its more likely to get frederal money and less dependent on it, whcih brings me to the next point. Third, once you're on the moon, you can start to show some profit. It is 22 times cheaper (SSI again) to put stuff in LEO from the moon (compared to from earth). There are two instant markets, first just dirt for eg radiation shielding, or to protect fragile space things from space junk; second, oxygen for fuel. The idea is you launch a rocket (say to put a satellite in Clarke orbit, or to launch a probe to Jupiter) with its oxy tanks empty, and fuel it in LEO. (Not only is it cheaper, its safer; a consideration if the shuttle or other manned vehicle is doing the launch, or if the probe is very expensive.) Also, this means that private investors might put up at least some of the money needed, since there is some hope of getting something out of it. Probably not at first, but maybe after a while. Finally, if you really want to go to Mars, probably going to the moon first is a good idea. Do you really want the first test of your earth-mars ship to be going all the way to mars? Better to give it (and your colony planning to some extent) a test to the moon, or even better build it out of lunar materials. Well, I think I've rambled on enough. ^.-.^ Mark ((")) Purtill -at Multics.MIT.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 Apr 87 15:39:59 GMT From: sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!ihm@locus.ucla.edu (Ian H. Merritt) Subject: Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars >> ... This Martian colony should be built by first >> constructing a space transportation system that can transport material >> into LEO at a reasonable price, i.e. the National Aerospace Plane... > >Ho ho. To approximately quote Gary Hudson: "The Aerospace Plane is going >to be a combination of the Concorde and the Space Shuttle. This does not >sound cheap to me." [...] ... and neither has been entirely successful. What, I wonder, is considered 'reasonable' for space transport prices? What will be considered 'reasonable' 20 years in the future? <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 87 16:33:36 GMT From: dayton!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@rutgers.edu (Dennis Grittner) Subject: Re: Space developement must recognize political reality In article <8704160842.AA25965@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >John Leech's article in Vol. 7, No. 195 of Space Digest on relative I happen to think that colonization and positive use(s) of space is a WONDERFUL idea. >food stamps. The Food Stamp program is money down the toliet, and yet >it has more public support than the Space Program. Public support for >the Space Program is very, very soft. I strongly disagree with your comments about food stamps. Feeding hungry people is NOT a misuse of public funds. Your example of heroin addicts selling their food stamps is a 'cute' use of bad example - yet you use it to indict an entire program. Should we all sight a bad example to attack every idea and/or program that exists in the public and/or private sector?? OBVIOUSLY, having Marines is a bad idea given Oliver North and the recent Moscow embassy situation - , right?? > The sad truth is your basic >John Q. Public, man-in-the-street isn't all that intelligent or all >that well educated. Talk to him about space and he'll come back about >Luke Skywalker and R2-D2. I think is is sad that more money has not been spent on education in the United States. It's also sad that more people do not understand the necessity of humankind exploring the boundaries of it's knowledge and ability - but I don't recall that Columbus had an easy time getting funding either. Perhaps Gary if you approached things in a more positive way and didn't attack the public for being * SO STUPID * that they wanted to blow money on feeding hungry people EVEN MORE than have a space exploration program, you might encourage MORE support for ALL positive ideas including the colonization of space. I agree with you that our education system is lacking ( especially lacking in $$$$ ) but I don't think you can help 'correct' this by calling the public stupid. Most of our citizenry are the victims of our educational system , not arrogrant 'criminals' or other 'nasty types'. The only other point I would ask you to better understand is what the nation shared with John Kennedy - a great dream. Having great dreams is what separates us from other animals ( at least as far as we currently know ) and makes us 'special'. When we fail to have dreams ( and I think that shared one are really special ) we fail to be truly as great as we can be. I hope that I haven't been too negative toward you, that was not my intent. I only wanted to try and give you a more positive outlook toward 'the public' and space colonization. Dennis Grittner ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #211 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03029; Sat, 2 May 87 03:02:38 PDT id AA03029; Sat, 2 May 87 03:02:38 PDT Date: Sat, 2 May 87 03:02:38 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705021002.AA03029@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #212 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 212 Today's Topics: Re: More on Martian colonization Re: SPACE Digest V7 #195 Re: Private space again Re: mars colony (moon colony) Re: colonization of Mars Landlubbers on Mars, or spacefarers in space, which will it be? Re: predictions of future technology Re: escape ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Apr 87 23:40:49 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: More on Martian colonization > Energy is problem number one against growth for the colonies. Energy > density from solar is lousy on Earth and worse on Mars... Much worse on Mars, because the worst of the Martian dust storms cut out almost all sunlight, and they can last for months. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 87 00:05:45 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #195 > (So where can I get my charter for lands bounded by Mare Crisium to the > east ...) Better start learning Russian so you can read and fill out the application form when it becomes available... Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 87 00:00:54 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Private space again > ...those colonies were motivated by greed also, in the form of gold. > The vast gold and silver mines of the Spanish colonies confirmed > Spain as the leading power of the 16th century until the superior > naval technology of England (and some luck) led to the defeat of the > Spanish Armada. It's worth noting that all that gold and silver from outside progressively destroyed the Spanish economy as well. (It had substantial effects on economies all over Europe.) That was a major factor in Spain's decline. As for the defeat of the Armada, I suggest Howarth's "The Voyage of the Armada" as an antidote to a lot of popular misconceptions about that. England beat the Armada not through superior technology, but because of truly spectacular mismanagement by the Spaniards. The analogy is rather unsettling after what we've seen in the last year or so... > It seems America's leadership position is being seriously challenged > in space and technology by the Russians and the Japanese. An > charasmatic leader could use the situation to launch a visionary > project. However, it needs to be doable within the funding lifetime > of his/her presidency. Otherwise, it will be cut/delayed/etc... The proposed Commercial Space Incentive Act [I think I've remembered that name right] would be a simple, cheap, highly effective shot in the arm for US (not necessarily US government!) space activity. For those who don't remember my original posting about it some months ago, this proposed Act says that the US government will pay $500/lb for all payloads placed into orbit by US private launchers, up to a maximum of a million pounds a year, for ten years, subject to some restrictions and complications. At the cost of half a billion (maximum) a year, this gives low-cost commercial launcher developers what they most need: a guaranteed market for getting low-cost launchers going. For purposes of reference, a million pounds a year is about the current Soviet launch rate, and real launch costs for current US launch systems are about $5000/lb (thousand, not hundred). Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 87 17:45:27 GMT From: sdcrdcf!markb@locus.ucla.edu (Mark Biggar) Subject: Re: mars colony (moon colony) Other advantages to moon colony: Trip is much shorter: Cheaper (this has already been said) Much greater chance of rescue if something goes wrong. Either from colony or ship in transit. Ultimate destination of any exports is closer. If colony needs something (drugs, blood, replacement parts etc) you get it in time instead of 3 mo after you need it. Teleoperator control works 2 sec lag as apposed to 20 min lag. Toursts possible :-) Going to the moon (with enough money of course) would be allowed alot sooner then going to mars (which is a maybe never situation). Mark Biggar {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,akgua,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!markb ------------------------------ Date: 16 Apr 87 20:20:42 GMT From: clyde!burl!codas!mtune!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.edu Subject: Re: colonization of Mars In article <2215@calmasd.GE.COM>, jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: > I don't for a minute doubt that my children will be traveling interplanetary > space, almost as routinely as we catch the night-flight to the east coast. I don't doubt it either--but they'll get there on Japan Interplanetary and Miroflot. Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding) X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 April 18 11:37:01 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Landlubbers on Mars, or spacefarers in space, which will it be? Date: Sun, 05 Apr 87 14:15:29 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: The U.S. next space goal should be the colonization of Mars It is time again to stirup the Space Digest newsgroup with another crazy idea. I think it should be the national object of the United States to establish a self sustaining and growing colony of 500 Americans on the planet Mars. I propose a cheaper alternative, see later. I've been informed that 500 is the minimum number for a self contained colony which avoids in-breeding problems. This part sounds good, and important. I'll stick with it. These 500 Americans would be placed on the surface of Mars with a habitat and sufficient tools to build new habitats and duplicate the original set of tools. Except for the surface-of-Mars part, this is good and important too. Mars is rich in metals, and has all of the elements necessary for life (unlike the moon). The Moon is a strawman. My alternative matches Mars in resouces, probably exceeds it. This colony would be established for ideological reasons and **not** for economic reasons. Please explain what ideological reasons would be active here that wouldn't apply to my alternative, a freefloating microgravity colony using asteroids supplemented by lunar material and upper atmospheres of planets, with tethered or otherwise rotating parts for people or equipment that needs a gravity gradient for health. It's a one shot deal that establishes a permanent presence in space. But the surface of Mars isn't in space, it's on land, albeit non-Terran land. What if both Earth and Mars dismantle their space program (actually since the Mars has no ground-to-orbit facilities under your plan, they are grounded from the start anyway), and now we have two landlocked societies, better than one for survival of the species, but we lose our foothold in space. My proposal is not to merely establish a new landlocked society which must re-invent space travel, but a new kind of society which actually lives IN SPACE and travels around freely as a natural consequence of the locale, much as merchant marines live a style of life different from normal landlubbers. My proposal is to learn how to make use of freefloating resources such as asteroids, and easy-to-snarf resources such as lunar surface and upper atmospheres, rather than to merely move to a new locale and exploit basically the same kinds of materials in the same way as we did on Earth. We can both learn something completely new instead of merely something slightly different, and do it a lot cheaper. Furthermore we create a society which inherently would be able to survive the Sun getting too hot or too cold, by its nature as a mobile society, rather than rely on the infrastructure for creating it which however might cease to exist because there would be no rock-solid reason to maintain it after the colony is established on the ground (of Mars). ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 87 00:16:35 GMT From: hao!noao!mcdsun!sunburn!gtx!edge!doug@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Doug Pardee) Subject: Re: predictions of future technology Well, I wasn't there (I'm old, but not *that* old). But I have read a number of accounts of the early history of "computers". #1: They were called "giant calculators". A "computer" was a person who used slide rules, mechanical calculators, and math tables to perform computations for scientific purposes. #2: The giant calculators had nothing at all to do with data-processing. They were scientific research devices. IBM built the first giant calculator (the electro-mechanical one donated to Harvard, generally known as the Harvard Mark I) strictly for TJ's ego. When Eckert and Mauchly built the second giant calculator (the first electronic one, ENIAC), TJ's ego drove him to commit IBM to building an even *bigger* one, the SSSC, to be installed in IBM's headquarters building for all to see. But that didn't turn out to be the biggest giant calculator for long... #3: Each of the early giant calculators was totally individual, like skyscrapers. Since each was going to be "the biggest and the best giant calculator in the world", it stood to reason (and just about everyone believed) that only the most recent handful of them would be big and fast enough to be worthwhile maintaining. (With all the vacuum tubes and mechanical parts, Mean Time Between Failure was pretty short). #4: Once the military realized what they could do with these things, they started placing orders for multiple units. This is probably the turning point, where computers changed from being custom-built behemoths to an assembly-line product. #5: IBM didn't always have the near-total domination of the data-processing computer market that they have now. In the early "computer" years they continued to make computers mostly for the scientific market, with the 701/704/709/7090/7094 line (you might remember IBM created FORTRAN on this computer line). For quite some time, they peddled the 602 Card Programmed Calculator as their main DP offering, while the other manufacturers offered "real computers". Although IBM did offer DP versions of the 70x line, I personally consider the 1401 as the beginning of IBM's DP dominance. #6: A far better description of all this is supposed to be in the works. Herb Grosch is writing a history book on the subject (I don't know its title or when it's due out). Since it's by Grosch, it'll probably be perhaps somewhat biased, but it's bound to be entertaining. -- Doug Pardee -- Edge Computer Corp. -- Scottsdale, Arizona ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 87 18:17:00 GMT From: necntc!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: escape >>How much do you think it will cost to try and keep this planet's >>rapidly depleting recources from running out? Do you honestly believe >>that this planet can continue to support the present population for >>the next 100 years? I don't think resource depletion will get us, unless social and political causes do. Some crucial resource has always been near depletion (arrowhead flint, mammoths, shipmast quality trees, wood to fuel furnaces etc.). Technology has always produced a replacement. And in modern times, Malthusian predictions have always failed, and I expect them to keep failing. On the other hand, all civilizations die eventually. Since we have now only one civilization, very uniform and tightly knit, when it dies, that may be the end. The actual destruction may come from germ warfare, or something on the Jonestown model; or even from resource depletion - *if* political structures predom- inate that make this an insoluble problem. E.g., political structures that promote scarcity redistribution instead of abundance creation. So far, international competition saved us from this: nations that took this course were forced by competitors to modify it. A greater degree of international coordination might destroy this mechanism and set the world on a way to stagnation and death. So I agree that dispersal is our best chance, though not for the resource scarcity reasons. > So we should spend zillions of dollars (I have no idea what it would > really cost but the Apollo program ran about $25-30 billion in the > sixties and colonizing Mars is a much bigger project and there's > been a lot of inflation in the last 25 years ). Just so a few hundred > or a thousand priveleged individuals can escape all this. In a dozen generations it won't matter much who left, their des- cendants will be almost equally related to all of us, and they'll carry common cultural heritage with them. > I believe we should try to solve our problems here. If we can't > agree on doing that then.. 1) Most of us are doomed anyway so how > are you going to get the sort of public support needed to launch > such a massive project as Mars colonization? ..and This is the big question: finding a project with public support. If the Mars plan does it, fine. If some economic or military goal does it, fine. "Solving our problems here" is an empty exhorta- tion. One problem is solved, another comes along. Only the dead have no problems. Space expansion insures against the probability that one of our problems here kills us before we solve it. >2) If our species is so disagreeable and warlike and uncoopera- >tive and just plain stupid that it can't recognize its own self- >interest in not fowling its nest, then what is your justification >in trying to preserve it on an extra-terrestrial colony? As a >good bad example to aliens? The aliens might not share your tastes. Our species includes and needs all sorts, including the belligerent one (e.g., the above is a flame). Its vices are many, but are the obverse of its vir- tues. As for fouling its nest: a bird (or fowl) must foul *some- where*; it can do so outside the nest *if* there's an outside. Therefore, expand. The justification for the survival of sapient life is that nothing else gives any meaning to the rest of the universe. Anyway, those who do not want to survive, don't have to; why should they begrudge it to the others? >> I'm not saying run out on old Mother Earth, but these efforts could >> buy us the time we need. > It sounds to me like you ARE saying 'run out on Mother Earth'. > Attitudes of people like you are how we got into this mess in > the first place. When you've finished polluting someplace you > just move on to 'someplace else'. But you can't run away from > yourself. Where is the logic in that? Running away from the effects of one's pollution (something that even animals do) is not "running away from oneself". >And besides, 'buy us the time we need' for what? How are we going >to use that time? To make better technology? Technology isn't the >issue; its a smokescreen. Technology is not the "issue": it is the solution. It is *the* human way to solve problems. Homo Sapiens has been a tool-making, technological animal from the start, and it has been a smashing success. >WE are the problem and we've got to face that and stop thinking >that our technology is going to save us from ourselves. This, propagated over a high-tech medium.... People who think technology solves no problems ought to stop using it - to go back to the tree-tops. And the logic of the statement that "WE" are the problem seems to point inexorably to suicide as the only solution. But of course we are the problem, aren't we - if we didn't exist, we would have no problems at all! :-). The sane course, however, seems to be to continue existing, how- ever precariously, and having problems, and leaving them behind us, and expanding to new problems and dangers. Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #212 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04199; Sun, 3 May 87 03:03:06 PDT id AA04199; Sun, 3 May 87 03:03:06 PDT Date: Sun, 3 May 87 03:03:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705031003.AA04199@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #213 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 3 May 87 03:03:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #213 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 213 Today's Topics: try this note again Re: escape re: escape Re: Space developement must recognize political reality SSI Query HOTOL Re: HOTOL Re: Space Sailing MIR + ? Re: The new superconductors and launching loops Re: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 87 10:14:45 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: try this note again In article <208@osupyr.UUCP> Herman Rubin writes: >To those who say we must first solve the Earth problems, I have three >comments. One, even now the bulk of the money spent on space goes for >Earth employment. Two, the Proxmires, etc., who do not believe in >space should not have to support it, but they should also be in the >position of the other animals who did not help the Little Red Hen. >Three, I do not believe that human activities should be determined by >the majority. -- Herman Rubin Herman makes some good points here. I have learned in other activities, the point about the about majority is a good one. The majority do not use libraries, stadiums, etc. [I have a good reference on this if someone needs it.] But we could argue that the majority benefits in the long run. Regarding the Proxmires, it would be interesting to restrict benefits as a means of comparison (which you can do to limited degree, if you look at those who voluntarily restrict technologies). I'm not certain how to interpret the first line. In defense of those defending the earth, but also desiring space: I think the majority do so because 1) a conscious effort to not carry certain baggage into space (a fresh start) which would be detrimental to the long run in space [weapons and orbiting radioactive trash] and 2) an effort to get people to think about problems in new ways. I think our long-term survival in space and on earth depends on it. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 87 02:28:20 GMT From: bzs@bu-cs.bu.edu (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: escape Janw makes some good points. I'd like to add that there may be a paradox at work here: The hypothesis is that IF we don't disperse the population to space THEN it may become extinct due to resource depletion on earth. The paradox I see is that unless there is some sort of massive breakthrough in technology then this space colony is likely to have to face an incredible problem of resource depletion itself, no? How plentiful in resources could a space colony be? The only breakthroughs I can think of would either be some way to outfit the colony, upon leaving, with relatively infinite resources (that is, more than that [assumed] small population can use up) or guaranteeing them navigation to a planet with reasonable resources they can develop. Personally, I think we should support travel to the stars for the same reason we support art (and more so.) There's a difference between -how- we live (eg. economic reasoning) and -why- we live (a goal, destiny, whatever you want to call it.) If we can no longer act on abstract goals of destiny we'll never justify in our minds a good reason to go out into space (or a lot of other things humanity spends its time doing.) Economic profitability (&c) are just rationalizations for things we want to do anyhow. In the end we only need food, shelter etc. if it comes down to that. -Barry Shein, Boston University ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 87 18:57:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Subject: re: escape I have nothing against 'high technology' ; hi-tech supplies my income and several of my hobbies. I just disagree with the notion that the solution to our problems lies purely in ever-higher technology. I believe that it will be very helpful to also change our attitudes about certain things. I believe that if we are going to survive we must learn to use resources and generate waste at sustainable rates. At the moment we are not doing that and it is starting to be a problem, especially in the area of waste generation. The technology exists even now to live quite comfortably with a lot less resource use and a lot less pollution. But, no doubt, further technological advances could make this even easier to attain. But none of this will happen if we lack the will to live in a sustainable way and keep hoping that our descendents will develop the technology to clean up the mess that we've left them. The original poster seemed to express an attitude of 'the Earth is going to hell, a few of us should escape while we can'. The real irony is that the Earth's environment is much more robust and forgiving of excess waste and other insults than the fragile artificial ecosystem of a Mars or asteroid colony is likely to be. If we can't find a way of 'getting it right' here on Earth then how long will our extra-terrestrial colonies last? --Peter ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 87 16:55:22 GMT From: sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!ihm@locus.ucla.edu (Ian H. Merritt) Subject: Re: Space developement must recognize political reality [I've omitted most of the article so as not to clutter the news with reprints] I agree mostly with what you said, except for the following point. > [...] The only project that I can imagine that would lead to >a permanent space presence which is based on one-shot funding would >be the 500 man colony on Mars that I described in an earlier posting. How is a colony on Mars any more in 'space' than a colony on Earth? Anyway, I would like to see this too, but I don't know if the cost and the timeframe are practical at this time. We've all heard talk of teraforming Mars by hurling giant snowballs (retrieved from the rings of Saturn or some such) at it, thereby generating heat from atmospheric entry and surface impact, thus melting the snowballs and some of the polar ice caps, believed to be water-ice, and flooding parts of the planet with water (oceans), to create a hydrosphere on which to build an eco-system with life forms of our own choosing, presumably from earth. [Long inhalation] It sounds to me as if something like this could actually work. If so, wouldn't it be a bit premature to put people there NOW? Shouldn't we embark on a serious study of just HOW to go about the massive project that it is? One-shot funding is no guarantee. Congress has cut off already allocated funding before. Imagine the consequences if they were to cut off a program like a 500 man colony part way through its implentation. I REALLY want to see us make Mars habitable, but I don't think a hasty effort to prematurely settle a colony there is quite the way to go about it. I DO believe that we should put a small (~20-30) people research base up there to study the problem of planetary-scale alterations. Cheerz toward a better tomorrow... <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 16 Apr 86 11:30 EST From: C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: SSI Query I've seen several mentions recently of the Space Studies Institute in recent weeks. Can someone provide any general info about the group, and/or an address to join or subscribe to their periodical(s)? -Dave Dave Chatfield ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 87 21:36:01 GMT From: necntc!auspyr!sci!daver@ames.arpa (Dave Rickel) Subject: HOTOL I got some statistics on HOTOL (Britain's proposed aerospace plane) last night and was doing some calculatons based on them. According to the article HOTOL will weigh one fifth as much when it lands as when it took off. Assuming that all that lost weight was fuel, that gives it a mass ratio of 5. If i didn't make a stupid mistake, that means that its delta-v is about 1.6 times its exhaust velocity. The article said that it would go up to Mach 9 or so before the rocket engine cut in. Since orbital velocity is 8 kps, that means that the rocket has to provide a 5 kps delta-v. That means that the exhaust velocity has to be at least 3.13 kps. OK so far? So, what is the exhaust velocity of a Hydrogen/Oxygen rocket? I really have no idea how to calculate this, but I had a handbook of chemistry and physics handy, and it had bond energies of various compounds in it. Anyway, when i juggled some numbers around, i got an exhaust velocity of hydrogen and oxygen with 100% excess oxygen of 2.4 kps. That seems quite a bit short of what HOTOL needs. Does anyone have real numbers? Could you send me mail describing how to compute these numbers? While i was at it, i tried to figure out the exhaust velocity of a rocket based on the "burning" of monatomic (is that a word?) hydrogen to diatomic hydrogen. The exhaust velocity i got for that was 20.9 kps. Neat stuff-- that's in the range where chemical-powered interplanetary travel makes sense. Of course, if my figure for hydrogen-oxygen is wrong, then my figure for hydrogen-hydrogen is also probably wrong. And there are some difficulties with monatomic hydrogen--like how to store it. Oh well. Details. david rickel decwrl!sci!daver [PS I refigured the hydrogen/oxygen rocket assuming 0% excess oxygen, and got an exhaust velocity of 3.3 kps, which is just barely enough. Isn't that a bit hard on the rocket, though? Maybe that's part of their technology improvement. david rickel] ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 87 19:03:50 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: HOTOL > ... Anyway, when i juggled some numbers around, i got an exhaust > velocity of hydrogen and oxygen with 100% excess oxygen of 2.4 kps. > That seems quite a bit short of what HOTOL needs. Does anyone have > real numbers? Oxyhydrogen engines don't run with excess oxygen for at least four reasons: (A) Oxygen's high molecular weight makes it a poor propellant, so its main use is as an energy source. I.e. you want to burn all of it. (B) It is hard to make a rocket engine that can survive oxygen-rich conditions inside it. Oxygen is fiercely corrosive at high temperatures and pressures. The shuttle takes great pains to always run hydrogen-rich, including deliberately filling the hydrogen tank a little fuller than it needs to be, so that even if the engines don't cut off when they should, they will run out of oxygen first. (C) It is worth running hydrogen-rich to reduce the average molecular weight of the exhaust. That is, some of the hydrogen gets used just as reaction mass, not as burning fuel. As I recall, existing oxyhydrogen engines usually run at O:H ratios of 6:1 or less (by weight), where 8:1 would be the complete-combustion ratio. (D) Complete combustion means a very hot exhaust jet. Get it too hot and you can't *get* complete combustion, because the water formed by the combustion starts to dissociate. I am told that keeping the exhaust temperature down a bit with excess hydrogen can be a net win, and that this does figure into advanced oxyhydrogen engines like the shuttle's. > Could you send me mail describing how to compute these numbers? In general they are engine-design-dependent, so there just isn't any simple way to get the right answer for advanced designs. This also explains some of the variation you see in reference books. There are theoretical limits, but real engines are generally well below them. > While i was at it, i tried to figure out the exhaust velocity of a > rocket based on the "burning" of monatomic (is that a word?) hydrogen > to diatomic hydrogen. The exhaust velocity i got for that was 20.9 > kps. Neat stuff... It's usually just called "atomic hydrogen". It yields close to three times the energy per gram of ordinary hydrogen, *and* you don't have to haul along several times as much oxygen, *and* the molecular weight of the exhaust is a lot lower. Pity we don't know how to make it stable enough to store... Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 87 18:11:01 GMT From: pyramid!amdahl!ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@decwrl.dec.com (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Space Sailing In article <7879@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP writes: >> So, what I havn't been able to figure out is how do you steer the >> critter? Do you have to carry AUX thrusters or can you do the >> complete maneuver with clever positioning of the sail? [...] >As I recall, the World Space Foundation sail project has two vanes for >roll control and uses axis-shifting for pitch and yaw. > >Maintaining control while in shadow, or luffed (sail roughly edge-on to >Sun) might involve some problems. I did a study of the dynamics of a heliogyro-type sail last year. If you have two contra-rotating wheels, you can apply equal-but-opposite torques to them and they both precess in the same direction. You can use this to pitch and yaw a heliogyro without any photon pressure at all. For a vehicle which is to operate in the near-earth environment, when it would be desireable to remain edge-on to the path of flight while in shadow (to reduce air drag), this would be a valuable capability. The biggest problem with the heliogyro is applying large torques. Using electrostatic forces between the vanes would apply the force along the length of the vanes, increasing the moment arm tremendously, and really cut down on the loads applied to the bearings. Russ Cage ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 87 05:05:39 GMT From: tektronix!cae780!ubvax!weitek!wallis@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Wallis) Subject: MIR + ? I went up on my roof to watch a passage of the Russian MIR station tonight (4-19-87) and saw TWO fairly bright objects instead of one. The first was about magnitude 2, and the second was magnitude 1, following about 10 seconds behind. The last time I saw something like this, it turned out to be Salyut and MIR docking. The second object must have been MIR, does anyone know what the 1st was? Bob Wallis UUCP {turtlevax,pyramid,cae780,apple}!weitek!wallis ------------------------------ Date: 15 Apr 87 07:26:36 GMT From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: The new superconductors and launching loops The ribbon is held to the track with active control throughout the entire length of the launch loop. The active control problem IS difficult. However, small cables to the ground, driven by actuators at both ends, can be used to supply the small restoring forces necessary to keep the system stable. At this writing, the main problem is finding a control scheme sufficiently robust to allow the cables to the ground to be spaced at wide intervals. ~10 km spacing appears possible now, but I would like to find a scheme allowing wider spacing to facilitate navigation between the ground cables (and allowing them to be more robust). With perfect controllers and the proper control law, the system is metastable, by the way; the primary problem is the finite accuracy of the position sensors, which accumulates as a perturbation of the system. Tension is not needed in the system, though a little stiffness allows the control points to be spaced at a finite distance (I am assuming one meter, requiring 600,000 controllers! Fortunately, many of them can break; it's the frequency that counts. And in those quantities, perhaps I can get a quantity discount :-) ) Any help from control theorists would be much appreciated; a good proof that the launch loop cannot work would save me a lot of time. However, such a proof would have to cover all the possible ways of handling the control problem, since success only requires one working alternative out of many. And there remain a number of rabbits in the hat, which have not yet been necessary to reach for. I have a more mathematical description available; send me Email and a physical postal address I can US Snail it to you. Keith Lofstrom MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Apr 87 02:02:39 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble In article <776@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP writes: > A space elevator, stationary wrt the Earth, would eventually be smashed > into by almost EVERY BODY IN ORBIT. The only things that wouldn't hit > it would be satellites with precisely timed orbital precessions. Actually, every body in orbit eventually runs into every other body at the same altitiude. The question is how to design your tether (generalization of space elevator) so that it can survive being hit by debris and meteors, since there is no way to prevent being hit. In low Earth orbit, where the density of junk is highest, you can expect a cable u cut per thousand kilometer-years. In other words, if your cable is 1000 km long, you can expect it to be cut at an average rate of one time per year. The way to survive this is to (a) have multiple strands separated by more than the width of the largest object in orbit, on the order of 50-100 meters, and (b) have periodic horizontal crossties to redistribute loads around a broken strans strand section. If the crossties are, say, 10 km apart, then there is a 1% chance per year of any section of a strand being cut. You would then have to go out and replace that 10 km section. Think of it as continuing maintenenace. Dani Eder, advanced space transportation, Boeing, ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #213 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05566; Mon, 4 May 87 03:03:06 PDT id AA05566; Mon, 4 May 87 03:03:06 PDT Date: Mon, 4 May 87 03:03:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705041003.AA05566@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #214 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 214 Today's Topics: Re: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble Re: Near Term Laser Launcher Prospects ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Apr 87 05:50:47 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad@seismo.css.gov Subject: Re: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble In article <1192@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: > >Actually, every body in orbit eventually runs into every other body at the >same altitiude. Not quite the same, since bodies in similar orbits have quite similar velocities and move quite slowly wrt one another. Almost all man made stuff is launched in the same direction, for obvious reasons. For example all the bodies we have placed at geosynchronous orbit will not impact for a very, very long period of time. A space elevator is different. It is in space, but effectively motionless. (1 "orbit" every 24 hours) The impacts come more frequently, and are more violent. LEO satellites impact at 17,000 mph. >In other words, if your cable is 1000 km long, you can >expect it to be cut at an average rate of one time per year. Of course, satellite density isn't uniform, but the cable is at least 44,000 km long and probably much longer. >The way to >survive this is to (a) have multiple strands separated by more than the >width of the largest object in orbit, on the order of 50-100 meters, and >(b) have periodic horizontal crossties to redistribute loads around a >broken strans strand section. >Dani Eder, advanced space transportation, Boeing, ssc-vax!eder So the cables must be strong enough, not only to hold their own weight, but to hold 1/(n-1) of another cable, and the crossties, and the micrometeor shield. On top of that, we are talking some whopping impacts here, with pretty massive releases of kinetic energy and big momentum transfers. If the cable snaps easily, the transfer might not be so bad, but the sideways stress is placed on the other cables, who tend to snap easily under such stress. Plus there is flying, high energy debris (including big cable sections) that might go in any direction, including towards other cable sections. Contrary to popular belief, you aren't weightless 200 km up. You weigh pretty much the same as you do here, if you're standing on a space elevator. That mean the snapped cable falls fast, either snapping again, or bending at the cross-tie and hitting something else. If it breaks off altogether, it falls (what would be the exact trajectory?) somewhere near the base site, a heavily populated area full of expensive stuff -- it's the space transportation hub of the world! It doesn't burn up unless it falls from very high. burn-up is caused by velocity, not any re-entry. Let us not also forget that the satellite is lost, although chances are that if it were an active unit, ground control would have projected its path and used some means to divert it. Is the elevator usable with one snapped strand? What about the traffic on that strand at impact time? How much downtime could be expected? Some space junk, including the results of ASAT tests and water outgassed from manned missions, comes in clusters. Even a droplet of ice from a flushed space toilet at 9 km/s could be deadly. Multiple strands could be broken by such a cloud. And let's not forget terrorists, even those with only a sub-orbital launch capability. Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 87 23:33:23 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: Near Term Laser Launcher Prospects I have been watching the discussion here on Laser Propulsion for some time. Jim Kempf's article has finally compelled me to write a reply. You see, I am currently in charge of the SDIO Laser Propulsion project, a completely unclassified program with a budget of order $1M for 1987. So when someone says "forget laser propulsion", I just can't sit still. ********************************************************************** The material presented here represents my own opinions, and is in no way representative of the official position of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization or its Program in Laser Propulsion, or any other government agency. ********************************************************************** In article <1628@hplabsc.UUCP> kempf@hplabsc.UUCP (Jim Kempf) writes: > >INTRODUCTION >In response to the frustration of watching the Russki's cavorting about >over our heads doing the real thing while we sit around with our noses >buried in "Space Wars" video games, I decided to do some investigation >into the near term feasibility of laser launched vehicles for cheap >single stage to orbit lift... >My initial interest was inspired by a net discussion last fall, in >which Myrabo and Ing's book "The Future of Flight" was mentioned. >Myrabo has been doing paper studies of laser launch systems for years Myrabo's work is very good, but he does tend (in some part at the request of his supporting agencies) to design second- and third- generation systems rather than things we can build right away. The jump from Ing's part on ultralights to Myrabo's on ultra-lasers is quite amazing. >In addition, the AIAA series on recent advances in astronautics has a >volume from several years back discussing more technical details >(sorry, exact reference not at hand) Vol. 89, Orbit Raising and Maneuvering Propulsion, L.H. Caveny, Ed. >Myrabo and Ing claim that a laser launch system would allow single >stage to orbit transfer of large amounts of material for a fraction of >the current cost... the savings come from the inherent simplicity of >the system. All the power generating equipment is on the ground, so the >launch vehicle itself can be made very light weight (modulo aerodynamic >forces) and need only carry a fraction of the amount of fuel needed for >a conventional rocket, since thrust generation is not occuring due to >combustion but from the externally beamed laser power. Additionally, >the driving fluid ... could just as easily be plain old water. A very good summary. In fact, the _main_ advantage of laser propulsion is probably not the increased performance (high specific impulse), but the ability to operate as a "pipeline", with very high throughput for a minimum of manpower. >PHYSICS OF LASER LAUNCHING > >The point of the following calculations is to determine how much power >is needed to put a body of a certain mass into orbit (as a function of >the mass)... I refer readers back to the original article for calculations, except for a small note that in eq. 1 > v = u * ln( m(0) / m ) - g * t (1) > >where: > > v = final velocity > u = velocity of the exhaust > m(0) = initial mass of rocket > m = final mass of rocket > g = acceleration due to gravity (9.82 m/sec^2) > t = time of burnout > g is not a constant, but represents the component of gravity along the direction you are accelerating; this makes things slightly better. >Assuming a specific impulse of 1000, we can calculate [exhaust >velocity] as 9.82 x 10^3 m/sec. Isp = 800 to 1000 is about right >This gives the mass ratio as a function of the time to orbit. Assuming >a 15 minute flight time, the mass ratio is 5.5, a 30 minute flight time >gives a mass ratio of 13.6. For fairly straightforward reasons (you can't accelerate arbitrarily slowly, you can't stay in range of one laser site forever) realistic trajectories have time to orbit of 5 to 15 minutes. Mass ratios range from as low as 3 to as high as 10, depending on things like initial vehicle mass, drag coefficient, etc. >Assume, for the sake of argument, a mass ratio of 5.5, and thus >a flight time to orbit of 15 minutes. What amount of laser power >would be needed to achieve this? > > E = 3.2 x 10^7 * m Joules ( Newton-meters) > >Now comes the interesting part. We assume this amount of energy is >deposited in the rocket during the 15 minute ascent (a more >sophisticated calculation is possible). The resulting power required >is: > P = 3.5 x 10^4 * m watts (Joules/sec) > >Taking m at orders of magnitude in kg. gives the following table > > m=10^2 kg ------------------> 3.5 x 10^6 watts > m=10^3 kg ------------------> 3.5 x 10^7 watts > m=10^4 kg ------------------> 3.5 x 10^8 watts This is optimistic. The "real" answers (my current best number, based on a fairly detailed trajectory simulation) is that you get about 1.5 kg into orbit per megawatt of laser power. The biggest unknown is the efficiency of the thruster at converting laser energy to kinetic energy of exhaust -- I think we can get about 40%. >Thus, to launch a 0.1 metric ton payload would require 3.5 Megawatts, a >1.0 metric ton payload would require 35 Megawatts, etc. The initial >mass of the vehicles, including driving fluid, would be 5.5 times the >mass at orbit. I have a viewgraph which cites two cases: a "small" laser launcher is a 100 MW laser launching about 150 kg; the "large" laser is 1 GW launching 1.5 tons (that's a Mercury capsule, by the way). Keep in mind that, running flat out (say, 4 launches an hour, 80 per day, 28,000 launches per year) even 150 kg at a time gives you over 4000 tons per year in orbit (that's 200 shuttle flights worth), and even at a 10% duty cycle (one launch an hour, one shift a day) you can launch more mass with the small system than the whole shuttle fleet can launch on NASA's best schedules. >ENGINEERING A LASER LAUNCH SYSTEM > >...After all, the NOVA Nd:Yg inertial confinement fusion laser at >Livermore, the ASTERIX iodine laser in Germany, and others have >demonstrated powers upwards of 10 *terawatt*. These are all peak powers, and completely irrelevant. You need average power. >Free electron lasers (FEL's) have theoretical conversion efficiencies >of near 30%, compared to about 10% for the CO(2) laser which forms the >backbone of current industrial lasers. The "wall plug" efficiency (power line to light) of projected FEL's is, I believe, 20-25%. FEL's of certain types (induction linac driven) also tend to produce a very convenient size and shape of pulse. >If we want to catch those Russki's (and, in the process, maybe make >some bucks) we've got to start NOW and we can't wait for exotic new >technologies. A laser launch system will require high power lasers >which have long duty cycles, good stability, are well characterized in >terms of power and gas consumption, and are priced competitively. Competitively compared to what?? Actually, CO2 lasers are indeed the logical thing to do experiments with, and that's what we're doing them with... >Unfortunately, the power range of current commercially available CO(2) >lasers is too low, by almost 2 orders of magnitude. The largest current >commercial laser manufactured in the US is a 15 kilowatt model built by >United Technologies in Conn. (source: Laser Focus, March 1986). ... >While one could design a system made of clustered smaller modules, the >3.5 Megawatt figure for only 100 kg. payload (not really useful) Nonsense! _Provided_ you have some on-orbit assembly capability, 100 kg is big enough to launch almost anything except a man. It is more than sufficient for fuel, oxygen, water, shielding mass, and consumables of all sorts. Even without on-orbit assembly, there are a wide variety of "single purpose" satellites that can be designed to weigh under 100 kg. Freeman Dyson has advocated building a launcher for _1 kg_ payloads -- sufficient to carry a microminiaturized scientific experiment, at least. >would require 235 such units. At $1/2 Million a module (I'm guessing, >but that's only 2 houses in Palo Alto) that's $120 Million for the >laser system alone, provided you could engineer the optics to collect >and focus 235 high powered beams. "Commercial" is a misleading term. No, you can't buy a 100 KW laser off the shelf, but there are several companies that will build you one on fairly short notice and at a not-unreasonable price. They will quote you on megawatt-scale lasers, but the quotes are subject to considerable uncertainty. However, your price estimate is considerably too high. While I do not have formal quotes (and could not release them if I did), "guesstimates" for megawatt scale systems are in the $5 to $20 per watt range, so $120 Million will probably buy something like 10 MW of laser. There are two competing philosophies for design -- one BIG laser or stacked small lasers -- if you try to build a CO2-based system. FEL's, by their nature, lead to one BIG laser. Beam combining optics for arrays are complex, but have been designed. I generally estimate the overall cost of a 100 MW "test" launch system at $2 billion (less than 1 shuttle orbiter, and well within the reach of, say, Boeing), and the cost of a 1GW system, built for continuous flat out use, at $20 billion. Someone at a talk once asked me "You mean, if I gave you $2 billion today, you would build this?", and I said, "If you gave me $2 billion today, I'd head for Brazil, quick :-) :-) -- but yes, I think it could be done". >There are some commercial laser technologies which could achieve higher >power (~100 Kw), transverse axial flow being one, but they are limited >to continuous wave (CW) lasers. Due to the tendency of shock waves to >propagate down the beam, any laser used in a launch system will >probably have to be pulsed. Again, my personal favorite designs involve a pulsed laser, because CW laser thrusters seem to me to be more complicated, and thus heavier and more expensive. With a pulsed system, you can hope to build a "Four-P" thruster -- everything stays on the ground but Payload, Propellant, and Photons, Period (A. Kantrowitz, 1986) -- which is basically a block of "ice" (water may not be the right thing to use; much of our current research is on what propellant to pick) with a payload on top -- all the guidance, etc. is done from the ground. The technology for very high average power transverse flow pulsed CO2 lasers does exist, however, and has existed since the mid 1970's. >CONCLUSIONS > >Initially I had hoped to come up with evidence that a venture funded >startup on the scale of $100 Million or so could build a system in >three years which would achieve a couple orders of magnitude reduction >in to-orbit costs over Ariane and the Shuttle. Alas, I do not know of any approach, including catapults (which are cheaper than laser propulsion provided your payload will take 10,000 g's) with development + capital costs of under $100 million. Even the "low budget" expendable booster operations, some of which are being funded by venture capital, tend to project losses well over this figure before they achieve profitability. Laser propulsion is likely to be very inexpensive compared to, say, the Orient Express, or a new heavy lift booster. A "proof of principle" demonstration, however, can be conducted relatively cheaply if a suitable laser exists. >However, it looks like we'll be dependent on ol' "Deep Pockets" Uncle >Sugar to pull this one off. The technology simply isn't there, and it >isn't likely to develop except in the context of military applications, >since the current power plateau in industrial laser technology is about >as high as most applications need. Since anything the Uncle develops >for military purposes is likely to remain a deep dark secret (unless >some Marine guards get a hold of it), it is unlikely we'll see a laser >launch system in the near future. The SDIO Laser Propulsion program is _not_ classified. It is an open program, and participation from industry and universities is encouraged. Our goal is to do the research and development needed for laser propulsion _exclusive_ of laser technology itself (which is supported by other programs) so that when large lasers (probably FEL's) are available, we will be able to use them to launch payloads into space. Our schedule calls for us to be prepared for high power, long range tests -- essentially launching a grapefruit into orbit :-) -- in the early 1990's, laser resources permitting. Of course, I have personal hopes that a real laser launch facility will be built, possibly well before the year 2000, but I cannot predict the future.... If you are interested in more information, please write to me (regular mail, not E-mail) at Mail Stop L-278, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94550, and request the Proceedings of the SDIO/DARPA Workshop on Laser Propulsion, Volume I, CONF-860778. I will answer questions on a time-available basis -- I've spent far too long writing this posting already :-{ Dr. Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.UUCP ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #214 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07906; Tue, 5 May 87 03:03:16 PDT id AA07906; Tue, 5 May 87 03:03:16 PDT Date: Tue, 5 May 87 03:03:16 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705051003.AA07906@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #215 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 215 Today's Topics: condensed space news from Feb 9 AW&ST, and summary of format poll space news from Feb 16 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Apr 87 01:43:14 GMT From: necntc!drilex!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ames.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: condensed space news from Feb 9 AW&ST, and summary of format poll Large color ad for Geostar in the high-profile front pages before the table of contents. Orbital Sciences was profitable in 1986, due to NASA upper-stage orders. OSC will submit a design for the USAF big-upper-stage program, and may get involved with the heavy-lift launcher. Senator Hollings tells Sec. of Commerce that DoC proposal for a single new Landsat costing circa $260M is unacceptable; Landsat program in danger. USAF draft agreement for commercial use of expendable pads said to be unsatisfactory to customers: overprotective of government interests. Picture of model of Soviet Gorizont comsat, being offered for commercial lease. Overall impression is of a more cluttered exterior than the usual run of Western comsats. NATO-3C comsat reactivated after 7.5 years of on-orbit storage, a new record. Its predecessor, NATO-3B, lasted longer than expected. Oops: Soviets have two major space failures in one week. Proton fourth stage fails to ignite, leaving Clarke-orbit comsat in parking orbit; might have been an explosion, vehicle separated into four pieces that re-entered fairly quickly from the low orbit. And a spysat was deliberately blown up in low orbit [sigh, more space debris... -- HS] after its retro system failed somehow, preventing controlled descent. The Soviets are nevertheless maintaining a launch pace that will total more missions by the end of Feb. than the US will total all year. [Mini-editorial: The Soviets are the only ones on this planet with a real space program. Just *look* at the numbers: the Soviet space program is an order of magnitude larger than all the others put together! To some extent they don't get as good a return on investment as the more sophisticated Western programs, but they make up for it in sheer volume and persistence. They are also much less troubled by an occasional failure: it matters less. If you want to go into space someday, I suggest you refrain from bad-mouthing the Soviet Union in public. It might come back to haunt you when you arrive at Customs on your trip to the Lunar Soviet Socialist Republic. I am not kidding; I wish I was. -- HS] Romanenko and Laveykin launched to Mir on Feb 6, first crew to use a new version of Soyuz with more flexible rendezvous system and heavier payload. Stay aboard Mir expected to be 10 months. NASA and contractors weighing several options for Flight Readiness Firing before 1988 launch of STS-26. Depending on contingency allowances and whether an FRF is done, launch dates range from March 3 (a two-week slip from earlier plans) to April 14. Interim report to Fletcher on microgravity research says US will be "the landlords of the space station, not the tenants" unless more resources are put into microgravity science work and equipment. Germany, Japan, and ESA are putting much more money into it than the US. DoD cancels its private shuttle mission-control center in Colorado Springs, citing fewer missions and tight budgets. The issue might be revisited when military space needs expand. One unfortunate aspect, pointed out by head of USAF Space Command: Johnson Space Center is (so to speak, in shuttle terminology) a Criticality 1 failure point in the shuttle system -- a vital facility which has no backup. The DoD center would have provided a backup, in addition to its military role. Space station deployment may be delayed up to two years due to $14G cost estimate. Rethinking in progress (again); release of RFPs delayed (again). Congressional Budget Office suggests cancelling both space station and Challenger replacement to save money. NASA is looking seriously at the Boeing/Hughes Jarvis proposal, especially since it wouldn't involve NASA money much. NASA likes the idea of a shuttle-derived heavy-lift launcher. The USAF opposes using shuttle or Titan technology in the HLL, wants new technology to minimize operating costs [!]. Sen. Gore: "That's a ridiculous way to proceed." Gore says Senate Armed Services Committee will not support DoD HLL funding unless NASA is involved and existing investment in shuttle technology and facilities is exploited. NASA criticized for not including companies other than Morton Thiokol in getting the revised SRB design going. Other companies express doubts about the M-T revised design. Details of the proposed Block 2 SRB designs. M-T proposes modest upgrade of existing design. Hercules proposes similar design, using its filament- wound casings for greater performance. Aerojet proposes casting the SRB propellant in one piece in Florida, eliminating the field joints while using existing hardware; the one additional piece of equipment needed at KSC would be million-pound cranes for moving complete SRBs around. United Technologies' Chemical Systems Div., which builds the segmented SRBs for the Titan, proposes a one-piece design very much like Aerojet's. Atlantic Research (with NASA Langley) proposes an interesting new segmented design: joining segments with bolted flanges. Pictures of the AR design. The casing thickens greatly at the joint, with cavities cut into it from the outside near the joint, and bolts going from cavity in one segment to matching cavity in the other, holding the joint together. The joint itself is just two flat surfaces meeting each other, with a pair of O-rings and interlocking insulation inside for sealing. The length of the segments would be doubled, eliminating the factory joints, to offset the extra weight of the flanges; the net result would be a bit lighter, in fact. This design eliminates joint rotation entirely and greatly simplifies assembly and inspection (inspection of the revised M-T joint is a problem). M-T observes that the shuttle can tolerate only about a 3% mismatch in thrust between left and right SRBs, and that one-piece designs may not be as uniform in performance as segmented designs where segments can be matched carefully. M-T starts full-diameter testing of revised SRB joint design, trying to resolve controversies between M-T, NASA, NRC, etc. Pressure testing shows very little joint rotation. Assembly tests show adequate durability of the capture-feature section of the joint, which is a tight metal-to-metal fit. Tests of the J-seal concept to keep hot gases out of the joint entirely have worked. Lots of details of testing. Scientists slam recent cancellation of many near-future Spacelab flights. Lack of opportunities to refly early experiments is a particular problem. Rep. Nelson orders NASA to maintain planning for 1990 launch of Mars Observer until Congress can assess the delay-until-1992 decision. There is broad support for transferring it to a 1990 Titan 3 launch, but no money for the Titan in NASA's budget. Drawings of ESA's Caesar comet-encounter mission: sample return from relatively low-speed flyby of short-period comet. Some scientists feel the 10-kps flyby velocity is still too high for good sampling, others say it remains very useful for a modest price even if dust particles do not survive intact. FCC permits broadcast-satellite operators to offer communications services other than TV broadcast during service startup, to improve early financial viability. ===================================== [Okay, the responses to my "which format do you prefer" poll have stopped coming, and I've found some time to go through them all. Here are the results, followed by some comments on my plans. Overall, the poll was overwhelmingly (45-10) in favor of the condensed format, mostly because of lack of time to read the longer format. Several people said that they simply could not take the time to read the longer format at all. A repeated theme was "if I want more detail, I'll go find a copy of that issue and read the complete story". A number of people suggested partial compromise: a variable level of detail depending on the story. One person suggested picking a "lead story" for more detail in each issue, while retaining condensed format otherwise. Quite a few said they liked the editorials and personal commentary; some of the folks who preferred the longer format cited this as the main reason for their preference. There were several requests for me to go back to the full-size editorials, in particular. One reader asked whether I used a page scanning device to help! No, it's all manual. I don't think a page scanner would even help much, since the bulk of the time is deciding how to sum up the material concisely, which the scanner wouldn't speed up. (I'm a fast typist, which helps.) Finally, my thanks to everybody for all the compliments and encouragement that came with the replies. Okay, that's the poll, now my plans. Basically, I'm quite pleased with the poll results, because they pretty much fit my plans. There is no real prospect of my returning to the full format; I simply cannot find the time, and don't expect this to change. I recognize that not everybody has access to AW&ST to dig up the details when they want them, but sympathy is all I am able to supply. To some extent I am already implementing selective coverage, since I do go into more detail when I feel something is seriously important (note, for example, the Block-2-SRB coverage above). I expect to do this a bit more once I'm properly caught up, but the "basic coverage" will remain in the condensed form. The "lead story" idea is interesting, and I will give it a try at some point. I am also already setting a slightly higher threshold for "that's boring, I won't bother mentioning it". The editorials and personal commentary will also expand a bit once I'm caught up. The full-length editorials take too long for me to do one every week, I'm afraid, but they will appear with some frequency. The long-promised nasty Space Station editorial is partly written, and ETA is another few weeks. That one's going to be big. I also have a more normal-sized "full length" editorial on expendable boosters that will show up soon. -- HS ] -- "If you want PL/I, you know Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology where to find it." -- DMR {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 87 23:38:24 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Feb 16 AW&ST [I have dropped the "condensed" from the headers, since I know I won't be going back to the full format.] NASA would like to transfer both Mars Observer and one TDRS from the Shuttle to Titan 34Ds, but must find money (there is none in the NASA 87 and 88 budget requests) and negotiate Titan availability with the USAF. Funding limits are reducing the fraction of Landsat images being converted into computer-compatible format, reducing usefulness to customers. DoD is prepared to sic the Feds on McDonnell-Douglas unions if it looks like strikes will delay completion of the Delta for the next SDI test flight. US intelligence bozos are increasingly unhappy about civilians having access to military-quality satellite images. Romanenko and Laveikin [AW&ST can't seem to decide how to spell his name] activate Mir. First add-on module in final checkout at Baikonur. Mir operations may be hampered by failure of Cosmos 1700, a Clarke-orbit relay satellite; the comsat lost in the recent Proton failure may have been meant as a replacement for 1700. R&L went up on a new Soyuz variant, the TM-2, with better computers, lighter subsystems for greater payload, a docking system allowing approach to Mir from any angle (previous Soviet automatic docking systems required the station to point its nose toward the approaching vehicle at all times, clearly undesirable as Mir gets bigger and heavier), and fuel systems modified for longer on-orbit stays (previous Soyuzes used elastic membranes to separate fuel and pressurizing gas, and leakage of gas through the membranes reduced engine performance after a while; the new system is thought to use metallic bellows instead). Japan prepares to launch its first remote-sensing satellite, MOS-1 (Marine Observation Satellite 1) on Feb 18. Astro-C X-ray satellite launched on Feb 4 from Kagoshima; Astro-C now redesignated Ginga ("galaxy"). Long list of other Japanese space projects in the works. List of European experiments to fly aboard the Mir astrophysics module. European experimenters are slightly in the dark on details like launch date (although nominal experiment startup is beginning of May) and module life (although they were told to make preliminary plans assuming one year). Soviets have rights to all raw data from Western experiments; there is only general agreement on sharing of data from Soviet experiments. Scientists are not too unhappy about this, because it gets their hardware into space quickly and cheaply. "This is by far the fastest way to get [an X-ray experiment] launched... The next ESA X-ray satellite will not be in orbit until the 1990s, and even Rosat is some time in the future..." [In other words, if you want to get your experiment into space, the best way to do it right now is to beg the Soviets to launch it. See editorial below. -- HS] Shit hits fan on Space Station planning: new US negotiating position is that Europeans get no use of US parts, and 50% of European and Japanese module use is reserved for US too. Canada gets 3% use of all station hardware in return for its contribution. [Generous of them. -- HS] Station to be managed by multilateral board, with NASA permanent chairman with power to adjudicate deadlocks. DoD use of station unrestricted, including non-US sections. US has authority to object to station uses or users based on national-security or foreign-policy grounds; partners have authority to object on these grounds to uses of *their modules*. Partners get to pay full operating costs of their modules (despite having only partial use of them) plus a percentage of overall station operating costs. Europeans unhappy, to put it mildly. They like the multilateral board but feel that (except in emergencies, when NASA should clearly have control) deadlocks should be resolved in favor of no action, rather than whatever NASA likes. They do not like the DoD angle, and feel that military use of the station should require multilateral approval on a case-by-case basis, which would avoid having to define "peaceful uses" precisely; US probably won't buy this. They don't like the cost-allocation plan, although they feel it's progress. The US *has* abandoned the idea of assigning specific functions to specific modules, which helps. It looks like NASA will be unable to release station RFPs until FY1988. Congress is contemplating redirecting the $150M of FY1987 RFP funds to buying expendable launchers. Industry group slams USAF draft agreement for commercial use of launch facilities, saying top-level attitude is right but it's not reflected in the draft agreement. "...totally unacceptable to the commercial satellite industry..." Draft concentrates on parochial interests of USAF, instead of balancing this with encouraging commercial launch industry as directed by Reagan. Draft requires operator to assume unlimited responsibility for third-party liability. Draft does not establish clear rules for setting facility prices, requires use of USAF supply system, and requires use of DoD acquisition bureaucracy for using USAF-owned factory facilities. Draft gives government monitor/control authority far exceeding legitimate safety- related needs. Draft demands extensive data disclosure, with little assurance that proprietary data will be protected. Draft generally makes it almost impossible for new companies with limited resources to use USAF facilities. USAF is expected to address these problems, but two that may need cabinet-level attention are the insurance issue (a worst-case accident could cause $500M+ damage, impossible to privately insure) and the question of protection against preemption of commercial launches by non-urgent government payloads. Navstar satellite damaged by battery fire at Rockwell plant; USAF authorizes completion of one more Navstar in case the damaged one is unrepairable, despite the general stop-work order in effect until launches pick up. Pictures of Tsukuba Space Center mockup of Japanese space station module. Interior resembles Spacelab. Resumption of Ariane launches slips to May due to delays in ground tests. Titan 3B launch from Vandenberg Feb 11 successful, probably carrying a film-return spysat. Astrotech defaults on interest on major loan. [The practical meaning of this is that Astrotech is dead any time the banks say it is. -- HS] New interest in protective coatings for solar cells as a result of study of the cells on the recovered Palapa and Westar satellites. They were bombarded much more heavily than expected by small dust particles. McDonnell-Douglas outlines versions of Delta for future, gradually upping performance by stretching first-stage tanks, lightening and stretching the solid boosters, and increasing the expansion ratio of the first-stage engine. One concern is Rocketdyne's inability to ramp up engine production as quickly as McD-D can ramp up vehicle production. McD-D is looking at using some similar engines in USAF storage; they are old and lower-powered, but with upgraded SRBs they would be useful. Also, Rocketdyne is having some hassles restarting engine production: recent production relied on cannibalizing old parts stocks from the Saturn 1B program, and they are just about gone, so it will be necessary to qualify new suppliers, and possibly run a new test program to requalify the resulting engines. McD-D wants to build up to a capability of 12/yr by 1990 and 18/yr by 1991. [Editorial: The Great Failure. (I should preface this by saying that this represents me in a rather black mood, and I'm not sure I am entirely prepared to defend it. I'm printing it nevertheless, because I think it needs saying. [Eugene, you'd better start gritting your teeth, this one is nasty.] I had intended to save this for the July 20th editorial -- anybody reading this group who doesn't know why that date is special should be ashamed -- but I can't wait that long.) Remember when the West's space program looked good, back on July 20, 1969? Long time ago, wasn't it? Although it perhaps wasn't undertaken in quite the right way, and its motives were perhaps less noble than one would like, Project Apollo still stands as the supreme achievement of mankind. And it was accompanied by a number of lesser programs, not as spectacular but also valuable. That was the golden age of Western spaceflight. Since then it's been all downhill. And Lord, what a long, sad way down... Today, the quickest way to get scientific experiments launched is to get them onto the Soviet space station. True, the situation is particularly bad right now because of recent launch failures, but note that it wouldn't be *lots* better EVEN IF ALL THOSE LAUNCHES HAD SUCCEEDED. Except for certain very narrow and specific military and scientific goals, the West's space program is a failure. Not just a partial success, but a complete, abysmal failure. In general, it is actually harder to get things launched today than it was twenty years ago. It's not just that progress has been limited -- progress has actually been NEGATIVE! When it comes to the general exploration and development of space, we are worse off today than we were in 1967. What's more, the various proposals to do something about it are not addressing the fundamental problems. There is no obvious reason why Shuttle 2, or Hermes, or the Aerospace Plane, will be any cheaper or easier to get payloads onto than the Shuttle. The Shuttle, which promised to be vastly cheaper than the expendables, isn't and won't be. It is now fashionable to claim that the expendables are cheaper and easier to use than the shuttle, but try to book a Titan 4, or even a Scout, and you'll find out the real story. It's no cheaper, and even allowing for the transient problems of today, not much easier. Ariane isn't any better. The new-technology commercial launch firms that are at all close to success are pushing very modest improvements only... and they are still at the mercy of the US government, with their future uncertain at best. Nobody is even talking about "routine access to space" any more, much less promising to deliver it. Except the Soviets, that is. On their terms, as their junior partners only. It's time to face facts. The situation is beyond repair with band-aids, which is the only sort of response the current system can produce. It's time to give the West's dying space program a decent burial, so we can start over -- from scratch -- and do it right. -- HS] [Next editorial: some thoughts on how to do it right.] -- "If you want PL/I, you know Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology where to find it." -- DMR {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #215 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09801; Wed, 6 May 87 03:03:31 PDT id AA09801; Wed, 6 May 87 03:03:31 PDT Date: Wed, 6 May 87 03:03:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705061003.AA09801@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #216 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 216 Today's Topics: Re: Near Term Laser Launcher Prospects Re: Planetary Evacuation Re: Near Term Launcher Prospects Re: ELV companies Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion 50 ly limit Issues in interstellar travel (was Re: 50 ly limit) Interstellar Products ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Apr 87 21:20:37 GMT From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: Near Term Laser Launcher Prospects I understand the premise in Jim Kempf's article to be that a laser launch system should use lasers that are now commercially available, that commercial megawatt lasers aren't around, so forget it. I'm sure that Jordan Kare at Lawrence Livermore could defend the feasibility of high power lasers much better than I, but he may be constrained by security restrictions from mentioning them. However, I hear there is laser work going on at LLNL in the 10^6 to 10^8 CW watt range (this from a different source, when I ask Jordan, he just grins and shrugs). Such things aren't commercial probably because there isn't much of a market besides laser launch and military uses (and now, perhaps TeV particle accelerators). We don't build enough jet engines to need to weld them much faster. The usual assumption is that ground-based lasers built for SDI purposes can be used for laser launching in those off moments when we aren't having nuclear wars. Jordan has convinced me that the lasers would be useful for that; if he ever gives a talk in your neigborhood, go see it! The commercial market usually finds better solutions to problems than the government does, so I do have sympathy for Mr. Kempf's argument. It is a pity that space launch has been so screwed up by government involvement that it is not considered a commercial market (Oooh! Am I gonna get flamed for that one!). Keith Lofstrom MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 87 17:02:16 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: Planetary Evacuation If someone knows the amount of bomb-grade fissionables in the the US, USSR, and other arsenals, the problem is susceptable to computation, assuming Orion- type ships. (note that the number of warheads is NOT the number of mini-bombs that could be made, as at least the US uses fission triggers that use more fissionables than otherwise needed, because of other desired properties.) total fissionables available=total arsenals + 1 years output of fissionables (the US has 1 production reactor, the USSR 20, Britain & France 1 each, I suspect,China 2?,Israel 1?,rest of world?) Possibly power reactors could be made to add to the total. for each type of fissionable: number of bomblets = total mass / critical mass (smallest possible bombs,correct?) Knowing the number of bomblets and the strength of each kind, we can caculate the mass of people and supplies that can be moved to the moon, or else to Mars or another target. Note that ICBM's would add to the total mass that could be lifted to orbit, as would conventional launchers. The big problem is keeping large numbers of people alive and fed in space or on planets for indefinite periods of time. -Doug Reeder, Reed College ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 87 20:00:44 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Near Term Launcher Prospects In article <7306@mordor.s1.gov>, jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) writes: > > > >Initially I had hoped to come up with evidence that a venture funded > >startup on the scale of $100 Million or so could build a system > >in three years which would achieve a couple orders of magnitude > >reduction in to-orbit costs over Ariane and the Shuttle. > > Alas, I do not know of any approach, including catapults (which are > cheaper than laser propulsion provided your payload will take 10,000 > g's) with development + capital costs of under $100 million. > > Dr. Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.UUCP A gas catapult system on the ground combined with an orbital tether, with a rocket in between could approach $25/kg operational costs with an initial cost (development + initial production) of about $500 million. An initial system with expendable rockets rather than reuseable rockets might be doable for $80 million. In this case the operating costs would be more like $1200/kg. For comparison, the Shuttle will cost $7,500/kg when it starts flying again. The principal problem with most 'launcher' concepts is not how to turn your power into propulsive results, but rather how to get the peak power required to launch. As the previous articles on laser launch have shown, peak powers of hundreds to thousands of megawatts are required, with total energies of 30 gigajoules per metric ton to orbit. One approach to the power problem is to store energy over a long period of time, then releasing it quickly when you launch. Chemical rockets do this. The energy is stored when the propellants are manufactured, then released over a few minutes using a rocket engine. In a gas gun, the energy is stored in a pressure vessel over time, then released quickly by opening a valve. A recent idea on improving gas gun costs is to use the ocean as your pressure vessel. On land your pressure vessel has to withstand the full internal pressure. If you take the pressure vessel to the appropriate depth in the ocean, the hydrostatic water pressure will equal the gas pressure. Then your pressure vessel only has to withstand second order effects such as being rigid enough to handle , and the pressure difference between the top and bottom of the vessel in the surrounding water. Since the pressure vessel and the gun barrel have to hold the same gas at different times, they tend to have the same amount of steel in them, which tends to make them cost about the same. By placing the pressure vessel in the ocean, the theoretical cost reduction would approach 50%, by doing away with most of the pressure vessel structure. Another advantage to placing a gas gun in the ocean is the ability to point it (slowly) in different directions, as opposed to a mountain- mounted gun. A disadvantage is having you muzzle near sea level, intead of near the top of a mountain. This means you have to pass through the whole atmosphere at high velocity, leading to heating and drag problems. A gas gun using hot hydrogen as it's working fluid can reach 50% of orbital velocity with reasonable design parameters. It can therefore substitute for the first stage of a conventional rocket. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 87 23:11 EDT From: Mark Purtill Subject: Re: ELV companies To: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) I can tell you a little about one, AMROC (= American Rocket Company.) They are based somewhere in California, and plan on having their first suborbital test flight before the end of this year (1987, in case the mail is slow :-) and an orbital test flight before the end of next year. I think their first paid launch would be in 1989. Here are a few random facts about the company (mostly from their presentation at the Pittsburgh Space development conference): 1. The rockets they're using are hybrid: solid reactant (in this case, some sort of rubber) and liquid oxidant (LOX). The main reason is safety, mostly in the manufacturing process (so they can get insurance for the place they build the rockets, and so they can move them about without problems.) Of course novelty doesn't hurt in launching a new venture, either. Unlike solid rocket boosters, these can be turned on and off (by regulating flow of LOX). 2. What their "industrial launch vehicle" looks like is a bunch of small modules strapped together to make each stage. All the modules are the same, which is supposed to make the thing cheaper. They have test fired at least one module (at some USAF base; they have a deal with the USAF to use some facilities they (USAF) weren't using). They showed a videotape of a firing; interestingly enough, their computer equipment was a couple of Macs; to fire the rocket, you click on a "Fire" box. 3. The person who gave the presentation (the head of the company) was very impressive. He gave the impression that AMROC had the financing it needed (altho I don't think he said so) and convinced me, at least, that these guys will probably get off the ground. Another company I heard from at Pittsburgh is Third Millennium, Inc., which confusingly abbreviate their name MMI (=2001 in roman numerals, the first and most famous year in the third millennium). They were plugging a "space van" which is basically a minishuttle. Yes, it is manned, because they think it will be cheaper to develop that way. They want to build a completely reusable system for putting things in either LEO or GEO; this includes an (unmanned) shuttle from LEO to GEO. They do not have financing (they estimate $320 million); first launch would be circa five years after money shows up. They did quote prices (obviously estimates) on the order of $2-3 million for some amount to LEO (I think 1.5 tons, the cargo capacity of the "microvan") and something like $20 million to GEO. (Don't quote me on those, this whole message is from memory.) I do have an address for MMI, but not here. Let me know if you're interested. There is at least one other company I know of, the people in Texas (I think) who are doing the "Conestoga" rocket. I think they plan on a commercial launch either this year or next, but that pretty much exhausts my knowledge of the company. Mark Purtill ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 87 15:14:35 GMT From: firth@SEI.CMU.EDU (Robert Firth) Subject: Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion In article <1632@tekigm2.TEK.COM> dand@tekigm2.TEK.COM (Dan Duval) writes: >The situations are exactly parallel. The Venetians knew they could build >ships, even though hideously expensive at the time, as we know we can >build starships, though hideously expensive. Dan, what was "hideously expensive" about Venetian ships? The Arsenal could build a warship in three days, with a pipeline three deep (ie one warship per day). Before the Battle of Lepanto, they built 86 galleys in 14 weeks. A merchant ship was bigger, but even so they could build one in a week. An excellent analysis of the commercial and trading patterns of the Mediterranean is in Braudel's The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 87 20:08:21 GMT From: tektronix!tekgen!tekigm2!dand@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Duval) Subject: Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion In article <915@aw.sei.cmu.edu.sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: > In article <1632@tekigm2.TEK.COM> dand@tekigm2.TEK.COM (Dan Duval) writes: > > Dan, what was "hideously expensive" about Venetian ships? The Arsenal > could build a warship in three days, with a pipeline three deep (ie > one warship per day). Before the Battle of Lepanto, they built 86 > galleys in 14 weeks. A merchant ship was bigger, but even so they > could build one in a week. First of all, this falls out of the subject of sci.space. Let's move any further discussion of pre-Space Age history and economics to e-mail (my USENET address is below, I think that dand@tekigm2.tek.com will get to me also, but then again it might not.) Remember that expense is relative. In those days, the majority of effort went into the feeding, clothing, and housing of people. How great was the percentage of people within the Venetian city-state that was necessary to provide just the food needed by those who cut the wood, shaped it, did the black iron work, assembled the ship, and, finally, those who crewed it? As I recall, it took about 9 people to grow enough of a surplus of food to feed one person in the city, and less than 5% of the people in the city were involved in the construction of ships. Let's be generous and claim that only 95% of the total amount of labor available to Venice was necessary to build those 86 galleys, provision them, crew them, and support all the other people who fed, clothed, and housed those guys. Today, building a Venetian-style galley would require the efforts of perhaps twenty people to build it, thirty people to move the materials around, and seventy people to crew it. My hometown of Springfield, OR could easily provide the wood, ironworkers, and support necessary to support these people. Feeding the 30,000 people of Springfield is done by an average of 300 people (I understand that a farmer today feeds at least 100, but I don't recall the exact ratio.) So for the sake of keeping it simple, let's say that it would take 30,000 people to build and support a galley. The 90 some Venetian galleys at Lepanto then would take about 2.5 million people, out of the 220+million in the US. Relative cost. The entire city-state of Venice wouldn't be able to support the US space program, even to feed the people involved. Let's take this up via e-mail, OK? Dan C Duval ISI Engineering Tektronix, Inc ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 87 00:53:28 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: 50 ly limit I think we do not have enough knowledge presently to be able to make meaningful comments about human society on the time scale indicated. Speculation on the practicality of planetary colonization (e.g. Mars), while fraught with uncertainties, can be meaningful, I think. The results of a technical study of the technologies required would be most welcome here. -Doug Reeder, Reed College ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 87 10:51:37 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Issues in interstellar travel (was Re: 50 ly limit) In article <6113@reed.UUCP> douglas@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes: >I think we do not have enough knowledge presently to be able to make >meaningful comments about human society on the time scale indicated. I found an interesting book titled ``Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience'', edited by Ben Finney. It has a number of papers from historians and other non-techie people which provide a (sometimes surprisingly) different perspective on this subject, and analogies to past migrations of cultures. If anyone is interested, I will dig up the publisher etc. (the book's in my apartment right now). -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 25 April 1987 16:41:02 AST Sender: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu Subject: Interstellar Products It seems obvious that interstellar exploration can't pay by shipping back something like Vegan Spice, unless it's something incredibly useful, like Melange, or incredibly addicting. But it might pay by shipping back information about the molecular structure of these items, and other useful things. I think we all agree that pointing a message laser at another star isn't too expensive. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #216 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11644; Thu, 7 May 87 03:03:53 PDT id AA11644; Thu, 7 May 87 03:03:53 PDT Date: Thu, 7 May 87 03:03:53 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705071003.AA11644@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #217 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 217 Today's Topics: Re: Gold oort-cloud mining? Re: oort-cloud mining? Re: Gold Re: Gold Re: Soviet Mir/Kvant docking problem - a plastic bag Re: Relativity and time travel and Fermi paradox Re: Relativity and time travel and Fermi paradox Anniversary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Apr 87 05:44:18 GMT From: pyramid!amdahl!ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@decwrl.dec.com (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Gold In article <8704111634.AA17014@angband.s1.gov>, DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET.UUCP writes: >Gary Allen said ERPM has 6 gram/ton gold ore, cheap labor, but is still >losing money, so any ET ore would have to be at least that rich. Russ >Cage wrote: >>This assumes that you're using the same technology to separate the >>gold from the asteroid metal that the ERPM is using. I really doubt >>this. I would imagine that large-scale electrolytic refining could >>yield economic amounts of gold inexpensively, particularly if you are >>also refining silicon for solar cells (which you might) and have >>practically unlimited sunlight available (which you would). >It find it hard to believe that an industrial process that would >require complete melting and electrolytic processing could compete with >the cyanide leaching techniques used to extract gold from terrestrial >ores, especially when terrestrial ores have already been concentrated >by natural processes. On the other hand, the cheapest, concentrated terrestrial ores have mostly been depleted. This is why the ERPM is losing money. Also, the asteroids we're interested in (stony-iron) have been differentiated considerably by natural processes also. We don't have to pick the difficult cases first. Aluminum refining also requires complete melting and electrolytic processing; have you priced aluminum lately? It's nowhere near $300/ounce. >Russ repeats the oft-heard non sequitur about unlimited sunlight >==>cheap electricity. Have you heard of capital costs, Russ? Yes, I have. Have you heard of advancing technology? Vapor-deposited amorphous silicon cells? There are many possibilities, and that only covers electrolytic refining. >Solar cells are not cheap; with technical advances, they may make >electricity in space at costs somewhat below (but not many orders of >magnitude below) terrestrial costs, ASSUMING we can make, deploy and >maintain the cells in space as cheaply as we could on earth (a big >assumption, requiring the presence of a large space infrastructure). You haven't been watching the cost curve for solar cells. It's been dropping rapidly. Besides, if you're on an asteroid and you have lots of aluminum and silicon handy (and a bit of dopants), some of your refined products can be made into huge ribbons of cheap cells. They'll do the job even if their efficiency is lousy; it's not like the raw materials cost anything. You refine all the way back to earth, and turn your cells into something else when you arrive; re-refine the silicon and use the aluminum for girders, maybe? This assumes that electrolytic refining is the way to go. It may well not be; see below. >The cost of power on the space station will be something like >$90/kilowatt-hour, a thousand times higher than the cost of power on >the ground. A non-sequitur from the man who accuses me of spouting them. How appropriate. The cost of power from hand-picked (literally), single-crystal cells which must be packaged *expensively*, then given an 8 km/sec push out of a gravity well (costly), can't be compared to the cost of power from cells produced on the spot, which need no protective packaging, and which have sun 100% of the time instead of a shade over 50%. Most of the power cost on the space station is going to be the price of launching that array, not the array; most of the cost of the array is going to be the testing, selection, and packaging, not the cells. Most of the cost of the cells is going to be the crystal pulling, cutting, doping and mounting, of which only doping has to be done with amorphous ribbon cells. You can do *that* with ion beams, and very easily and cheaply when you're surrounded by free vacuum. 3% efficiency doesn't hurt your economics when your silicon is only a few micrometers thick and you don't have to pay to launch anything. Okay, for another angle on grabbing the gold out of the asteroid (a suggestion from Keith Henson): If the gold is mixed in with the metals, the carbonyl process will remove the iron, nickel, etc. with the use of some carbon monoxide and heat. No solar cells required, just mirrors for heat sources (CHEAP!). This also yields refined metals as the output. Gold doesn't have a carbonyl compound listed in my CRC; platinum doesn't seem to like to form them without halogens or sulfur. Both of these would likely be left behind and could be refined out of the bottoms of the batches with ease. Iridium does form a carbonyl, and could be plucked out with a temperature change. This gives you some rather valuable materials, extracted with cheap equipment running off of energy that's very cheap to collect. If the gold is mixed with the metals, you probably want to get it out anyway. It's not likely to be expensive to do so. A third angle: If the gold is mixed in with the rock, the cyanide process may be the way to go, if the cyanide can be regenerated cheaply enough (cheap power again). We're back to electrolytic methods. A fourth angle: Again, if the gold is mixed with the rock, maybe the rock is worth more as elemental silicon and oxygen than as filler. The gold will come out of the silicon refining process as an impurity. A fifth angle: Maybe the gold is worth enough for other things to be worth some thousands an ounce to extract, *as long as you're on the rock anyway*. Once you're in earth orbit and done with it, it might be worth less than $300/oz if you keep it and more if you sell it. A sixth angle: Maybe, for a piddling few billion out of a multi-trillion take, it's not worth bothering with the damn gold. It sure doesn't affect the economics of the venture much, unless your interest costs are high and you can get the gold to market much faster than the iron, etc. By the way, Mr. Dietz, would you use a .signature file or otherwise sign your postings? Thank you. Russ Cage ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding) X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 April 20 22:38:20 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: oort-cloud mining? I have a "new start" question for space-technology experts: If we had a large solar collector and electrical-convertor near the Sun (anywhere 1 A.U. or closer to the Sun) to provide lots of usable electricity, and if we had a high-power laser (or maser, iraser, uvaser, etc.) to beam this energy from this collector-convertor out to some spot far from the Sun where it is needed by a mining station; it's obvious we could mine the asteroid belt (except there's probably enough sunlight there that it'd be cheaper to build a larger collector on-station to avoid having to beam the energy), but my question is whether we could mine the Oort cloud effectively. I don't think the beaming that distance is much of a technological problem given that we can somehow build the large solar collector&convertor. Also I don't think it would be difficult to pilot the mining station over to a found comet once we tell the laser transmitter the new coordinates we want it to drift the beam as the mining station then tracks the moving beam. The main problem as I see it would be locating the comets out there where they don't give off much infrared radiation because they aren't very warm because they aren't very near the Sun. Could we still detect them by IR because they are ever so slightly warmer than 2.7 degree background? Or would we have to use some active method such as beaming IR or other radiation out in a scanning pattern like radar and watching for a blip on our "radar" screen indicating our beam struck something? Is there any hope for finding comets out there before they come to the inner solar system? Or do we have to wait until a tiny sample of them randomly fall inward and get warmed before we can find them with technology of the next 20 years? ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 87 00:36:27 GMT From: josh@topaz.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: oort-cloud mining? > ... The main problem as I see it would be locating the comets out > there where they don't give off much infrared radiation because they > aren't very warm because they aren't very near the Sun. Use an H-bomb as a flashbulb. --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 87 20:24:12 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Gold Why bother recovering precious metals from asteroidal sources, when the BIG market requires no separation at all. The free metal in a iron-nickel or stony-iron asteroid typically consists of 90% Iron, 9% Nickel and 1% Cobalt. This is already a very high grade steel. The world market for steel is ENORMOUS ($200 billion/year or so). Your problems are how to get the asteroid or part thereof back to earth vicinity, then down to the ground. Problem #1 can be solved by using the asteroid to bring itself back. You do this by making sheet metal mirrors and solar-sailing back to earth. Now, I know that steel is a crummy reflector (about 50% reflectivity), and it is dense (7800 kg/cubic meter), but the stuff is there already. At 2.5 AU, in the asteroid belt, a typical available impulse will be 36 Newton-seconds/square meter/yr (light pressure is (1+r)E/c , where r is reflectivity, the 1 comes from the momentum of incident light, which is all used, E is the wattage of sunlight, and c is the speed of light). If your sheet is 25 microns thick (0.001 inch), then 36 Newton-seconds/ square meter yields a 187m/s delta vee per year. Thinner sheet will get you home faster. The steel sheet is rolled between sintered and glazed ceramic rollers made from local rock. A stony-iron asteroid works best here as a source. Both the rollers and the steel are heat formed in solar concetrators made of, you guessed it, steel sheet. The whole process bootstraps from a very small seed. Problem #2 can be solved by wadding up the sheet after arrival in earth orbit into a ball, then de-orbiting. If the density is low enough, the ball will not melt on re-entry and will float on water. You then hook a tugboat to the metal and haul away. IF, and this is a very big if, you can do this for less than alternate market prices for steel, you have a big enough market to justify the high capital costs of space resource recovery. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 87 10:46:26 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Gold In article <1197@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >Problem #1 can be solved by using the asteroid to bring itself back. You >do this by making sheet metal mirrors and solar-sailing back to earth. >... >If your sheet is 25 microns thick (0.001 inch), then 36 Newton-seconds/ >square meter yields a 187m/s delta vee per year. Thinner sheet will get >you home faster. I wonder at what point planetary gravitational perturbations could eliminate control of the mirror/asteroid (this is how main belt asteroids can end up in orbits crossing planets in the inner solar system). It's conceivable that ultra-low thrust schemes will fail for this reason. Any dynamics people out there who could answer this? -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 15 Apr 87 16:21:53 GMT From: watson@AMES.ARPA (John S. Watson) Subject: Re: Soviet Mir/Kvant docking problem - a plastic bag > Again the capability of humans to save expensive space equipment has > been shown. I wish that some of the networks would have broadcast > part of this latest rescue on their news shows. It might help > convince some of the robot only crowd that mankind is still the most > flexible system we can put in space. Would not have "telepresence" worked also (at lease in the case of earth orbit)? Why do we limit ourselves to mostly humans or mostly robots? From what I know, there is no real breakthroughs that need to be made to make a "telepresence". It seems to me that all the pieces are there, but they just haven't been "put together". John S. Watson NASA Ames Research Center ARPA: watson@ames.arpa UUCP: ...!ames!watson ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 87 23:49:37 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Relativity and time travel and Fermi paradox > IF time travel is possible, and ignoring for the fact that WE can't do > it yet, how come nobody from the future hasn't done it yet, or to put > it another way, how come no one has visited us? > Maybe they have?! Are there things in history that look or seem > strange? There might be historical anamolies that don't seem to make > sense. A discovery that seemed to 'pop' out of the blue...could this > be proof? Alas for the idea, there's nothing grossly out of place. Oddities, yes, but nothing truly bizarre. The closest thing we have to such an anomaly is Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks, and even they are clearly products of his own time. Remember that our ancestors were ignorant but not stupid; they were capable of doing remarkable things on their own, now and then. > Couldn't they go WAY back to Earth's beginnings? And as with all the > sci-fi stories warning about 'messing' with time, how come no one has > messed it up yet? Or is 'our' future constantly changing ... As Larry Niven has pointed out, if a universe's physics permit time travel and alteration of the past, no time machine will ever be invented in that universe. Why? Because absence of time machines is the only stable state! Sooner or later, the inventor of a time machine (or his friends, or his successors) will change the past radically enough to cancel the invention. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 87 22:34:02 GMT From: decvax!watmath!lasibley@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lance) Subject: Re: Relativity and time travel and Fermi paradox In article <9401@decwrl.DEC.COM> earle@oblio.dec.com (GEORGE EARLE VAX/TCC 226-6498) writes: >This has been discussed in a round about way but I have always had this >nagging question ever since a movie I saw illuminated this view to me: > >IF time travel is possible, and ignoring for the fact that WE can't do >it yet, how come nobody from the future hasn't done it yet, or to >put it another way, how come no one has visited us? > >Maybe they have?! Are there things in history that look or seem strange? >There might be historical anamolies that don't seem to make sense. A >discovery that seemed to 'pop' out of the blue...could this be proof? Recently there was an article posted to rec.arts.startrek about a new invention to de-fog the rear windshield of your car...it involves a thin sheet of *transparent aluminum*. D'you suppose a certain Montgomery Scott & Marcus Nichols may have been involved? Hmmmmmmm............. Lance A. Sibley ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 87 16:59:06 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Anniversary Lest we forget that the Challenger astronauts were not the only ones to die while reaching out.... On this date 20 years ago, Colonel Vladamir Komarov died when a malfunction during reentry caused his Soyuz 1 spacecraft to crash. The Soyuz was modified, and their program moved on. Rich Kolker ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #217 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13372; Fri, 8 May 87 03:03:15 PDT id AA13372; Fri, 8 May 87 03:03:15 PDT Date: Fri, 8 May 87 03:03:15 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705081003.AA13372@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #218 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 218 Today's Topics: Several things: added note about JPL, getting into space, computers Orion Re: Orion USAF/DOD space activities Mars, Moon, colonies, $$$$$ a new funding idea Re: SPACE Digest V7 #195 Re: More on Martian colonization And Re: Class M Near Earth Asteroids Discovered ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 87 10:15:05 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Several things: added note about JPL, getting into space, computers JPL: As a former Labbie, and not a Silly Servant: Jon points out things correctly. Why does the USG do this? Several reasons: 1) you reduce the number of CSs on the payroll of the government. 2) the benefits of having some one else run the thing (Caltech, UC, any third party) excepting short-term overheads outweigh the complexities of the Civil Service system: the employees get higher salaries, more benefits, etc. This is why the Lawrence Berkeley, and Livermore, and Los Alamos Labs, Argonne, Brookhaven, Fermi, Oak Ridge, Hanford, et al are all run third party by industrial and universities. If the USG decides it doesn't want something, they drop the contract (typically negiotatied every 2 years or so). This is harder to do with CS people, but Will would know this. It's also great for hiding contracts. You pay more overhead and you have this 2 year thing [can you say "Teapot Dome?"], but you have greater long-term rein of dropping contracts. If the Lab were for some reason dropped (don't see why), some other company would pick up the contract. They would do what ever they would please. It probably would be dumb to do completely classified work, the name is too visible and the location too prominent. These contracts are part of the basis why I no longer believe that the UC should divest itself of LANL and LLNL. They are away from big population areas, and a third party could make them disappear. Personal note: the last time I visited the Lab (Oct), I was a bit distressed at the uniforms there. I know the ratio of military work concerns the upper management of Caltech, a skiing partner, Barclay Kamb was just made Provost, and I did meet with Goldberg once while I was there at the Lab. Caltech does not want to run a Los Alamos, many faculty as ex-LA people (Lost Outpost in the LLNL parlance). Note, too, my position as a Cilly Servant is makes my relations with JPL friends different. Some try to pry information from me, and I have to respect some bounds. I missed the Nova Galileo due to evening meetings and was told hiking buddies where shown (in the O3 volume on Nova, Robert, now at NASA HQ, is a friend who used to work in my old building, used to share cabs from Dulles). It would not be appropriate for me or any Lab or NASA person to say any greater detail about the mission except for personal observations. I would like to see it, hopefully in reruns. Regarding Dale's comment. A lot of the space industrialization (my observation, but not all on the net) is dependent on things such as Zero-G and vacuum of space. There has been a trend in the last 30 years to create National Labs, Facilities, Centers for all sorts of things like supercomputers (most recent and prominent), lasers, particle accelerators: science getting big. Perhaps we need to open a facility for short term weighlessness. Set off an area where a plane (like the NASA C-135 or other plane) could be used for more extensive short duration weightlessness. The problem is see the acceleration doing out of 0-G. Vacuums, there must be a way we can make more environmental chambers open. This might help industry think about the problems, and be willing to try things, short of getaway specials (a bit hokie). I think this might be a away to go in the short term as a toe hold. Note: I am also away of lots of work done by companies like TRW with environmental chambers for military work. Yes bureacracy, but the NSF is setting up these facilities, why not "near space?" I would not omit the work being done by other countries. ESSA and JSA are doing nice jobs. I have considered offers working for them, but again they are space agencies and not computer agaencies. Perhaps it is there time. Oh yeah, don't forget China. Space tecnology is not rapidly changing as fast as computer technolgy. Computers: The quote, I thought, didn't come from IBM, it came from one of the ENIAC guys at BRL (no offense to Will Martin or Mike Muuss or others). Note, if anyone is attending the ACM's History of Scientific Computing Conference in Princeton next month you will probably not only find out who said it, but probably meet him. Sorry for the length, these notes pushed a button again. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 1987 15:14-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Orion Jordan Kare: The picture I spoke of did indeed appear in a Life two page spread circa 1960. The project was cancelled entirely in 1963 and was classified, but the IDEA was not classified. It was simply the case that no one knew that feasibility testing was actually being done. At age 10 or so, I figured it was something NASA would do in the far future, like maybe 1980... The constituency failure on Orion was that it had the WRONG consitutency. The USAF came to Kennedy with pictures of giant military battle complexes they could put up and he didn't want it. He and MacNamara were already laying the ground work for MAD and trying very hard to give the US space program a civilian appearance to win propaganda points over the very secret soviet program. The specific Kennedy details I cannot verify. They have been told to me by old space hands that were insiders at the time. I can't prove what went on in the White House other than by hearsay and circumstance. I also will not say who they were. The historical context of the Kennedy era I discussed is backed up by Walter A. MacDougal's Political History of the Space Age. It has very little mention of Orion per se, but I think the policy background described by this work backs up my contention. The test ban did not kill Orion. Orion had no backing except the USAF, and they were fighting a losing battle to have ANY foot hold in space. First NASA was given the research centers. Then Orion was killed. Then Dynasor. Then Manned Orbiting Laboratory. Orion was not important within a policy framework extant at the time. I highly recommend MacDougal's book to anyone interested in the machinations of the birth of the space age which were classified until recently. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 87 12:48:38 PDT From: Jordan Kare To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu, jtk@mordor.s1.gov Subject: Re: Orion Cc: space@angband.s1.gov I quite agree that White House machinations, rather than technical concerns, defined the U.S. space program in the Kennedy era. I have also heard similar things from insiders, including Arthur Kantrowitz -- for example, that we could have reached the moon much more cheaply by using small boosters to build a space station piecemeal, instead of building the Saturn V, but that Kennedy gave Johnson the space program and Johnson wanted it to be expensive so he could spend lots of money in Texas. The point was mostly that I doubt Kennedy personally killed Orion; it's just that it had no place in the framework, a point on which I think we agree. I note that the USAF may have come in with pictures of space battleships, but that was partly because they HAD to -- they couldn't support it as a scientific/research effort even if they wanted to, because that kind of thing, on any scale too large for DARPA, was exclusively NASA property, both legally and politically. Re LIFE: I thought it was probably an artists conception of "nuclear bomb rocket" rather than specifically something about Orion. Ah, those were the days, when mainstream national magazines actually had optimistic articles about space exploration.... Confusion this decade! Jordin Kare ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 87 04:20:29 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: USAF/DOD space activities In article <546117269.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >kill Orion. Orion had no backing except the USAF, and they were >fighting a losing battle to have ANY foot hold in space. First NASA was >given the research centers. Then Orion was killed. Then Dynasor. Then >Manned Orbiting Laboratory. DOD has reversed this trend recently. First USAF was given the major role in NASP. Then they tried (are trying) to cut NASA out of heavy booster development (not that NASA has shown great initiative in the matter). Then Weinberger proposed eliminating our international partners on Station if they don't roll over and play dead to ANYTHING DOD wants to do with it. The current Av Week has a truly frightening summary of the political infighting going on over this issue. Apparently the degree of allowed military involvement is to be decided by Reagan. Based on his past actions, I would say we can kiss Europe, Japan, and Canada goodbye on Station, unless Congress intervenes. It seems like it would be a better deal all around if USAF had their OWN space station. Then the only government who would be complaining loudly is Russia, which is a good tradeoff. It's interesting in that regard that nobody is complaining about potential military uses of the Mir complex (of course, the Soviets are not stupid enough to suggest they might try and deploy SDI elements from Mir!) -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 87 17:31:12 GMT From: dayton!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@rutgers.edu (Dennis Grittner) Subject: Mars, Moon, colonies, $$$$$ Just thought I'd add a few more words to the whole 'discussion' about colonies and the like. ALMOST everybody seems to agree that it would cost a LOT of money to do ANY type of colonization of just about anywhere. There seems to be some 'argument' about whether to do it on the Moon first or Mars first and just ( sort of ) skip the Moon. I guess I would do the 'easy' first ( the Moon ) and the tougher later ( Mars and/or Venus or elsewhere. ABOUT THE $$$$$: There is plenty of money available to BOTH fix many things here on earth AND develop space. Take a look at the military budget in Japan and many other countries and extrapolate their percentages spent on warfare ( sometimes called defense ) to the United States. We would have ( potentially ) hundreds of billions of dollars a year to spend on USEFUL projects. These projects could easily include space colonization, the ending of poverty and illiteracy, etc and there would still be money left over. I'm sure many people would oppose this as it might reduce their profit from warfare considerably but .... It would be nice if those of us who have ( supposedly ) been educated would use our intelligence and education to propose the type of change that would really do some useful things for all of humanity. I for one I'm tired of hearing many folk complain about paying taxes, or money going to social programs. I would suggest that paying taxes is one of the truly useful things we all do. If we can eliminate the truly obnoxious waste of military spending it would be MUCH better. I LIKE paying taxes to HELP people and to do noble projects like Apollo. If many of you don't like these things I'm sure there are many places on earth where you could live largely without taxation ( if you were willing to live without public universities, public libraries, parks, highways, etc. ) and largely without many personal freedoms for the AVERAGE citizen ( yes even the dumb ones who 'like food stamps') and largely without most of the jobs that many of us hold in private and public entities. I live in Minnesota. We pay HIGH taxes. Our economy is more vigorous than any of the surrounding states that pay LOW taxes. I like paying the high taxes AND enjoying the benefits of same. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 87 19:57:02 GMT From: video.dec.com!kovner@decwrl.dec.com Subject: a new funding idea Dale Amon writes, about colonies on earth: >. Some were religious enclaves like Plymouth. And Euegene Miya replies: > Gee, where religion when you really need it? Hmmm.... If Oral Roberts could raise $8 million to save his life, how much could a space evangelist get to save ALL the human race ? Maybe we've been too rational trying to raise the public's attitude on space. We need an evangelist to help out --- (:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-) (MANY smiley faces...) YES, FRIENDS, GOD has spoken to me, HALLELUYA! HE told me that he is going to send a flood (or plague, or whatever) ----- Riiight. And he said, "Build a space ark" ----- Riiight. "Build it 2000 cubits by ......." ----- Riiight. And I need your money now. This space ark will cost $20 billion, so send your donations NOW, friends to: ......... (:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-) Steve Kovner (with apologies to Bill Cosby) DISCLAIMER: This does not reflect the opinions of my employer, my computer, or myself. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 87 11:58:38 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #195 In article <545542725.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Bob Gray: > >I'd like to point out that most of those early colonies in North >America were chartered private groups, incorporated in England. Some of >them were LITERALLY planned company towns for exploiting the >wilderness. Some were religious enclaves like Plymouth. England >supplied control of the seas. Private money did nearly EVERYTHING else; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Only once there was a reliable transport system, and surveys of possible colony sites had been done, and there was some degree of protection from attack by other countries (or hostile natives), would the private companies put in money. They paid the vast majority of the cost of colonisation, BUT they wanted some assurance that they would have some chance of getting a return for their money. Many companies went bankrupt and thousands of people were killed by the corporate and national rivalries. Repeat the bits of the colonisation process which work well (private financing, colonies set up by individual groups.) But avoid the mistakes. >supplied the people, the tools, the transport, the food stuffs, the >insurance... > >I think the English approach to colonization has far superior results. As long as you were not one of the people in a rival colony. > Dale Amon Bob Gray. >(So where can I get my charter for lands bounded by Mare Crisium to the >east ...) (The old methods seem most suitable, First get there, stake your claim and live there for a couple of years.....) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 87 16:12:14 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: More on Martian colonization And Re: Class M Near Earth Asteroids Discovered In article <8704161501.AA26986@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >.... Just a plain >old dumb space station in a resonant orbit between Mars and Earth >could do the trick also. > Gary Allen And: DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET Writes. > 1986 DA's orbit crosses Mars but not Earth, making it an Amor object, while > 1986 EB's orbit crosses Earth (and Venus) and has a semimajor axis < 1 AU, > making it an Aten object: > > 1986 DA a = 2.811 AU q = 1.166 AU (MPC 10628, 1986) > 1986 EB a = .974 AU Q = 1.247 AU (MPC 10625, 1986) > (a = semimajor axis, q = perihelion, Q = apohelion, MPC = Minor Planets > Calendar) > Both are about 2 km across. Class M asteroids are believed to be mostly > metal. Radar observations of 16 Psyche, another class M asteroid with > similar spectra, are indicative of a largely metallic body. And after all that, A simple question. Would the next step be better served by building a colony on one of these asteriods as a stepping stone to mars. There are a lot of advantages in having a 2km metal asteriod as a base. Raw materials, radiation shielding, secure foundations and a place to stockpile and make supplies. There is also the advantage that you know that the asteriod will be back in a couple of years, and you won't be stranded by budget cuts and policy changes back home. If one of them is in nearly the correct orbit, it should be possible to move it, even with today's technology. A permanent deep space station would make an ideal staging post on the way to mars. Of course, a method is still needed to get to LEO, and from there to Mars transfer orbit. Bob Gray. ERCC. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #218 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01485; Sat, 9 May 87 03:03:13 PDT id AA01485; Sat, 9 May 87 03:03:13 PDT Date: Sat, 9 May 87 03:03:13 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705091003.AA01485@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #219 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 219 Today's Topics: MARS EXPLORATION One can not justify Space Colonization with economics L5 Farewell Re: The Bottom-Up Approach to Space Travel heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" What is Meissner effect ? Meteors & a space elevator The Bottom-Up Approach to Space Travel Re: ELV companies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Apr 87 22:03:30 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (UUCP Admin) Subject: MARS EXPLORATION NASA NEWS NASA AND CALTECH CONTINUE MARS EXPLORATION RESEARCH EFFORT A red, heart shaped balloon tied atop a larger plastic balloon, floating over NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., could be a space mission prototype that might someday send a gondola of experiments flying through a Martian sky. NASA is continuing its search for a workable method to explore the planet's surface terrain and composition. Scientists are currently studying the JPL/California Institute of Technology (CalTech) balloon project as one of many studies aimed at finding the best method of exploring Mars. "Mars ballooning" is based on the concept that a balloon inflated by heat from the sun could carry experiments to sample new Martian territory daily. At night, the gas balloon, which barely supports the deflated hot air balloon is stationary, while the instrument payload sits on the Martian terrain sampling the local environment. As the sun rises, the black balloon absorbs heat from the sun and inflates with warm air, rises and carries the instrument gondola to a new destination. The technique being tested uses a helium- or hydrogen filled balloon attatched to a solar heated hot air balloon. The balloon combination would in turn support a gondola of instruments designed to survive repeated landings and dragging across the ground. Initial experiments were conducted by caltech undergraduate students last summer under the leadership of Caltech planetary science professor and former JPL director Dr. Bruce C. Murray. Subsequent experiments with a toy balloon prototype were carried out by JPL engineers Dr. Gail A. Klein and James D. Burke as a prelude to using a larger, 30 foot diameter hot air balloon now being tested periodically at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, Calif. These field tests will continue for the next several months at Dryden. The hot-air balloon was provided by California balloonist Tom Heinsheimer. The Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales Chief Scientist Dr. Jacques Blamont, who is a JPL visiting scientist, conceived the idea of exploring Mars with a solar-heated balloon. According to Burke, Mars ballooning offers scientists the potential to conduct detailed studies of widely separated locales from polar caps to volcanic terrain. "Obviously, the landing sites are not completely controllable, "Burke said, "but given our knowledge of Martian wind patterns, a general selection is possible." Funding for the Mars Balloon research is provided by Caltech, NASA and the JPL Director's Discretionary Fund. -------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA NEWS RELEASE 87-48 April 2, 1987 By Leon N. Perry Headquarters, Washington, D.C. and Mary Beth Murrill Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. Reprinted with permission for Electronic Distribution ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Apr 87 16:50:55 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: One can not justify Space Colonization with economics Somebody commented that colonizing Mars is a silly idea and it would be cheaper to colonize the Sahara Desert or the ocean floor. This is basicly true. Yes, it would be much cheaper to colonize the Sahara Desert than Mars. However while it would be fairly easy for some future Ayatolla Khomeni to drop a nuclear weapon on this Sahara colony it would be rather difficult for him to do so on a Martian colony. An ocean floor colony could be wiped out by some virulent strain of AIDS but the Martian colony would be isolated. However these are lame arguments. As I said before and shall say again: There is **no** economic justification at this time for space colonization. However we should do it anyway for ideological reasons. The Mars colony will be an enormously expensive undertaking. However if the colony survived and grew, it would represent a human presence on a second world. It would provide the basis for interplanetary commerce. Space industrialization could become economical **if** there was a large colony on Mars. Arguments against the Martian colony based on economics are inoperative. This is not the reason why we should go there. We should go there for the largely ideological and rather impractical (silly) reason that it would provide the human race with a second independent permanent presence in the solar system. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 87 14:11:01 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Subject: L5 Farewell I received my last copy of the L5 News last night and as a member for the last 10 years ( has it really been 10 years???) I will miss the organization. Even with the incredibly late and sometimes ludicrous ravings of their magazine, it was a vibrant active organization that had a positive impact on mankind's journey to the stars. I was and am proud of belonging to the L5 Society and I only hope that 10 years from now I will feel the same about the National Space Society. Fred Mendenhall P.S. We've got to do something about that name, the dream is too grand to be identified with any one "Nation". ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Apr 87 11:25:43 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: The Bottom-Up Approach to Space Travel Newsgroups: sci.space Paul Dietz writes: >I get the feeling that the collective memory of the list . . . is >rather short. This is a problem on several news groups. Let's change it. Let's start to build a "collective" memory. I know Ted is swamped, so am I and I assume many others. We should try to form something like the book people of Bradbury's F 451 story. Each piece should be small. If a piece decides to leave the group, he or she could pass the information. Paul could, for instance, collect discussions on tethers. Some one else could act an an L5 interface, and so forth. If a new person comes on, everyone could fire a "Talk to so and so note." Sound interesting? From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 87 19:24:24 GMT From: ulysses!faline!thumper!mike@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" What's the big deal about Mir, anyway? The diagram I saw in a recent AW&ST shows it to be quite a bit smaller than Skylab was, even with the addition of the "astronomy module" (shades of the ATM, eh?) With the exception of extremely long duration missions, we already did everything Mir can do more than 10 years ago. I realize there's a symbolic issue here, but it doesn't look to me like the Russians are "way out in front" now any more than they were in 1960. Mike Caplinger mike@bellcore.com {decvax,ihnp4}!thumper!mike ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 87 04:31:01 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" In article <668@thumper.UUCP> mike@thumper.UUCP writes: >What's the big deal about Mir, anyway? The diagram I saw in a recent >AW&ST shows it to be quite a bit smaller than Skylab was, even with >the addition of the "astronomy module" (shades of the ATM, eh?) > >With the exception of extremely long duration missions, we already did >everything Mir can do more than 10 years ago. The big deal is that we let Skylab fall into the ocean; the Soviets plan to keep adding to Mir. It's not a one-shot (``hey! What can we do with a leftover Saturn V?''). The USSR is applying proven technologies (remember all those earlier Salyuts?) rather than spending 15 years building a gold-plated space station whose habitable volume will be far LESS than that of the Mir complex by 1995, or 1997, or whenever NASA finally gets their new toy up - and perhaps less than Skylab! To hell with NASA. They've shown they can't run a space program without truly extensive changes in management and a level of commitment that will not be forthcoming from our budget-conscious government. Get them out of the way and let private industry do it. Or start learning Russian, Japanese, or French (in that probable order of usefulness). NASA's joke of a shuttle recovery plan (2.5 year standdown) adequately demonstrates their incompetence. How the mighty have fallen in the 2 decades since Apollo. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 87 13:26:17 GMT From: stuart@cs.rochester.edu (Stuart Friedberg) Subject: Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" In article <668@thumper.UUCP>, mike@thumper.UUCP writes: > With the exception of extremely long duration missions, we already did > everything Mir can do more than 10 years ago. The point is, that the Soviets have an active, continuing space program. We *no longer* have the capability to do what Mir does, and don't expect to have it back. Realistically, we can't display the kind of support structure and impressive launch schedule that the Soviets have been displaying for years until at least the middle of the 1990's, and that assumes that the American public makes it a political issue. So what good is "we did it before"? That doesn't count for anything. You wanna be an astronaut? Go to the USSR. You wanna be a space biologist? Go to the USSR. You wanna get your spysat up before its power supply dies of old age? Go to the USSR. ((That's only half a smiley face, folks)) I find the US space program extremely disappointing, but I can't blame anybody but the public (ie, me) for letting things develop this way. While I would be proud to have an outstanding national space program, through NASA or private enterprise or both, I will continue to applaud every nation that has one that works. I can't get into a "space station gap," that's just too ludicrous, especially when "mir" means "peace". So: More power to Mir! I hope they continue successfully. Stu Friedberg {seismo, allegra}!rochester!stuart stuart@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 87 09:10 EDT From: Emanuel.henr@xerox.com Subject: What is Meissner effect ? For the less informed, like me, in the audience, please define Meissner effect as it was used in"Paul F. Dietz",High Tc Superconductor News segment of Volume 7 : Issue 210. Thanx, keith. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 87 00:23:41 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Meteors & a space elevator Can you wiggle the rotating skyhook to avoid objects? How do you meteor shield the rotating skyhook? -- -Doug Reeder, Reed College ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 87 18:39 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: The Bottom-Up Approach to Space Travel Now that orbital elevators have returned once again to Space digest (I get the feeling that the collective memory of the list on this subject is rather short), I'm going to pipe up with a modest proposal for a concept that seems more feasible. Hypothesis: building a tower from the ground up to about 100 km requires much weaker materials than dropping a line from GSO. First question: can we build compression supported structures 100 km high? I'm not sure, but it seems less challenging than a tensile geosynchronous elevator: (1) no space infrastructure is required; parts are lifted from earth up the partially completed tower, (2) the tower is physically 400 times shorter than the GSO elevator, and is effectively over 40 times shorter when variable accelerations with altitude are taken into account, (3) the tower is located mostly (or totally) below altitudes at which orbits are stable, so there is much less danger from collision with space debris. How strong do materials have to be? A tower 100 km tall made of material with a density of 2 gr/cc will exert a pressure of 20 kilobars at the base (actually, less, since the tower would be tapered). That's not impossible; carefully shaped diamonds can withstand pressures > 1 megabar. I wonder how tall a tower can be if it is made of, say, graphite composite trusses? Would a tower be stable? Buckling, swaying and toppling are obvious concerns. Guy ropes made from kevlar or graphite might help. Failing that, active stabilization could perhaps be used. Cost is unknown, but it must be cheaper than a GSO elevator. Assuming for the moment these "spacescrapers" are possible, what good are they? Unlike a space elevator, the top is not moving at orbital velocity. But that's ok; there are still applications... (1) Place antenna farms at the top of towers. At 100 km, the horizon is over 1000 km away. Speed of light delay is much smaller than for satellites in GSO, and equipment on a tower could be maintained and upgraded more easily. Possible applications of antennas on towers include: broadcasting, radar, microwave relays, laser relays (between two towers, where the beam is always in vacuum), radio position determination. (2) Base space weapons on a tower. Unlike in low orbit, weapons on a tower do not move relative to the earth. Other high power applications might include beams for laser rockets (avoid atmospheric effects), beam powered aircraft, laser spotlights for outdoor illumination or small-scale weather modification. (3) Place telescopes on a tower. They are easier to power, maintain and upgrade than in orbit, yet are still above the atmosphere. (4) Place electromagnetic launchers on a tower. On the ground, launchers must point near the zenith to reduce heating by the atmosphere. On a tall tower, high acceleration mass drivers or coilguns could shoot payloads horizontally, giving orbits with perigees above the atmosphere. Advantages over ET sources of material: cheap terrestrial electricity is available; earth-manufactured materials make high-value payloads; payloads containing volatile elements unavailable on the moon can be launched. (5) Use the towers to suspend evacuated tubes up which vehicles may travel from ground based linear accelerators. Build a low acceleration (3 gee? 5 gee?) mass driver ~1000 km long. Slant the end upwards, supported by towers suspension-bridge fasion, the terminus above the atmosphere. Launch payload and passenger carriers on trajectories into elliptical orbits and raise their perigees with small rockets. If that's too radical, we can eject vehicles at (say) 5000 m/sec and 50 km altitude, climbing the rest of the way to orbit on rockets with quite modest mass ratios. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 87 23:06:36 GMT From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@AMES.ARPA (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: ELV companies > 1. The rockets they're using are hybrid: solid reactant (in this > case, some sort of rubber) and liquid oxidant (LOX). The main reason > is safety... Of course novelty doesn't hurt in launching a new > venture, either... I think Amroc's hybrid rockets are mostly justified by either novelty value or somebody in the outfit having a fetish for them. If it's safety you're after, just go liquid. Kerosene is not a big safety hazard. Nor is liquid hydrogen, actually -- you can treat it like unusually-volatile gasoline, according to NASA. Amroc is already using the really dangerous half of the standard liquid-fuel combinations: LOX. There seems to be a prevailing assumption that if you don't use liquid hydrogen, you need to stack up three or four stages to get into orbit. The Atlas burns LOX and kerosene, and can lift several thousand pounds into low orbit with *one* stage (well, one and a half -- it jettisons two of its three engines halfway up). Furthermore, it dates back a quarter of a century. The approach clearly works -- the Atlas is still being used. I continue to be amazed, literally, that nobody has tried to build a cheap space launcher on the same lines. (Don't tell me "General Dynamics will sell you an Atlas", their prices aren't what I call "cheap"!) Henry Spencer ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #219 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02813; Sun, 10 May 87 03:03:50 PDT id AA02813; Sun, 10 May 87 03:03:50 PDT Date: Sun, 10 May 87 03:03:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705101003.AA02813@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #220 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 220 Today's Topics: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible Re: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible (debate really) Clarke's Quantum drive SPACE Digest V7 #207 Prospecting asteroids with a nuclear pumped laser Re: oort-cloud mining? SPACE Digest V7 #207 Re: Adsats Supernova Re: Relativity and TIME TRAVEL and Fermi paradox Fiber optic plate needed. The 500 Man Mars Colony should be America's next major space project ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 87 11:02:10 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible Keith Lofstrom in Vol. 7, No. 200 of Space Digest provided an improved derivation on my earlier demonstration on the impossibility of sky hooks. However Keith came to the opposite conclusion that Sky Hooks are possible rather than impossible. However I believe that Keith may have made an algebra error in his derivation. In my earlier derivation I assumned an r**2 area function based on the false belief that a more complicated function could not be analyticly integrated. Keith very cleverly demonstrated that the optimal area function is based on the local force. The local cross sectional area is always set (by design) to the maximum allowable force limited by the material's tensile strength. Under this assumption the sky hook can not fail (within the approximations of the assumption). However as we shall soon see this assumption leads to an absurdity. I rederived Keith's ODE which is: df/dy = (f*rho/T)*((mu/((R+y)**2))-((omg**2)*(R+y))) equ (1) Equ (1) is equivalent to Keith's and I'm confident that it is correct. f=local force, y=altitude above the earth's surface, rho=material density, T=maximum allowable stress, R=earth's radius, mu=earth's gravitational constant, omg=earth's spin rate in radians per second. By definition the gravitational force is equal to the centripital force at geosychronous altitude. Therefore: omg**2 = mu/(R+Ys)**3 equ (2) where Ys=geosychronous altitude above the earth's surface. We now integrate equation (1) from zero altitude to geosynchronous altitude and then insert equation (2) to eliminate omg**2. The result is Fs = Fo exp((((x-1)/x)**3)*((2*x)+1)/(2*k)) equ (3) The parameters used are the same that I used in my earlier derivation: k = Ys*T/(rho*mu) equ (4) -- skyhook number -- x = (Ys+R)/R equ (5) Fs=the force on the skyhook at geosynchronous altitude, and Fo=the force hung on the skyhook at the earth's surface. My equation (3) is different from Keith's. I double checked my integration. Keith might give his result another look (it is quite possible that I'm wrong). The parameter x is based on the earth. The parameter K or skyhook number is something you want to maximize but is determined by the material of the skyhook. Values calculated below are: Steel: k = 7.98E-4 Kevlar: k = 8.66E-3 Sky hook numbers for whiskers are not significantly different from Kevlar. We would be optimistic in assumning that a material with k=1.0E-2 was physically obtainable. If we plug in numbers for Kevlar we find that Ys = Yo exp(500.81). Since the cross sectional area is assumned to be directly proportional to the local force, we may immediately write As = Ao exp(500.81) where As is the geosynchronous cross sectional area and Ao is the cross sectional area on the surface. If we assume the Ao has the cross sectional area of a hydrogen atom we will find that the cross sectional area measured at geosynchronous altitude will have a radius on the order of light years. The sky hook fails catastrophicly. I vaguely remember a structures teacher once telling me this, so I think my result is correct, (again Keith you are strongly encouraged to check). I believe that I've effectively driven a stake through the heart of this stupid idea. Perhaps we could move the sky hook debate over to SF-Lovers and discuss something else. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 87 08:55:42 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible (debate really) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <8704290908.AA01201@angband.s1.gov> Gary Allen writes: >Keith Lofstrom in Vol. 7, No. 200 of Space Digest provided an improved >derivation on my earlier demonstration on the impossibility of sky >hooks. However Keith came to the opposite conclusion that Sky Hooks are >possible rather than impossible. . . . >I believe that I've effectively driven >a stake through the heart of this stupid idea. Perhaps we could move >the sky hook debate over to SF-Lovers and discuss something else. > Gary Allen I hope people see that this is basically what goes on in aerospace companies. The easiest thing to say is: try and build one. But that first might costs lots (lives as well as $$s, maybe). Equations might be fine, simulations, too, for "disproving" things. The bottom line is that some one has to risk something. While earth-space sky hooks are one thing, I'm glad we will try to build a Tethered Satellite. While not reaching the ground, it offers interesting possibilities. --eugene miya ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 87 14:41:56 GMT From: rlgvax!cliff@seismo.css.gov (Cliff Joslyn) Subject: Clarke's Quantum drive I just finished reading _Songs_of_Distant_Earth_ by A. Clarke. He proposes that saying "unlocking the energy of the vaccum" today is like saying "unlocking the energy of the atom" at the turn of this century. In his book the starship is powered by a drive which is able to tap the quatum fluctuations of the vaccum. Any comments? Cliff Joslyn ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1987 22:39 EDT From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #207 "Trillion dollar" projects will often become trivial when self-reproducing machines become available. It would be rash to assume that this stage requires more than 1000 post-industrial years. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 87 12:02:59 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Prospecting asteroids with a nuclear pumped laser In Vol. 7 No. 199 of Space Digest, Paul Dietz came up with a clever idea for an IFR rocket: ====================================================================== Here's a nifty spinoff mission: run the engine at low thrust while in lunar orbit or while near an asteroid. A very intense, energetic neutron flux will hit the asteroid or moon, producing gamma rays by a variety of nuclear reactions. Detect the gamma rays in a set of directional gamma ray spectrometers to get high resolution maps of elemental abundances. This scheme should have far better statistics than the Lunar Prospector, which depends on neutrons from cosmic rays. ====================================================================== A friend of mine (Larry Lemke) came up with an even clever idea. One of the few weapons being contemplated in the SDI insanity which has a prayer of actually working is the Excalibur X-ray laser. This weapon is composed of an enhanced radiation nuclear explosive surrounded by rods made up of thin copper wires. The nuclear explosive is first detonated. The radiation from this nuclear device pumps the copper wires in the laser rods into lasing X-rays with power on the order of a terrawatt. This happens only for a period of about 1 nanosecond before the rods vaporize. This device has been tested several times with varying success at the nuclear weapons testing area in Nevada. I might add in passing that one of the reasons Gorbachov was so keen on a nuclear test ban was to prohibit developement of this weapon. Larry's idea was to use the Excalibur to prospect for metals on asteroids. The idea is straight forward. One sends an Excalibur X-ray laser into a heliocentric orbit that doesn't intersect with the Earth's orbit. Once it is far enough away that its EMP isn't a problem, one directs each of the laser rods towards an interesting asteroid. The device is detonated and the asteroids are illuminated with high intensity monochromatic x-rays. This would cause the surface material of the asteroid to floresce light characteristic to the asteroid's chemistry. This floresced light could be detected by spectrometers in satellites orbiting the Earth. One Excalibur could carry many rods (hundreds??). With one shot, virtually all of the interesting asteroids in the solar system could be studied. This is a very cost effect way to prospect for materials from asteroids. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 87 17:30:10 GMT From: tektronix!reed!nscpdc!don@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Don McGlauflin) Subject: Re: oort-cloud mining? In article <8704231021.AA13527@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes: > >whether we could mine the Oort cloud effectively. I don't think the >beaming that distance is much of a technological problem given that we ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hmm. I seem to remember reading somewhere that when they started bouncing laser beams off the Apollo retro-reflectors on the Moon, that the beam diverged from a .25" diameter to about 3 feet at the other end. A quick calculation indicates that the same divergence at a distance of 100 A.U. would require an energy collector about 21 MILES in diameter. Whew! Does anybody KNOW what a real number for laser beam divergence would be? Don McGlauflin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1987 22:50 EDT From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #207 When SDI's attempts to make hostile-missile detectors fail, perhaps the AI people will be able to turn defeat into victory by writing programs to detect and automatically destroy alleged artistic advertisements is space. Indeed, the AdSats themselves might be endowed with various flavors of automatic criticism, so that the now barren heavens could support an evolutionary aesthetic ecology. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 1987 15:56-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Adsats Actually I think it's not a bad idea at all. Think of the size of the advertising budgets of the Fortune 500's and compare it with what some of the entrepreurial launch companies need to get off the ground. It sort of makes your mouth start to water. It would bring tears to my eyes watching a coke logo go by in the sky if I knew they were footing the bill to open the heavens to people like myself. It's become crystal clear that the US government is a has-been in space. It's about time we got some creative ways to market space that will bring in big bucks from private sources. Keep in mind that viewing times are quite limited for satellites depending on reflected light. Putting lights on the satellite would solve the problem from the advertisers viewpoint but would require a massive power supply. Remember that typical high power floods are KW's EACH. Thus we'd see a decline in the cost of large orbital power systems because they'd have a wide market. Hmmm. The more I think about this, the more I like it. D.D. Harriman would love the idea... Incidentally, my understanding is that the mortuary satellites will not be visible because Space Services and the Celestis Group do not wish to stir up a hornets nest. They're too small to deal with issues of this nature. The idea of grandpa shining in the sky may appeal to the survivors, but the person who put it in their will and is actually footing the bill could care less. I believe there are many space activists who have signed on for this 'last ride'. If NASA won't try to take you up live, Celestis will at least take you up dead. The first of the Celestis Group sats is scheduled to go up next spring. To the best of my knowledge it is fully subscribed already. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Apr 87 15:39 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Supernova According to Nature, about .1% of the people on earth had a neutrino from SN 1987A interact with them. Assuming each neutrino deposits 5 MeV in the body, you can compute that a person 10 AU or so from the star at the time of core collapse would have received a lethal dose of neutrinos. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 87 16:49:46 GMT From: ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) Subject: Re: Relativity and TIME TRAVEL and Fermi paradox >In article <9401@decwrl.DEC.COM> earle@oblio.dec.com (GEORGE EARLE) writes: > >>IF time travel is possible, and ignoring for the fact that WE can't do >>it yet, how come nobody from the future hasn't done it yet, or to put >>it another way, how come no one has visited us? Anyone got any >>thoughts on this? Did you ever stop to think that the future may not last long enough for mankind to develop the technology for time travel? Perhaps a global war will set mankind back hundreds or thousands of years. Lots of occurances could take place to slow mankind's intellectual development. Given the proper circumstances, the people alive a thousand years from now might be living a bronze age existence. This 'advance one step, retreat two,' might go on indefinitely or until the solar system is no more. Boy, this sounds depressing. I hope we get a visitor from the future soon. Perhaps that time traveler will get here last week or maybe we'll have to wait until last year, who knows? 8-) ray ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 87 21:05:04 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpf!straka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Straka) Subject: Fiber optic plate needed. I need a lead on a ~3/4" x ~2" x ~1/2" thick fiber optic plate (surplus type stuff). Used to be in Edmund-type catalogs years back. This type of material used to be very common (from military applications, I guess) but is now a bit hard to find. Any help on locating something of this sort would be greatly appreciated! Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 87 10:10:29 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: The 500 Man Mars Colony should be America's next major space project There was a good response to the 500-Man Mars colonization idea in Vol. 7, Issue 209 of Space Digest. I'll first reply to Bob Alexander's posting: >> This Martian colony should be built by first >>constructing a space transportation system that can transport material >>into LEO at a reasonable price, i.e. the National Aerospace Plane. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >I think you're jumping to conclusions about the NASP. All the claims >they're making for it (low cost, regular and routine operation) I've >heard before for the shuttle. Considering their lousy record of living >up to claims for the shuttle (so lousy, in fact, that heads should roll >starting with James Fletcher's), plus the soaring cost estimates for th >space station, I expect the National Aerospace Plane to be another >expensive boondoggle. Bob's observations about the shuttle are basicly correct. However the original shuttle design (fully reusable orbit vehicle with a robust TPS and a fully reusable winged booster) was an extremely good one and cost effective. However the politicians weren't willing to pay the developement costs and bastardized the design through micro-budgeting. When our current shuttle included the external tank and the Lockheed silica tile TPS then all robustness and cost effectiveness was thrown away. The NASP was not yet gone down that dreary road. As it currently stands, the design is **very** exciting. However some people have this utterly idiotic idea it can be entirely designed and tested through computer simulation. There will be some very red faces after this myth has been exposed. >I believe the private sector is the way to go. When something is >profitable, it will get done. Satellites are profitable and as a >result, they are now plentiful. I totally agree with Bob in principle. However it will be decades if not centuries before space colonies will yield a profit. I once talked to Robert Fuhrman (sp?), President of Lockheed Missles and Space, and asked him why Lockheed (which makes billions of dollars on aerospace hardware) doesn't actively push space industrialization. His answer was quite simple: "NO PROFIT". Lockheed's attitude is typical of the business community. If they can't make a profit within a couple of years, they aren't interested. Henry Spencer then provided some comments on Mars colonization: >> ... This Martian colony should be built by first >> constructing a space transportation system that can transport materia >> into LEO at a reasonable price, i.e. the National Aerospace Plane... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Ho ho. To approximately quote Gary Hudson: "The Aerospace Plane is >going to be a combination of the Concorde and the Space Shuttle. This >does not sound cheap to me." Agreed that cheap LEO transport is >important to Mars colonization, and to a lot of other things, but the >NASP is most unlikely to provide it. I'm surprized that Henry would quote anything from Gary Hudson. There are alot of angry people in the San Francisco Bay Area who made the mistake of getting involved with Hudson's "space developement" schemes. I can't openly say what I think about Hudson since I'd be open to libel prosecution. However there are some people who think they can launch a hundred million dollar satellite into geosychronous orbit with a booster that is little more than a bunch Estes rocket motors held together with a rubber band. Also there are people who are so gullible that they will **invest** hard earned cash into such a project. Oddly, these same people are a bit angry when they realize they had been conned and made into fools. >> At LEO and geosynchronous orbit the United States should construct >> large space stations for supporting the Martian objective... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >You don't want to put a space station in geostationary orbit; it is in >the fringes of the outer Van Allen belt. Besides, why bother? That >orbit's only real uses are for Earth-oriented work; it has no advantage >for Mars projects. Henry is right about the radiation problem. However the geostationary orbit station is certain to be constructed because it will serve as an antenna farm and platform for weather satellites. It would be a preferred base for interplanetary missions because it requires less delta-V to get from Geo into an interplanetary trajectory than from LEO. Russ Cage pushed the old, tired concept of building free floater colonies (O'Neal/L-5 Style): >>This is where O'Neal's L-5 colony idea fell flat. You can't justify >>these space colonies on economic grounds. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >This is where you're wrong. The colony's purpose was to build solar >power satellites from lunar or asteriodal materials. When the concept >of solar power satellites was considered and then dismissed, the idea o >using non-terrestrial resources was not even given a hearing. *This* i >why the idea fell flat, not on economic grounds. The idea is just as >sound today as it was in the mid-70's. As far as I'm concerned the whole free floater colony / SPS idea is a NOP. A couple of months ago we had a long debate on the numerous technical problems associated with this concept, i.e. megatons of material for radiation shielding, Coriolis problems, etc. It is boring to repeat these arguments, particularly when your audience's attitude is: "I already have my conclusions, so don't bother me with the facts". The fatal problem with this whole idea is it's based on economic viability. No one is going to buy electricity from an SPS (there is already a surplus of electrical power). The electricity from an SPS will never be cheaper than electricity from earth based solar or from mundane energy sources like coal. The whole concept is both economicly and technically unsound. People have been saying this over-and-over again for more than ten years, (from many sources and not just that stupid DOE report). If you're pushing for O'Neal colonies then all you are really doing is distracting people from viable space colonization concepts. This is the reason why free floater colonies make me angry. A significant fraction of the Space Movement's energy and political clout is being wasted on something that'll never fly. The Mars colony can (and will) work because it can be setup as a single one-shot project. It is not based on economics but simple idealism. The first man on the moon thing worked because of the simple propaganda that we needed to "beat the Russians". The Mars colony idea will work because we will be opening a new frontier and permanently placing Americans on Mars (establishing defacto control over an entire planet). In the hands of a skillfull demagogue this is more than adequate basis for securing the enormous funding required for this project. The Mars project will work, and the Space Movement needs to pull its head out of the sand and start backing it. Gary Allen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #220 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04102; Mon, 11 May 87 03:04:14 PDT id AA04102; Mon, 11 May 87 03:04:14 PDT Date: Mon, 11 May 87 03:04:14 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705111004.AA04102@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #221 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 11 May 87 03:04:14 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #221 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 221 Today's Topics: Re: escape NSS/L5 Name Re: SPACE Digest V7 #210 Re: What is Meissner effect ? Re: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible Re: SDI Infeasable? -- NOT IN SCI.S Re: The Bottom-Up Approach to Space Travel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Apr 87 23:57:54 GMT From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@ames.arpa (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: escape In article <3468ce61.44e6@apollo.uucp> nelson_p@apollo.UUCP writes: >I have nothing against 'high technology' ; hi-tech supplies my >income and several of my hobbies. I just disagree with the notion >that the solution to our problems lies purely in ever-higher technology. If you don't improve technology, you inevitably turn life into a zero-sum game with limits to growth. This is not a hopeful future. >I believe that it will be very helpful to also change our attitudes >about certain things. I believe that if we are going to survive we must >learn to use resources and generate waste at sustainable rates. At >the moment we are not doing that and it is starting to be a problem, >especially in the area of waste generation. Space technology can put that waste generation out where energy is cheap and mass is expensive, which is the opposite of what prevails on earth. This is very conducive to recycling of waste. Solving the energy problems would make waste recovery on earth much cheaper as well, and reducing the cost is essential to getting it done. >we've left them. The original poster seemed to express an attitude >of 'the Earth is going to hell, a few of us should escape while we can'. That's not what I got at all. I read "if Earth goes to hell, it is better to be left with something than nothing." With something, you have a chance at starting over. >The real irony is that the Earth's environment is much more robust >and forgiving of excess waste and other insults than the fragile >artificial ecosystem of a Mars or asteroid colony is likely to be. >If we can't find a way of 'getting it right' here on Earth then >how long will our extra-terrestrial colonies last? That's exactly the reason to go build artificial ecosystems, Peter! If they are more fragile and less complex, and will break sooner under pressure, it gives us laboratories that we can use to find out if we're pushing *earth* too far for its long-term viability. If we don't know this, and have nowhere to go, we might be digging the grave for everything that lives on this planet without having hedged our bets in any way, or leaving anything to start from again if we *do* screw up here. Even if earth is sterilized, would it matter if we had the expertise and species banks to rebuild its ecosystems? With enough practice, we might even be able to recreate some that have disappeared already. Isn't that worth doing? But we need those laboratories if we're going to learn. > > --Peter -- My employer gets all its opinions from me. (My employer *is* me.) | Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. Practice makes perverts. | ihnp4!itivax!m-net!russ NSA food> CIA DIA KGB rocket ammunition AK-47 dynamite atomic TEMPEST Hail Eris! ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 87 05:18:13 GMT From: mtune!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzz!dls@rutgers.edu Subject: NSS/L5 Name It is expected that within six months a vote of all NSS/L5 members will be taken on the name. The vote will almost certainly be between Space Frontier Society and National Space Society. Who'll win is unclear, but many former L5 Members, while agreeing that L5 may not be the best name, also disliked what they called the "National SS" as a name. Dale Skran ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 1987 16:22-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #210 Gary Allen: Your point about the difficulty of convincing John Q Public to go to Mars (or anywhere else in space) when s/he doesn't even know what a planet is, is well taken. It is also why many of us in the space movement have been becoming more and more involved in the issue of science education. We have been working more and more with organizations that have been helping science teachers for years, and have been finding them to be natural allies. They are as underfunded and understaffed as we are and have been there for many years. There is a great deal of synergy between a strong space program and science education. If kids are motivated, they will learn, and it doesn't require a multi-million dollar mega-school with a giant science department to make them do it. With motivation, a supportive, loving teacher in a one room school house can turn out more self assured and successful students than the best of these massive over-administrated schools. If anything, the giant schools make most students feel insignificant. Fewer schools mean fewer spaces for student leaders, so we educate fewer leaders and generate ever more massive numbers of sheep. And ignorant sheep at that. Sheep is what they WANT in these schools. Leaders are trouble makers, particularly if there aren't enough leadership slots to go around, so potential leaders must be "socialized" and ground down until they are "well-behaved". (Read: sheep) I feel very sure that the structure of the educational system tells a lot about a society. A land of small neighborhood schools educates for self-sufficient neighborhood leadership and local democracy. This was the America of the 19th century, a land of freedom and local autonomy. A land of giant conglomerate schools educates for a small leadership cadre at a city or county level. This is the America of the late 20th century. A land of massive beauracracies, low voter interest, disenchantment and detachment from society and family. Leadership is learned very early by doing it among your peers. It is not learned in the class room and it is not taught. To overcome the system, kids need a dream that they can latch on to, a feeling that their own actions can make a difference. The dream of space settlement is one of hope, and it makes kids come alive. You have to see it to believe it. I had close to 400 kids at my conference here in Pgh. And they were glowing with excitement. If making that session available turned on some of those kids, I will feel I have done something very worthwhile in my life. ------------------------------ Date: 1 May 87 00:51:41 GMT From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ed Post) Subject: Re: What is Meissner effect ? in article <870430-061208-3585@Xerox>, Emanuel.henr@XEROX.COM says: % For the less informed, like me, in the audience, please define % Meissner effect as it was used in"Paul F. Dietz",High Tc Superconductor % News segment of Volume 7 : Issue 210. The Meissner effect is another aspect of the fact that superconductors exclude magnetic fields from their interiors. They do this by developing an internal current which creates a field in the opposite direction of sufficient strength to exactly balance the applied field. The effect of this is that a superconductor, when placed close to a magnet, looks like a magnetic "mirror" and repels the magnet. You can actually balance a piece of superconductor in midair over a magnet. When it heats up past Tc, it drops -- spooky to watch. The effect is limited only by the current density needed to maintain the necessary field strength. -- Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp (408)252-8713 American Information Technology; Cupertino, CA 95014 ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 87 09:02:09 GMT From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible In article <8704290908.AA01201@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: ... valid derivation so far ... > However I believe that Keith may have > made an algebra error in his derivation. quite possible! ... > rho=material > density, T=maximum allowable stress, R=earth's radius, mu=earth's > gravitational constant ... > where Ys=geosychronous altitude above the earth's surface. We now > integrate equation (1) from zero altitude to geosynchronous altitude > and then insert equation (2) to eliminate omg**2. The result is > Fs = Fo exp((((x-1)/x)**3)*((2*x)+1)/(2*k)) equ (3) I think I gave something different before, but the above is correct. ... > k = Ys*T/(rho*mu) equ (4) -- skyhook number -- > > x = (Ys+R)/R equ (5) ... > Values calculated below are: > > Steel: k = 7.98E-4 > Kevlar: k = 8.66E-3 Check some materials references. I quote from "DuPont Technical Information, Kevlar Aramid Bulletin K-2, February 1978, Characteristics and Uses of Kevlar 49 Aramid High Modulus Organic Fiber", Page 3, Table 1: Kevlar 49 Stainless Steel Tensile Strength 2758 MPa 1724 MPa Density 1.44 g/cm3 7.86 g/cm3 (1440 kg/m3) (7860 kg/m3) From the CRC handbook, 59th edition: page F177 Geosyncronous Altitude Ys: 35767 km (3.5767e7 meters) page F175 Earth Radius R: 6378 km (equatorial) (6.378e6 meters) page F182 Gravitational Constant mu: 3.98e5 km3/sec2 (3.98e14 m3/sec2) Using these, I compute k values of 1.97e-2 for stainless steel and 0.172 for Kevlar-49, unless I'm missing something. Note that this does not include an epoxy fill, which most fiber composite materials use. The very small k numbers correspond to support lengths of 0.9km and 9.8km respectively, which is why I prefer to scale things with support length. It makes it easier to spot goofs. I will plug in x=6.608 into equation (3) to get equation (3a): Fs = Fo exp (4.345/k) equ(3a) > Sky hook numbers for whiskers are not significantly different from > Kevlar. We would be optimistic in assumning that a material with > k=1.0E-2 was physically obtainable. Lab values for whiskers are 5x better than Kevlar-49 if memory serves, so 0.9 is a better "optimistic" number. > If we plug in numbers for Kevlar > we find that Ys = Yo exp(500.81). Well, I find Ys = Yo exp(25.25). Still impractical, but at least hydrogen atoms and light years can be excluded from this discussion... With k=0.9 the exponent is 5, for a scaling parameter of 150 or so. A practical sized number. > fails catastrophicly. I vaguely remember a structures teacher once > telling me this, so I think my result is correct, ... I may have had the same structures teacher. That's why I went into EE instead... :-) > I believe that I've effectively driven > a stake through the heart of this stupid idea. Perhaps we could move > the sky hook debate over to SF-Lovers and discuss something else. > Gary Allen The idea IS stupid, but hard to kill with numbers. I prefer killing it with better alternatives. ---- A possibly irrelevant note on materials science. Today I watched a little bit of magnet material floating in mid air over a chunk of Perskovite lattice superconductor the size of a silver dollar. (The magnet was being levitated by something called Meissner effect. Only superconductors show this effect). The superconductor chunk was sitting on top of a piece of styrofoam, and being cooled by a fellow occasionally pouring liquid nitrogen on it from a styrofoam coffee cup. He would wipe the frost off with his fingers. I built superconducting circuits in school, tiny things we put in sample sticks and shoved down into dewars of very expensive liquid helium. We measured them with test equipment, but I never actually got to visually observe a sample while it was superconducting. Today was one of the most amazing experiences of my life. I saw something miraculous. In spite of the current state of the world, I've seen something that makes me quite optimistic about the future. WOW!!!! There are two morals to this story: 1) The materials folk are doing some profoundly startling things. This will have a great impact on the "how" of space travel. 2) Some of the damndest things come from small science. We may not need monster organizations and expenditures to get into space some day soon. It may only require another miracle or two. -- Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 87 19:25:00 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!silver!seiffert@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: SDI Infeasable? -- NOT IN SCI.S I am open for suggestions of where such a discussion should go. However, it seems to me that even substantial testing of the sort of proposals I have heard for SDI would have far reaching effects on future endeavors in space by all nations. Obviously any type of defensive system could be pointed outward as well as in. SDI poses the threat of space as a battle ground (area?). Question for thought is What effects on space exploration and development would a substantial space-based defensive system have? I'm just wondering. -- Kurt A. Seiffert seiffert@silver.bacs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 87 23:30:35 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: The Bottom-Up Approach to Space Travel In article <8704280047.AA22888@angband.s1.gov>, DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: > Hypothesis: building a tower from the ground up to about 100 km requires > much weaker materials than dropping a line from GSO. > > How strong do materials have to be? A tower 100 km tall made of material > with a density of 2 gr/cc will exert a pressure of 20 kilobars at the base > (actually, less, since the tower would be tapered). That's not impossible; > carefully shaped diamonds can withstand pressures > 1 megabar. I wonder how > tall a tower can be if it is made of, say, graphite composite trusses? > The idea you are searching for is 'scale height'. Imagine a constant cross section column of a given material. For some column height, the weight of the column per unit area of its base will equal the compressive strength of the material. This height is called the scale height. Using english units, for structural carbon steel, the strength is 36,000 pounds per square inch, and the weight is 0.3 pounds per cubic inch. Thus the scale height is 36,000/0.3=120,000 inches, or 10,000 feet. Thes best graphite epoxies I know of (Amoco 'Thornel' type T40 carbon fiber + type 1962 epoxy) have a compressive strength of 250,000 psi and a density of 0.06 lb/cubic inch. Thus their scale height is 4.16 million inches (106 km). The minimum mass tower to support a 'payload' at a given height , in theory, has an exponential taper in cross section by a factor of e per scale height. Theory, however has little bearing on the design of a realistic tower. The two largest 'real world' considerations are (1) you must have a design factor of safety >1.0, or in other words you must design for less than ultimate strength, and (2) there are winds. The factor of safety you use will depend on the use of the tower, especially whether people will be on it. Reasonable figures derived from airplane design would be 2 for static loads and 4 for dynamic loads. This means you design as if your structure were 1/2 and 1/4 as strong as it really is, respectively. An example of static loads is the weight of the structure itself. An example of dynamic loads is winds. Unfortunately for tower builders, winds generally get stronger with altitude up to 10 km, where you encounter the 'jet stream'. If you want your tower to last in that environment, remember to account for 100 mph AVERAGE winds. Very rough calculations of weight of guyed towers using graphite-epoxy mast and fiberglass guy wires indicate the following ratios of tower weight to 'payload at top' weight: Height=2 km, 0.1lb/lb; 4 km, 0.43 lb/lb; 6 km 1.22 lb/lb; 8 km, 2.63 lb/lb; and 10 km; 5.13 lb/lb. (Pardon my mixing of units, but the source numbers are that way and I don't have time to convert everything to SI) Above 10 km the winds become a smaller effect, since the atmosphere is getting thinner. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder (why, you ask, do I have information on wind loads for 10 km towers? Its because I was looking into the idea of big towers in 1986, with most of the same reasons Paul Dietz listed. Maybe the time for big towers has arrived, since multiple people are independantly thinking about them) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #221 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06057; Tue, 12 May 87 03:06:12 PDT id AA06057; Tue, 12 May 87 03:06:12 PDT Date: Tue, 12 May 87 03:06:12 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705121006.AA06057@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #222 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 12 May 87 03:06:12 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #222 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 222 Today's Topics: Whom should I interview for an article? But who pays for insurance under CSIA? Re: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Re: Gold Re: Escape Re: The 500 Man Mars Colony should be America's next major space project Escapism, resources, pollution HOTOL, Rockets, Exotic Fuels Candidates Positions on Space? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 03 May 87 16:45:59 EDT From: "Eric W. Tilenius" Subject: Whom should I interview for an article? I am currently starting work on an article for BUSINESS TODAY magazine (the nation's largest student-run publication) about Space, the possibilities for Business in Space, the Space Station, why a space program is important, etc. I am looking for suggestions on whom to interview. Names of top level people (ie. program heads at NASA, Chairman/presidents of companies, prominent people in their field) whom you think would be good resources for an article such as this would be appreciated. I hope to make a firm statement for the benefit of Space, so any help you could give me on contact people would be greatly apprectiated. Please reply to me at one of the following addresses... Thanks! ewtileni@pucc.BITNET ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU ewtileni%pucc.Princeton.Edu@RELAY.CS.NET ewtileni%pucc.bitnet@wiscvm.Wisc.EDU (UUCP) (ihnp4,allegra,cmcl2)!psuvax1!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni - ERIC - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding) X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 03 00:55:35 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: But who pays for insurance under CSIA? Date: 18 Apr 87 00:00:54 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Private space again The proposed Commercial Space Incentive Act [I think I've remembered that name right] would be a simple, cheap, highly effective shot in the arm for US (not necessarily US government!) space activity. For those who don't remember my original posting about it some months ago, this proposed Act says that the US government will pay $500/lb for all payloads placed into orbit by US private launchers, up to a maximum of a million pounds a year, for ten years, subject to some restrictions and complications. It sounds good, until you ask the question "who will pay for the insurance on the payload?" If we have a $10,000 payload (a really cheap one by comsat standards), and the insurance company rates the private company only a 50% chance of not destroying the payload during attempted launch, then just to break even the insurance company has to charge a premium of $5000 (the math is that they charge $5000 every time, and pay back $10,000 half the time, which exactly balances on the average if their estimate of chance of loss was correct). If the government pays $500 for the launch but the private company has to pay $5000 for insurance, the company loses $4500 on the launch, hardly a way to achieve good cash flow. But if the government pays the full $5000, then the private company is encouraged to pretend to launch even if there is zero chance of success because the make money even in failure. A compromise is for the government to pay the insurance premium always, but pay for the launch only if it succeeds. But even so this encourages the company to launch prematurely because they accept only $500 of the risk, a measly amount of the $10,000 payload. On more normal payloads which are worth millions of dollars, my example is even more powerful at refuting the proposed guaranteed-$500 idea. ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 87 09:34:33 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible In article <8704290908.AA01201@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > f=local force, y=altitude above the earth's surface, rho=material > density, T=maximum allowable stress, R=earth's radius, mu=earth's > gravitational constant, omg=earth's spin rate in radians per second. > where Ys=geosychronous altitude above the earth's surface. We now > k = Ys*T/(rho*mu) equ (4) -- skyhook number -- > Steel: k = 7.98E-4 > Kevlar: k = 8.66E-3 > Sky hook numbers for whiskers are not significantly different from > Kevlar. We would be optimistic in assumning that a material with > k=1.0E-2 was physically obtainable. If we plug in numbers for Kevlar For available today carbon fiber (Amoco 'Thornel' T40): rho=1800 kg/m^3 T=5.6x10^9 Pascals (specified as 820,000 psi) Ys=35.9x10^6 m mu=3.986012x10^14 m^2/s^3 Which yields a skyhook number of about 0.3 > Gary Allen Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 87 10:02:36 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle In the previous article Keith Loftstrom talked about some superconductors he got to see live, and I had to talk about some 'feelies' I saw this week. Some background: the Air Force has released a request to the aerospace industry for phase I of what was called until last week the 'Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle'. [for reasons unknown to us at Boeing, they are now calling it the 'Advanced Launch System'] This will be a new-technology cargo rocket in the 100,000 to 150,000 pound payload class, to fly in the mid- to late-1990s. Phase I is mostly concept definition and technology development. As part of our efforts, our group was briefed on materials technology last week. The materials people brought in all kinds of graphite/ polyimide composite parts, which have high strength due to the graphite [that's why I know about the 820ksi graphite], moderately high thermal resistance due to the polyimide matrix. The other thing they talked about is aluminum-lithium alloys for cryogenic tanks. Seems the stuff is not only lighter than plain aluminum alloys, but it gets much stronger at cryogenic temperatures. These two would give you a 30% reduction in structures weight on a new generation rocket. It may not be as 'gee whiz' as the superconductors , but it has very direct impact on the next generation of rockets. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 1 May 87 04:47:29 GMT From: ulysses!gamma!mb2c!edsdrd!edstb!msudoc!crlt!russ@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Gold In article <1197@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP writes: > Why bother recovering precious metals from asteroidal sources, when > the BIG market requires no separation at all. There might be good uses for the precious metals while you're out there, such as lining reaction vessels. If you are going to build processing equipment on your rock (cheaper than hauling it all with you), the linings would be another good thing to be able to make. Gold and platinum are *very* inert... > The free metal in a iron-nickel or stony-iron asteroid typically > consists of 90% Iron, 9% Nickel and 1% Cobalt. This is already a very > high grade steel. The world market for steel is ENORMOUS ($200 > billion/year or so). Your problems are how to get the asteroid or > part thereof back to earth vicinity, then down to the ground. If you want a different composition of steel, though, you have to process things. Most any processing which involves chemical separation is going to leave the gold behind. You might as well grab it. [description of solar-sailing the steel back to earth] > At 2.5 AU, in the asteroid belt, a typical available impulse will be > 36 Newton-seconds/square meter/yr (light pressure is (1+r)E/c , where r is > reflectivity, the 1 comes from the momentum of incident light, which is > all used, E is the wattage of sunlight, and c is the speed of light). Quibble: absorbed light yields only a *radial* impulse, which is useless if you are trying to get rid of angular momentum. The radial component of the impulse is of no use, so your effective impulse becomes r*E*/c, where E is the solar flux times time per square meter of effective reflector area (A*cos(theta)). Since the max efficiency angle is 45 degrees, cos(theta) is .707. This affects your figures somewhat, but your point is well taken. > Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder Russ Cage ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 May 87 17:21:46 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Escape To: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu > So we should spend zillions of dollars ... Just so a few hundred or a > thousand priveleged individuals can escape all this. ... I agree that no government money should be spent on space, except possibly for defense programs. I think a lot of private money should be and will be spent on space. It may not be practical yet to make use of space resources and processes, but I believe it will be. > I believe we should try to solve our problems here. What problems are those, and who is "we"? > If we can't agree on doing that then... 1) Most of us are doomed anyway ... What doom? > 2) If our species is so disagreeable and warlike and uncooperative and > just plain stupid Some members of our species are all of those. Others aren't. Should the latter be held responsible for the actions of the former? Are you guilty of World War II? Am I? > that it can't recognize its own self-interest in not fowling its nest, Who is fowling (fouling?) their own nest? In what way? > then what is your justification in trying to preserve it on an extra- > terrestrial colony? As a good bad example to aliens? A bad example of what? And how do you know there even are any aliens, or that they aren't even worse behaved than humans? > It sounds to me like you ARE saying 'run out on Mother Earth'. Some people will wish to leave. Others won't. Why should anyone stop them or force them? Should we have colonized all the continents on Earth? > Attitudes of people like you are how we got into this mess in the > first place. What mess is that? > When you've finished polluting someplace you just move on to > 'someplace else'. I don't understand you. Pollution is less of a problem now than 20 years ago. Who is moving on to someplace else? The US has been in the same place all along. > WE are the problem and we've got to face that and stop > thinking that our technology is going to save us from ourselves. I don't think we need saving. And I still don't know what problem you are talking about. Anyway, nothing prevents anyone from giving up technology if they want to. Few do, for reasons that should be obvious. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 87 02:14:49 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: The 500 Man Mars Colony should be America's next major space project > I'm surprized that Henry would quote anything from Gary Hudson... Hudson does talk a good show, although I'd hesitate before investing lots of money in him. > Henry is right about the radiation problem. However the geostationary > orbit station is certain to be constructed because it will serve as an > antenna farm and platform for weather satellites. It would be a > preferred base for interplanetary missions because it requires less > delta-V to get from Geo into an interplanetary trajectory than from > LEO. Some sort of platform is likely to be constructed in Clarke orbit -- most probably several of them -- but I'd expect them to be big antenna farms with occasional other instruments, *not* manned stations with assembly facilities. Manned visits to them I can see, but permanent manning seems dubious. (Before people tell me about satellite maintenance, note that getting from one point in Clarke orbit to another without dropping to a much lower orbit temporarily is very slow. Given that maintenance of satellites up there is relatively infrequent and unpredictable, it is better done from low orbit, whence you can get anywhere in Clarke orbit quickly.) As for it being a preferred launch point because of lower delta-V, don't forget that all the stuff has to be boosted up there to begin with! This is not trivial: the delta-V for Clarke orbit is comparable to that for an escape trajectory. You are probably better off assembling in low orbit and then using the Clarke-orbit transportation system as a first stage to boost the interplanetary mission. Doing it that way means that assembly is within the Van Allen belts (which means protection against solar flares, not just a lower radiation level from the belts themselves) and it's rather cheaper to get crews, supplies, and assembly equipment there. If you can get materials etc. from off-Earth sources, that does change the picture... but that is incompatible with Mars being the very next project. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 87 22:26 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Escapism, resources, pollution I personally don't see what's wrong with escaping problems, when possible. Being forced to pay so that someone else can escape is another matter. Resource depletion: recent gluts should dispel Club of Rome nonsense about resource depletion. Several facts must be remembered: (1) all mineral resources exist in progressively larger quantities at lower concentrations, (2) the technology for extracting these less concentrated ores is developing rapidly (not suprisingly, just as fast as is needed), and (3) almost all resources can be substituted for or recycled. Pollution: the only thing that may prevent mineral resources from being exploited is possible pollution. From a purely physical point of view, the only ultimately unsolvable pollution problem is thermal pollution. Toxic elements can be reburied, toxic compounds can be destroyed by thermal or plasma processes, and atmospheric pollutants can be reduced by substitution (nuclear or solar for coal, other chemicals for CFCs). Whether this will happen is unclear, since the biosphere of earth is a classic example of a "commons" in which costs are shared by everyone. Keeping a space habitat pollution-free is much easier than keep the earth from being damaged, even if the space habitat is more fragile: the sociological problems should be much more tractable. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 87 16:42 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: HOTOL, Rockets, Exotic Fuels To: necntc!auspyr!sci!daver@ames.arpa, space@angband.s1.gov Dave Rickel had some questions about HOTOL and LH2/LOX engines... I believe the Isp of the SSME is something like 410 seconds (more in a vacuum?) so the exhaust velocity is > 4 km/sec. Since HOTOL's rockets would be used at high altitude we could expect their Isp to be high. I thought the molar ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in the SSME is around 4:1; is the H2/O2 ratio changed during launch to vary the Isp? I've been waiting since last year for British Aerospace to release more details on the HOTOL, specifically, on how its air breathing engines work. They said they'd make the design public earlier this year. Has anyone heard yet? About atomic hydrogen: another fuel I heard about was triplet helium. Supposedly, spin polarized triplet helium atoms (in which all electrons in all atoms have spins aligned in the same direction) could be metastable, perhaps forming a ferromagnetic solid at room temperature. Energy would be released when some electrons are flipped and fall back into 1s orbitals, releasing (I think) about 10 ev/atom. They wanted to make it by electron bombardment of liquid helium combined with pumping by circularly polarized light. I haven't heard anything more about this, so it likely doesn't work. Paul Dietz ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 May 87 15:31:57 MEZ From: PAT073%DHDDKFZ1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Candidates Positions on Space? I wanted to ask what the presidential candidates' positions regarding the space program are. I know that Gary Hart at any rate is publishing tons of position papers. Has anybody read them? Also, I imagine a general assumption might be that the Democrats are less likely to be space friendly than the Republicans. Is this true, or is the space-friendliness of the Republicans all of the SDI flavor? --benjamin mclemore ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #222 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08194; Wed, 13 May 87 03:03:44 PDT id AA08194; Wed, 13 May 87 03:03:44 PDT Date: Wed, 13 May 87 03:03:44 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705131003.AA08194@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #223 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 223 Today's Topics: Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" Space Elevators Re: ELV companies Re: Clarke's Quantum drive Re: Clarke's Quantum drive Build the Space Station right or cancel it It is cheaper and easier to colonize Mars rather than the Moon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 May 87 02:21:17 GMT From: aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa@mimsy.umd.edu (Ken Arromdee) Subject: Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" >...I can't get into a "space >station gap," that's just too ludicrous, especially when "mir" means >"peace". So: More power to Mir! I hope they continue successfully. Yes, and "Nazi" means "National Socialist". So what? Just because it is _called_ by a word which means "peace" has no bearing on anything else. (And incidentally, the use of "peace" as a name for a space station sounds suspiciously to me like "Moral Majority") "One day I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back. Until then, there should be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine..." Kenneth Arromdee ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 87 04:04:36 GMT From: doug@ngp.utexas.edu (Doug Miller) Subject: Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" Well, lets not be too harsh here. "Mir" (pesky English letters don't do justice to the Russian alphabet) means "peace" all right, but it also means "planet" or "world". So you see, they could just be calling their space station "the planet", sort of a super-sputnik. In fact, all of this makes for a great bi-lingual pun. In Russia there are posters that proclaim (loosely translated) "Russians want peace", but it can be translated with equal validity as "Russians want the world." Not the sort of thought that makes Western children sleep well at night. Have fun, kids. Doug Miller doug@ngp.utexas.edu ...ihnp4!ut-ngp!doug ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 87 05:40:45 GMT From: pyramid!amdahl!dlb!auspyr!sci!daver@decwrl.dec.com (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" I think that "Mir" also means "World", which seems to be a better name for a space station. david rickel decwrl!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 87 00:38:26 GMT From: 4gl.dec.com!schuetz@decwrl.dec.com (or VIA:: or REGAL:: - RALLY development) Subject: Space Elevators Am I missing some fundimental fact here? What keeps a space elevator up? An object stays in orbit, because the force of gravity is countered by the momentum, and the object continually "falls" in a circle. What force is countering all that weight from the cable connecting the "top" to the ground? What holds the cable up? A really massive "top" will just take longer to fall, but it WILL fall. You need a force equal to the weight of the cable to keep it up there. Do all these schemes presume a constant thruster at the top holding it up? /Confused ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 87 22:10:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: ELV companies I went to the Conference on Space Development, too, so I saw the same AMROC presentation you did. In addition, though, I spent a fascinating evening in the hotel bar listining to Eric Drexler, Keith Henson, and George Koopman (CEO of AMROC) expound on their favorite flames. In Koopman's case, it was, of course, AMROC. It's amazing how much he managed to say while saying nothing. DISCLAIMER: Needless to say, I can't speak for any of the principals. I am reporting from an imperfect memory of a casual conversation -- needless to say, I wasn't taking careful notes. Koopman is, indeed building hybrid motors (solid fuel-liquid oxidizer). He has completed a full-scale test firing of one engine on a static test stand at Edwards Air Force Base (I didn't recognize the test facility, but the size suggested that it was built for something on the order of a Redstone or a Scout). The design is basically: _____________________ __ ,' '._________________________/ | ========================= | Tank of LOX X_________________________ | ========================= ',_____________________,' Pipe lined with \__ polybutadiene rubber The salient features are: - The system is pressure-fed, so there's no need for a LOX pump. Instead, LOX flow is controlled by a valve (only). This design is supposed to reduce cost substantially, at some loss of performance since the pressure tank is *heavy*. Koopman claims that the reason that such an approach hasn't been tried before is that only recently have the materials been available to make the tank light enough. He's fabricating it out of some sort of filament-wound composite. - The engine is throttleable from 0 to 100% and is restartable. To turn it off or throttle it back, you simply reduce the LOX flow (at some cost in efficiency, presumably). Startup consists, apparently, of throwing a slug of TEA (triethylaluminum) into the LOX stream; considering how unstable TEA is and what a powerful reducing agent it is, I can see how that would be a quite effective fire-lighter. - Koopman would not state the maximum thrust he achieves, nor would he characterize the maximum burn time, except to say that it was ``in excess of two minutes.'' I have more to say on this subject, and shall discuss it below. - Koopman believes that cost can be reduced as well by economies of scale if large vehicles are built from large clusters of smaller engines. His promotional film shows an animation of his proposed orbital launcher, whose first stage has a cluster of thirteen of his engines. He also is into cost reduction by making the engines themselves stupid; the smart components are pressure and temperature sensors at several points in the LOX supply, LOX fill, bleed, feed, and purge valves, the starting system (effectively just an injector for the TEA) and a gimballed nozzle (the last is unavoidable, since it's needed for guidance). No pumps are required, since the system is pressure fed. Apparently pressure feed also obviates the need for ullage motors in the tanks, since the valves work as well on a foamy mixture of liquid and gaseous oxygen as they do on LOX (not so with pumps). - Koopman claims to have customers even for his test flights. For the suborbital tests (he's supposed to be conducting his first one in December), he mentions that NASA launches several dozen suborbital flights a year, so there *is* a market (NOAA probably don't want their precious radiosondes on test flights. Could his customer be SDIO?) For the orbital flights, one of his early customers may be AMRAD; they have a couple of payloads ``on ice'' waiting for someone to carry them as cargo of opportunity. He mentions that one of his early tests is likely to be a polar orbital launch from VAFB; his description of the unspecified customer sounds awfully as if it's the NRO, who put up an awful lot of sun-synchronous satellites. - Koopman is well connected; how else did he get access to EAFB test facilities without being a current defense contractor? He describes his venture as ``privately funded;'' I heard later that he's one of the heirs to the AEtna insurance fortune and is largely funding his operation with his own capital and that of personal associates. He certainly isn't begging at this time for venture capital. - Koopman is a consummate salesman who could sell ice cubes to Eskimos. A lot of this may not be for real. The film he showed of the test firing showed engine startup and about 10 seconds of operation, cut to a marketing pitch, and cut back some time later to show engine shutdown. God knows how long the engine was running in between, or how successful the test really was. The personnel at the test facility certainly *looked* happy with it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let's crank a few of the numbers to see whether what he's doing looks reasonable. (Physicists and engineers: These calculations are *intentionally* oversimplified. Please direct flames about ``oh, but you didn't take ---- into account'' to /dev/null unless ---- MATERIALLY and SUBSTANTIALLY affects the result of the calculation. The engine he had on the test stand was about 30 feet tall and about 4 feet in diameter. Call it 377 cubic feet or 10.7 cubic meters. Using CRC Handbook data for specific gravity of liquid oxygen, an empirical estimate for specific gravity of polybutadiene (OK, I weighed a SuperBall), and some guesstimates of structure mass, I come up with a density of about 3 for the configuration, giving the thing a mass of 31.5 tonnes. The configuration his marketing film showed for the orbital launcher had a single engine with payload riding on a cluster of six or seven (I couldn't see whether the central core of the cluster was another engine or just a structural member) and the whole thing sitting on a group of thirteen engines. So to get the thing off the pad, each engine has to thrust at about 5/3 its own weight. That gives a thrust of about half a million Newtons, or 115000 pounds force. The cluster of thirteen, then will give roughly 1.5 million pounds force of thrust, or 6.5 megaNewtons. In other words, it's a little over half what a Shuttle SRB will produce, and is comparable to the first stage of a Delta. Assuming for the sake of the discussion that the thrust is constant throughout the burn, a two-minute burn time, and 15% of the mass of the unit devoted to structural components (modern liquid boosters do better, about 10%, but that LOX tank has to be considered), we get 26.8 tonnes of propellants, consumed at the rate of 223 kilograms per second. This gives a specific impulse of about 2300 meters per second, or (converting to ugly English units) about 236 seconds (i.e., pounds thrust per pound fuel consumed per second, and mistakenly cancelling the ``pounds''). Nothing spectacular so far.... people have predicted chemical rockets with Isp in excess of 400 seconds, and ones in excess of 300 have been built. OK, now let's work delta-V calculations. From the equation delta-V = Isp * ln (mass ratio), we can get some idea how fast the whole thing will fly. Let's say that the payload weighs 1 tonne (a Delta-class payload); the empty weight of the third stage will be 5.7 tonnes. Delta-V for this stage will be about 4 km/s. Now stack the third stage atop a seven-engine second stage (weighing 40 tonnes empty, and carrying 187 tonnes of propellant). This combination has a delta-V of 2.8 km/s. Finally, put 13 more engines under this stack. We now have a dry weight of 314 tonnes and a full weight of 663; giving another 1.7 km/s delta-V. The entire combination can therefore attain a speed of 8.5 km/sec, a hair over orbital speed. (Actually, we have to figure in the amount of fuel that we use fighting gravity and aerodynamic effects, but we're in the right ballpark for a first-order approximation). We can get a further sanity check by calculating heat of combustion of polybutadiene in oxygen and then assigning a reasonable value for thermodynamic efficiency -- from this we can get an expected Isp. [Note to people who want to do this: The structure of polybutadiene is: / H H \ ---|-C---C-|-- \ H | /n , with a varying amount of cross-linking to the | side-chain, controllable in part by the ratio H C==CH of cis- and trans- isomers in the monomer mix. ] 2 I don't include the calculation here, partly to avoid making the posting any longer than it is and partly because I don't trust my numbers -- it's been a long time since I did any physical chemistry. Any chemists out there care to check me out? In any case, the bottom line again appeared to be in the right ballpark. Conclusion: If Koopman can achieve the performance figures on an actual vehicle that he claims to get on test stands, his bird will fly. Kevin Kenny ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 87 21:38:19 GMT From: rlgvax!cliff@seismo.css.gov (Cliff Joslyn) Subject: Re: Clarke's Quantum drive In article <8705020010.AA22541@brahms.Berkeley.EDU>, obnoxio@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: > In article <422@rlgvax.UUCP>, cliff@rlgvax (Cliff Joslyn) writes: > >In his book the starship is powered by a drive which is able to tap the > >quatum fluctuations of the vaccum. > > > What is most likely possible, if any tinkering with virtual matter is > to occur, is that entire new universes would spawn off. This would not > violate conservation of energy, since total energy is not defined in > general for a connected component of a space-time manifold. (This is > the latest scenario envisioned by Guth et al to explain where infla- > tion comes from.) > That's intruiging. Is it even conceivable that any *possible* human action, like the SSC, could induce a quantum fluctuation sufficient to "spawn a universe?" How big a fluctuation is sufficient to be called a "universe?" Is a "universe" simply a "big" fluctation? If so, then are the "small" fluctuations "tiny universes"? What "space" might this "universe" exist in, what "time"? Not ours, I hope. The more I write, the stupider this all sounds, and yet strangely plausible. Cliff Joslyn ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 87 17:10:11 GMT From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu (Bob McGwier) Subject: Re: Clarke's Quantum drive > In article <422@rlgvax.UUCP>, cliff@rlgvax (Cliff Joslyn) writes: > >I just finished reading _Songs_of_Distant_Earth_ by A. Clarke. He > >proposes that saying "unlocking the energy of the vaccum" today is like > >saying "unlocking the energy of the atom" at the turn of this century. > >In his book the starship is powered by a drive which is able to tap the > >quatum fluctuations of the vaccum. > > > >Any comments? > You said you read the book. I find that hard to believe when Clarke gives a reference to an article that answers your question in the preface. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 May 87 11:41:20 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Build the Space Station right or cancel it There are storm clouds on the horizon for the American Space Station. Caspar Weingber is now in the middle of a hostile take over of the station. It is not clear why he is doing this. Perhaps he wants the station for the DOD. More likely he wants to kill the station outright and free up Space Shuttle time for SDI missions. The original "power tower" concept for the Space Station was a bold and exciting design. However due to micro-budgeting by the OMB and other bean counters, the Space Station has now been reduced to being little more than a pressurized tin can full of bored astronauts. This is exactly the same dreary road the space shuttle went down in being converted from its originally excellent design into the turkey we have today. NO LEARNING HAS TAKEN PLACE. Key scientist are now resigning in protest from top positions overseeing the Space Station, i.e. Prof. Peter Banks of Stanford University. The Space Station raises an interesting ethical question for engineers: How long can an engineer remain with a project that is being watered down and bastardized by bean counters and politicians, before the engineer throws down his tools and walks away in protest? If the Space Shuttle engineers had done this, maybe we wouldn't have a shuttle today. Then again, maybe the shuttle would have been adequately funded and we would have a robust and fully reusable shuttle. We need a Space Station in LEO. If the politicians refuse to adequately fund it, then cancel the project. The need for a Space Station will still be there. If the politicians are faced with the choice of having a properly designed Station or no Station at all, then they must eventually bow down to building a properly designed one. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 May 87 21:53:22 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: It is cheaper and easier to colonize Mars rather than the Moon In several recent postings to Space Digest, different people remarked that we should be colonizing the Moon instead of Mars. The Moon does have one positive advantage over Mars in being closer. However the Moon has several problems that are actually fatal towards colonization. Based on our current understanding of the Moon, there appears to be no nitrogen or hydrogen in the lunar crust. Future exploration might show water at the lunar poles, but this is a long shot. The nitrogen problem can be assumned to be real. All proteins are based on nitrogen. It is biologically impossible for a lunar colony to grow unless nitrogen is being shipped in from space. Also the moon's gravity is considerably less than that of Mars. Whether this is a health problem is problematic. Also the moon has no atmosphere and no readily available water. Mars does have a thin nitrogen/carbon dioxide atmosphere (enough for aerobraking) and an abundance of ice. It is possible that a colony with a relatively low tech could survive and grow on Mars without continued support from off planaet. However this is impossible in the case of the Moon. These are the main reasons why Mars colonization is more interesting (and cheaper in the long run) than lunar colonization. Gary Allen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #223 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10113; Thu, 14 May 87 03:03:11 PDT id AA10113; Thu, 14 May 87 03:03:11 PDT Date: Thu, 14 May 87 03:03:11 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705141003.AA10113@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #224 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 224 Today's Topics: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony Re: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony Re: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony Re: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony The best way to terraform Mars CANDU reactors and Martian colony energy needs Re: One can not justify Space Colonization AI job at KSC A response to Henry's editorial Re: NSS/L5 Name ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 05 May 87 09:02:37 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony One solution to the problem of energy for a self sufficient 500 man Mars colony is to use hydrazine. Manufacture the hydrazine at a central facility. The raw materials could be derived from the Martian atmosphere and water ice. The energy source in the beginning of the colony's life would be nuclear. However the colony couldn't remain with nuclear because uranium enrichment requires too high of a technology for a small colony. As the colony grew it would have to switch over to "geothermal" based on one of the many Martian volcanoes. Solar energy is a long shot. Henry Spencer correctly pointed out that Mars has some fairly nasty dust storms . Any optical surface for your solar collection system would have to be protected against dust. It would be necessary to have a three month reserve of hydrazine for the period of these dust storms. Hydrazine can be "burned" as a monopropellant by passing it over a catalyst. Internal combustion engines have been designed based on hydrazine fuel. Propeller driven aircraft using hydrazine fuel were considered in some earlier Mars exploration studies. Hydrazine is extremely poisonous. However the colonists will all be wearing pressure suits anyway. The colony simply has to make a point of only using hydrazine devices outdoors. Here is a question for chemistry wizards in ARPA Land: Is there a liquid chemical that will energeticly burn with carbon dioxide that is based on common elements? Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 87 17:59:38 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony > ... Is there a liquid chemical that will energeticly > burn with carbon dioxide that is based on common elements? Well, I don't know if I qualify as a "chemistry wizard" -- I started out in chemistry but it's been a long time -- but I'm a little doubtful about this. CO2 is *not* what you call an energetic reactant; you need something very active to burn with it. I do know of one candidate: I'm told that titanium burns very nicely in CO2, albeit with a lot of black smoke. (Yes, it's doing just what you think it is: pulling the oxygen out and letting the carbon go its own way.) Titanium also burns in nitrogen, by the way (in fact, titanium burning in air is reacting just as vigorously with the nitrogen as the oxygen -- the ash is about 80% nitride). What's more, titanium is a relatively common element, although it's a real pain to extract and refine. Perhaps it wouldn't have to be very pure for this application, which would help. Annoying that it isn't a liquid. Aluminum is also fairly active stuff once you get rid of its surface oxide layer (which makes it fairly inert in an oxygen atmosphere unless you use drastic measures). I don't know if it will burn in CO2, but it would be worth finding out. Aluminum WILL pull the oxygen out of iron oxide, and very energetically too -- that's what thermite is -- so maybe it would. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 87 16:47:52 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony > ... titanium burns very nicely in CO2, albeit with a lot of black smoke... I didn't think about the implications of this when I posted it. Shades of Victorian railroads! The Mars buggy rolls briskly across the landscape, belching black smoke and occasionally stopping to shovel the ash out of the firebox...! I love it. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 87 22:10:27 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!hogg@seismo.css.gov Subject: Re: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony In article <8705050705.AA07572@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >One solution to the problem of energy for a self sufficient 500 man >Mars colony is to use hydrazine... Hydrazine is extremely poisonous. >However the colonists will all be wearing pressure suits anyway. The >colony simply has to make a point of only using hydrazine devices >outdoors. That will be fine if only airtight pressure suits are worn, but it's not clear that's the best way to go. They have nasty degradation properties (holes are *serious*), and are quite restrictive. If instead a porous pressure suit is used (and these have been designed and tested), then you'll want to be more careful about what you're spraying around. John Hogg hogg@utcsri.uucp hogg@csri.toronto.cdn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 87 09:44:34 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: The best way to terraform Mars In Vol. 7, No. 213 of Space Digest, Ian H. Merritt commented on various techniques to terraform Mars, i.e. dumping ice on the planet from Saturn, etc. I suspect these sort of ideas are inoperative because of the enormous energy required. However there is a much simpler way to terraform Mars. Put a self contained colony of 500 people on the planet and tell them in the vernacular "to be fruitful and multiply". It is the nature of human beings to pollute their environment. However on Mars, pollution is a good thing. Anything that increases the Martian atmospheric pressure is a step towards terraforming the planet. If your colony is growing exponentially, it won't take long before liquid water could exist on the Martian surface. At that point, terraforming could take place in a controlled manner using geneticly modified bacteria. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 May 87 11:00:34 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: CANDU reactors and Martian colony energy needs In an earlier posting to Space Digest, I commented on the problem of energy production for a permanent self contained Martian colony: >>The energy source in the beginning of the >>colony's life would be nuclear. However the colony couldn't remain wih >>nuclear because uranium enrichment requires too high of a technology >>for a small colony. Russell Crook made the following reply: >Crap! >You CAN build nuclear reactors that run just fine on unenriched uranium.. >this message is reaching you courtesy of power generated by one such. >Not only that, you can have nuclear power reactors with on-power refuelng, >rather than popping the lid once a year for three months to refuel. >All CANDU reactors have these traits. Actually I was thinking of the CANDU reactors when contemplating the problem of energy for a Martian colony. CANDU stands for CANadian DeUterium reactor. The CANDU runs on unenriched uranium using a deuterium moderator. The absorption cross section of heavy water based on deuterium is much smaller than with regular water. The additional thermal neutrons permits the use of unenriched fuel. The Germans in World War II tried to build a CANDU style reactor near Tuebingen. This unsuccessful reactor is today a nuclear energy museum. The German reactor failed for many reasons: It was a bad design. The Germans couldn't get enough deuterium because of Allied bombing. Finally, Hitler refused to provide the project adequate funding because he believed nuclear energy to be a form of "Jewish Phyiscs". CANDU reactors are illegal in the United States because they have positive temperature and power coefficients that make them inherently unstable. Also CANDUs are dirty from an environmental standpoint. CANDU fuel rods have a very short burn duration. As a result, one has to be constantly juggling fuel rods in and out of the reactor. The Candians supposably dump the old fuel rods in mined out tunnels in Northern Canada. The problem with a CANDU reactor for a Martian colony is the neccesity of acquiring alot of deuterium, and unenriched uranium. This requires a fairly high technology which a 500 man colony couldn't support. Hopefully later, after the colony had grown some it could develope nuclear fission technology without terrestrial support. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 87 16:35:00 GMT From: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: One can not justify Space Colonization [ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET.UUCP ] >Yes, it would be much cheaper to colonize the Sahara Desert than >Mars. However while it would be fairly easy for some future Aya- >tolla Khomeni to drop a nuclear weapon on this Sahara colony it >would be rather difficult for him to do so on a Martian colony. >An ocean floor colony could be wiped out by some virulent strain >of AIDS but the Martian colony would be isolated. However these >are lame arguments. Why lame? To me, these, and a host of similar arguments related to dangers other than nukes and AIDS, are *the* reason for space colonization. I find it totally convincing. I think no one has laid a glove on it. Put all your eggs in one basket and perish; diversify and live. Just think of those species that are only to be found in *one* valley or lake or on one island. They are all doomed eventually. For us, the planet has grown just as small. >As I said before and shall say again: There is **no** economic >justification at this time for space colonization. It depends on how far ahead one's economic foresight extends at "this time". Mining asteroids may not be competitive now - but what about when the Earth deposits of whatever it is get deplet- ed? The same argument applies to industrial pollution; one can try to recycle, but assuming fast growth continues, eventually one needs a larger sink for heat and waste than we have down here. These are future economic needs - but they can be anticipated now. > However we should do it anyway for ideological reasons. The problem with that is selling your ideology to the public. Besides economic and ideological reasons, there are *military* reasons, at present probably the most powerful. They can blend with economic and scientific reasons. >Space industrialization could become economical **if** there >was a large colony on Mars. Or a military base anywhere far enough. >Arguments against the Martian colony based on economics are ino- >perative. This is not the reason why we should go there. We >should go there for the largely ideological and rather impracti- >cal (silly) reason that it would provide the human race with a >second independent permanent presence in the solar system. That just begs the question of why have such a presence. Do the masses share this "silly" ideology? Will they ever? You make the "presence" on another planet sound like "showing the flag" -- Terra flag -- i.e., you appeal to a terrestrial patriotism which few people have. If you want to appeal to such feelings, why not *national* patriotism? People bought the Apollo program because it was a sporting race to the Moon against the Russians. Will that work for a Martian colony (or a Lunar one)? Perhaps not -- but it seems to stand a better chance than some globalist ideology. Unless you mean *sur- vival* for the human race - a Noah's ark. That might have *some* appeal when some danger or other is evident. (The abstract ex- istence of *many* future dangers is enough for me, but I doubt that many people would agree). Perhaps the most likely bootstrap process is: military uses of space (not necessarily SDI, but an offensive weapons race) creat- ing a market for economic activites out there, and more need for the military protecting their investments. The colonies may grow out of strategic bases (as did Roman settlements). It is not an *ideal* sequence by any means -- to me, it is somewhat repugnant, like much of history -- but it might be the most realistic one. Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 87 14:08:33 GMT From: isl1.ri.cmu.edu!mdm@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Malcolm McRoberts) Subject: AI job at KSC I am part of a small group in McDonnell Douglas which works on AI applications to Space Shuttle payload processing. We are looking to hire an experienced AI person. We are well equipped with 3 Symbolics Lisp Machines, 2 copies of ART (Automated Reasoning Tool), a VAX/VMS, and numerous high-end PC's with a wide range of AI and conventional software. Our company is located on the Kennedy Space Center but the AI group is not on the Center directly. If you are interested or know someone who is, send me a resume at: Malcolm McRoberts MDAC-KSC F882 PO Box 21233 Kennedy Space Center, FL 32815 if you have any questions call (305) 383-0664 ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 87 21:52:07 GMT From: ritcv!cci632!ajg@cs.rochester.edu (Tony Giaccone) Subject: A response to Henry's editorial In article <7990@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: # [Editorial: The Great Failure. # # for the July 20th editorial -- anybody reading this group who doesn't know # why that date is special should be ashamed -- but I can't wait that long.) # # Remember when the West's space program looked good, back on July 20, 1969? # Long time ago, wasn't it? # # Although it perhaps wasn't undertaken in quite the right way, and its # motives were perhaps less noble than one would like, Project Apollo still # stands as the supreme achievement of mankind. And it was accompanied by # a number of lesser programs, not as spectacular but also valuable. That # was the golden age of Western spaceflight. # # Since then it's been all downhill. And Lord, what a long, sad way down... # # ...Except for certain very narrow and specific military and scientific goals, # the West's space program is a failure. Not just a partial success, but a # complete, abysmal failure. # # In general, it is actually harder to get things launched today than it was # twenty years ago.... # ..... There is no obvious reason why Shuttle 2, or Hermes, # or the Aerospace Plane, will be any cheaper or easier to get payloads onto # than the Shuttle. The Shuttle, which promised to be vastly cheaper than # the expendables, isn't and won't be.... # ...... Nobody is even talking about "routine # access to space" any more, much less promising to deliver it. # # Except the Soviets, that is. On their terms, as their junior partners only. # # It's time to face facts. The situation is beyond repair with band-aids, # which is the only sort of response the current system can produce. # # It's time to give the West's dying space program a decent burial, so we can # start over -- from scratch -- and do it right. # -- HS] I've tried to cut down on what Henry wrote and limit my response to only the points that really struck me. Much of what Henry has to say I can't verify, nor can I disprove. However, much of it has the ring of truth. I've always been a big supporter of the space program. Since as a kid at the age of nine years I watched man first set foot on the moon. Recently I purchased and read the Rodgers report. I found it next to impossible to belive what I read there. The picture is not very pretty. I strongly suggest that if you haven't read this report you do so. It will give you some very good insights on how not to manage a project. The general level of stupidity was just amazing. People new that the secondary O-ring didn't seal years before the "accident". A memo was written six months before the "accident" that stated that an orbiter was probably going to be lost if something was not done about the O-ring problem. How could this problem which was so well know have cost us an orbitor. How could these people let this ship fly with this know problem. I don't understand. I must say I'm pretty depressed after having read this report, and I feel like NASA the "can do" agency didn't. I don't know what the solution is but it seems clear to me that some major changes need to be made to prevent this kind of problem from happening again. I look back at the days of the space program when things got done and I wonder what's happened since. I guess the bueracracy has grown so large that it's taken on a life of it's own. I don't know enought to even suggest how to solve the problems we currently have with our space program, but we had better solve them or we may find our selves regretting it. Tony Giaccone ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 87 16:12:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: NSS/L5 Name For those in the group who may not be aware of the issue, NSS was formed by a merger between the National Space Institute and the L-5 Society. NSI was founded by Wernher von Braun; preserving a name that is too close to the name of NSI will preserve the association, in many minds, of the Society with von Braun. There are a number of people, particularly Jews, who are very reluctant to align themselves with an organization ``founded by a man who used to be a Nazi,'' and there is a lingering uncertainty about the extent of von Braun's involvement in the atrocities perpetrated by such Peenemuende figures as Dornberger. For this reason, any name with the initials ``SS'' in its acronym is particularly unfortunate. Kevin Kenny ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #224 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12434; Fri, 15 May 87 03:03:15 PDT id AA12434; Fri, 15 May 87 03:03:15 PDT Date: Fri, 15 May 87 03:03:15 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705151003.AA12434@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #225 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 15 May 87 03:03:15 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #225 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 225 Today's Topics: Gary's Red Frontier Hard data on SSME Re: HOTOL, Rockets, Exotic Fuels Re: HOTOL, Rockets, Exotic Fuels Space Debris What Questions Would You Suggest Not again Re: space news from Feb 23 AW&ST Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" Soviet vs US Space Programs - Tell Congress About It ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 May 87 15:28 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Gary's Red Frontier I have become more skeptical about the NASP. There was an elementary critique of the concept in Technology Review. Basically, NASP will be very complex. A scramjet powered launcher will have to breathe air up to Mach 17+ in order to be economical, apparently because scramjets are heavy. For thrust to exceed drag at Mach 17 requires heroic measures, such as circulating liquid sodium through the skin of the plane and dumping that heat into the fuel flow. Many of the other technologies for the NASP will work just as well on rocket powered reusable SSTO launchers. It's hard to believe the technology will get launch costs down below a couple of hundred dollars per pound. Gary went on to mention the debate about shielding space structures. I'm sorry, Gary, but your argument wasn't convincing then and it isn't convincing now. The ratio of shielded volume to shielding mass can be made arbitrarily high by increasing the radius of the habitat. It is not at all clear that the entire habitat must be rotating; it might very well be possible to have compact rotating sleeping quarters, assuming that coriolis forces do not bother a sleeping person. In a nonrotating habitat the entire volume is available for habitation. Gary was assuming, for his Mars colony scenario, that inertial fusion rockets are available. These rockets could easily maneuver multimillion ton near earth asteroids into high earth orbit in a matter of months. Therefore, using Gary's assumption about fusion rockets, obtaining shielding mass is no problem at all. Gary stated that power from an SPS will never be cheaper than power from coal or ground-based solar. While it is certainly more expensive now, never is a long time. The same applies to the current surplus of electricity. Power plants will eventually wear out, populations will grow, and the developing countries appetites for energy will continue to increase. Ultimately, the earth could run up against thermal pollution limits. Satellite solar power has the lowest thermal pollution of any energy source. (Aside: I think fossil fuels will continue to be the dominant energy source for the rest of our lives, barring some breakthrough.) Gary depends on the assumption that 500 people can set up a working, self sustaining "seed" colony on mars. I am very skeptical that, with current technologies, 500 people could maintain a technology for living on Mars without at least some input from Earth. Perhaps in 50 years this will change, but that same technology would change the economics of the other projects Gary disparages. I think my negative reaction (and other readers of this digest, apparently) to Gary's proposal is sufficient evidence that is will not have the support needed for massive government funding; if space fanatics are not impressed, what will your average taxpayer think? Not much. Programs that benefit specific power groups will crowd out programs motivated by thinly supported artificial ideologies. ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 87 23:57:45 GMT From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ed Post) Subject: Hard data on SSME % I believe the Isp of the SSME is something like 410 seconds (more in % a vacuum?) ..... % I thought the molar ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in the SSME is around % 4:1...... % % Paul Dietz From the Space Shuttle News Reference (NASA publication): SSME Thrust (at 100% thrust): Sea level: 1670 KiloNewtons (375,000 pounds) Vacuum: 2100 KiloNewtons (470,000 pounds) Throttling: 65% to 109% rated (downgraded to 104% since Challenger explosion) Specific Impulse: (lbf = pound force, lbm = pound mass) Sea level: 356.2 N/(kg*s) or 363.2 lbf/(lbm*s) Vacuum: 446.4 N/(kg*s) or 455.2 lbf/(lbm*s) Chamber Pressure: 20,480 kN/(m**2) (2970 psia) Mixture Ratio: 6 parts LO2 to 1 part LH2 (by weight) Area Ratio: 77.5 to 1 (nozzle to throat) Chamber Combustion Temperature: 3315C (6000F) Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp (408)252-8713 American Information Technology; Cupertino, CA 95014 ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 87 21:20:46 GMT From: imagen!auspyr!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: HOTOL, Rockets, Exotic Fuels Well, i redid my math. It turns out that i looked up the wrong value in my CRC. My new value for the maximum exhaust velocity of a hydrogen-oxygen rocket is 5.2 kilometers/second. That seems to match pretty well to the posted values (shuttle's exhaust velocity of 4.46 km/sec). If i haven't made another blunder, though, we're getting pretty close to fundamental limits. As to my excess-oxygen error: I should have known better, shouldn't i? Thanks for the info. Any other exotic fuels? Paul Dietz mentions spin-stabilized triplet helium, and in an earlier posting, isotopic batteries (what a great name--sounds like it's straight out of Star Trek). There's of course the various fission/fusion schemes. Is there anything else that might give an exhaust velocity of greater than, say, 8 km/sec? david rickel decwrl!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 87 04:42:45 GMT From: kodak!ornitz@cs.rochester.edu (barry ornitz) Subject: Re: HOTOL, Rockets, Exotic Fuels My old copy of Kit & Evered's "Rocket Propellant Handbook" lists several fuels and oxidizers that would be considered exotic even by todays standards such as fluorine, liquid ozone, metal borohydrides and butyl mercaptan. Talk about environmental problems - these would sure be rough. Only a skunk would approach a spill of the mercaptan! :-) Dr. Barry L. Ornitz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 87 13:45:35 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Space Debris The latest NASA Activities has the 1st part of a 2 part article on space debris. Since SDI was brought, and there is some Station interest, I thought some of the trivia from this article would interesting: 4 million pounds of material (about 2 M KG) orbit the earth now launch rates is about 2-3 M pounds per year 20 million pounds are expected in orbit by 2000 Only 5% of payloads are still operating (all nations) 21% are no longer operating payloads 25% are spent stages and miscellaneous gear 49% are break up pieces There are 6,194 radar trackable objects: baseball sized or larger 1,582 are payloads, 68 are interplanetary probes, 4,488 are orbital debris, 56 are interplanetary orbital debris there are about 30,000 marble sized objects and trillions of things like paint flakes. Article goes on to talk about the numerous object strikes which have occured, most these latter flakes which can be detected by the analysis of the impact craters (high Al content). The problem is very serious. The Solar Max Satellite's insulation blanket have many times more holes than thought (32 holes per in^2). So you can see these are not numbers to fool around with. We have to clean up our act since collision with these things at orbital velocity is potentially lethal. BTW: The US and USSR are not alone, the French and others also have similar problems. --eugene miya eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 87 03:20:04 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: What Questions Would You Suggest >I am looking for suggestions on whom to interview. Names of top level >people (ie. program heads at NASA, Chairman/presidents of companies, >prominent people in their field) whom you think would be good resources >for an article such as this would be appreciated. Also, if anyone has QUESTIONS that they think might be relevant/good, I'd appreciate suggestions for those too... I have some of my own, but am open to ideas! - ERIC - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 87 01:00:21 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Not again To: dayton!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@rutgers.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: dayton!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@rutgers.edu (Dennis Grittner) > I for one I'm tired of hearing many folk complain about paying taxes, > or money going to social programs. I would suggest that paying taxes > is one of the truly useful things we all do. ... I LIKE paying taxes > to HELP people and to do noble projects like Apollo. Nobody is stopping you. The current tax rates are only a legal minimum. You are free to pay more. There are probably plenty of things I do that you would not want to. And plenty of priorities of mine that you would arrange differently. But I don't force you to follow my wishes. Why do you wish that I be force to folllow yours, i.e. pay more taxes, and for programs of your choice? Some of us believe we do "truly useful things" other than sacrifice our hard earned money for the benefit of unmarried homeless people with 14 kids, being given no choice in the matter. Followups to Poli-Sci only, please. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 87 08:46:35 GMT From: hao!murphy@AMES.ARPA (Graham Murphy) Subject: Re: space news from Feb 23 AW&ST In article <8007@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >US Commerce Dept upset about US launcher competitiveness now that Australia >is looking at setting up an international commercial launch site for use by >nations like Japan and China; Commerce fears that the resulting package deals >could be cheaper than US launch prices. [This is known as "free enterprise" >and "competition", words that the Commerce Dept. should be expected to >understand. Three cheers for the Australians! -- HS] Whilst I would dearly love to see Australia become a space-port, I am not particularly confident at this stage. A couple of months ago (when I was in Sydney, Oz) I saw an interview with a consultant to the project, who, with a perfectly straight face, stated that Canaveral at ~28N was the closest launch site to the equator. This would of course come as a great shock to the French, who launch Ariane from their site at 6N. Australia can offer a launch site at ~10S, but at present there is NOTHING there, no rail, no shipping facilities, and no airport. These things can be built but ... I haven't had a chance to read the article in question yet but I won't let that stop me from adding further extraneous comments. The major advantage is that Australia is (comparatively) close to Japan with a launch site at 40N, and China with something >20N. It's still a helluva swim though. Two notes : 1) Australia is a high-tech nation, which over the last decade has allowed herself to be bypassed. We import considerable amounts of high-technology, and export very little ... basically living from primary resources at present. The standard of fundamental engineering and science is, in my biased opinion, very high but the results are rarely pushed beyond our borders. Also there is very little expertise in aerospace technology, mainly because of a severe lack of volume (Australia only has 16 million people). 2) It would not be known outside of Oz, but we were once "at the forefront" of rocket technology in the 50's and 60's with our own small, but significant program, I think mostly in conjunction with the UK. There is presently a sounding rocket launch site in the south, but I have no idea who runs it - probably a shared facility. It is not significant in terms of people or money. The development of a space-port is seen as a possible means of redressing an "aerospace engineering gap", since it is hoped that space/satellite engineering work would eventually go with providing a launch site and support. I would like to see it happen, as I think it would be good not only for Australia but for the space-faring capabilities of the world, since at present each nation tends to develop its own launch facilities at considerable expense, making it much more difficult to begin a space program. One important note is that at present, the moves do not have any federal government support, either monetarily or even verbal. The project doesn't really need it to succeed, but it would certainly be a help. You probably didn't want to know any of this, but I have a strong personal interest in this and so I ignored such considerations. Obviously, these views (and any errors) are my own and not those of my employer or my fellow Australians ! Graham Murphy ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 87 22:37:00 GMT From: cybvax0!frog!john@eddie.mit.edu (John Woods, Software) Subject: Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" > What's the big deal about Mir, anyway? The diagram I saw in a recent > AW&ST shows it to be quite a bit smaller than Skylab was, even with > the addition of the "astronomy module" (shades of the ATM, eh?) > I realize there's a symbolic issue here, but it doesn't look to me like > the Russians are "way out in front" now any more than they were in 1960. If we were suddenly seized with the desire to, how long would it take us to launch something even as primitive as Mir? How often could we supply it? How long would it take us to DECIDE to do it, for heaven's sake? Raw technical prowess isn't all there is to it. The laurels we are resting on are getting pretty darned stale. Mir's most important "innovation" is commitment. John Woods "Happiness is the planet Earth in your rear-view mirror." - Sam Hurt, in "Eyebeam, Therefore I Am" ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 87 23:28:29 GMT From: mtune!mtuxo!tee@rutgers.edu (t.ebersole) Subject: Soviet vs US Space Programs - Tell Congress About It At the annual awards banquet held on May 5th by the Princeton section of the AIAA, Jim Harford, AIAA Executive Director, gave a talk on "Speculations on the Soviet Space Program." He had the usual data showing that the US Space Program is small compared to the Soviet Space Program (e.g., 100,000 person/hours in space compared to our 40,000; the assembly-line ability to get a booster to the pad less than a week after an accident; the growing sophistication of their "LandSat" equivalent; the large number of launches/year (a pie chart of this looked much like a pie chart of long-distance networks, with the Soviets having an ATT-like slice and the US having an MCI-like slice); their continuing space-science program, with better space probes, exemplified by their coordination of the international Halley's Comet "armada"; etc.). He had some anecdotes about the usefulness of cosmonauts in reviving missions thought finished by malfunctioning spacecraft. For example, a Salyut which was completely dead was revived by a two-man crew who warmed it gradually back to life over 10 days, returning to their Soyuz about every 40 minutes because of the cold temperatures taxing their suit-heaters excessively. They then spent the next 10 months in the Salyut. Another example is the recent 3.5 hour EVA allowing the experimental manufacturing module to connect to Mir. Jim also iterated the cynical thought that to work in a space program in the near or distant future, a person better know Russian. He thinks there aren't enough US engineers who understand Russian, anyway.(I think there are probably more Russian engineers than US engineers who can communicate in English, much less any other language, but I digress.) (What the heck, another digression: the translation of "mir" to either "peace" or "world" seems to be causing great concern to some netters. However, the paranoid-translation gap is not as large as one might think. "Peace" possibly may be derived from the Latin "pacisci, to confirm an agreement." Knowing of our propensity for ignoring treaties on our own turf (Cherokee, Sioux, ...), I'm sure Russian kids don't sleep too well knowing their government is negotiating peace treaties with US.) The AIAA does have proposals for reviving the US Space Program which they will be trying to sell to Congress. One interesting fact which even a congressman might understand is that the Soviets spend about 25 billion $/year, with expected 15%/year increases. If we use the infamous letter-leverage-factor properly, Congress could get the idea that millions of us out here know this and don't like it. Write your congressman expressing your views on the space budget; this is one of the few ways we have of influencing the future of the US Space Program. Supporting your favorite groups such as the National Space Society, Space Studies Institute, AIAA, ... is also very important; any size contribution would be appreciated, although it would be helpful to have more heirs to the Aetna fortune interested in space development. FYI, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) is a professional society of aerospace engineers and others with more than 40000 members. If you have an interest in joining, send a note to AIAA, 1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019. Membership is 65$/year, open to anyone. Students pay some nominal amount. These include a subscription to Aerospace America, a magazine which at times emphasizes defense-Aero more than space, but which always has good articles relevant to space. For example, April's issue has a 15-page section on France's 25 years in space and an article on the shuttle SRB fixes. Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee Big Brother Pattern Matcher >> CIA DIA KGB rocket AK-47 atomic coke hash ice ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #225 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13965; Sat, 16 May 87 03:02:49 PDT id AA13965; Sat, 16 May 87 03:02:49 PDT Date: Sat, 16 May 87 03:02:49 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705161002.AA13965@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #226 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 226 Today's Topics: MIR may not be big, but it's there now. Re: Soviet vs US Space Programs - Tell Meissner Effect Re: ELV companies Re: Space Elevators Re: Space Elevators Breaking Space Elevators h-bombs as flashbulb (flashbomb?) to find Oort-cloud objects Re: h-bombs as flashbulb (flashbomb?) to find Oort-cloud objects Closed minds at Rockwell? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 May 1987 17:37-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: mike@bellcore.bellcore.com Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: MIR may not be big, but it's there now. Mike: It is irrelevant that we had a bigger station than the soviets in 1976: a station that was manned only three times, has long since burned up and which we could not reproduce now if our national existance depended on it. The soviet MIR and SALYUTS may be small be our 'standards', but keep in mind that a soviet 'rookie' comsmonaut has more hours in space than the most experienced american astronauts. So where do we stand with the Russians? On our side, there were 3 long duration missions (long by our standards, not by theirs) in Skylab. There have been a handful of week long Spacelab missions, and will probably be a few more this decade (MAYBE). There will be a massive capable US space station by 1996 (MAYBE), although all it takes is a swing in the congressional make up and mood, (pushed, let's say, by some major scandal) and we don't have it until 1998 or 2001. Or it ends up as an (oxymoron) 'unmanned space station'. Meanwhile, the soviets have had at least 2 WORKING cosmonauts running live hand out experiments in orbit for about 2/3 of every YEAR since the mid seventies: Salyut 1 June 6,1971 Soyuz 11 570:22 3 deaths Salyut 3 July 3, 1974 Soyuz 14 337:30 Salyut 5 July 6, 1976 Soyuz 21 1182:24 Feb 7, 1977 Soyuz 24 425:23 Salyut 6 Dec 10, 1977 Soyuz 26 898:06 crew duration 2314:00 Jan 10, 1978 Soyuz 27 1558:53 crew duration 142:59 Mar 2, 1978 Soyuz 28 190:17 Jun 15, 1978 Soyuz 29 1911:23 crew duration 3350:48 Jun 27, 1978 Soyuz 30 190:04 Aug 26, 1978 Soyuz 31 1628:14 crew duration 188:49 Feb 25, 1979 Soyuz 32 2596:24 Crew duration 4200:36 Jun 6, 1979 Soyuz 34 1770:17 launched unmanned, returned S32 crew Apr 9, 1980 Soyuz 35 1321:29 crew duration 4426:12 May 26, 1980 Soyuz 36 1580:54 crew duration 188:46 June 5, 1980 Soyuz T2 94:41 July 23, 1980 Soyuz 37 1911:17 crew duration 188:42 Sept 18, 1980 Soyuz 38 188:43 Nov 27,1980 Soyuz T3 397:08 Jan 24, 1981 Soyuz T4 1794:38 Mar 22, 1981 Soyuz 39 186:43 The source book I had at hand only went up to 1981, but as you know, they almost always have had a crew in orbit since then. For all intents and purposes they are working with a 'permanently manned' space station and have been for years. The fact that it is occasionally empty for a few months seem fairly irrelevant to me. The unmanned gaps are getting shorter. And don't forget that MIR has docking ports for about 5 other modules. What you neglected to consider is that the value of a space station is not in having done it, but in USING it. The mistake NASA is making is treating it as an engineering project in and of itself. We shouldn't be bothering to do research on building better space stations. We should be doing research IN a space station, even if it's a goddamn tin can with oxy bottles welded on the outside. That is what the soviets are doing, and that is why they have won solar system. The soviets are living and working in space. We are playing at it. In 1996 they will have been operating a space station for 20 years. Maybe they'll send a bottle of vodka over to the amateurs. Assuming, of course, that they give us permission to build it in the first place. ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 87 14:57:00 GMT From: necntc!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Soviet vs US Space Programs - Tell [tee@mtuxo.UUCP ] >Jim also iterated the cynical thought that to work in a space >program in the near or distant future, a person better know Rus- >sian. He thinks there aren't enough US engineers who understand >Russian, anyway.(I think there are probably more Russian en- >gineers than US engineers who can communicate in English, much >less any other language, but I digress.) No, their schools teach languages as badly as ours. Very few engineers in the USSR know English, though most of them have had 6 or 8 years of it before college and 5 more years in college. The Soviets have never found it necessary to jam foreign broadcasts in English, though they have done it in Russian, Ukrainian, Yiddish, and other indigenous languages. What they do have is good and fast translation facilities. The quote above seems to shift the issue from comparing the two space programs to comparing engineers and technology of the two nations in general. But in that case the fact to explain is why the USSR is doing so *badly*. Idealizing their engineers or whatever they have does not explain that. If they are doing well in space, that's the result of *focusing*; their system excels at that. They can do any *one* thing fast by sacrificing the rest - like a military leader pulling together his forces for a decisive strike. They are a militarized society, and practice a military approach to economy and technology. Can we learn something useful from that? I hope so, but I don't know just what. >(What the heck, another digression: the translation of "mir" to either >"peace" or "world" seems to be causing great concern to some netters. The space Mir stands for "peace". If someone interprets it as "world", that must be an unforeseen effect, since it foils the propagandist purpose of the name. The two words sound the same, but are quite unconnected, and they used to be spelled differently before the 1918 spelling reform. >Knowing of our propensity for ignoring treaties on our own turf >(Cherokee, Sioux, ...), I'm sure Russian kids don't sleep too well >knowing their government is negotiating peace treaties with US.) I hope that's meant as a joke. Russian kids have other things on their minds than the history of Sioux. That would be like American kids worrying about Czar Nicholas I's relations with the *Chechens* in the 1840's. Do many grown-ups in this group have an opinion on that? :-) Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 87 21:43 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Meissner Effect > For the less informed, like me, in the audience, please define > Meissner effect The Meissner effect refers to the expulsion of magnetic fields from bulk superconductors (they are highly diamagnetic). As a result, magnets are repelled by superconductors, and can be levitated by them (or vice versa). The Meissner effect is considered the acid test of superconductivity in new materials, since you can't experimentally distinguish zero resistivity from a small but positive resistivity. ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 87 01:07:15 GMT From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: ELV companies > ..[general info about AMROC, and back-of-the-envelope calculations > leading up to..] > Conclusion: If Koopman can achieve the performance figures on an > actual vehicle that he claims to get on test stands, his bird will > fly. > > Kevin Kenny UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny As I recall, the results of the static test firings at Edwards were reported in Dec. 11(?) issue of AW&ST. They looked very promising. I think the measured ISP was over 300; maybe 320? I don't think there is any real doubt at this point about the basic technical feasibility of orbital launch systems based on hybrid rockets. The real question is whether or not the company can stay in business and muster the resources to go from prototype development to commercial production. That's a big step, and it demands more than technical feasibility. Their rockets may outperform solid boosters, and in principle, could be substantially cheaper to produce. But only if they can muster the capital to build efficient production facilities, and sell enough launchers to keep their production line rolling. I certainly hope they make it, but I'm not wildly optimistic. One other note about AMROC, for anyone who prefers to judge by the credentials of the people involved: one of their principles is the former director of JPL, whose name I really ought to remember, but can't seem to, offhand. I think I'm getting as senile as the US space program. Sigh! Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 87 10:06:45 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Space Elevators In article <601@csun.UUCP> abcscnuk@csun.UUCP (Naoto Kimura) writes: >ones, ignoring effects of wind, etc.) and it all worked out. The part >that makes me worry is what happens if the cable breaks. Imagine a VERY >long cable crashing down toward the earth, when nothing is there to >support it... Imagine most of the cable either going into an elliptical orbit or vaporizing as it hits the Earth's atmosphere at near orbital velocity instead. It seems like the effects are largely dependent on where the break occurs. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 87 05:14:33 GMT From: mnetor!spectrix!John_M@seismo.css.gov (John Macdonald) Subject: Re: Space Elevators In article <2609@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@oddhack.Caltech.EDU (Jon Leech) writes: >In article <601@csun.UUCP> abcscnuk@csun.UUCP (Naoto Kimura) writes: >>that makes me worry is what happens if the cable breaks. Imagine a VERY > > Imagine most of the cable either going into an elliptical orbit >or vaporizing as it hits the Earth's atmosphere at near orbital >velocity instead. It seems like the effects are largely dependent >on where the break occurs. Imagine that tiny fragment of the cable that *only* extends to the top of the atmosphere being *all* that comes to the ground. How elastic are the materials that might someday develope into the right tensile strength, etc.? (i.e. How much will the cable recoil when a break occurs?) Imagine trying to calculate the orbit of the portion that doesn't hit the atmosphere and vapourize (at least not initially). Get your simulators out, this ones probably not tractable to an analytic solution. It would seem that we don't dare let such an object break. ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 87 00:15:28 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad@seismo.css.gov Subject: Breaking Space Elevators Well, the part above the break flies out into space, as there is actually UPWARD tension on the cable, not compression as might come from weight. (I suppose you could make the cable out of the highest possible compression tower on the earth, connected to the longest possible tension cable in space, with a zero tension spot in the middle. By middle, I mean actually quite close to the Earth, of course) Anyway, if the break is in LEO, about 100-200 miles up, (and that is the most likely place, because that is where most of the orbiting debris is) then the top flies into space but the bottom comes crashing down, and fast. Almost straight down, because its velocity is only about 1600 km/hour up there, and (ignoring the air) an object falls from 200 km in just over three minutes. It doesn't move downrange much because it's only going a small bit faster than the Earth's surface. In air, it falls more slowly but probably never gets faster than a couple of thousand km/h. It doesn't burn up. (maximum possible speed without drag, 7200 km/h from 200 km) If it breaks a lot higher, higher parts will probably burn up, but the lower few 100 km will not, and will come crashing down with a very loud bang. Up high, it's very thick, so it is less likely to break there. Ideal break is right at the surface of the Earth (or the 0 tension point). Then it just goes up into space, and they manouver it down again with the same rockets they installed it with. (it has to be built in space, then 'landed' and tethered to the Earth) If they ever could build one, I am sure space skydiving would be popular if they allowed it. Jump from 50 km and you are going about 1700 miles per hour when you hit the bulk of the atmosphere at 20 km. I'm sure they can make a suit to withstand that. You get more than a minute of weightlessness. Of course, if you go to the 40,000 km point on the tower, you get all the weightlessness you want, so perhaps nobody cares. Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding) X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 07 04:06:49 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: josh@topaz.rutgers.edu Subject: h-bombs as flashbulb (flashbomb?) to find Oort-cloud objects Date: 24 Apr 87 00:36:27 GMT From: josh@topaz.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: oort-cloud mining? > ... The main problem as I see it would be locating the comets out > there where they don't give off much infrared radiation because they > aren't very warm because they aren't very near the Sun. Use an H-bomb as a flashbulb. Good idea to work from. I suppose the optimal method to consider first would be an unclad H-bomb that emits a gamma-ray pulse from the fusion. Then we watch either the reflected gamma rays (oops, gamma rays either pass through or react, they don't bounce off comets) or the splattered secondary particles (oops, they mostly carry the momentum of the gamma rays, thus travel in generally the original direction instead of in random directions needed to strike our detector). More brainstorming on this idea? Will it work? Are enough secondary particles back-scattered to be detectable at a central point, or do we need to explode the bomb on one side of a target volume and place our detectors on the other side to catch slightly-deflected forward-scattered particles?? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 87 14:14:25 EDT From: josh@klinzhai.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) To: REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: h-bombs as flashbulb (flashbomb?) to find Oort-cloud objects Seems to me you would want to use some "enhanced radiation" jacket that would release as much of the energy as possible in the microwave through UV bands. --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 87 21:05:02 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Closed minds at Rockwell? An article in this morning's (May 8) LA Times reports that Rockwell has warned 3 senior engineers they risk being fired if they persist in public criticism of Rockwell's Space Station design. One of the three, Oliver Harwood, has proposed an easily extensible tetrahedral station built from cylindrical modules and spherical nodes connecting the modules. His concept could be made operational with as few as 4 shuttle flights (for an initial triangle of modules) as opposed to the 11 or more required for the current NASA configuration. Harwood has been involved in the design of Skylab and other major NASA projects. Harwood's inability to get Rockwell to consider his concept, combined with their criticism of the NASA reference configuration, has put the group in conflict with Rockwell management. My opinion: Rockwell's stifling dissent, Thiokol is punishing integrity, and NASA steadfastly ignores the increasing number of warnings about the vulnerability inherent in relying on the shuttle. Meanwhile, every major launch system in the world is down. We don't have a space program. We have a $8G/year slush fund for big aerospace companies. And we probably won't even have THAT after the next shuttle accident. The Dream has had a stake driven through its heart, and the best way to revive it is to STOP thinking that NASA is able or willing to do the job, and start supporting the much longer term, private, small scale, profit-making alternatives. Maybe it will take 50 years instead of 20; but when we do go, it will be for reasons that don't change depending on the mood of the Administration and the competence of NASA management. And NASA can go back to doing the only thing they've been consistently good at: research and scientific missions. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #226 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15312; Sun, 17 May 87 03:03:02 PDT id AA15312; Sun, 17 May 87 03:03:02 PDT Date: Sun, 17 May 87 03:03:02 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705171003.AA15312@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #227 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 227 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V7 #217 - Mir/Kvant docking problem Re: SPACE Digest V7 #217 - Mir/Kvant docking problem Why haven't they found us yet? Isaac A. and finding earth Re: Why haven't they found us yet? Re: Isaac A. and finding earth Re: A response to Henry's editorial ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 9 May 1987 16:21 EDT From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #217 - Mir/Kvant docking problem I agree with Watson@Ames. Virtually every virtue claimed for manned spaceflight could be accomplished more safely and at less cost with telepresence, at least at up to lunar distances. It is a matter of serious engineering, using conventional technology. Proposal: a practical space station should be equippped with at least three movable mechanical arms with dextrous hands. They should be able to be moved to nay location inside or outside of the station, if necessary, by using one another's help. How versatile should those telepresence hands be? Proposal: it should be possible to dissassemble and repair any one of them, by using the other two. If this is set as a principal design requirement, the station could be capable of self repair. Removing misplaced plastic bags should be a simple matter. Putting up sunshades in emergencies should be a feasible exercise. ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 87 19:28:07 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #217 - Mir/Kvant docking problem > ...It is a matter of serious engineering, using conventional technology. > ... > How versatile should those telepresence hands be? Proposal: it should > be possible to dissassemble and repair any one of them, by using the > other two... My understanding -- this isn't an area where I'm expert, so I could be wrong -- is that this level of telepresence technology does not exist today even as a laboratory experiment, much less as off-the-shelf hardware. The US built a (manned) space station capable of (crew-performed) self-repair with off-the-shelf hardware over 15 years ago. The Soviets have one in orbit today. The last thing the US space program needs right now is yet more promises of still better space stations that will take still longer to reach orbit. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 1987 1356-PDT From: Rem%imsss@score.arpa Subject: Why haven't they found us yet? In an old book by Isaac Asimov ("Fact and Fancy", 1958...1963), another answer is proposed: Most likely, the first few advanced civilizations in each galaxy are in the dense inner portions. Once such civilizations start leaving their home star looking for more resources and habitat, they take the easy approach, starhopping in the dense inner parts of the galaxy, avoiding the outskirts where stars are further apart and thus where mining and other resource-collection activities are less cost-effective than in the dense inner portions. Until they nearly totally exhaust the resources of the inner portions, why should they bother looking out here? Of course the dust obscures us from them and them from us, so only by infrared will we detect their presence, and we are so insignificant they can't see us through all that dust at all. When they decide to venture further, they might take the long approach, staking out the dense part of another nearby galaxy, rather than bothering with the thin pickings of the outskirts of their (our) own galaxy. I haven't heard anything in this digest to refute this theory. Now that I've related it to you-all, any rebuttal? (It sounds pretty reasonable to me.) (P.s. the last part, about dust and going to other galaxy was added by me, not original Asimov writing, to fill out the theory to my satisfaction.) ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 87 13:03:39 GMT From: oblio.dec.com!earle@decwrl.dec.com (GEORGE EARLE VAX/TCC 264-5928) Subject: Isaac A. and finding earth I happen to think that even though we know how far stars are from us and each other (in LY), once we (as a civil.) start really venturing out, a much greater appreciation of distance will take hold. The vasteness of space if you will. I have read similar types of feeling from the Apollo astronauts and the Space Shut. astronauts. It's like 'Yes, that star is 40 light years away or we are 20 miles above earth'. Until you REALLY go up there, or skydive or drive across the country instead of flying, does one get an appreciation of vast distances. Some of 'our' beliefs of why no one has found us or why we haven't found anyone seem sort of naive to me. We are always, throughout history, proclaiming that we have reached some sort of scientific plateau (not everyone but alot); that we have grasped the 'overall' picture of life and universe. Then something like the new superconductivity activity hits us almost out of the blue. I think no one has found us precisely for the reason you gave. The distances are so great--the density of the so called dark matter probably does things we haven't dreamed of by effecting our sensor instruments. It also seems to me that sometimes 'we' think there must be some 'super' civilization rooming around in space-time warp machines aka sci-fi. I have a feeling that if nature produces suns, planets, black holes, etc. and carbon based life that might eventually lead to intelligent beings, that they might be very similar to us in biological structure. I mean the rest of the matter we find in the universe (planets, gaseous atmospheres, and the like) get no argument so why should carbon based life be so hard to predict either? If intelligence DOES naturally grow out of the huge complexity and simpleness of 100 billions neurons hierarchically connected together with magnetic, electrical, and chemical communication, then life elsewhere could be like us (which is what I happen to believe creates intelligence. Why? Neuroscientists, AI engineers, conventional computer arch. eng, cognitists are all getting together in one way or another and trying to create machines with several types of technology; hugely parallel multi-path connection computer hardware is being matched with AI software. The new 'thing' is not to try to force intelligence into the machine but create a structure that can teach and reshape its own structure. Sound familiar? If one was to create intelligence in biological form, I think humans are pratically a perfect design...whatever ain't 'right' it can fix for itself....). 'They' are probably in the same boat (where are THEY meaning us). Of course the 2001, 2010 story has an interesting protectionist answer to this. Well enough babble. Better than discussing the impossible. Like SDI research becoming CVS toasters. Yeah, that's the ticket.... George Earle ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 87 05:37:42 GMT From: tikal!slovax!flak@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dan Flak) Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet? > In an old book by Isaac Asimov ("Fact and Fancy", 1958...1963), > another answer is proposed: Most likely, the first few advanced civilizations > in each galaxy are in the dense inner portions. Once such civilizations ... I'm not saying that the first few advanced civilizations couldn't have arisen near the galactic center, but I find no compelling reason why this should be so. Life is likely to arise near a star anywhere in the galaxy with roughly equal probability. > I haven't heard anything in this digest to refute this theory. Now > that I've related it to you-all, any rebuttal? (It sounds pretty > reasonable to me.) (P.s. the last part, about dust and going to other > galaxy was added by me, not original Asimov writing, to fill out the > theory to my satisfaction.) I am a firm believer in the "big sky" theory. We've only done interesting things electromagnetically in the last 50 years (first microwave broadcasts by military radar in WW II, primative Television broadcasts in the late 30's). Since then, we've become quite active, and if anyone would point its (his/her?) antenna at us from within 50 light years away, there would be no doubt that an intelligent civilization inhabits this star system. However, with as many as 400 billion stars to choose from, and literally an infinate number of frequencies to monitor, where do you start. An advanced civilization would, logically, turn to radio astronomy first. It's billions of times cheaper than whatever the next best alternative is, and it's safer. "Go to the Andromeda Galexy. Turn left. Go for 4.3 million light years. Take the Milky Way offramp. It's the first major galaxy on the right. You can't miss it. Go about 14 pulsars to the Pegasus arm. You're looking for an average sized, middle age star, 4 major planets plus debris." There are many more interesting places to visit in our galaxy than old sol. Unless a spacefaring civilization is within 50 light years of us, and has received our transmissions (never mind if they can understand them), it would be *extemely* unlikely that they'd stumble upon us accidentally. Without any other information (such as radio transmissions), a spacefaring culture would probably head off towards a nearby, densly populated (with stars at least) arm. It would probably avoid areas close to the center due to high radiation, numerous supernova, black holes and other exotic cosmic creatures. They certainly wouldn't waste thier time scanning the galactic "hick towns". All this assumes that they know something we don't - namely, some loophole in the laws of physics that allows them to traverse intersteller distances faster than light. If such a loophole doesn't exist, then its unlikely that they'd spend the tens of thousands of years it would take to get here. Even at that, I refuse to believe that the galaxy is *so* densely populated that spacefaring cultures occur every 100 light years or so. Perhaps a better question to ask is, "Who are they?". {psivax,ism780}!logico!slovax!flak : {hplsla,uw-beaver}!tikal!slovax!flak Dan Flak-R & D Associates,3625 Perkins Lane SW,Tacoma,Wa 98466,206-581-1322 ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 87 01:29:51 GMT From: stro@cs.rochester.edu (Steve Robiner) Subject: Re: Isaac A. and finding earth This may start sounding a bit philosphical, but the whole issue is anyway, so... How do we know they *haven't* found us? The question is then, why haven't they told us. And, being the self-destructive, socially ignorant society that we are, why should they. What good would their technology be to a race which can't even get along with itself. I think if they've found us, they're waiting for us to grow up before they make contact. -Steve Robiner ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 87 14:00:42 GMT From: hao!scd@AMES.ARPA (Generic SCD Account) Subject: Re: A response to Henry's editorial After reading the Rogers commission report I could not help but notice that most of the problems cited were budget related. It seems congress did not fund NASA appropriately. In the report every complaint brought before the commission could have been prevented had NASA had the money it needed. NASA set such an ambitious launch schedule for itself in order to keep the shuttle program in the public eye. This was necessary to show Congress that somthing was being accomplished. If Congress saw that progress was being made it would be more willing to fund NASA. It is easy to see that a catch-22 situation would soon develop. There were a large number of hardware problems brought before the commission that could have been avoided had NASA had the necessary funding. These problems ranged from the tires and brakes to the infamous SRB joint and seal. The commissions recomendations are going to cost NASA a lot of money to implement. Hopefully Congress will be willing to provide the necessary funds. Dave Rowland NCAR ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #227 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16983; Mon, 18 May 87 03:03:11 PDT id AA16983; Mon, 18 May 87 03:03:11 PDT Date: Mon, 18 May 87 03:03:11 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705181003.AA16983@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #228 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 228 Today's Topics: Re: The best way to terraform Mars MIR news from Radio Moscow space news from March 2 AW&ST space news from March 9 AW&ST Prospecting in Space: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 May 87 17:42:14 GMT From: ihnp4!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andre Guirard) Subject: Re: The best way to terraform Mars In article <8705081450.AA14028@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: >... Ian H. Merritt commented on various >techniques to terraform Mars, i.e. dumping ice on the planet from >Saturn, etc. I suspect these sort of ideas are inoperative because of >the enormous energy required. Has anyone bothered to calculate the energy required? Seems like once you got your chunk of ice moving in the right direction you could just sit back and let it fall to Mars. There's no hurry, so you could use whatever route uses least fuel. If you use the right kind of motor, you could use the ice as reaction mass. >[Instead,] Put a self contained colony of 500 people on the planet >and tell them in the vernacular "to be fruitful and multiply"... >If your >colony is growing exponentially, it won't take long before liquid water >could exist on the Martian surface. At that point, terraforming could >take place in a controlled manner using geneticly modified bacteria. The assumption of exponential growth is unwarranted. Exponential growth only occurs while there are sufficient resources to support a larger population. So if the resources available to a Mars colony can support at most 1500 persons, say, then the population will be at most 1500 thirsty starving persons. The population growth is restricted to the rate at which the existing population can terraform Mars "by hand." The point of dropping ice asteroids onto the surface is to make this task easier. It's all very well to say "liquid water can exist on the surface," but where is this water going to come from? Going to ship it from Earth to Mars in rockets? Think this would use less power than dropping it from space? And I think you're mistaken also in supposing that any gases the colonists choose to vent to the surface will be O.K. The idea is that people will live there someday. It is therefore in our best interest not to dump out there anything that will stay poisonous for a long time, since that makes the terraforming task harder, not easier. Considering the kinds of things some companies now dump into inhabited areas, I shudder to contemplate the result of telling them they can can dump whatever they want to on Mars. Andre Guirard ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 87 19:06:43 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: MIR news from Radio Moscow Sunday: Cosmosnauts R&L continue to unload Progress supply ship. Four part complex is now 50 tonnes. Wednesday: Space walk R&L were to have made in early May has been cancelled due to heavy workload. Still bringing KVANT module up to working order. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 87 23:40:58 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from March 2 AW&ST [The first part of the "doing it right" editorial will probably be in the next summary. Light at the end of the tunnel here... -- HS] Cover picture is a color image of the Soviet navy base at Severomorsk, taken by Spot 1. Buildings, piers, roads, ships fairly clearly visible. The large ship in the center is either the carrier Kiev or the battlecruiser Kirov. Other Spot photos of Soviet military facilities inside. The Feb 11th Titan 3B launch might have been a Satellite Data System relay satellite instead of an imaging spysat. The SDS relays images from the KH11 real-time spysats to ground stations. China building new checkout/servicing facility at Xichang launch site, also a new hotel to accommodate international business. Surveying for a second launch pad is underway too. Soviet Cosmos 1766 radarsat was used last year to locate an Antarctic station that was adrift on an ice floe, and to plot a path for ships to evacuate the station's crew. Fletcher expresses support for colonization of Mars. List of *ten* major Soviet Earth-orbit scientific payloads scheduled for the next three years, several with French or ESA participation. NASA and Commerce are squabbling over procedures for buying expendables for NOAA's next batch of Clarke-orbit metsats. Traditionally such orders have gone through NASA, but Commerce favors dealing direct with commercial launch firms. Space station officials are worried that the station may be delayed several months because the White House is not doing anything about the latest revised cost estimates. Congress is getting restive because NASA has been ordered not to discuss the matter until the White House acts. Some speculation that some White House staffers are deliberately preventing a quick resolution of the issues, effectively putting the program on hold. Morton Thiokol will forfeit $10M of its profits from the SRB contracts, as a way to pay the $10M contract penalty for 51L without fighting liability issues through the courts. There will also be no profit on the 51L-recovery work. [Color me skeptical about this. -- HS] [Micro-editorial: This is an unbelievably light slap on the wrist after M-T's inexcusable negligence. $10M isn't even a big fraction of the profits! To some extent M-T has NASA over a barrel right now, since they are the sole qualified SRB supplier. What NASA ought to be doing is paying M-T a normal profit margin on current work, while pushing hard to get second *and* third sources for SRBs qualified as soon as possible, with a firm policy that M-T will be barred from all government rocketry contracts permanently thereafter. The message should be "once you clean up your mess you're out" rather than "business (and profits) as usual after the funerals". -- HS] GOES-H Clarke-orbit metsat launched by Delta from the Cape Feb 26th, to end up on station in late April. This will finally bring metsat coverage of the US back to normal. Cutaway drawing of the revised Ariane third-stage igniter. Rocketdyne proposes a number of SSME changes to increase durability and reduce maintenance. Possibly practical before the next flight. None of the issues are flight-critical, although improvements to the hot-gas temperature sensor that failed on 51F are definitely wanted. Pictures of a French deployable-truss structure to be tested aboard Mir next year. Letter slams Fletcher for his "maybe forever" comment about the suspension of the civilian-in-space program, especially since it directly contradicts official White House policy. -- "The average nutritional value Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology of promises is roughly zero." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 87 00:03:11 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from March 9 AW&ST [First "doing it right" editorial postponed again, sorry. -- HS] This is AW&ST's forecast/overview issue, so there's a lot of background and summary stuff that duplicates previous more specific coverage. Shuttle manifest after the first ten missions or so is a bit unclear because it's not clear how many Navstars will get shifted to Deltas. The first ten are fairly solid, which should take the program to mid-1990: 26 TDRS 27 DoD to Clarke orbit: might be an NSA Magnum snoopsat, a USAF missile-warning satellite, or a pair of USAF DSCS-3 military comsats 28 CIA/USAF imaging spysat 29 TDRS 30 Hubble telescope 31 ASTRO-1 UV astronomy mission 32 DoD to Clarke orbit 33 Magellan 34 SDI Spacelab 35 two Navstars and a materials-science pallet 36 DoD to Clarke orbit [I have heard elsewhere that NASA is talking to the USAF about swapping 27 with 30, to get the Hubble telescope up (and out of $7M/month storage) as soon as possible. -- HS] AW&ST's assessment of the space station is: high probability of delay and reduced capability due to growing expense, but little chance of outright cancellation. Among space science's other problems, simply maintaining existing projects on the ground until they are ready to fly is estimated to cost $1G over the next five years, with the Hubble telescope's storage costs particularly obvious. This will put a big dent in the relatively static space-science budget. Rapidly-growing in-house commercial use of comsats could turn transponder glut into a shortage within five years. Europeans increasingly unhappy about the space station situation, predictably. "We thought we were going to be able to work with the US, but we feel once again that the US is a fair weather partner, and when things get tough, the non-US elements are the first to be affected." ESA is also trying to sort out its long-term priorities, especially in view of the growing cost of the various programs. Chinese offer to lease space on their recoverable reconnaissance/resources satellites to international users who need recovery of unmanned payloads. NASA's Advisory Council task force on launch systems urges examination of how future shuttle groundings would affect the space station. Also comments on impact on other users: "The task force is immensely sobered by the enormous budgetary costs, opportunity costs and program disruption of the current unplanned standdown... This cost and disruption overshadows the heretofore custom [sic] of evaluating launch services on a 'cost to orbit if everything works' basis..." Task force recommends four "DoD quality" orbiters [presumably this means that Columbia, with its more limited payload capacity, does not count -- HS] and plans for a 12/year launch frequency, but logistics capability for 16/year surge capacity and advance planning for unexpected downtime followed by a surge to get back on schedule. Advisory Council task force on space goals recommends manned Mars mission as long-term objective. Tests of Titan SRB segments indicate that aging probably was not a factor in the Titan failure last year. The insulation/case bond does not seem to deteriorate significantly with time. Martin Marietta says it has ten deposits for comsat launches on Titan 3: one each from Federal Express, Intelsat, Telesat Canada, Eutelsat, and Ford Aerospace, three from Hughes, two unidentified. MM is also hoping for NASA orders soon for Mars Observer and TDRS-5 launches. NASA crew successfully copes with electrical problems endangering GOES-H satellite. Apparently the thermostats on heaters controlling the temperature of two crucial subassemblies in the apogee motor were cross-wired, causing overheating problems. Manual control kept temperatures down, and the motor firing was moved up in the schedule as a precaution. GAO says DoD is spending $17G on space, against NASA's $8G. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee plans to recommend that NASA be authorized to buy three expendable launchers in FY88, also to start development on the High Resolution Solar Observatory. -- "The average nutritional value Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology of promises is roughly zero." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 87 16:50:03 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Prospecting in Space: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper Below is the third of five position papers approved by by the North Jersey L5 Chapter and presented to all New Jersey congresspeople during a recent visit to Washington by two of our members. Other organizations are encouraged to embark upon similar programs of Congressional education. Individuals are encouraged to send these papers to their congresspeople (or whatever national equivalent may exist in your country) with a letter indicating their support of these goals (if, of course, that is the case). All we ask is that the copyright notice remain with the paper. The other four papers will be posted separately. Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu ===========================cut here to print========================= PROSPECTING IN SPACE A North Jersey L5 Position Paper Copyright c 1987 North Jersey L5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Accurate information on the distribution and characteristics of space resources is essential to the development of such resources for human benefit. This information can be obtained in a timely and cost-effective way via the series of robotic probes and scientific studies listed here in priority order: 1. The telescopic search for Near-Earth crossing asteroids. 2. Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby (CRAF). 3. Lunar Geoscience Orbiter (LGO). 4. Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR). 5. Mainbelt Asteroid Multiple Orbiter (MAMO). PRINCIPLES Robotic craft have played and will continue to play an important role in space exploration and development. In this time of budgetary constraints, not all desirable missions can or should be flown. The following principles can provide a basis for choosing among many competing proposals: 1. Continue important missions that are currently in development such as Galileo, the Venus Radar Mapper, and the Mars Observer. 2. Choose additional missions from the carefully thought- out program suggested by the SSEC (Solar System Exploration Committee of the NASA Advisory Council).1 __________ 1. Solar System Exploration Committee of the NASA Advisory Council, Planetary Exploration Through the Year 2000: A Core Program, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983. Prospecting in Space Page 2 3. Select missions that have both scientific value and increase our knowledge of space resources most accessible with current technology. Nearby mission targets logically include Earth's moon, Luna, the Martian moons Phobos and Deimos, and the near-Earth crossing asteroids. The SSEC recognizes the importance of these goals when it states: ". . . it is timely to assess the potential of mineral and volatile resources in that region of space, specifically on the Moon and the Earth-approaching asteroids."2 4. Select additional missions that may help us to explain asteroid and comet formation, leading to a better understanding of where to find resources in the solar system. 5. Take full advantage of already planned European, Soviet, or Japanese missions. For example, since the Soviets are well along in mounting a Phobos/Deimos mission, we should build on their achievments rather than duplicating their efforts. ROBOTIC EXPLORATION OF SPACE IN THE 1990s Based on the preceding principles, we propose the following program of robotic probes for the 1990s: 1. CRAF (Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby) -- the number three mission in the SSEC Core Program, and highest on NASA's request list. Information on comets and asteroids gained from this mission will vastly improve our understanding of solar system resource distribution, as well as provide a wealth of scientific information. 2. LGO (Lunar Geoscience Orbiter) -- selected from the SSEC list of subsequent core missions to the "Terrestrial Planets." The committee states: "The Lunar Geoscience Orbiter will provide a global map of surface composition and other properties, and decide the question of the presence of condensed water and other volatiles in polar cold traps."3 __________ 2. Ibid., p. 66. 3. Ibid., p. 20. Prospecting in Space Page 3 3. NEAR (Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous) -- a "small bodies" mission selected by the SSEC as part of their list of subsequent core missions. The SSEC has this to say on the Earth approaching asteroids: "They are also an obvious resource for materials in space, and a great deal of attention has been directed to their potential role in large-scale in-orbit construction. For these reasons, interest in them far exceeds the purely scientific desire to explore a new population of solar system objects."4 4. MAMO - the Mainbelt Asteroid Multiple Orbiter/Flyby - - has last priority since the Main Belt asteroids are less accessible than the Near-Earth approaching asteroids or the Moon. However, this mission, like CRAF, provides valuable scientific information, helps us to build a complete picture of solar system resource distribution, and complements the NEAR mission. The SSEC proposed this mission as one of four Subsequent Core Missions to the "small bodies."5 The SSEC confirms these priorities, stating that "The Near- Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) mission, already included in the Core Program, should be undertaken as soon as possible after the Lunar Geoscience Orbiter (LGO) to begin the close-up scientific study and resource assessment of an asteroid."6 We endorse increased NASA funding of the telescopic search for near-Earth approaching asteroids to prepare the way for both the NEAR mission and the eventual mining of these asteroids. We agree with the NCOS when they call for "Expanded Earth-based and space-based searches for readily __________ 4. Ibid., p. 118. 5. Ibid., pp. 106-125. 6. Solar System Exploration Committee of the NASA Advisory Council, Planetary Exploration Through the Year 2000: An Augmented Program, U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1985, p. 181. 7. Ibid., p. 65. Prospecting in Space Page 4 accessible asteroids . . ."7 CONCLUSION The United States should expeditiously carry out the CRAF, LGO, NEAR, and MAMO missions, as well as those currently underway, while vigorously searching for near-Earth crossing asteroids using Earth-based telescopes. Failure to initiate and carry out these missions could result in a situation in which: 1. The United States receives all information on space resources second-hand from foreign governments whose interests are sometimes different from those of the USA, and 2. The use of space resources is delayed many years, if not decades, because of insufficient information with which to lay firm plans for their development. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #228 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18864; Tue, 19 May 87 03:03:07 PDT id AA18864; Tue, 19 May 87 03:03:07 PDT Date: Tue, 19 May 87 03:03:07 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705191003.AA18864@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #229 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 229 Today's Topics: Soviet's launch new large booster Access to Space: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper Commercial Space Incentives: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 May 87 00:12:15 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet's launch new large booster The USSR launched today (May 16/15) the first prototype of their new very large booster from their Baikonur launch complex in Kazakhstan. Called Energy this massive 2000 Tonne booster is said to put 100 Tonne payloads into low earth orbit and is the largest current launcher in the World. The stated future purpose is to launch very large scientific and space station modules plus being part of their space shuttle system. The Russian reports say that the vehicle launched consisted of two stages, both of which worked perfectly, but that the dummy payload, which contained its own orbital motor suffered from "insufficent response" on some of its systems. Thus it did not enter orbit and was fell in the Pacific. There were many amazing things about this launch. To begin with on May 13th Gorbachev was at the Baikonur Cosmodrome where he gave a speach calling on the Soviet scientests and engineers to end their inferiority complex about the country's scientific prowness. Then came the annoucement that the launch was going to take place was made on May 14th. The Soviets have never stated in advance that they were flying a new system before. From this I bet a friend that the launch would be shown on TV, and it was! The booster appears to have 4 strap-on motors (the first stage) around the central core. This two stage version reminds me of the first Proton launch (the largest booster to date), which was also two stages with a large satellite which contained its own rocket (that only stayed in orbit for 3 months). Finally there is the fact that they described in reasonable detail the failure of the satellite, yet seemed to be positively estatic about the launch itself. Of course this vehicle brings a new age to the Soviet space program. Gorbachev himself said that it would be used to lauch the large sections of space cities, though it will take a few years for it to reach full operational status. They have also started talking recently about lunar bases and Mars missions (though not for some time). More than that though, this really shows that Gorbachev has put himself behind the their program (that was uncertain up to now). It cost him political capital and risk to order the pre launch announcement, personally watch the launch, and order the release of the TV films even though it was not a perfect success. Consider before his Glasnost campaign it took 20 years between the time the Proton first flew and days when the first pictures of that vehicle were given to the west. With that speech I think he is saying the Soviet Union is going for an even more agressive space program to show to the world their technological prowness, and Gorbachev personally is behind it. OK people, space race part 2 is on. Just like the first one our lauchers are blowing up while theirs are flying. Are we going to stand still or are we going to get moving again? Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 87 23:47:28 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Access to Space: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper Below is the first of five position papers approved by by the North Jersey L5 Chapter and presented to all New Jersey congresspeople during a recent visit to Washington by two of our members. Other organizations are encouraged to embark upon similar programs of Congressional education. Individuals are encouraged to send these papers to their congresspeople (or whatever national equivalent may exist in your country) with a letter indicating their support of these goals (if, of course, that is the case). All we ask is that the copyright notice remain with the paper. The next four papers will be posted separately. Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu ===========================cut here to print========================= ACCESS TO SPACE A North Jersey L5 Position paper Copyright c 1987 North Jersey L5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The foundation of space development is assured access to space at a low cost. For the near and medium term, the U.S. government must take the lead in creating and maintaining access to space, while working to lower the cost of access to space. In Fiscal '88 we urge the following actions in support of access to space: 1. Fund the Heavy-Lift Vehicle at $250 million as requested by DOD. 2. Fully fund the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) effort at $335 million. 3. Fund preliminary Shuttle II design work in the NASA budget. Following Fiscal '88 we further urge that the U.S.: 1. Continue Shuttle II and NASP design work. 2. In 1991 fund a fifth Shuttle orbiter. 3. Starting in Fiscal '90 allocate enough additional funds to NASA for one Titan-class expendable launch per year. GETTING THERE FROM HERE The central reality that all proponents of space development must face is that it costs a LOT to get into orbit. Fortunately, this need not always be so. The road to cost- effective ground to low earth orbit (LEO) transport has long been clear: reusable, single stage, airline style vehicles that could bring costs under $100 a pound and usher in an age of space industrialization. The Shuttle was intended to provide this type of low cost, regular access to space. Unfortunately, because of a persistent failure to fund fully Shuttle development, and overly complex requirements, the Shuttle has failed in significant ways to meet its original goals. Most of those goals, however, are still worthy ones, and it probably was naive to expect them all to be met in a single generation of vehicle development. That the goals are still worthwhile is best shown by the number of shuttle development projects Access to Space Page 2 worldwide, including the Soviet "Shuttle-ski," the German "Sanger," the ESA/French "Hermes," and the British "Hotol," as well as embryonic Japanese efforts. Shuttle-type vehicles cannot provide all our transport capacity. A need exists to lift larger payloads at lower cost-per-pound than the current Shuttle for space construction projects, for large interplanetary probes, and for SDI. We agree with the following statement by the National Commission on Space (NCOS): "In the next- generation systems we must separate the functions of one-way cargo transport from the round-trip transport of humans and high value cargo to and from orbit."1 We support the construction of the heavy-lift vehicle as requested by the DOD in its Fiscal '87 special request. This vehicle, although being requested for the SDI, could be used to support a variety of civilian efforts. It promises to transport goods to LEO at one-half the cost of the Shuttle. Since most versions of the proposed vehicle use improved Shuttle solid rocket boosters (SRBs), engines, and external tanks, the two programs could be highly complementary, with fixed costs spread over a larger base. Given the reality that the current Shuttle fleet cannot be operated much beyond the year 2000,2 we must begin now to focus on a successor vehicle. The NCOS report states, "The Commission recognizes two competing technologies, each of which promises to reduce drastically the cost of achieving orbit: advanced rocket and aerospace plane technologies."3 We endorse NASA/DOD support of the National Aerospace Plane [NASP] development. This coincides with the NCOS position: "We strongly recommend that: The technology advances required for aerospace plane development and flight test receive the highest national priority."4 A spirit of realism compels us to recognize that although the NASP program may prove over the long run to be the foundation of entire new industries, as well as provide easy __________ 1. National Commission on Space, Pioneering the Space Frontier, 1986, p. 109. 2. Ibid., p. 110. 3. Ibid., p. 112. 4. Ibid., p. 115. Access to Space Page 3 access to space, it most probably will not produce a cost- effective vehicle in the next 15 years. The NCOS states that: "In parallel with this effort [NASP] we propose an aggressive technology development program for rocket powered vehicles, including advances in launch vehicles . . . These advances could make possible next-generation, single-stage- to-orbit launch vehicles . . . comparable to the aerospace plane."5 We endorse the NCOS recommendation that the U.S. pursue the development of an advanced rocketplane, sometimes referred to as Shuttle II. These efforts are more certain to result in a vehicle to replace the Shuttle in the year 2000 than the NASP program.6 Although superior to the current Shuttle in terms of cost to orbit, re-usability, maintainability, and turn-around time, Shuttle II should not be over-sold as a "miracle machine." We also must keep in mind that Shuttle II should be a smaller (and hence more economical) vehicle than the current Shuttle and could only support the Space Station if used with the larger Shuttle- derived vehicle requested by the DOD in Fiscal '87. We are deeply concerned that future set-backs or delays in development programs will leave the U.S. without a space program. We concur with the NCOS when they say, ". . . it is imperative that the United States maintain a continuous capability to put both humans and cargo into orbit; never again should the country experience the hiatus we endured from 1975 to 1981, when we were unable to launch astronauts into space."7 We propose that at least one additional Shuttle orbiter be procured following the Challenger replacement. This will assure our continued access to space while the Shuttle II/NASP efforts are brought to fruition. Finally, we recommend that the Congress allocate to NASA enough funds for one (1) Titan-class expendable launch per year for ten years to supplement the Shuttles and to keep our space science program moving forward. In no way should this stop-gap measure be regarded as a substitute for any of the above actions. __________ 5. Ibid., p. 115. 6. Craig Covault, "New Launcher Concept Bridges Shuttle- Aerospace Plane Gap," Aviation Week and Space Technology, December 1, 1986, pp. 30-31. 7. Pioneering the Space Frontier, p. 109. Access to Space Page 4 Given the reality that any American company in the expendable launcher business must compete with foreign subsidized national enterprises, there appears to be little prospect that private industry will move rapidly into the expendable launch business without government subsidies. These subsidies are being provided in part by DOD's Medium Lift Vehicle program. The U.S. government must continue to take the lead in providing access to space for the near and medium term. CONCLUSION "Should the United States choose not to undertake achievement of these economies in launch and recovery capability, then the Nation must face the probability that other nations will rapidly overtake our position as the world's leading spacefaring nation."8 __________ 8. Ibid., p. 109. ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 87 23:50:48 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Commercial Space Incentives: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper Below is the second of five position papers approved by by the North Jersey L5 Chapter and presented to all New Jersey congresspeople during a recent visit to Washington by two of our members. Other organizations are encouraged to embark upon similar programs of Congressional education. Individuals are encouraged to send these papers to their congresspeople (or whatever national equivalent may exist in your country) with a letter indicating their support of these goals (if, of course, that is the case). All we ask is that the copyright notice remain with the paper. The other four papers will be posted separately. Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu ===========================cut here to print========================= COMMERCIAL SPACE INCENTIVES A North Jersey L5 Position Paper Copyright c 1987 North Jersey L5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The Commercial Space Incentive Act should be passed to provided guaranteed markets for private launch vehicles at a fixed price. 2. A significant percentage of space research funds (at least ten percent), shall be allocated to small research organizations, to promote innovation and creativity in the space industry. THE COMMERCIAL SPACE INCENTIVE ACT We do not have routine access to space because we have been unable to understand the true role of the government in space industrialization. It has always been the responsibility of the government to provide the transportation system to the new frontier. Though private firms have built the railroads and the airlines, the United States government provided the incentives, through the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 and the Kelly Bill of 1925. The entire airline industry was initiated by the Kelly bill through authorized payment of mail revenues to air mail carriers. The risk is too high for any one company to assume. Our lack of direction has allowed other nations to catch up while we vacillate indecisively between total government monopoly and a complete hands-off policy on space transportation. Without new actions, we risk losing our competitiveness in an industry that has provided much of our technological superiority in the past. Current Japanese and European Space Agency plans lead one to predict a domination of space industry by these countries within twenty years, because of the long lead-times for development of new systems. To maintain our competitiveness, we must encourage fledgling space transportation companies. The United States government should offer to purchase, each fiscal year, at least one million pounds of payload placed in space by private companies. Any company that can successfully launch at least ten thousand pounds into earth orbit should be reimbursed at a fixed rate set between five hundred and one thousand dollars per pound. The maximum launch cost to the government is one billion dollars annually, and must be paid Commercial Space Incentives Page 2 out only if private companies cannot find a commercial customer. This plan is described in considerable detail in the Spring 1986 Report for the Citizens Advisory Council on Space,1 which includes suggested text for the enabling legislation. We suggest that NASA make plans to use the capability provided by the Commercial Space Incentive Act to launch bulk payloads. Such payloads would consist mainly of food, water, and other supplies for the Space Station, or rocket fuel for use by Orbital Transfer Vehicles. An implication of this scheme is that the a stockpile facility should be constructed near the Space Station where these payloads are collected until they could be used. This stockpile would support future space projects such as the establishment of a lunar mining camp as well as the Space Station. The Commercial Space Incentive Act permits the government to phase space transportation over to private launch services at minimum cost, and with minimal impact on existing government space programs. The government would be purchasing only success and performance. SPACE RESEARCH FUNDS FOR SMALL ENTERPRISES The Commercial Space Incentive Act will help restore our competitiveness. However, we must do more to take advantage of one of the United States' greatest assets: its reservoir of human aerospace engineering talent, languishing in large bureaucratic aerospace companies, or siphoned off for military projects with little commercial potential. We urge that 10% of the long range space R&D budget be reserved for small and medium size firms. Because the contract size is smaller, this allows pursuit of a greater array of technologies for the same cost. Assuming a two hundred million dollar long range space R&D budget, a significant but necessary increase, at least ten percent of this money or twenty million dollars should be allocated to small companies through the Small Business Innovation Research or similar grant programs. Priority should be given to companies or research institutions with proven history of low-cost innovative research, such as the Space __________ 1. Citizens Advisory Council on Space, America: A Spacefaring Nation Again, Spring 1986, pp. 49-56. Commercial Space Incentives Page 3 Studies Institute. CONCLUSIONS These programs promise to satisfy the near-term needs in this country for routine launch services, while laying the groundwork for restoring U.S. technological superiority in space industry. They provide a way of using proven techniques of industry development in this country, while taking into account the practical concerns of controlling the budget deficit. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #229 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22237; Wed, 20 May 87 03:03:07 PDT id AA22237; Wed, 20 May 87 03:03:07 PDT Date: Wed, 20 May 87 03:03:07 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705201003.AA22237@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #230 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 20 May 87 03:03:07 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #230 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 230 Today's Topics: The 500-Man Mars (seed) Colony is an idea that'll work Goals for the Nineties: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 May 87 09:28:30 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: The 500-Man Mars (seed) Colony is an idea that'll work Paul Dietz in Vol. 7, No. 225 responded to my idea that America's next major space goal should be the establishment of a self sufficient 500 man "seed colony" on the planet Mars. Paul began with some remarks about the NASP: >I have become more skeptical about the NASP. There was an elementary >critique of the concept in Technology Review. Basically, NASP will be >very complex. A scramjet powered launcher will have to breathe air up >to Mach 17+ in order to be economical, apparently because scramjets are >heavy. For thrust to exceed drag at Mach 17 requires heroic measures, >such as circulating liquid sodium through the skin of the plane and >dumping that heat into the fuel flow..... > ......It's hard to believe the technology will get launch costs >down below a couple of hundred dollars per pound. I share Paul's scepticism. The heady days of my youth where I thought anything shown in an artist conception was possible are long gone. However Paul and Technology Review are both premature in writing off the NASP. My friends at NASA Ames CFD branch tell me the NASP design isn't even frozen yet. I've recently accepted a job to do basic research on SCRAM jets and know that subject is still wide open. The only thing certain about the NASP is a SCRAM jet **can** work. They've got a small working model at NASA Langely that flew in a wind tunnel. Paul's remark about Mach 17+ and heating, represents a widely perceived problem. However there's an easy fix. You use the SCRAM jet up to Mach 10 and then power through the atmosphere to Mach 20 with rockets. Actually the big threat against the NASP is not technical but rather political. The bean counters could wreck the NASP in the same way they wrecked the shuttle and are wrecking the space station. Also the CFD fanatics have got their claws on the NASP and are feeding people alot of baloney that the NASP can be designed and tested entirely through computers (what a laugh). Paul then resurrected the Space Colony debate concerning radiation shielding: >The ratio of shielded volume to shielding mass can be made arbitrarily >high by increasing the radius of the habitat. It is not at all clear >that the entire habitat must be rotating; it might well be possible to >have compact rotating sleeping quarters, assuming that coriolis forces >do not bother a sleeping person. In a nonrotating habitat the entire >volume is available for habitation. Paul is being rhetorical here. If I or anyone else were to make the above posting, Paul would cut it to pieces. The business about about the ratio of shielding to volume is correct. However you would probably find your colony to be about the same size as a large asteroid in order for the math to work (similar to the feasibility proofs for a sky hook). The NASA SPs published on Space Colonies showed the need for ***megatons*** of shielding for a space colony. Based on my energy calculations, it is much cheaper to just haul the people back-and-forth from some planet or asteroid into space than it is to haul the shielding material into space. Paul is well aware that humans can't tolerate zero-G for too long and that coriolis forces can adversly effect people when they are awake and sleeping. >Gary was assuming, for his Mars colony scenario, that inertial fusion >rockets are available. These rockets could easily maneuver multimillio >ton near earth asteroids into high earth orbit in a matter of months. >Therefore, using Gary's assumption about fusion rockets, obtaining >shielding mass is no problem at all. I also stated the IFR propulsion systems are a speculative technology because of the problem of compact high energy lasers. Industrialization of the entire solar system won't be possible until something like an IFR is available. However I'd like to see a space colony established within the next century. This can be done with a 500 man Mars colony. We would get to Mars **not** with an IFR (even thought this is the best way) but through a heliocentric space station that is in a resonant orbit between Earth and Mars. This heliocentric station could be assembled in orbit using chemical or ion propelled OTVs. Paul touched on the SPS issue: >Satellite solar power has the lowest thermal pollution of any energy >source. (Aside: I think fossil fuels will continue to be the dominant >energy source for the rest of our lives, barring some breakthrough.) Paul is right (unfortunately) about fossil fuels. The lowest thermal polluting energy source is photovoltaic collectors on the roof of your house (which is the way the energy crisis will eventually be solved, see latest issue of Scientific American). Paul's SPS will pollute like crazy through its microwave connection. >I think my negative reaction (and other readers of this digest, >apparently) to Gary's proposal is sufficient evidence that is will not >have the support needed for massive government funding; if space >fanatics are not impressed, what will your average taxpayer think? Not >much. I and alot of other people think the SPS is a pretty dumb idea. Is this evidence that the idea is unworkable? If only good ideas with solid technical backing got funded then Reagan's SDI would never have left the Oval Office. I think the 500 Mars idea is a good one. Naturally a multibillion dollar project will be controversial, just as the Moon project was controversial. All this really means is the proponents for a Mars colony have to work harder and have some sharp politicians on their side. Quite frankly, I see no alternative to Mars. Everything else assumes economic viability or open-ended politically based funding. Only the 500 man Mars colony can establish a permanent space colony with a finite price tag and without recourse to economic viability. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 87 04:09:50 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Goals for the Nineties: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper Below is the third of five position papers approved by by the North Jersey L5 Chapter and presented to all New Jersey congresspeople during a recent visit to Washington by two of our members. Other organizations are encouraged to embark upon similar programs of Congressional education. Individuals are encouraged to send these papers to their congresspeople (or whatever national equivalent may exist in your country) with a letter indicating their support of these goals (if, of course, that is the case). All we ask is that the copyright notice remain with the paper. The other four papers will be posted separately. Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu ===========================cut here to print========================= GOALS FOR THE `90s A North Jersey L5 Position paper Copyright c 1987 North Jersey L5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The development of space resources requires an infrastructure -- refueling depots, repair shops, laboratories, power stations, bunkhouses, machine shops, warehouses, and trucks. The proposed Space Station and Orbital Transfer Vehicle are basic steps toward the infrastructure needed to develop space resources for human benefit. To work toward this goal in Fiscal '88 we urge the following actions: 1. Fund the Space Station at $715 million as requested. 2. Initiate funding for the Re-usable Aerobraked Orbital Transfer Vehicle. 3. Begin definition work for super-comsats. PRINCIPLES 1. Goals should be consistent with the overall direction of developing space resources for human benefit while increasing scientific knowledge. 2. We should not expect that projects at this stage of the development of the space frontier will "pay for themselves" in the next ten years. The strong probability that space projects will not be profitable in the short term suggests the need for the government to lead the way by developing and demonstrating the technology needed to exploit space resources. 3. Focus on the resources most easily returned to the Earth: information, energy, and high-value light- weight products. The mining of minerals in space for use on the Earth does not appear to be practical for at least the next 20 years. 4. Each project builds on the last, but each provides its own independent set of benefits. 5. Failure to exploit economic opportunities in space will result in our international competitors (USSR, ESA, China, and Japan) exploiting these opportunities whether we do or not. Goals for the 90s Page 2 GOAL ONE: CONSTRUCTION OF THE SPACE STATION The Space Station represents the foundation on which all major future space efforts depend. With it, the following projects are made more economical: - In-orbit repair of satellites. - Construction of large comsats. - Zero-gravity materials processing research Consider: the Space Shuttle is like a laboratory/factory that is only open one week every few months. The Space Station will be operating 24 hours a day. We endorse the construction of the Space Station in the '90s. To this endorsement we add the following cautions: 1. Military requirements must not be allowed to cripple the Space Station as they did the Shuttle program. We need a civilian station that supports unclassified scientific research. 2. We must assure that station operating costs are not increased by cutbacks in development efforts, especially in the area of life-support systems. Less efficient closed-cycle life support systems will result in more shuttle flights to deliver water and oxygen to the Space Station, making the station more expensive to operate. 3. The station must be regarded as an ongoing project from which we will continually derive benefits in proportion to our continuing investment. We urge that sufficient funds be provided to support an aggressive program of materials research aboard the Space Station as well as to complete the station infrastructure, including the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle. GOAL TWO: A RE-USABLE ORBITAL TRANSFER VEHICLE WITH AERO-BRAKING With respect to the Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV), the NCOS report states: "A high priority exists for this vehicle, which will greatly lower the cost of access to geostationary orbit ... The transfer vehicle will be modular, single- stage, fueled by liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, and outfitted with an aerobrake to conserve fuel by allowing the vehicle to slow down through the drag of the Earth's atmosphere."1 We endorse the construction of a reusable Goals for the 90s Page 3 Orbital Transfer Vehicle as planned by NASA. The OTV project uses the Space Station as both a launching base and a refueling station. The reusable OTV lowers the cost to lift payloads to geosynchronous orbit, which translates into lower communication satellite costs. In addition to this direct benefit, a cabin could be built so that crews may use the OTV to visit and repair geosynchronous satellites. This would extend the life of such satellites, further lowering the cost of telecommunications services. Lastly, two of the modular OTVs could be assembled easily into a craft capable of flying to the moon. GOAL THREE: EXPANDED USE OF GEOSYNCHRONOUS COMSATS With the coming of the Space Shuttle, the Space Station, and the Orbital Transfer Vehicle, the opportunity exists to construct large geosynchronous satellites for a variety of purposes.2 The satellites could serve purposes ranging from utility platforms for groupings of conventional communication satellites to engines providing completely new telecommunication services, including direct broadcast high-definition television, personal communicator networks, and inexpensive electronic mail. All these possibilities rely on the following insight: "Whereas it has been past practice to make the satellites as small and inexpensive as possible, paying the price in very large and expensive ground stations to communicate through the satellite, the current trends are increasing satellite antenna size and power. This in turn is reducing the power and antenna size required in the ground terminals, thus reducing their cost ..."3 The initial large scale use of complexity inversion requires a full demonstration of the technologies involved. We propose that the US build a large geosynchronous platform to ____________________________________________________________ 1. National Commission on Space, Pioneering the Space Frontier. New York: Bantam Books, 1986, p. 122. 2. Simpson, T.R., editor, The Space Station: An Idea Whose Time Has Come, IEEE Press, 1985, p. 113. 3. Ivan Bekey, "Big Comsats for Big Jobs at Low User Cost," Astronautics & Aeronautics, February 1979. Goals for the 90s Page 4 provide one or more of the services mentioned above. One possible demonstration would involve [T]he personal-communications system concept ... which uses a single large communications satellite to link 25 million users outfitted with wrist-mounted radiotelephones. Due to the very small power and antenna size possible in such a radio-telephone, the satellite antenna must be large ... at least 220 ft. in diameter ... . [T]he 25 million users could share 230,000 voice channels ... Furthermore, since the direct interconnection of users dispenses with ground networks (to insure lower user cost), the satellite must contain the equivalent of a telephone switching center for 230,000 trunks ... . The satellite ... would weigh 54,000 lb, have a 280 kw solar-cell power system, and transfer itself to geostationary orbit ... following assembly and checkout employing three Shuttle flights to low Earth orbit ... . The wrist radiotelephone ... should weigh no more than a large wristwatch, and be able to communicate at least five 1-minute messages during any 16 hr. day before recharging overnight.4 Any project involving the construction of large comsats uses the following elements of the space infrastructure: - Space Shuttle to lift components - Space Station as construction site. - Orbital Transfer Vehicle to transport repair crews to geosynchronous orbit, as well as the satellite itself. The construction of large comsats will: - Provide millions of Americans with new or enhanced communications services. __________ 4. Ibid. Goals for the 90s Page 5 - Potentially create a new and profitable industry, thus increasing tax revenues. - Advance American telecommunications technology, including that of electronic switch construction, thus giving American companies a competitive edge. CONCLUSIONS One key to our space future is the construction of a Space Station to act as a re-fueling depot, research lab, repair bench, and eventually manufacturing center. Another key is the design and testing of reusable aerobraked orbital transfer vehicles. In the 1990s, America can use the Space Station and reusable Orbital Transfer Vehicle to build large comsats capable of providing Americans with a variety of new telecommunications services. We urge that this course be followed. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #230 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA24757; Thu, 21 May 87 03:03:19 PDT id AA24757; Thu, 21 May 87 03:03:19 PDT Date: Thu, 21 May 87 03:03:19 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705211003.AA24757@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #231 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 21 May 87 03:03:19 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #231 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 231 Today's Topics: More impressions of Pittsburgh: Mars, nanotech,SSI After the Space Station: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20-MAY-1987 06:19 CDT From: To: Subject: More impressions of Pittsburgh: Mars, nanotech,SSI Herewith some more remarks about the Space Development Conference in Pittsburgh a few weeks ago. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALC.BITNET ####################################################################### THE MARS JUGGERNAUT-- I heard a lot of gloom over the movement, spearheaded by Carl Sagan and Louis Friedman of the Planetary Society, to make a joint manned mission to Mars the chief goal of the space program. (I include a number of unmanned projects under this umbrella.) There was a consensus that the Mars Juggernaut is unstoppable, even though most space movement people have grave reservations about it. The "Apollo lesson" looms large: We could put years of intensive effort, and tens of billions, into this, and wind up with a box full of rocks and some expensive special-purpose hardware. The will to follow up on the program could easily evaporate just as post-Tranquility plans did. Besides the scientific value, the major benefit of the missions would be Soviet-American cooperation on a large scale, which might benefit world peace. Without getting into details, I'll just say there is room for skepticism on this point. The people attending the SDC tend to be ardent advocates of commercialization, exploiting lunar & asteroidal resources for near-Earth projects, and heavy manned space flight. They view the Mars proposals as thwarting the next stages in the natural growth of a spacefaring civilization, if the trip to Mars is put ahead of lunar bases, orbital industries, and so forth. So there was plenty of debate: What should space activists do? (Now when I say that the Mars movement is unstoppable, I mean "unstoppable by the forces the National Space Society and friends can deploy." Sagan will certainly meet resistance even after he has all his ducks in a row-- from the military, from the Proximires, from Russophobes-- and these forces would certainly have a good chance of sinking the idea.) There are three general alternatives: 1) Lie down. Ignore Mars, keep trying to get a return to the moon, better deals for private enterprise, bigger space stations, etc. If we go to Mars, and then the space program dies, we won't be much worse off than we are now. Everything we want will just take fifteen years longer to happen. Nobody really liked this idea. 2) Fight it. Maybe the Martian idea *can* be stopped before it bends American and Soviet space activities onto the wrong fork in the road. Disadvantages: Space activists will be seen fighting each other in public, perhaps killing both half-movements. The Mars trip is easier to sell; The American People can grasp astronauts and cosmonauts walking on Mars, but "space infrastructure" is harder to explain and has no emotional juice. And you'd have to kill off the building momentum, which is generating more editorials and endorsements than any advanced space proposal in recent memory. It would be a shame. 3) Co-opt it. All right, we're gonna go to Mars. Let's do it the "right" way. Develop landers & life support systems on the Moon as a dry run, and work up to two-year missions gradually. Convert the space station into a staging base for interplanetary (and GEO and lunar, while you're at it) missions. Develop advanced propulsion. Use the resources of Phobos and Deimos to support Mars missions. Martian exploration becomes a fraction of a larger, broadly based space program, which may even be returning a portion of its costs. NSS-type folks get behind Mars, but only as the top step in a graduated program that gives them what they wanted in the first place. Very attractive, but a little too pat. Does Sagan really need our help? He's got 110,000 Planetary Society members. What will the PS say if they hear "We'll help, but first give us everything we've ever wanted?" And if this rosy scenario could be sold at all, it would be developing already. It lacks the immediate appeal of cooperation with the Soviets as an alternative to (or at least in parallel with) the arms race-- which can only be sold to conservative voters and politicians if a purely scientific objective, without large commercial or strategic benefits, is involved. NSS basically wants the space funding "pie" to get bigger, and stay bigger. This is very very difficult in the present climate. Sagan is trying for a way to make the pie bigger, at least for a short time, fueled by motives not related to scientific or commercial considerations. I suppose he hopes, five or ten years down the line, to find a way to keep the pie from shrinking again. One last point. The "Mars Underground," who started this snowball when it was very small and had nothing to do with the Cold War, would be just as unhappy as L5'ers with a one-shot rock-collecting mission. They want maps, they want bases, they want an ongoing, detailed survey of Martian science. These things could perhaps be sustained against a background of large-scale space activity near the Earth. So perhaps NSS can find allies within the Martian camp... NANOTECHNOLOGY-- Eric Drexler's ideas about "nanotechnology," the (allegedly) imminent techniques for building molecule-sized machines, tools, computers, and factories, were much in evidence at the convention. It all seems a little too good to be true to me, but I shouldn't comment until I finish reading Eric's book, *Engines of Creation* (Doubleday Anchor). A side issue: what the heck has this stuff to do with space travel? The development of teeny-tiny machines has exciting implications for wide areas of technology and our relation to it-- but space is only incidentally included in that. (Although the advent of nanocomputers and assemblers implies that you'd never again need to launch a payload bigger than a few milligrams. (-: Makes the mass-ratio of a Delta look really good.) Yet the SDC was full of talk about these ideas, and a significant portion of the program was devoted to it. The answer, I think, is that nanotechnology has a natural constituency, a community of young (?) people fascinated by science and technology and eager to explore the changes they bring. And the space movement already holds a subset of those people. (Science fiction fandom, which is also home to a lot of technophiles, is one major wellspring of the movement.) It's certainly influential that Eric Drexler has been moving in these circles for years-- he worked on Mass Driver One and did important studies on manufacturing high-performance solar sails in space. It was natural that as he began thinking about nanotechnology, he bounced it off such buddies as Keith Henson, L5 cofounder, who became a rabid nanotechnological prophet. I don't want to sound smug or elitist about this group of people. But there must be *some* good reason why nanotechnology has taken hold among so many space buffs. Comments? THE SPACE STUDIES INSTITUTE-- Members of the Space Studies Institute were prominent among the movers and shakers at Pittsburgh. SSI's purpose is to organize and fund research fundamental to space development. They put a modest research budget where it will do a great deal of good, funding mass driver construction, lunar materials extraction work, studies for a low-cost spacecraft to look for lunar ice, a detailed External Tank usage study, a search for Earth-Sun Trojan asteroids, and a number of other projects. They're a very good group to join if you want your money to go directly to advancing progress in space-- these things need to get done to pave the way. In addition, I was impressed by the hustle of the people associated with SSI. They gave important help organizing this conference and others, and they seem to be in the middle of a lot that's happening in the space movement. Check 'em out. Space Studies Institute 285 Rosedale Road P.O. Box 82 Princeton, N.J. 08540 NEXT YEAR IN DENVER-- The 1988 Space Development Conference will be held in Denver on Memorial Day weekend, 27-30 May 1988. The theme is "SPACE: The Next Renaissance," and the conference will include tracks of technical, space education, activist, and "socioeconomic" programming. There will also be a professional Space Business Symposium, a design contest for using the External Tank, and an art show. For information contact: 1988 International Space Development Conference P.O. Box 300572 Denver, Colorado 80218 (303)692-6788 Admission is $50 for members of NSS, SSI, or other co-sponsoring organizations, $80 for nonmembers, before 31 July 1987. It'll get higher after that. ***BUT WAIT!*** You can get a **BARGAIN** combined membership in the 1988 Denver SDC and the 1989 Chicago SDC for $80 (member of a cosponsor) or $110 (nonmember). The offer is good ONLY THROUGH 31 JULY 1987. This is a saving of at least $15 below current membership rates (Chicago alone is $45 for sponsor members), and a whole bucketful below the expensive at-the-door rates. Make checks payable to 1988 INT'L SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE. The Chicago SDC happens 26-29 May, 1989-- the twentieth summer since Apollo 11. I won't go into much detail here, except to say that information is available from: 1989 Space Development Conference P.O. Box 64397 Chicago, Illinois 60664-0397 (312)446-8343 evenings Or send e-mail to HIGGINS@FNALC.BITNET. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 87 15:35:30 GMT From: mtune!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.edu Subject: After the Space Station: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper Below is the last of five position papers approved by by the North Jersey L5 Chapter and presented to all New Jersey congresspeople during a recent visit to Washington by two of our members. Other organizations are encouraged to embark upon similar programs of Congressional education. Individuals are encouraged to send these papers to their congresspeople (or whatever national equivalent may exist in your country) with a letter indicating their support of these goals (if, of course, that is the case). All we ask is that the copyright notice remain with the paper. The other four papers were be posted separately. Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu ===========================cut here to print========================= AFTER THE SPACE STATION A North Jersey L5 Position paper Copyright c 1987 North Jersey L5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We propose two projects for the Space Station era. One focuses on prospecting for resources and developing systems to return those resources to Earth orbit. The other suggests a way in which those resources could be used to benefit humans on the Earth. Both build on the space shuttle, the Space Station, re-usable orbital transfer vehicle, the Lunar Geoscience Orbiter, and techniques proven by the construction of large geosynchronous satellites. Our proposed goals are the: 1. Establishment of a lunar mining base, and an 2. Orbital solar power station prototype. In Fiscal '88 the joint NASA/DOD SP-100 nuclear reactor program should be fully funded as part of support of the lunar mining outpost. GOAL ONE: ESTABLISHMENT OF A LUNAR MINING BASE The report of the National Commission on Space calls for a lunar outpost to be established "within the next 20 years."1 In describing this project the NCOS states: Early outposts on the lunar surface are essential in the development of the space frontier. They will permit the extension of lunar exploration for the purposes of both scientific research and resource development. They will be sites for pilot plants that use lunar resources, especially to produce propellants. . . . Resource use will be the other major driver for lunar development. The resources that will certainly be needed in Earth-Moon space, and that can possibly be delivered to the __________ 1. National Commission on Space, Pioneering the Space Frontier, 1986; pg. 140. After the Space Station Page 2 points of use more economically from the Moon than from the Earth, are shielding and oxygen. The first requires no processing, while the second could be obtained from the lunar soil minerals . . . Oxygen is the most abundant element in the lunar soils, constituting 40 percent of those soils by weight.2 Materials could be delivered to their point of use by a variety of systems, including the re-usable Orbital Transfer Vehicle(OTV), ion driven tugs, or mass-driver based vehicles.3 In the case of lunar oxygen, it would be most likely liquefied on the moon and shipped to Low Earth Orbit via space tug. Here the lunar oxygen would be used to refuel Orbital Transfer Vehicles as they lift comsats to geosynchronous orbit, as well as supply the Space Station. Plain lunar dirt would be collected and placed into lunar orbit. One system capable of doing this economically involves the use of a dragline4 and a lunar mass driver.5 Once in lunar orbit the material would be collected,6 bagged, and transported to geosynchronous orbit where it could protect a "repair shack" used by the technicians who maintain geosynchronous satellites. This would allow the __________ 2. Ibid., pp. 138-140. 3. Gordon R. Woodcock, "Transportation Networks for Lunar Resources Utilization," Space Manufacturing 5: Engineering With Lunar and Asteroidal Materials, Proceedings of the Seventh Princeton/AIAA/SSI Conference, May 8-11, 1985. 4. Richard E. Gertsch, "A Method for Mining Lunar Soil," Space Manufacturing 1983: Vol. 53 Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, AAS, 1983, pp. 337-346. 5. Leslie O. Snively, Gerard K. O'Neill, "Mass Driver III: Construction, Testing, and Comparison to Computer Simulation (AAS 83-240)," Ibid., pp. 391-401. 6. T. A. Heppenheimer, "Achromatic Trajectories and the Industrial-Scale Transport of Lunar Resources," Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century, W. W. Mendell, Editor, Lunar and Planetary Institute, 1985, pp. 155-167. After the Space Station Page 3 lifespan of comsats to be extended by routine, low-cost repair visits while the shielded repair shack protected these technicians against unexpected solar flares. This lunar dirt also could act as a shield to protect U.S. space-based military assets, including early-warning satellites. Indirect benefits from the construction of a lunar mining base include: - Field testing of more advanced closed-cycle life support systems that could later be incorporated into the Space Station as part of an effort to reduce operating costs. - Increased scientific knowledge of the Moon. - Creation of a lunar base and lunar support system that can support a wide variety of scientific endeavors. We endorse the NCOS's recommendation that a lunar outpost be constructed. We urge that the focus of this project be the return of valuable lunar materials (such as shielding matter and oxygen) by the most economic means. We anticipate that the lunar mining base would be automated to the maximum extent feasible with the existing technology. Overall, the program should aim toward the creation of a technology that could be the foundation of a new industry. We endorse the recommendation of the NCOS that there be a "sustained commitment to an integrated space nuclear power system."7 As part of this commitment, we urge that the joint NASA/DOD SP-100 space quality nuclear reactor program be fully funded. Such a reactor would be necessary to power the lunar mining base. GOAL TWO: ORBITAL POWER STATION PROTOTYPE The concept of constructing Solar Power Satellites (SPSs) in geosynchronous orbit, and beaming the power they generate to receiving antennas on the ground, has been discussed extensively in many books and articles.8 9 The basic __________ 7. Ibid., p. 101. 8. O'Neill, G.K.(1975), "Space Colonies and Energy Supply to the Earth," Science, Number 190, pg. 943-947. Also After the Space Station Page 4 advantage inherent in the SPS idea is that placing solar generators (which might use either solar cells or more conventional thermal technology) in geosynchronous orbit places them in full sun all the time. With no night or clouds, power can be delivered to the Earth without interruption. The major concerns raised about SPS focus on either the possible environmental effects of beaming the power back to Earth or the large cost of lifting the satellites skyward. Just as the early pioneers used local materials to build their homes and factories on arrival on the North American continent, so modern day space pioneers must plan to use resources in space to build Solar Power Satellites. We have discussed how lunar materials could have a variety of uses in near Earth space. The construction of SPSs could be one of those uses. As noted by the NCOS report, "Next after Oxygen, in order of richness in the lunar soils, is silicon, the `power element' useful for building solar energy arrays. The lunar surface soils are 20 percent silicon."10 Other lunar materials, including iron, aluminum, and titanium, could also be used in the manufacture of SPSs. However, before we can embark on a full-scale program to build SPSs, assurance must exist that all aspects of the technologies are in hand, and that power can be delivered to the Earth without adverse effect. We propose the construction of a Solar Power Satellite Prototype to satisfy these needs. Such a mini-SPS might have a power output of only a few megawatts, but otherwise would function much as an SPS would during a trial period. The SPS prototype project milestones include: - Delivery of the SPS parts to the Space Station in LEO. Unlike the production SPSs, which would be built mainly of lunar materials, the prototype model is launched entirely from the Earth. Note that the size of the ____________________________________________________________ see his book, The High Frontier. 9. Glasser, P. E., Maynard O. E., Mackovcink J. Jr., and Ralph E. L.(1974), "Feasibility Study of a Satellite Solar Power Station," NASA CR-2357. NASA, Washington, D.C. 10. Pioneering the Space Frontier , p. 85. After the Space Station Page 5 prototype can be varied to match available funds. - Construction of the mini-SPS in LEO, either via astronauts doing EVA or via teleoperated devices such as the Shuttle Arm. At the same time a receiving antenna would be build on the ground. - Movement of the finished SPS to GEO, probably via the use of ion engines that provide very gentle movement. - The test phase, during which power is beamed to the Earth and the technology is refined. - The production phase during which the output of the mini-SPS would be diverted to the needs of commercial projects in LEO, including Space Station clients, or possibly to lunar orbiting or geosynchronous Space Stations. Hence, sale of power generated by the mini- SPS to in-space customers would pay back part of its cost. It might be possible to use same technology involved in beaming the power back to Earth to distribute power to a variety of in-orbit locations. Alternatively, the mini-SPS could be moved close to its customers. CONCLUSIONS We recommend the construction of a lunar mining base and a prototype SPS following the completion of the Space Station. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #231 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA26610; Fri, 22 May 87 03:03:29 PDT id AA26610; Fri, 22 May 87 03:03:29 PDT Date: Fri, 22 May 87 03:03:29 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705221003.AA26610@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #232 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 22 May 87 03:03:29 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #232 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 232 Today's Topics: Re: Gary's Red Frontier + White and Blue =? L5/NSS name Commercial U.S. Rival to the NASP? Re: Commercial U.S. Rival to the NASP? Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's US presidential candidates' space policies Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 May 87 04:47:15 GMT From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul M Koloc) Subject: Re: Gary's Red Frontier + White and Blue =? Satellite power sources would not match the inductive MHD thermal to electric conversion efficiency (95%) of a fast-burn aneutronically heated- blanket power generators at the earths surface. There would not be any microwaved cooked Canadian geese either! That would reduce the thermal waste load by 10 or 12, and could also provide the means for moving plague free remnant populations into space. But, of course it won't happen if it doesn't get into someone's five year plan. > .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . I am very skeptical >that, with current technologies .. .. . .. . >I think my negative reaction (and other readers of this digest, apparently) >to Gary's proposal is sufficient evidence that is will not have the support >needed for massive government funding; if space fanatics are not >impressed, what will your average taxpayer think? Not much. Programs >that benefit specific power groups will crowd out programs motivated >by thinly supported artificial ideologies. But the interest in pushing our frontiers forward (forgive me Bob) is instinctive. That means a drive to pressure the government for *manned* planetary missions will not and should not abate. It's a good thing, because it forces Uncle Sam to provide response to this and other demands, for after all your and other realities and Gary's dreams have become their political reality. That means that since the costs of chemistry to put us on the surface of Mars and bring us back is so overwhelming, NASA Hdqtrs. are beginning to at least THINK about exploratory involvement in the ADVANCED (as opposed to DoE's fusion program) exotic or aneutronic energy business. It's seems to be the natural thing to do, but we all know that older people sometimes need a little encouragement or help to do the "natural" thing. So continue your dream/realities exchange (not necessarily respectively). Paul M. Koloc ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 1987 15:00-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: L5/NSS name As a board member (and supposedly someone with some influence in such things?) I'd like to state my feelings about the future name of the organization. To put it simply, I don't think it is critically important and I feel that anyone who expends a great deal of energy on it is wasting valuable person-hours. The time is much better spent on trying to do something about the abysmal state of the space program in the free world. We've got a national gridlock on our hands. THAT is what we need to deal with. I have preferences of course, and I will state them: 1) I prefer a name without a reference such as National. But I don't feel it's worth fighting over. Other issues are more deserving of attention than this. Unfortuneatly there are IRS problems with the obvious solution of making it the "International" whatever. But with proposed changes in tax regs having to do with the way lobbying is defined, maybe we'll have to become other than 501-C3. Glen has mentioned 501-C4 as being interesting. If such happens, then this solution might become viable. 2) I WOULD strongly oppose any name such as "US" or "American" or even "North American". I don't expect this to be an issue. Nobody is dumb enough to propose it. 3) I am unworried about an association of our organization with the name Von Braun. His writings had a great deal to do with me becoming interested in space in the first place. He has fostered the dream for many years, and I really see us as the spiritual heirs of the VfR. We're the next generation of UTTERLY committed spacers. We're dedicated to this for life, no matter what it takes, as were the VfR. I hold a deep and abiding respect for the man and his memory. 4) Of the names proposed, I lean towards Space Frontier Society. Not because I love it, but because it seems like the one which will have the least amount of utterly wasted man hours associated with it being accepted. 5) I strongly feel the chapters should keep their old names if they so choose. This issue I might get involved with if it comes up. Of course chapters should be at the very least identified in a format like: Pittsburgh L5, a chapter of the 'whatever' For those of you who are involved in the society, I ask that you apply your volunteer hours to things that are important. I personally feel that we have little need for people who would leave the society over a name issue. We might be better off without them. We should propose names, vote on them and accept whatever the result is. No big deal. I hope I don't sound too angry, and I'm not trying to single anyone out. It's just that we are so few and have such a depressingly big job facing us. We all need to get on with it. The merger has taken up our energies for far too long as it is. Let's get to work guys. PS: Kevin Kenny: This was not directed at you, but your article reminded me to make a statement on this issue. Say hello to Lauri, Terry & the rest for me... ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 87 01:28:30 GMT From: mtune!io!granjon!edsel!dxa@rutgers.edu (DR Anolick) Subject: Commercial U.S. Rival to the NASP? I just received a freebie magazine, and found this interesting article. My comments/questions are at the end. From: Design News, News for Design Engineers, a Cahners Publication April 6, 1987, page 37, section titled Engineering News: Rival to the 'Orient Express?' Atlanta - President Reagan has proposed spending billions of federal dollars to design a hypersonic transport -- the "Orient Express." But, if a small engineering firm in Georgia has its way, space transportation could become affordable in about a year's time and at a cost of about $100 million. The secret lies in the Space Transportation Vehicle or STV. A dream of Robert Talmage Jr., an engineer at the Atlanta-based TAAS Co., the design would convert just about any commercial airliner into a space transport that could deliver a 4000-lb payload into an orbit of around 200,000 feet. Talmage's design is not complex. It involves replacing the airliner's swept or delta wings with wings that are more nearly perpendicular to the fuselage. "We envision the STV to have an aspect ratio (ratio of the wing span to its average width) near 10," Talmage says. "It also would incorporate a metallic Thermal Protection System for reduced weight and increased durability. Conventional liquid-propellant rocket engines would serve as the propulsion system, but more efficient scramjet engines now under development could be used in the future." The STV wing design not only maximizes the lift-to-drag ratio, but it minimizes aerodynamic pressure, according to Talmage. It also would enable the aircraft to be towed aloft, then fired into orbit. Using the tow plane's power for lift-off and acceleration would unburden the STV from the weight of turbo and ramjet engines. Poor lift characteristics restrict delta-wing vehicles to piggyback lift-offs, Talmage explains. Disadvantages of this design include: - Heavier aircraft configuration. - Lower load limits. - Decreased first-stage performance due to piggyback vehicle's fuel loss. - Higher risk factor because of physical mating and aerodynamic interaction between the booster plane and the space plane. Once in space, the STV's gliderlike wings would allow it to "skate" in and out of the atmosphere while still in orbit. Talmage estimates that the STV would encounter a maximum temperature of 1400F. The 42% reduced heating rate in the denser atmosphere permits use of the lighter, more desirable metallic skin on the STV. The shuttle's ceramic skin totals nine tons -- about 14% of its empty weight. This weight penalty restricts maneuver ability. Talmage claims the STV could deliver loads into orbit for a price of $7 million per trip. That comes to about 88% less than the cost of a shuttle flight. (The article was accompanied by a picture of a generic airplane with the lettering TAAS, in orbit. The caption read: "Space Transportation Vehicle design adapts to today's commercial aircraft.) Well, it sounds wonderful doesn't it? But it sounds all too simplistic. There seems to be holes in the above article, but since I am always optimistic, I'll assume it was poor reporting rather than poor engineering. Has anyone heard of this before? Has anyone heard of the STV, Talmage, TASS or Design News magazine before? Are any of these a known hoax? I hope not. Assuming that it is real, even if the STV fails, it is the type of commercial project that US space development needs. The magazine itself was mostly advertisements for all sorts of design tools, machine tools, computer tools, bearings, filters, you name it. There were two other space related articles, one on a hypothetical visit to a lunar station in 2010, and one on CAD's potential role in building the space station. I'll post a summary of any E-mail comments I get on the above. droyan David ROY ANolick ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 87 05:17:26 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Commercial U.S. Rival to the NASP? In article <270@edsel.UUCP> dxa@edsel.UUCP (DR Anolick) writes: > Atlanta-based TAAS Co., the design would convert just about > any commercial airliner into a space transport that could > deliver a 4000-lb payload into an orbit of around 200,000 > feet. Is this a typo? Nothing will ``orbit'' at 200000 feet, there's still substantial atmosphere there. Since the NASP is entirely a research project - and largely a military one, at that - it's hard to see how this is a commercial rival to it. ASSUMING NASP can be made to work, we might see the technology being put into commercial vehicles sometime after the turn of the century. An interesting sidelight: someone from Aerojet involved in development of engines for the NASP gave a seminar last week in which he claimed 15,000! people throughout the country were currently working on the project. Perhaps the military backing will result in this project being carried to completion in a reasonable amount of time (at which point the results will no doubt be slammed under a security lid until it's too late to make effective use of them... sigh. I remember the days when we had a space program.) -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 87 12:18:48 GMT From: pur-phy!newton!hal@h.cc.purdue.edu (Hal Chambers) Subject: Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's The last I read of the ozone hole (Nat. Geographic, I think) it was getting weaker ("closing"). It is now thought that this is a natural phenomenon which may vary somewhat with sunspot cycle. Hal Chambers ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 87 03:40:09 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's In article <775@newton.physics.purdue.edu> hal@newton.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (Hal Chambers) writes: >The last I read of the ozone hole (Nat. Geographic, I think) it >was getting weaker ("closing"). It is now thought that this is >a natural phenomenon which may vary somewhat with sunspot cycle. There is unambiguous evidence that CFC concentrations are rapidly increasing globally. The important question is, what is the relationship between CFC concentration and ozone depletion? I hope this is answered before it becomes a moot question. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 87 13:45:03 GMT From: cgs@umd5.umd.edu (Chris Sylvain) Subject: Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's There is a known seasonal variation in the ozone concentration. Apparently during the long, cold winter, the air mass over the Antarctic is "cut off" from the rest of the planets atmospheric circulation patterns. What has been observed for as long as records have been kept of the concentration minimum during these periods, is that the concentration has been decreasing. The rate of decrease has accelerated faster with the increase of CFCs in the upper atmosphere, leading the scientists to conclude that CFCs are the cause. It's not the only conclusion under investigation, but it is the first and currently the most widely held explanation. NOVA (on public TV) a few months back had an excellent program on the ozone layer, featuring the current work of the folks in Antartica. It may be repeated soon in your area. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 87 16:26:11 GMT From: ur-tut!ur-valhalla!moscom!de@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Esan) Subject: Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's Last I had heard, there was some thought that the hole over Antartica was not really there but was a computer error. Any further word on this? David Esan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 87 15:05 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: US presidential candidates' space policies Here's this election's version of a question I asked last time: What are the current presidential candidates' views on the space program? I'm interested in actions and words (it's likely that only a member of the federal government will have had much in the way of action). I'm interested in *facts* rather than talk of the form "Dukakis loves technology, so he must be pro-space, while Jack Kemp had a bad experience with an Estes rocket as a child..." (Don't worry about refuting those statements, either; I made them up). While I'm not going to make my choice solely on this basis (obviously, since I voted for Mondale last time), I count this as important. I'm disturbed that I don't hear anyone mentioning space exploration/space technology as an issue. (This doesn't mean they haven't; I just haven't heard). Distressingly, the last candidate I recall making an issue about space was Lyndon Larouche, and before him, Jerry Brown. Sigh. Actually, I guess I'm interested in what other countries' leaders and likely leaders say too. France has an election coming up; is any party there particularly for or against their space program? Other European countries (my feeling is that the French are doing the most for the ESA, followed by W Germany). Japan? Moderate Iranians? ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 1987 21:21-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity A new breakthrough in medicine strikes me as having potential applications to space. Ertyrhopoietin will jack up the red blood cell count of normal people by factors of 5. Chimps have been done up to 10. The research article discussed the major medical impacts it (and similar growth factors for white blood cells) has on things such as AIDS, leukemia, fighting off disease, transplants, chemotherapy, and on and on. No side effects. The effects stop when the drug is stopped. The dosage to effect curve is straightforward. But the thought struck me: higher red blood cell count means more O2 transport. People living at high altitudes have higher counts. So it could also mean a way to allow people to live comfortably in a lower pressure environment? Typically pressures are lowered but the partial of O2 is kept up, thus raising the fire hazard as the ratio of O2 to buffer gases increases. What if you could also get away with a much lower O2? Maybe 2 or 3 PSI O2 as a living environment. This would certainly make suit structures easier. Right now they are talking hard suit for the space station so they can keep a high pressure environment and the consequent lower O2 ratio. The shuttle runs high pressure and suiting up requires pre breathing and decompression time. I really wonder if for long term habitation and extensive outside work if low pressure isn't the way to go. And by the way, Some Andes indians have recently been discovered who are adapted to hard labor (mining) at 17,000+ feet. Full time living and working. I'm suggesting we may be able to pump up the average person to handle something like this. PS: I wanted to make sure I got this idea public so I get first credit for it!!!! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #232 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA28073; Sat, 23 May 87 03:02:46 PDT id AA28073; Sat, 23 May 87 03:02:46 PDT Date: Sat, 23 May 87 03:02:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705231002.AA28073@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #233 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 233 Today's Topics: Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity EVA -> what? (propose SCOBA) Re: SPACE Digest V7 #225 Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity TRW Space Data Handbook Solar power and thermal pollution Superiority of Soviet Mir station to Skylab Re: Superiority of Soviet Mir station to Skylab ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 May 87 17:34:55 GMT From: terra!brent@sun.com (Brent Callaghan) Subject: Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity A high red blood cell count is not without risk. The blood is more viscous and there's a risk of stroke. The Skylab crews complained of the low pressure environment. Sound does not travel well, so they had to yell at each other all the time. Your skin dries out because the humidity is low and food tastes bland. I think I'd prefer normal blood and pressure. Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan @ Sun Microsystems uucp: sun!bcallaghan phone: (415) 691 6188 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding) X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 January 19 20:39:14 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: EVA -> what? (propose SCOBA) Date: 5 Jan 1987 14:54-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu But with private vehicles built to safety standards at which the pilot is willing to fly, with a file drawer of documentantion rather than a train of box cars worth, and industrial space modules with people used to working zero G as a daily matter. Just because NASA calls them EVA's and plans them out, doesn't mean it will remain that way. I recommend we change the name from EVA to "going outdoors", and then apply all the care and foresight one would use before donning scuba and dropping into the ocean. SCUBA means Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus. The acronym seems to have caught on very well. I hereby propose EVA equipment be changed to SCOBA, where O stands for Outside or Outerspace, and the rest is the same as SCUBA. Easy to pronounce, similar to SCUBA so easy to guess the meaning, there's an astronaut with similar name (Scobee or somesuch, or did he die on Challenger?) so good hack play on words that the astronaut corps might get a kick out of, so I think it might catch on. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 87 00:13:03 EDT From: Steve Abrams Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #225 To: Steve Abrams Recently, phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) asked for suggesttions for people to interview. I am posting the following suggestion here because the person/project haven't received much press... Eric, you might try contacting Peter Diamandis, the Foundation Director for the "Space Generation Foundation" and Associate Administrator for their International Space University Project (first planning conference was held at MIT's Spacefair in April of this year). He was also the primary founder of Students for the Exploration and Development of Space, so you can see that he has had a profound effect on the popularization of space in this country. You can contact him in care of the Space Generation Foundation, 1011 24th St. NW, Washington, DC,20037 or P.O. Box 153, MIT Branch Post Office, Cambridge, MA 02139. Steve Abrams ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 87 17:24:30 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity > The shuttle runs high pressure and suiting up requires pre breathing > and decompression time. > > I really wonder if for long term habitation and extensive outside work > if low pressure isn't the way to go. If the spacesuits were based on the Space Activity Suit concept (most of the suit is just tight fabric to pressurize the skin, which is otherwise exposed to vacuum; this has been tested in vacuum chambers and it works), this would be a dead issue. The problem with high suit pressures is that nobody knows how to make arm and leg joints that stay flexible with large pressure differences between inside and outside. The SAS avoids the issue entirely since its joints have vacuum on both sides; it has air only in the helmet. It really is depressing that after sponsoring the original work on the concept, NASA has not pursued it, even though there seemed to be nothing really wrong with it except that it was unorthodox. "The average nutritional value Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology of promises is roughly zero." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 87 11:39:22 GMT From: eagle!csw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (C.S.Welch) Subject: TRW Space Data Handbook I have just come across a twenty year old copy of "TRW Space Data" which, it claims, "is published biennially as a service to the aerospace industry". Despite its age it contains a lot of useful info, and I was wondering if TRW still produce it and, if so, how I would go about getting a copy on this side of the Atlantic. Any pointers in the right direction would be greatfully accepted. Thanks is tendered in advance as I can't mail or reply, only post or followup, outside the U.K. Chris Welch, Cranfield Institute, U.K. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 87 23:59:54 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Solar power and thermal pollution > ... The lowest thermal > polluting energy source is photovoltaic collectors on the roof of > your house... Only if your roof had a relatively low albedo to begin with. Otherwise those collectors are capturing energy that would have been reflected back into space. Note that photovoltaics are lucky to get 20% efficiency, so most of that energy turns into heat at once. Powersats do better, because they put the low-efficiency part of the conversion process out in space where the waste heat doesn't reach Earth. > (which is the way the energy crisis will eventually be > solved, see latest issue of Scientific American). Ho ho. Not in Toronto it won't be. (Fred Hoyle commented that if you talked about solar power in England, everyone would know you were crazy.) The Scientific American article didn't really dwell on little problems like weather and darkness, both of which call for major advances in energy storage technology if they are to be solved adequately. > Paul's SPS will pollute like crazy through its microwave connection. It will affect communications. The problem is substantial but manageable. "The average nutritional value Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology of promises is roughly zero." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 May 87 18:10:23 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Superiority of Soviet Mir station to Skylab In Space v7, 219 Mike Caplinger repeats on of the often quoted myths of our space age: > Subject: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead" > What's the big deal about Mir, anyway? The diagram I saw in a recent > AW&ST shows it to be quite a bit smaller than Skylab was, even with > the addition of the "astronomy module" (shades of the ATM, eh?) > With the exception of extremely long duration missions, we already did > everything Mir can do more than 10 years ago. > I realize there's a symbolic issue here, but it doesn't look to me like > the Russians are "way out in front" now any more than they were in 1960. Let us compare the advantages of the two stations. As a reminder Soviet stations have come in 3 generations: Their 1st containing Salyut 1 (Apr - Oct '71), Salyut 2/Cosmos 557 (1973 - failures that were never manned), Salyut 3 (Jun '74 - Jan '75), Salyut 4 ( Dec '74 - Feb '77), and Salyut 5 (Jun '76 - Aug '77); Second generation with Salyut 6 (Sept '77 - Jul '82) and Salyut 7 (Apr '82 - present); Third generation Mir (Feb '86 - present). Skylab was launched in May '73, the last crew left in Feb '74, and decayed in July '79. Where Skylab is currently ahead (1) Skylab had a final mass of 77 Tonnes (with 2200 lbs per metric Tonne), and the combined cluster Skylab + the Apollo Command Service Module is listed as 90 Tonnes. The current Soviet Mir/Kvant station has a 33 Tonne mass as launched, while the combined Mir + Soyuz + Progress cluster is 47 Tonnes. However there are some caveats here. The mass for Skylab includes some 8 Tonnes of food, water, air, and fuel for that were required for the entire mission. By comparison the Progress freighters bring that up to Mir. There have been 5 Progresses to Mir, each bring some 2.3 Tonnes of cargo/fuel/water for a total of 11.5 Tonnes added to Mir, plus about 1 Tonne more brought up by the Soyuz's with the Cosmonauts. Of course some of that has been discarded as waste. In Skylab all the garbage was kept in a tank at the "bottom" of the station, so it maintained that mass (plus the astronauts took up about 200 Kg per trip). Also there is one other problem with Skylab's mass - all the books I have found give the value as launched, with both solar wings, but one was lost before orbit. That probably reduces the mass by 2-3 tonnes. (2) Working volume for the Skylab complex was 357 cubic meters. The current Mir/Kvant combination is about 160 cubic meters. From a psychological point of view that was definitely better for Skylab crews. However much of that volume had little useful value, and pictures of Skylab show that its walls are not completely covered with equipment, the way the Mir's is. Also it should be noted that the new NASA station has a volume per crew that is about the same as Mir's, or perhaps a bit smaller. Where Mir & other Soviet stations are ahead (1) All Russian stations, right from Salyut 1 in 1971, have had orbital manoeuvring rockets that use Hydrazine (UMHD) fuel and Nitrogen Tetroxide oxidzer. This allows the Soviets to do extensive orbital changes with their systems. For example this lets them lower the orbit to meet supply ships and Soyuz's (usually by letting the orbit decay a bit so this does not cost them fuel), thus allowing those systems to bring up more material. Then they raise the orbit to keep the space station up there. Thus with this the orbital working lifetime of the second generation Soviet Stations was about 5 years, and none of their working stations have decayed from orbit (Salyut 2 and Comos 557 were two early stations that were damaged on orbit, never manned, and allowed to decay - the others were brought down by command from the ground). Skylab had only a small Nitrogen gas system with 0.8 Tonnes of gas. As a result only small changes could be made to Skylab's orbit. As we all know it reentered in 1979 due to this. (2) All second generation Russian space stations had 2 docking ports, while Mir has 6. Skylab had only one. This has many implications. First one crew could be docked to the station while a second crew came up for a visit or to replace the first crew. Without multiple ports crew exchanges, where all or part of cosmonauts releaved those currently manning the station, would be extremely difficult. Secondly this allows cargo to be brought to the station while a crew is on board (see point 3 also). Thirdly the extra ports can be used to expand the current station. Salyut 6 & 7 had one extra module added to them at a time (Salyut 7 had this done twice to it). Mir currently has one expansion module added (Kvant) but is designed to take at least 5 modules, plus a Soyuz and one other vehicle. Skylab was a one shot deal - no plans for expansion. Indeed the TRS rocket system that was being designed to attached Skylab from the shuttle had two plans for it - one to boost it to a higher orbit, the other to send it to reentry in the ocean areas. (3) The Russians developed an automatic docking system back on Salyut 6 (1977) which allows unmanned cargo craft like Progress, or large "star" modules (20 Tonne expansion unites) to attach to the system. Since the cargo craft are unmanned they do not need heat shields and can carry more material. This naturely cuts the effort and cost in supplying the station and makes their long duration missions possible. Indeed Skylab was launched with 140 days worth of supplies on board. The Apollo capsule could only bring a few weeks worth up with them. The plans for a fourth mission to Skylab called for only a 30 day stay, due to supply problems. Again the Soviet autodocking system means the expansion modules need no crew, making their design and testing simpler. Skylab had nothing like that developed for it. Sure we could supply a station from the shuttle and expand it that way, but not without developing equipment which we do not have. The Russians have had automatic systems doing this for 10 YEARS! (4) All Soviet stations since Salyut 6 (1977) have been refuelable via Progress tanker craft. In addition their water and air was resupplied from the same vehicles via similar lines and transfer systems from the Progress to the station. Fuel supplied to Salyut 6 or 7 was about 5.3 Tonnes each, to Mir I estimate 2.2 Tonnes so far. Since UMHD/Nitrogen Tetroxide has a much higher specific impulse than Nitrogen gas that gives them much more boost capability. Water and air totaled about 11 Tonnes each for the Salyuts. Mir is early in its cycle so that less material has been supplied there. The first generation Russian stations where like Skylab - throw away cans. You used them until they ran out of supplies and then tossed them. Second generation and the new Mir can be used as long as you need or want them. (5) Since Salyut 6 (1977) Russian stations have had a working partial water recovery system. The older versions recovered about 50% of the water (Mir may be better from some comments). Since water a human uses about 4.5 Kg of water a day, but only 0.8 Kg of oxygen and 0.7 Kg of food (dry) this is the most important thing to recover first. Sure better systems have been built on earth, but nothing else has flown in zero g. This is vital for a real station or long voyages to the planets. Nothing like this on Skylab. (6) Mir has a data/communications relay system through their TDRS system (the Eastern Data Relay Network). While the shuttle has this Skylab did not. (7) Mir's solar power system puts out more power, 9-10 KW, than Skylab's. People think Skylab was better because some books talk about the total possible power there as 23 KW. However Skylab's max deliverable power was only 8.5 KW before they lost the solar wing, and about 6-7 after the repairs. The difference comes from looking at the area of the solar cells and their efficiency, while ignoring shadowing effects, losses in the power cables, and other power system losses which reduce the output to 33% of the max value. Mir's values are for the actual system output power. In addition the Soviets will be doing a space walk to add more solar panels to Mir in the next month or so. (8) The Russians have put a lot of work into making the crew psychologically comfortable on their stations, from the experience they have gotten from their long voyages. They send up gifts from home and fresh fruits on the Progress tankers, have a TV studio set up to set up weekly vido conversations with friends and families. Color schemes on the station are for maximum comfort etc. Again we can do this, but they have 10 years of experience of what people miss most in orbit (they get great pleasure in tending the small gardens in the space station for example). Where Mir will probably exceed Skylab: (1) The Mir complex will exceed the combined Skylab complex mass when two more 20 Tonne "star" modules are added, probably by the end of next year. (2) The Skylab's working volume record will fall if the Soviets add the announced 4 "star" expansion modules that Mir was designed to take. This will take several years to occur. All of this was only hardware. It ignores the experience the Soviets have gained: 10 years of materials science experiments, zero g life science work, the knowledge of how space station system work in orbit, how joined structures behave in orbit over years of time. If you think that the Russians having more than twice the number of man hours of space experience means nothing then you must argue that space is different in that reguard than any activity on here earth - experience counts when things must be done well or quickly. Right now the US is not even on the top 10 list of space flight durations. Look it, Skylab was a wonderful house in space, but we have done nothing real in space stations since. Saying that Skylab is better than Mir is like arguing that the Titanic ocean liner is better than a flying 747 aircraft. Sure the ocean liner was more comfortable and larger, but it was older technology, goes less places, is generally less flexible than the 747, and no longer exists. We have no working space shuttle, and a space station which will not be operating probably for another decade. To say that there is no problem because we are still ahead of the Russians on the basis of Skylab is to deny the reality of the world. It makes people feel good in this country but it does not help solve our problems. Let us get the US program moving. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 87 17:11:34 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Superiority of Soviet Mir station to Skylab One quibble: > (2) All second generation Russian space stations had 2 docking ports, > while Mir has 6. Skylab had only one. This has many implications... If you check, you'll find that the forward end of Skylab was the Multiple Docking Adaptor. Note the word "Multiple". There were something like five Apollo-compatible docking ports on it in the original design, and I believe at least two and probably all of them were functional as orbited. (Mmm, one or two may have been obstructed by the solar telescope module.) Only one was ever used, though. "The average nutritional value Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology of promises is roughly zero." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #233 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA29419; Sun, 24 May 87 03:02:50 PDT id AA29419; Sun, 24 May 87 03:02:50 PDT Date: Sun, 24 May 87 03:02:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705241002.AA29419@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #234 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 234 Today's Topics: Soviet Space Shuttle Soviet Jamming Re: Superiority of Soviet Mir station to Skylab Re: Soviet Space Shuttle He's outdone himself this time Question about Meissner effect Re: Meissner effect Re: He's outdone himself this time Towers Amroc ad Re: Space Elevators ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 May 87 21:00:46 GMT From: dromedary.utah.edu!u-jeivan@cs.utah.edu (Eric Ivancich) Subject: Soviet Space Shuttle I would like to start a discussion on the Soviet Space Shuttle. Considering the technical problems we've had and the fact that they are supposedly behind us technologically, what are their chances of success? I've heard it said that our Space Shuttle is the most complex machine ever built to date. How will their's compare? What about their on-board computers? I understand our shuttle uses computers of early 1970s vintage. Let's here some speculation. Eric ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 87 09:00:56 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Soviet Jamming Though it has nothing to do with space, Jan Wasilewsky made a remark that requires a response: >The Soviets have never found it necessary to jam foreign broadcasts in >English, though they have done it in Russian, Ukrainian, Yiddish, and >other indigenous languages. I listen to the BBC World Service on short wave, religously. I can assure the readers of Space Digest that the Soviets subject the BBC English broadcasts (as well as the VOA) to vigorous jamming. Soviet jamming is in four forms. The first is a noise jammer with a periodic morse code call sign. The second is a babble of noise and music called "Markov Jamming" that is designed to sound like normal interference but is really deliberate jamming. The third method is having Radio Moscow occupy the same frequencies as the BBC and VOA. Finally the last jamming technique is only partially deliberate, and this is with the Soviet over the horizon radar, known as the "Moscow Woodpecker". The Moscow Woodpecker interfers with all frequencies. Jan is right about few Russians understanding English. However what Jan doesn't appreciate is a whole lot of other East European people do understand English, i.e. English is fashionable in Poland. Soviet jamming is a serious breach of international law and demonstrates the Soviet Union's opposition to the freedom of information. --- Apologies for posting this with this news group --- Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 87 15:38:45 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Superiority of Soviet Mir station to Skylab > > (2) All second generation Russian space stations had 2 docking > > ports, while Mir has 6. Skylab had only one. This has many > > implications... > > If you check, you'll find that the forward end of Skylab was the > Multiple Docking Adaptor. Note the word "Multiple". There were > something like five Apollo-compatible docking ports on it in the > original design, and I believe at least two and probably all of them > were functional as orbited. Keith Lofstrom suggested that I re-check this, and I did. Turns out I was right in spirit but wrong in detail. Thusly: The original MDA design did indeed have five docking ports. At that point, the MDA was basically just an empty metal shell devoted entirely to holding said ports. However, the Skylab concept at the time was the "wet workshop", in which Skylab would actually operate as a rocket stage during the boost to orbit. Once in orbit, it would be vented to space to clear out propellant residues, and then pressurized and fitted out. The problem was that most of the equipment could not stand immersion in liquid hydrogen, and the Apollo command modules bringing crews up had limited cargo capacity, so as much equipment as possible had to be stowed in the airlock and MDA during launch. As equipment demands increased, the MDA gradually filled up, and the pressure for more cargo space gradually reduced the number of docking ports from five to two. Then came the switch to the "dry workshop", in which Skylab was launched, dry and fully-equipped, by the bottom two stages of a Saturn V. The MDA emptied out because it was no longer needed for cargo storage. At this point the missing docking ports could have been reinstated... but it was now clear that Skylab was a one-shot and they would never be used. So the count stayed at two: it was handy to have an extra port in case of problems of one kind or another, but there was no reason for more. The empty space in the MDA gradually filled up again as the switch to the Saturn V permitted adding yet more equipment. The basic point remains valid: Skylab did have multiple docking ports, and would have had a substantial number of them if there had been any hope of finding a use for them. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 87 21:58:59 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle > I would like to start a discussion on the Soviet Space Shuttle. > Considering the technical problems we've had and the fact that they > are supposedly behind us technologically, what are their chances of > success? I've heard it said that our Space Shuttle is the most > complex machine ever built to date... That is a bug, not a feature. The Soviet space program has a long history of building on its successes instead of dismantling them; this means they are still using a lot of old, unsophisticated hardware. (Their military is the same -- they never throw anything away.) The Vostok design that carried Gagarin is still in use (although not as a manned vehicle). So is the booster that launched it. When you want to *fly* *missions* instead of developing technology, there is a lot to be said for *not* building complex machinery. Their Shuttle will probably be a lot simpler than ours. That means it may well work better. "The average nutritional value Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology of promises is roughly zero." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 May 87 18:35 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: He's outdone himself this time (Warning: this message is not entirely serious.) Emboldened by the warm reception received by the idea of building 100 km towers, and by the recent work at IBM showing high current densities are achievable in YBaCuO, I wondered about macroengineering applications of superconductors. An obvious application springs to mind: enhancing the earth's magnetic field. Wait, isn't this absurd? Well, yes, but perhaps not impossible. The earth's dipole magnetic field contains (if I recall correctly) about 200 megatons of energy. Proposed superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES) rings would be about 1 km across and store 1E-5 of that. Scaling a SMES to global dimensions gives it an energy of on the order of 10 megatons. If we make several global coils spaced about +- 200 km around the equator, we can make the magnetic field in low equatorial orbit quite large. A high magnetic field in equatorial orbit will make electrodynamic tether propulsion much more practical, since operating currents will increase and resistive losses will decrease. A stronger magnetic field will extend further into space, shielding more volume against solar flares. The Van Allen belts will get bigger, though. Perhaps the large coils can be used to generate power inductively from solar wind gusts. Other applications might include levitation of current carrying wires, aircraft and launchers using MHD effects, damping of ocean currents, or inductive transmission of energy from space (by an even bigger coil in geostationary orbit). Paul Dietz dietz@slb-doll.csnet No, no, put away that straightjacket... ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 1987 20:54-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Question about Meissner effect I know that the effect excludes magnetic fields. I wonder if it works equally well for rapidly changing fields. I'm pretty sure it works for varying fields up to some point, but I've never heard if there are limits to how fast it can generate an equal and opposite field to exclude the impinging field. What I'm saying is the Meissner effect means a perfect mirror for some frequencies of EM waves, and I'm curious how high a frequency. RF? Visible? X-Ray? Gamma-ray? How high a field density can be handled by typical superconductors? Is the limit a factor of both frequency and field density at the same time? Such a capability at near room temperature has rather interesting fall outs, like perfect optics for all-frequency telescopes and perfect optics for all sorts of SDI systems. I don't think I need go into all the good things this does from an engineering viewpoint. And with such optics, an x-ray laser would not have to be a once through operation, assuming of course we can get something to lase in the x-ray region without evaporating it the process. ------------------------------ Return-Path: Date: Wed 13 May 87 22:39:59-EDT From: ~joe testa~ Subject: Re: Meissner effect >The Meissner effect is another aspect of the fact that superconductors >exclude magnetic fields from their interiors. They do this by >developing an internal current which creates a field in the opposite >direction of sufficient strength to exactly balance the applied field. Actually, the current is at the surface, rather than in the interior (for type I superconductors at least). Similar to the way conductors shield electric field from their interiors by moving charges to the surface. ~jt~ ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 87 12:27:17 GMT From: rocksanne!sunybcs!schneck@cs.rochester.edu (Nelson Schneck) Subject: Re: He's outdone himself this time Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't all those with information stored on magnetic media have something to say about this? Just how strong a field are you interested in? Curious... could be a good way to knock out "the enemy's" defenses if one could "beam" a magnetic field at their computer installations. *Does the pentagon know about this?* Amazing what a little not_entirely_serious idea can do... Nelson T. Schneck ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 May 87 18:05 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Towers Gratified by Dani Eder's confirmation that tall towers are not obviously impossible, I thought about two additional applications. Beamed power receivers. By placing a rectenna above most of the atmosphere, we can use much shorter wavelengths. This reduces the size of the transmitter and the rectenna, and (if a wavelength is chosen that is strongly absorbed by the lower atmosphere) allows one to use much higher power densities without frying birds, aircraft or cities. Most importantly, the size of a powersat could be reduced greatly, since smaller diameter beams can have low power. This all assumes I can generate, receive and rectify millimeter waves efficiently (perhaps superconductors will help). Charging the atmosphere. One might be able to pump charge into the upper atmosphere, which is quite conductive. I seem to recall that thunderstorms are constantly recharging the atmosphere with a power of about 300 megawatts; we can do better than that. I'm not sure why one would do this (maybe to make ozone?), but the environmental impact statement would be interesting. Would charging the atmosphere increase the strength of thunderstorms? Interesting possibilities for weather control here. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 87 20:02:59 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!homxc!brt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (B.REYTBLAT) Subject: Amroc ad Amroc has an ad in the May 11 issue of AWST (p. 97). Interesting details: 1. 2 cu. ft. payload weighting 50 lb or less, can be launched into 269nm (500km) orbit. 2. Several such payloads are launched at once on a satellite bus. 3. Cost ~= 1M$ 4. Amroc is teamed up with Globesatr Inc. (anybody heard of them?) 5. The service is called Orbital Express. Ben Reytblat ihnp4!homxc!brt ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 87 01:30:09 GMT From: centauri!bohica@sun.com (Tom McReynolds) Subject: Re: Space Elevators I've been following the space elevator with interest, so I'm going to add my 2 cents (or 1/2 wit :-)) in. I have seen two major criticisms of the idea; first, the weight per unit length is too high for any practical material, second, space debris will sever the tower at low orbit altitudes. After reading all the hoopla about superconductors, I have a question to ask those out there who know more than I: Could an elevator be made of physically separated electomagnet modules, perhaps superconducting? Disclaimer: The entire idea has a ring of impracticality to me too. I am just curious as to whether the numbers say its possible. I could see it working one of two ways, by attraction or repulsion. Either way, the arrangment would be something like this: *** ***** counterweight *** o o ----- geosychronous orbit o o (rings, modules, etc of magnets, o strung in a line) o . . (a long way down etc, etc.) . o o -------------------- the ground I guess you could say that each magnet would be a bead on a necklace, with the "string" being the magnetic attraction (or repulsion, perhaps superconducting diamagnetism?). The modules could be as wide as necessary. The distance between modules would not add to the weight the tower carried. Problems I can see: The whole thing might not work at all: The attraction or repulsion would not be strong enough per unit weight of magnet module to make it practical. Stability problems: An attractive system would be unstable with respect to distance between magnets (two modules would want to stick together) a repulsive system would not want to stay in line. Perhaps active controls would solve the first problem, and modules of decreasing diameter, or some special shape, to produce a potential "well" for the magnet above to sit in would fix the second. Again, input on this would be appreciated. I haven't really solved the impact problem: Although the nature of the problem would be different. I wonder how a very high speed metallic objects going to react to a very strong magnetic field? :-) The target cross section of the tower might be smaller. I haven't thought this out enough. Stress: What stresses would the magnet module "feel"? Would forces be trying to tear it apart? Compress it? Unknown problems: This idea leaves a lot of loose ends. So far I have been thinking of it as a different sort of cable or column. What will *really* happen? I think this is an interesting idea to think about, even if it doesn't work. If it does, that would be nicer still! What do you all think? How incredibly stupid is this idea? I'm really curious! -Tom Warning: I cry when flamed! (cringe, whine :-)) All misspellings are intentional (right...). ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #234 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00964; Mon, 25 May 87 03:03:18 PDT id AA00964; Mon, 25 May 87 03:03:18 PDT Date: Mon, 25 May 87 03:03:18 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705251003.AA00964@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #235 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 235 Today's Topics: Interviews, and such for "Space Business" article Re: How far can we go? Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets Re: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets Comments on old postings no problem, just use more than one hop to reduce beam-divergence area concrete proposal for simple telepresence in LEO station ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 May 87 17:00:38 PDT From: "William J. Fulco" To: ewtileni@pucc.princeton.edu Cc: space@angband.s1.gov, kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu, liberty Subject: Interviews, and such for "Space Business" article The Reason foundation recently published a 38 page Issue Paper by James Bennett and Phillip Salin called "Privatizing Space Transportation". The paper is logical, well reserched, easy to read and very interesting. I have also heard James Bennett on several national radio programs (Michael Jackson, Larry King..) talking about the space program. He is a good interview. For more info on how to locate authors or a copy of the paper: "Privatizing Space Transportation" James Bennett, Phillip Salin $5.00 + 5% mailing (CA rez + 6.5% Sales Theft) The Reason Foundation Federal Privatization Project 2716 Ocean Park Bl. Suite 1062 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 392-0443 (bill) lcc.bill@cs.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 87 01:52:54 GMT From: jade!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: How far can we go? In article <765@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes: >... I would point out that the ship must get its kinetic energy from >somewhere, and the only place available is its own mass. If we >consider conservation of momentum, we see that we must lose mass, >either to rocket exhaust or accelerating waste mass. The special-relativity formula for distance traveled under constant acceleration: D = 1/a (cosh(aT) - 1), where D=distance and T=ship time, is of course not affected by whether the mass of the spaceship is constant. It requires only that the ship accelerate at a constant rate. For a ship accelerating at constant acceleration a, using perfect rocket propulsion (i.e., expelling its reaction mass at light-speed): M = M0 exp (-aT), where M=mass and M0=initial mass, so as aT grows the fuel-to-payload ratio grows dramatically. Since useful travel requires turnaround at the midpoint, we have: D = 2/a (cosh(aT/2) - 1). The following chart shows a few possible points on this curve: Fuel-to-Payload Ratio A c 1.72:1 (aT=1) 7.39:1 (aT=2) 54.6:1 (aT=4) c e .97g (a=1) D = .25 ly D = 1.1 ly D = 5.5 ly l T = 1 yr T = 2 yr T = 4 yr e r .291g (a=.3) D = .75 ly D = 3.3 ly D = 18 ly a T = 3 yr T = 6 yr T = 12 yr t i .097g (a=.1) D = 2.5 ly D = 11 ly D = 55 ly o T = 10 yr T = 20 yr T = 40 yr n Constant-acceleration travel is not really very interesting, unless some new physical principle were to make it desirable, because it makes far more sense to expend fuel at the beginning and the end at a higher rate. I will post something about optimal fuel-consumption rates soon. -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 87 21:58:23 GMT From: jade!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets Consider a perfect rocket -- one whose exhaust velocity is c. Let D be distance traveled, T elapsed ship time, t elapsed rest time, V ship velocity, M ship mass, and M0 initial mass. Let c=1 (e.g., time in years and distance in light-years). We assume that the ship starts at rest but free of gravitational forces; to first order, this is the same as traveling outward from a solar system at precisely the escape velocity. If the ship accelerates at constant acceleration a, then a straightforward if tedious calculation from the identities dD/dt = V, dt/dT = (1-V^2)^(-1/2), dV/dT = a(1-V^2), M dV = dM gives V = tanh(aT), D = 1/a (cosh(aT) - 1), M = M0 exp(-aT). The first conclusion that we draw from this is that our final velocity after a period of acceleration depends only on the amount of fuel expended and not on the rate at which is is consumed. This is because V = tanh(aT) = tanh(log(M0/M)) = (M0^2-M^2)/(M0^2+M^2). This tells us, if it were not already clear, that it is advantageous to burn the available fuel as quickly as possible. The final velocity after the period of acceleration will be the same, so it is best to reach this maximum velocity as soon as possible. If we let Ta be the acceleration (and deceleration) period, and Tc be the coast period in the middle of the trip, so that the total trip time T = 2 Ta + Tc, then we can solve for the distance traveled: Vc = tanh(a.Ta), D = 2/a (cosh(a.Ta) - 1) + Vc (1-Vc^2)^(-1/2) Tc = 2/a (cosh(a.Ta) - 1) + sinh(a.Ta) Tc. If we wish to travel a known distance D, and the maximum acceleration we can accept is a, and our initial fuel-to-payload ratio is r, then: (M0/Mc)^2 = r+1, a.Ta = ln(M0/Mc) = 1/2 ln(r+1), sinh(a.Ta) = 1/2 [(r+1)^(1/2) - (r+1)^(-1/2)] = r/2(r+1)^(1/2), cosh(a.Ta) = 1/2 [(r+1)^(1/2) + (r+1)^(-1/2)] = (r+2)/2(r+1)^(1/2), D = 2/a ((r+2)/2(r+1)^(1/2) - 1) + Tc r/2(r+1)^(1/2), T = 2 Ta + Tc = 1/a ln(r+1) + 2/r (r+1)^(1/2) (D - 2/a ((r+2)/2(r+1)^(1/2) - 1)) = 2s/r D + 1/a [ln(r+1) - 2 - 4/r + 4s/r] where s^2 = r+1. So our formula tells us that the total travel time can be written as the sum of two terms: one which is linear in the distance to be traveled and one which is inversely proportional to the maximum acceleration we can produce. Let's plug in some numbers. A reasonable fuel-to-payload ratio might be the middle entry on the chart I posted last time, 7.39:1. This gives T = .784 D + 1.15 / a. Consider a distance of 11 ly. The minimum acceleration would be .097g (.1 ly/yr^2); this gives a constant acceleration throughout the whole trip and leads to a travel time of 20.1 yr. Tripling the acceleration to .29g gives a travel time of only 12.5 yr, and increasing it to .97g gives a travel time of 9.8 yr. Beyond this the gains are slight; enduring a thrust of 2.9g gives a travel time of 9.0 yr, and at 9.7g the trip would take 8.7 yr. It is not clear what "typical" fuel-to-mass ratios might be, or indeed if Man will ever build interstellar self-contained rockets. Also, since these calculation use ship time they ignore the advantages of reducing the rest time for the trip. But within these constraints they seem to imply that accelerations much above 1g are not particularly valuable, and they also give a lower bound of 2s/r D (or 2 r^(-1/2) D) on the travel time, regardless of the acceleration. -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 87 23:49:20 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets > ... But within these constraints they seem to imply > that accelerations much above 1g are not particularly valuable... A simpler, if less rigorous, way of reaching this conclusion is to observe that an acceleration of 1 G is roughly c/yr (i.e., speed of light per year). Obviously relativity will stick its nose in well before the end of the year, but the message is clear: if you can get fairly close to the speed limit in a small fraction of a typical trip time, there isn't much point in higher accelerations. "The average nutritional value Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology of promises is roughly zero." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding) X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 14 10:37:59 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: "MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU"@xx.lcs.mit.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1987 22:39 EDT From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu "Trillion dollar" projects will often become trivial when self-reproducing machines become available. It would be rash to assume that this stage requires more than 1000 post-industrial years. I think you're being sanguine about a big question. The critical questions are what is the doubling time of the self-reproducing machines and how much do they cost to run. We already have self-reproducing machines which take something like 15-30 years to reproduce and due to low fecundity take even longer to double (except in Africa and India), and cost an awful lot to operate, and have mostly acquired a meme which diverts their energies away from useful work towards "recreation". Presumably the non-biological self-replicating machines we build will reproduce over a much shorter time cycle and have sufficient fecundity to greatly diminish the doubling time, and presumably they will be much cheaper to operate than our biological units, but those are just presumptions, not established facts, at the present time, and should not be stated as if they were established facts. However, I basically agree with Minsky, 1000 years is an awful long estimate of time from startup to $1e12. I'd put the upper bound at 100 years myself, and hope for more like 20 years if things go our way, with the median-expectation at 30 years, but again these are just guesses, not established fact. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 May 87 10:41:15 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Comments on old postings Just got back from a conference and have been reading old SPACE digests. A few comments on some of last week's postings: >"Solar cells in space don't need protective coverings"... Yes, they do; to protect them from the ambient radiation environment. By the way, Spire corporation just announced production of an 18% efficient solar cell made from indium phospide, which is virtually immune to radiation damage. Best silicon and gallium arsenide cells are about 23-25 percent efficient. Copper indium selenide, which is also virtually immume to radiation, comes in at 12%. And amorphous silicon, best about 11%. The point about making them microns thin so that the weight is low is correct, but keep in mind that you do need a substrate to put them on. This, the coverglass, and the panel support structure will dominate the weight anyway. >"We can extract gold from asteroids by carbonl processes or by (the standard mining technique) cyanide leaching." I expect this to be difficult in space. Also, hydrogen (eg., water) and nitrogen (eg., cyanide) are unavailable. >"Finding comets in the Oort cloud: >"Use a H-bomb as a flashbulb" Neat idea, but has problems. Remember, the density of comets in the Oort cloud is about one per solar system volume (there are alot of comets out there because there is a lot of volume out there). Unless I blew the calculation, which is possible. Anyway, a H-bomb won't illuminate that much volume. Unless--if we surround the bomb with a huge amount of some element with a very distinctive emission spectrum, and look through filters for that particular spectrum to seperate out the signal from noise? Still a tough problem--there's a huge area to search--at any one time you can only point your tele- scopes at a small portion of it-- Acutually, the idea of searching the Oort cloud for comets is an interesting one; even verifying the existance of an Oort cloud would be an important thing to do. But I don't see the funding ever materializing for a mission to blow off H-bombs in near- interstellar space.... --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding) X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 14 10:48:27 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: tektronix!reed!nscpdc!don@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: no problem, just use more than one hop to reduce beam-divergence area Date: 27 Apr 87 17:30:10 GMT From: tektronix!reed!nscpdc!don@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Don McGlauflin) Subject: Re: oort-cloud mining? In article <8704231021.AA13527@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robe rt Elton Maas) writes: >whether we could mine the Oort cloud effectively. I don't think the >beaming that distance is much of a technological problem given that we ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hmm. I seem to remember reading somewhere that when they started bouncing laser beams off the Apollo retro-reflectors on the Moon, that the beam diverged from a .25" diameter to about 3 feet at the other end. A quick calculation indicates that the same divergence at a distance of 100 A.U. would require an energy collector about 21 MILES in diameter. Whew! Only if you do it one-hop. Better would be to have several relay stations, so you lose a few percent of your energy at each hop, maybe end up with only half what you started with, but your collectors need be only maybe one mile in diameter if you have 21 hops. Since area of collector increases with square of diameter, whereas total area increases only linearily with number of hops, you save area by having multiple hops. For example, with 21 hops, you have 21 times your basic 1-mile-circle area, compared to 441 times your basic area if you have just one hop. Since you are transmitting immense amounts of energy, levitating in space is no problem (just bleed off enough energy to power an ion rocket for station keeping), so you can have fixed instead of orbiting stations and not have to worry about your relay stations moving out of position, just servo each one into center of incoming beam from previous one. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding) X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 17 13:35:51 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: "MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU"@xx.lcs.mit.edu, "REM%IMSSS"@sail.stanford.edu Cc: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov Subject: concrete proposal for simple telepresence in LEO station Date: Sat, 9 May 1987 16:21 EDT From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Proposal: a practical space station should be equippped with at least three movable mechanical arms with dextrous hands. They should be able to be moved to any location inside or outside of the station, if necessary, by using one another's help. How versatile should those telepresence hands be? Proposal: it should be possible to dissassemble and repair any one of them, by using the other two. If this is set as a principal design requirement, the station could be capable of self repair. I like this proposal. It's brief and to the point, useful, possible with present technology, and we can get it almost fully working on Earth during the present lull in USA-launch capability if the arms are short so that gravity isn't a big strain like it was on the CanadaArm. What say we present this to Reagan and Congress and see how they react? Should this be funded by public funds, or should some private company volunteer to do all the R&D out of its own funds? If the latter, which company? If the former, how soon (which FY budget) and how do we get it moving as a "new start"? Date: 10 May 87 19:28:07 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) My understanding -- this isn't an area where I'm expert, so I could be wrong -- is that this level of telepresence technology does not exist today even as a laboratory experiment, much less as off-the-shelf hardware. Note that we're not talking here about really advanced telepresence, and not at all about autonomous robots, just remote servo using cameras for visual feedback. Is the problem that hands aren't dexterious enough, or that gloves for transmitting human finger motions to remote fingers and for reflecting strain at remote fingers back to human fingers don't work well enough? Video cameras are cheap nowadays, so we should be able to install enough "surveilance" cameras to cover every nook and cranny of the station from several angles, so that to get a new view we just select (remotely) which camera will be multiplexed into the data feed to Earth. Perhaps somebody at CMU or other robotics lab which has worked with the kind of equipment needed can comment on the mechanical and servo quality presently available for this purpose? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #235 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02623; Tue, 26 May 87 03:03:28 PDT id AA02623; Tue, 26 May 87 03:03:28 PDT Date: Tue, 26 May 87 03:03:28 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705261003.AA02623@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #236 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 236 Today's Topics: Let's build a space station out of orbiters Satellite observation supernova, "if the right one don't get you, then the left one will" Yeager's response Re: Why haven't they found us yet? Re: Why haven't they found us yet? Re: Why haven't they found us yet? Re: Why haven't they found us yet? Where are they? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 May 87 21:25:28 PDT From: Christopher Schmidt Subject: Let's build a space station out of orbiters In the course of building a model, I recently realized that Mir is roughly the same size as one of our shuttle orbiters. This led me to the following series of guestimates, which may be flawed in part because I am estimating sizes of space-station-sized objects by comparing them with people in pictures and drawings. 1. Mir is roughly the same size as a shuttle orbiter [source: models, photographs] 2. The Shuttle cannot carry in its payload bay objects as large as an orbiter. [obvious] 3. The Shuttle cannot carry in its payload bay objects with diameters as large as Mir. [see 1,2] 4. The proposed NASA space station is to be built of modules roughly the size of SpaceLab (i.e. half a shuttle bay.) 5. Owing to weight restrictions, no more than one space station module can be launched at one time. 6. The total volume of the proposed NASA station is LEQ than 11 modules. [source: LA times article on threatened Rockwell engineers] 7. The number of shuttle missions required to launch the proposed NASA station is GEQ 11 flights. [ibid] 8. If the payload bay of a shuttle were sealed, the internal usable volume, including the regular quarters, would be roughly 3-4 times that of the internal volume of a space station module. 9. I propose to launch 4 shuttles to space station orbit, connect them with some sort of docking ball, and call that our space station. 10. This configuration would provide between 12/11 and 16/11 of the volume of the proposed NASA station. 11. It would have volume available in larger chunks; eg. for ingesting satellites and repairing them "indoors." 12. It would have a greater volume/surface ratio. (Good for heating.) 13. It would have a much stronger casing; on the tiled parts at least. 14. It would have 4 escape vehicles, if necessary. 15. The whole station could be returned to Earth for refit in 4 flights, if necessary (versus 22 flights for the NASA model). 16. It could be built by one contractor (Rockwell) instead of N. 17. It would cost $8 billion instead of $12+ billion. 18. It could be deployed in 4 years instead of 10. (Remember that the NASA plan consumes at least 11 flights, or one year's worth, of the existing shuttles. They should be willing to give up one to my proposed station, which would give us a head-start and free up the other two to non-space-station duties.) This seems too easy. What's wrong with this plan? (I know I've left out a few things like solar panels. Does the other stuff add up to $4+ billion?) --Christopher V.A. Schmidt ------- ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 87 17:04:54 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Satellite observation Join Amateur Satellite Observers. Write Jim Hale, HCR 65, Box 261-B, Kingston, Arkansas, 72742, send $1 and sase for monthly newsletter and satellite elements. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding) X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 14 11:03:22 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: "DIETZ%slb-test.csnet"@relay.cs.net Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: supernova, "if the right one don't get you, then the left one will" Date: Tue, 28 Apr 87 15:39 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Supernova According to Nature, about .1% of the people on earth had a neutrino from SN 1987A interact with them. Assuming each neutrino deposits 5 MeV in the body, you can compute that a person 10 AU or so from the star at the time of core collapse would have received a lethal dose of neutrinos. Well, if you're that close, you probably were destroyed by the general blast of atomic hydrogen and dust etc., or by the radio waves, or the microwaves, or by the infrared, or by the visible light, or by the UV, or by the x-rays, or by the gamma-rays, or the neutrons, or by the charged particles. I guess you're saying that even if you somehow managed to shield against *all* those modes of energy and blast, the neutrinos will get you, i.e. being very close to a supernova is even worse than we thought?? ------------------------------ Sender: "Norman_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com Date: 12 May 87 08:58:32 PDT (Tuesday) Subject: Yeager's response From: "Norman_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com Several months ago, in response to a message from me concerning some remarks made by General Chuck Yeager related to the Voyager flight, Eugene N. Miya of Ames-Pioneer suggested to me off-line, that I write to the General regarding my questions. I sent him a message at the time, also off-line, that I would take his advice. I wrote to General Yeager on January 19 and I received an answer dated February 5, 1987 from the General's wife, Glennis Yeager, who is listed on the letterhead as Chief Executive Officer of Yeager, Inc. Due to the pressures of other business, this is the first opportunity I've had to write about it. I don't know if everyone will find this of interest now, but since the response is relatively brief, I'll copy it for Space Digest , below: Dear Mr. Schuster: Thank you for your letter of January 19th regarding General Yeager's comments about the Voyager Flight. You had asked for some background on the questions asked of General Yeager. The press made the statement that: "The Voyager Flight was a breakthrough that would affect all commercial aviation in the future." General Yeager said that that statement was not true due to the fact that the materials and technology used were "off the shelf". He did not say anything that would take away from the marvelous job that Dick and Jeana did, in fact, stated that they had shown great stamina and courage to undertake the flight. He was misquoted in many interviews and his comments were taken out of context. Even the Voyager crew stated so on a television talk show and said that he had given them much support. Also, you must understand that General Yeager flys for Piper Aircraft and the flight he made on December 17th from Edwards to Kitty Hawk was done for publicity and aircraft demonstration purposes, as part of his job, and that anyone who has the backing can set such a record at any time. We hope we have clarified the situation for you. We also hope that people realize that press releases are not always complete and accurate. Thank you again for writing; we appreciate your comments. Sincerely, (signed) Glennis Yeager ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 87 13:29:00 GMT From: necntc!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@ames.arpa Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet? >I'm not saying that the first few advanced civilizations couldn't have >arisen near the galactic center, but I find no compelling reason why this >should be so. Life is likely to arise near a star anywhere in the galaxy Aren't there simply more stars in these central regions? Also, star travel is more likely to develop where distances between stars are smaller. ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 87 22:40:33 GMT From: mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet? If there are only a few --- say 20 or 30 --- advanced civilizations per average galaxy then most of them will close to the center, where most of the suns are. Not only that, but the few that arise on the fringes would probably realize that and make a beeline for the center, where the action is. I would guess that chances would be small that they would notice us on on the way by. Mike Coffin mike@arizona.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding) X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 17 13:38:31 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: tikal!slovax!flak@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet? Date: 8 May 87 05:37:42 GMT From: tikal!slovax!flak@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dan Flak) Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet? I'm not saying that the first few advanced civilizations couldn't have arisen near the galactic center, but I find no compelling reason why this should be so. Life is likely to arise near a star anywhere in the galaxy with roughly equal probability. Getting to where we are now, I agree, it's random among candidate stars that have enough Carbon and other "heavy" elements manufactured earlier in first-generation stars and spewed out via supernova or stellar wind. If 75% of the candidate stars are in the gallactic center, then out of the first four industrial civilizations, three should be in the center and one in the outskirts, on the average. But past this point, there's a difference. Out here it may take hundreds of years before we can significantly colonize "nearby" stars (4-10 lightyears away). But in the gallactic hub, where stars are much closer together, it may be a gentle step from initial spacefaring to interstellar colonization. Therefore the three gallactic-central civilizations may all expand rapidly, while the one out here may colonize its own planetary system then stop expanding for a long time because interstellar colonization isn't cost-effective in some sense. The result is you have three advanced interstellar civilizations, all three in the gallactic center, not one in the outskirts, just an isolated Dyson sphere in the outskirts. There are many more interesting places to visit in our galaxy than old sol. Unless a spacefaring civilization is within 50 light years of us, and has received our transmissions (never mind if they can understand them), it would be *extemely* unlikely that they'd stumble upon us accidentally. I mostly agree, although it's possible an advanced civilization might have enough technology and resources to set up observations of every visible star in the galaxy, down to class M dwarfs, including even small planets such as Earth and Venus lost in the glare using our crude and relatively tiny 200-inch telescopes. Spectroscopy will tell which planets have free Oxygen, indicating photosynthetic life, and high-resolution spectroscopy of those free-Oxygen planets should show the chemical structure of any common chemicals that are released into the air for mating purposes or when a creature is killed. That way, they'd know already a billion years ago that multi-cellular life had developed on Earth, and have plenty of time to send automated probes to monitor us more closely. But if they are deep in the dust as Asimov and I proposed, and can't see us except by low-resolution infrared masked by all that dust, they might not detect our free Oxygen much less our organic chemicals. Even at that, I refuse to believe that the galaxy is *so* densely populated that spacefaring cultures occur every 100 light years or so. In the central bulge, our galaxy may in fact be nearly everywhere populated, or it may be empty, but we'll have to await more infrared information to put an upper bound on such. Out here in the nearby arms, I agree with you, it's rather difficult to believe they are so close yet haven't dropped by for a survey to watch our past few million years of evolution. Probably they don't exist so closeby. ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 87 19:42:15 GMT From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@AMES.ARPA (Michael McNeil) Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet? The problem with this idea (and I'm not an astronomer, so those more knowledgeable on the matters please set the record straight, if I'm bending it), is that nearly all stars near the galactic center -- and in dense concentrations such as globular clusters -- are what are known as "Population II," meaning they all formed at approximately the same time, out of the original constituent materials of the galaxy -- namely hydrogen and helium. The stars of the central region formed prior to the great cooking of heavier elements (performed by early generations of stars, then spewed into interstellar space via supernova explosions) which in the outer parts of the galaxy enriched the interstellar medium for later star generations. As a result, the planets, if any, in these central realms would probably be either like Jupiter (that is, balls of hot but non-fusing hydrogen and helium, minus Jupiter's heavy elements) or else balls of frozen hydrogen, perhaps with helium lakes. In either case, pure hydrogen and helium are not at all suitable materials out of which to construct living systems. (Helium is inert, and hydrogen with its single chemical bond will combine with itself but once to form molecular hydrogen H2. How could complex chemical mechanisms equivalent to life be built on _that_ flimsy a chemical basis?) It may well be that supernova explosions in the central regions performed some enriching of the local interstellar space. However, with nearly all gas and dust already swept clean by the great star condensation earlier, it would seem likely that only a few heavy element enriched star systems could form (amidst a huge number that were sterile), and the number of third-generation enriched systems (such as the Solar System is thought to be) would be miniscule. (Anyone out there have quantitative estimates for these effects?) Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation Santa Clara, California ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 87 05:49:53 GMT From: tikal!slovax!flak@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dan Flak) Subject: Where are they? After two unsucessful attempts to get E-mail to Robert Maas, I gave up. So here's the posting. Life is likely to arise near a star anywhere in the galaxy with roughly equal probability. Getting to where we are now, I agree, it's random among candidate stars that have enough Carbon and other "heavy" elements manufactured earlier in first-generation stars and spewed out via supernova or stellar wind. The rest of your argument in this paragraph, which I deleted in the interest of space, makes sense. The stars nearer the core are older. Newer stars have a tendency to be born in the "dustier" arms. Therefore, there is a higher probability that there are more 2nd and 3rd generation stars near the core. My original argument is reduced to "Well, maybe there's higher radiation near the core - so there!" :-). It's a much weaker argument. Score one for you! There are many more interesting places to visit in our galaxy than old sol. Unless a spacefaring civilization is within 50 light years of us, and has received our transmissions (never mind if they can understand them), it would be *extremely* unlikely that they'd stumble upon us accidentally. My original E-mail message to you had an explanation of the Drake Equation (which I probably didn't get 100% right). However, plunking in my favorite figures I estimated approximately 50,000 intelligent civilizations out there right now (although I'm not an expert, I figure my guess is about as good as anyone else's). Figuring "average" density of stars, that's one about every 40,000 light years. 40,000 years ago we were still clubbing saber tooth tigers. If we received a message from them today, it means that they are where we are now about 40,000 years ago. A single civilization can do a lot in that time. A group of civilizations would do even more. I'll have to rethink the model for the uneven distribution of stars. ... Spectroscopy will tell which planets have free Oxygen, indicating photosynthetic life, and high-resolution spectroscopy of those free-Oxygen planets should show the chemical structure of any common chemicals that are released into the air for mating purposes or when a creature is killed. That way, they'd know already a billion years ago that multi-cellular life had developed on Earth, and have plenty of time to send automated probes to monitor us more closely. But if they are deep in the dust as Asimov and I proposed, and can't see us except by low-resolution infrared masked by all that dust, they might not detect our free Oxygen much less our organic chemicals. I like Sagan's analysis better. Spectroscopy will reveal methane and oxygen in the earth's atmosphere. The ratio of methane to oxygen is too high. They should combine to form a more stable mixture including additional carbon dioxide and water. Therefore, the methane must be produced by a continuing process. One such source is the flatuence of cows. Think about that as a sign of life on earth :-). You are right, there *is* dust between us and the galactic core, which is why we can't see it. It's only *slightly* brighter in that direction. Even at that, I refuse to believe that the galaxy is *so* densely populated that spacefaring cultures occur every 100 light years or so. In the central bulge, our galaxy may in fact be nearly everywhere populated, or it may be empty, but we'll have to await more infrared information to put an upper bound on such. Out here in the nearby arms, I agree with you, it's rather difficult to believe they are so close yet haven't dropped by for a survey to watch our past few million years of evolution. Probably they don't exist so closeby. I contend that there is a certain maximum density of stars which prohibits life. In the globular clusters, gravitational interaction may have a tendency to "pull" planetary systems apart, or induce conditions similar to the fabled "death star" that is allegedly stalking old sol at a discrete distance, coming close enough to cause mass extinctions every 26 million years or so. Also, in a densely populated neighborhood, it is much more likely that a close neighbor will go nova (or supernova). Having the house next door blow up doesn't do much for the property values. Unfortunately, I've forgotten more math than I've ever learned, so I don't know what these probabilities are, and I can't say how dense is too dense. (Translation of last sentence - I'm too darn lazy to figure it out). Life in "downtown" Milky Way (i.e. at the core itself) is unlikely. There are simply too many exotic cosmic creatures lurking there. In the suburbs (anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 light years out - who knows?) intelligent life, as you contend, may exist on nearly every block. Out here in the sticks, the intra-galactic dessert, I'll stick to a 40,000 light years between post boxes estimate. Even for an advanced civilization, that's considerably more than a Sunday drive. I'd think they'd give us a call first (using radio astronomy) to see if anyone's at home before dropping by. When your paper route includes 400 billion addresses, it seems like the only sensible thing to do. Then again, (my final thought), maybe they ain't here 'cause they ain't there. Somebody has to be first. It could be we! Thanks for the response. {psivax,ism780}!logico!slovax!flak : {hplsla,uw-beaver}!tikal!slovax!flak Dan Flak-R & D Associates,3625 Perkins Lane SW,Tacoma,Wa 98466,206-581-1322 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #236 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04611; Wed, 27 May 87 03:04:15 PDT id AA04611; Wed, 27 May 87 03:04:15 PDT Date: Wed, 27 May 87 03:04:15 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705271004.AA04611@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #237 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 237 Today's Topics: NASA News Space Station Development NASA NEWS - General Dynamics Agreement Re: TRW Space Data Handbook Meissner effect... Soviet's launch new large booster electromagnetic structures Two things low cost launch system Reprise to 'heretical comment...' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 May 87 03:18:52 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (UUCP Admin) Subject: NASA News Space Station Development NASA NEWS - April 24, 1987 NASA ISSUES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SPACE STATION DEVELOPMENT The National Aeronautics and Space Administration issued Requests for Proposals (RFP) to United States Industry for detailed design and construction of a permanently manned Space Station to be operational in low-Earth orbit in the mid 1990's. Proposals are due by July 21. NASA has asked offerors to submit proposals for each of two options. Option one is the phased program, that would lead to permanent manned operations in space by 1996. Option two is the enhanced capability Space Station configuration. Under option one, the first phase of the Space Station would include the U.S. laboratory and habitation modules, four resource nodes, the U.S. polar-orbiting platform and experiment provisions outside the pressurized modules. The initial configuration would also include elements to be provided by the international partners. Funding for such international participation will be provided by other governments who will conduct their own detailed design and development work in phase with NASA. FOR THE FIRST PHASE * 75 kilowatts of power will be available on orbit before any foreign modules are brought to the Station. The power will be provided by photovoltaic solar arrays. NASA will continue preliminary work on solar dynamic power system to retain the ability to incorporate that system in the second phase of the program. * Offerors are to submit proposals based on the following Space Station program dates: January 1994 for first element launch; January 1995 for man-tended capability; and the fourth quarter of 1995 for permanent manned capability. * The U.S. laboratory shall be confined only to life sciences experiments compatible with microgravity materials research. Any non-compatible requirements, such as large centrifuges or animal holding facilities, would be provided for in an alternate module or resource node. Resource nodes are pressurized environmentally controlled elements that link other pressurized elements such as laboratory and habitation modules. They serve as passageways for people and equipment, as well as providing an environment for crew activity, Space Station command and control operations and system support. Development of the second phase of the Space Station will be a priced contract option for the second phase, if exercised, would be accomplished starting in 1991. The second phase would add the upper and lower truss structure, additional external payload attatch points, the solar dynamic power system, a free-flying co-orbiting platform and a servicing bay. Industry also will submit separate proposals for an enhanced Space Station configuration which combines all the elements of the phased program. The enhanced configuration was the product of a 2-year definition and preliminary design study which was completed in January. The industry proposals and an independent technical and cost review of the Space Station to be performed by the National Research Council will provide the basis for a decision on the overall Space Station configuration, capabilities, cost and annual funding projection to be incorporated in the fiscal year 1989 budget. Four separate RFPs were issued from the four NASA "work package" field centers. NASA plans to let contracts for each of the work packages and has scheduled November 1987 as the effective date of the contracts. The work packages and the NASA centers responsibilities are: Work Package One, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. -- detailed design, construction, test and evaluation of two pressurized modules, one outfitted with appropriate systems for use as a microgravity research laboratory and the other to serve as a habitation module for the crew; three logistics transport systems; four resource node structures; the environmental control and life support system; internal thermal management system; and internal audio and video systems. Work Package Two, Johnson Space Center, Houston -- detailed design, construction, test and evaluation of the structural framework to which the various elements of the Space Station will be attatched; resource node outfitting; two airlocks; subsystems such as propulsion, external thermal management, communications and tracking, data management, guidance, navigation and control, and external audio and video; interface between the Space Station and Space Shuttle; assembly and external systems maintenance; and provisions for extravehicular activities. Work Package Two elements provided for int the second phase of the Space Station would include the upper and lower truss elements and the mobile base for the Canadian mobile servicing system. Work Package Three, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. -- detailed design, construction, test and evaluation of the automated free flying polar platform and provisions for instruments and payloads to be attatched externally to the Space Station. Work Package Three elements provided for in the second phase of the Space Station would include the co-orbiting free flying platform; additional external payload attatch points; and the servicing facility. Goddard also is responsible for building the Flight Telerobotic System, a telerobotic device that will be capable of manipulations in space such as Station assembly and payload servicing. It will be procured separately for the Work Package contract. Work Package Four, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland -- detailed design, construction, test and evaluation of the electrical power generation, conditioning and storage, and power management and distribution systems. Other NASA centers will support the detailed design adn construction activities. The Kennedy Space Center, Fla. will be responsible for preflight and launch operations and will be involved in logistics support activities. KSC will develop and outfit the launch site facilities and ground support equipment and will develop transporation equipment for moving large Space Station elements between work package contractors or from the development site to the launch site. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, will be responsible for program requirements and assessment, and the Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., will be responsible for evolution planning for the Space Station. The Space Station will be capable of growth both in size and capability and is intended to operate for several decades, well into the 21 st century. It is planned to be placed in orbit about 250 miles above the Earth and at an inclination to the equator of 28.5 degrees. -------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA News Release 87-65 April 24, 1987 By Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Reprinted for electronic distribution with permission ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 87 03:19:43 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (UUCP Admin) Subject: NASA NEWS - General Dynamics Agreement NASA NEWS - April 10, 1987 NASA SIGNS COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT WITH GENERAL DYNAMICS The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has signed the first United States government agreement transferring commercial operations of an expendable launch vehicle (ELV) to the private sector. The agreement is wil General Dynamics Space Systems Division, San Diego, Calif., for the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle. The agreement transfers authority to General Dynamics to use NASA controlled facilities and capabilities for commercial manufacture and launch of the Atlas/Centaur. Under the terms and conditions of the agreement, Atlas/Centaur production and operating rights are transferred to General Dynamics. General Dynamics can initiate production on a commercial basis but will reimburse the government for any direct costs which the government incurs as a result of their commercial activities. General Dynamics may sell the launch vehicles and services to customers and also may enter into agreements with any third party or agent to market the launching service as a systems operator. NASA endorses the development of U.S. private sector launch capabilities and has proceeded to transfer authority to the private sector to use NASA controlled facilities and capabilities for commercial launches. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA News Release 87-55 April 10,1987 By David W. Garrett Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Reprinted for electronic distribution with permission ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 87 15:28:51 GMT From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu (Doug Mink) Subject: Re: TRW Space Data Handbook Chris Welch, Cranfield Institute, U.K. writes: > I have just come across a twenty year old copy of "TRW Space Data" which, it > claims, "is published biennially as a service to the aerospace industry". > Despite its age it contains a lot of useful info, and I was wondering if TRW > still produce it and, if so, how I would go about getting a copy on this side > of the Atlantic. > Any pointers in the right direction would be greatfully accepted. Thanks is > tendered in advance as I can't mail or reply, only post or followup, outside > the U.K. As far as I know, TRW put out three of these books, the third and last in 1967 (I have all three). They also published the "Space Log," which described launches and gave orbital information. In 1962, when I started reading it, it was quarterly. The most recent edition I have is 1984-1985; I don't know if it's come out since. An interesting feature was its "Box Score of U.S. Launches," a year by year bar chart of successes and failures by which the rise and post-Apollo fall and shuttle rise of the U.S. Space Program can be seen clearly. Paging through back issues sure makes one long for the future we thought was coming. From the 1984-1985 "Space Log" frontispiece: Professional personnel in the aerospace industry, the military and other government agencies may request Space Log by writing (on company or organization letterhead): Editor, TRW Space Log, TRW Electronics & Defense, One Space Park, Mail Station 102/1100, Redondo Beach, CA 90278. Please include your internal mail location. -Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer mink@cfa.harvard.edu {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 May 87 12:24:25 EDT From: Steve Abrams Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Meissner effect... The "Meissner effect" is one of the confirming clues of super- conductivity in a material. When a superconducting loop or tube, in a weak magnetic field (<< hc), is cooled down through its transition temperature (forever may it rise! -- steve), tc, the magnetic flux is trapped in the loop. The flux is then constant, being unchanged by variations in the external field. It is sustained by supercurrents circulating around the loop. Any field variation is countered, by lenz's law, by the induction of an "equal and opposite" supercurrent that seeks to minimize the effect of the original variation. The superconductivity can, however, be destroyed if the magnetic field or the current in the loop approach the transition field or the transition current (respectively). The current produced in a closed ring by the Meissner effect will continue to flow for a considerable time after the external field is removed *** as long as the temperature is maintained below tc ***. This effect is used in superconducting magnets (which are then used in machines like the proposed super- conducting supercollider). The only reference I can find (and its ten years old) discusses various niobium alloys with current densities of 2 ka/mm(sup 2) at 4.5 K leading to flux densities of over 10 T. Anyone have any more current (pun intended ... no matter how poorly it is received) information? Steve Abrams EXT768@UKCC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 87 17:01:46 EDT From: weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Soviet's launch new large booster > ... > OK people, space race part 2 is on. Just like the first one our > lauchers are blowing up while theirs are flying. Are we going to stand > still or are we going to get moving again? > The scariest (I think) difference between now and then is that then, everyone knew about the Soviet lead and was scared as hell, the government was forced to move. But now, there is no news coverage, few people realize how much the soviets are doing, and the government feels no pressure to do ANYTHING! They are as usual sitting around and bickering over petty budget problems for things they don't understand...gad it's nauseating...anyway my point being WHY ISN'T THE PUBLIC BEING MADE AWARE OF THE CURRENT SITUATION. We are way behind the USSR in terms of space development, but no one seems to care. Don't get me wrong, I just care about space development (manned, esp) - *I* don't feel threatened by the success of the Soviets in space, nor do I particularly care about the spread of communism etc, nor do I view the USSR as our nemesis/enemy - but some people do, and somehow in the 60s someone managed to manipulate these people into thinkning the space program was important to keep us safe from those evil godless russians. So my question (above in all caps) has two answers, either it takes an effort to do what was done in the sixties to convince people that there is reason to fear, and no one has done that yet - or someone is suppressing news coverage of soviet success for some reason... I don't know... -Chris ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 97 19:46:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Subject: electromagnetic structures >Bless you, you've stumbled onto one of my favorite areas of interest-- >electromagnetic structures. Not that I'm interested in building space >elevators of the sort that have been getting so much discussion here >of late, but you can use them to build a more practical alternative. Just what *IS* an electromagnetic structure? Does it fall apart if there is a power failure? --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 87 16:44:07 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Two things At this moment, the next shuttle launch date was released as June 1988 from Fletcher's Office. Second, I was driving the backwoods of the Rockies when I heard about some big Soviet Booster. Since I just got back and am still swiming thru the usenet, could some one mail be quick specs. If you read this after 5/22, don't bother. Oh, third thing on ignorance, like mine. The other day, we had a big supercomputer convention in Santa Clara. Friends from NASA GSFC Massively Parallel Processor came by. They wanted to see the Cray-2, we took them over (now in another building). In the machine room was a model of the National Aero Space Plane. Two of them asked what's that? My jaw dropped. It's hard to know everything which goes on in the Agency, it's a big place, but the NASP? Oh well. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 97 19:51:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Subject: low cost launch system > Atlanta - President Reagan has proposed spending > billions of federal dollars to design a hypersonic transport > -- the "Orient Express." But, if a small engineering firm > in Georgia has its way, space transportation could become > affordable in about a year's time and at a cost of about > $100 million. > The secret lies in the Space Transportation Vehicle or > STV. A dream of Robert Talmage Jr., an engineer at the > Atlanta-based TAAS Co., the design would convert just about > any commercial airliner into a space transport that could > deliver a 4000-lb payload into an orbit of around 200,000 > feet. > > [...] > > Talmage claims the STV could deliver loads into orbit > for a price of $7 million per trip. That comes to about 88% > less than the cost of a shuttle flight. 200,000 feet is pretty low. How long will something remain in orbit at this altitude? Is this altitude useful for anything or would the customer typically supply his own booster to get into a higher orbit? --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 87 14:18:26 GMT From: halleys!frog!john@bu-cs.bu.edu (John Woods, Software) Subject: Reprise to 'heretical comment...' > > What's the big deal about Mir, anyway? From the 20 May 1987 Boston Globe: "Soviet launch points up US lag in space The Soviet Union's successful launch of the world's most powerful launch vehicle, space program analysts said yesterday, has driven home a point that many [ like Henry :-] say was already becoming clear -- the United states has lost the lead in space technology. When the 197-foot Energia rocket thundered skyward from the Baikonur Space Center on its first test flight last Friday, it gave the Soviet Union a launch capability comparable to what the United States had -- and abandoned -- with the Saturn V rocket, which was developed in the 1960's to send astronauts to the moon. ... The Energia can lift into orbit a payload about five times larger than that of the space shuttle, the most powerful launch vehicle in the US fleet... ... [Space officials from around the world meeting at a symposium in Pasadena, Calif., said yesterday that the Soviet exploration of the solar system in the next decade includes missions that eclipse many proposals still in the planning stages in the United States and Europe, the Los Angeles Times reported.]" -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA "Happiness is the planet Earth in your rear-view mirror." - Sam Hurt, in "Eyebeam, Therefore I Am" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #237 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06595; Thu, 28 May 87 03:03:56 PDT id AA06595; Thu, 28 May 87 03:03:56 PDT Date: Thu, 28 May 87 03:03:56 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705281003.AA06595@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #238 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 238 Today's Topics: space news from March 16 AW&ST, and long nasty editorial space news from March 23 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 May 87 01:06:27 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from March 16 AW&ST, and long nasty editorial SDI and NASA in agreement that space debris is becoming a serious hazard to large low-orbit satellites. Weinberger approves new DoD space policy, calling in particular for new assessment of the role of military astronauts and for better monitoring of "militarily significant" space activities. Morton Thiokol delays first full-scale post-51L SRB test until mid-May, after discovery of insulation-bonding problems in earlier small-scale test. This may have been an artifact of the manual assembly technique. The test delay will not delay the shuttle schedule if the test does not slip further. DoD unveils plan to restructure antisatellite program, including live-fire tests in 1988. Congress not pleased. Plan also calls for evaluation of switching to a ground-launched system using a Pershing 2 as a booster, to increase the altitude capability. Soviet Union does flight-readiness firing of its heavylift booster. Launch expected before midsummer [successful launch a week or so ago -- HS], first flight carrying the Soviet shuttle expected within a year, possibly before US shuttle flies again. The Soviet shuttle was not attached during the firing, but does not have to be since it has no major engines of its own. Soviets claim to be planning to launch small unmanned materials-processing missions that will process as free-flyers and then dock with Mir so that their products can be returned to Earth as part of Mir operations. [Can you say "operational space station"? Sure you can. -- HS] Large article on NASA prospects for unmanned planetary exploration, notably the prospect of a Mars rover/return mission circa 2000. Other prospects are the CRAF mission to comet Tempel 2 and a Saturn orbiter + Titan probe mission. If the latter were launched on a heavylift booster instead of a Titan 4, it could add a Titan hard-lander and a Saturn atmosphere probe. Pictures of shuttle work at KSC. Common belief among the people doing the work is that summer 1988 is more realistic than Feb 1988 for first launch. Safety constraints are likely to cause a lot of launch scrubs, at least in the beginning, because more formal new procedures will make it impossible to resolve difficulties quickly enough after T-5min to continue the launch. New major shuttle safety problem. The 17-inch disconnect valves in the main plumbing between the External Tank and the orbiter were earmarked for special attention as a serious worry, but the worry has just gotten much worse because bench tests show that the valve disks flutter violently in the fuel flow instead of just standing open. This means considerable re-assessment. Discovery's valves have been pulled for inspection and testing. There is also an open question about weld quality in the heat exchanger coils on two of Discovery's engines. They are nearly impossible to inspect, and replacing the engines would mean several months of delay. KSC runway to get barriers capable of stopping an orbiter at 100 knots. Picture of American Rocket Co.'s first full-scale engine test at the USAF Rocket Propulsion Lab; combustion stable and vibration comparable to a liquid-fuel engine. Amroc has started negotiations with the USAF for a suborbital test flight from Vandenberg late this year. USAF supports the idea but details are yet to be sorted out. One question is which pad to use, the problem being what's close to the flight path if something goes wrong. The Titan failure has led to particular worries about the Vandenberg shuttle pad, which is at the south end of Vandenberg and is near the path of almost any polar-orbit launch there. Some facts and figures about the Amroc engine. GOES-H checkout proceeding well, movement to its permanent station to start March 25th. That, plus the planned shift of GOES-6 immediately afterward, will restore full US weather monitoring. Next few US expendable launches: March 19 Palapa (Indonesion comsat) aboard Delta [okay I think -- HS] March 26 FltSatCom (military comsat) on Atlas [failure -- HS] November SDI Delta 3rd qtr 1988 SDI Delta Feb 1989 Cosmic Background Explorer, Delta from Vandenberg 3rd qtr 1989 SDI Delta Comsat to buy SBS-1 and SBS-2, currently owned by MCI but getting low on fuel. Comsat's new stationkeeping maneuver to be used to extend their life. Deal is subject to FCC approval since Comsat's current licenses are for new satellites rather than old ones. [Editorial: Starting Over and Doing It Right, Part 1: Who's In Charge? NASA employees are warned to have fire extinguishers and rabies vaccine handy before reading this editorial. In my previous editorial, I said "It's time to give the West's dying space program a decent burial, so we can start over -- from scratch -- and do it right." Before I start on the "do it right" part, I should comment that I don't favor scrapping the existing systems instantly. This would be another repetition of an all-too-frequent past mistake: trading working hardware today for promises tomorrow. However, we must recognize that the working hardware of today is a dead end that urgently needs scrapping, even though we need to keep it operational until the replacements arrive. Okay, so how do we do it right? Well, this begs the question: "do *what* right?". What do we want? I'll discuss this at greater length later, but for now I'll sum it up with a phrase that was common in the early history of the Shuttle, but is rarely heard today: "routine access to space". "Routine" means it doesn't cost an arm and a leg, it doesn't require ten years of advance planning, it isn't subject to arbitrary cancellation because some bureaucrat gets up on the wrong side of the bed, and it doesn't require that one's objectives be politically correct. (Those who think this last refers only to the Soviet Union should consider that the US Office of Commercial Space Transportation can veto any private launch which is "not in the national interest", even if it meets safety requirements and is fully paid for.) In short, subject to obvious safety rules, when we want to put something into space, we can depend on being able to plunk down a modest amount of cash and do it. As I observed in the previous editorial, we are far away from that today. I further commented that the current system won't get us there, either. Which brings me to a radical observation: *Getting routine access to space absolutely requires getting NASA out of the space-transportation business completely.* This may sound a little drastic. After all, didn't I praise NASA's Apollo program as mankind's highest achievement? Yes, I did. But that wasn't today's NASA. That was the NASA of the early 1960s: a new agency, relatively small and streamlined, capable of making fast decisions and getting results. That was the agency in which Del Tischler could write the spec for the F-1 engine -- still the most powerful liquid-fuel engine ever flown -- himself in 24 hours, have it reviewed and out to contractors in a week, and have contracts signed and work underway within a few months. That was the agency in which Mariner 1 went from a back-of-the-envelope sketch to the launch pad in 11 months. That was the agency in which Wernher von Braun's crews built the first Saturn Vs in NASA facilities, with production shifting to contractors only after the problems were ironed out. That was the agency in which Kurt Debus -- director of KSC and one of von Braun's original Peenemunde bunch -- could cancel a scrub of a Saturn 1 launch and order the launch to proceed despite problems, not because he was a bureaucrat under schedule pressure but because he knew what he was doing and assessed the problems as unimportant (he was right). That was the agency that put a man on the moon in 8 years. Doesn't sound much like today's NASA, does it? A large part of the reason why the space program is dying is that NASA is senile. To some extent this is due to external factors, to wit the lack of a well-defined mission with high-level backing. That could be fixed. But more serious problems would remain. Bureaucracies ossify. Decisions have to be made by committee, because that way no one person ever has to risk taking the blame for a mistake. Preferably they should be mulled over for a few years first, and run past everyone who might possibly object, just in case. Upper management has to review every detail, because otherwise they might actually have to defend a subordinate who made a mistake. And of course upper management then needs another platoon of paper-pushers to do all this reviewing. Nobody, anywhere in this glorious edifice, has the slightest incentive to simplify procedures and remove obstacles. Well, except for the poor people trying to get work done, and they have no say! Bureaucracies, and indeed most organizations, make most of their real contributions to mankind early, before the rot sets in. The rot set in quite some time ago at NASA. Anyone who thinks this can be fixed should remember what an uproar it caused when NASA tried to make some modest management changes in the space station. We're not talking about moving a few lines on the chart; fixing the overall problem means turning NASA upside down and shaking vigorously, and getting rid of a lot of what falls out. (Ever try to fire a civil servant?) Forget it, no hope. The implications of all this ossification are profound, and bad. The drive to reduce uncertainty and risk means that competition cannot be allowed. NASA pushed awfully hard to get the shuttle declared to be the only official US launcher, remember? Less overtly, NASA did its level best to harass, discourage, and scuttle plans to develop private launch systems. (It was not an accident that a private-enterprise-minded administration setting up a single regulatory agency for private spaceflight took pains to separate the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from NASA completely, despite NASA's objections.) (NASA is quite upset that NOAA wants to buy expendables direct from the suppliers instead of going through NASA. One major reason why NOAA wants to do this is to reduce the manpower and paperwork needed.) Oh sure, NASA wants private companies in space... as junior partners to NASA. Another way to reduce risk, of course, is to deal only with people you know. That is, aerospace contractors. The people who can't build anything in less than a year or for less than fifty million dollars. Especially if they're doing it for the government. Guess who NASA is buying the space station from. NASA also has another problem, a more subtle one. NASA was founded as an R&D agency, in the footsteps of its highly-successful predecessor NACA. And this orientation goes deep. Deep down in its heart, NASA does not want to build on its past successes -- it wants to do new things, not do the old ones better. (The aerospace contractors are all in favor of this, because they get to pad the bills more that way.) NASA wants to *develop* things. What's wrong with that, you ask? Nothing, in isolation. NACA followed that philosophy, and did a powerful lot of good for aviation. But notice that it isn't enough, by itself. What the space program most needs today is *not* new launchers, *not* aerospace planes, *not* aerocapture systems, *not* fifteen-billion-dollar space stations that will be ever so much better than those silly Soviet tin cans. The space program needs somebody who can FLY MISSIONS. And fly them cheaply and often. The Soviets do it pretty well. And you know something? Most of the hardware they use for it is twenty or thirty years old. The booster that launches the Soyuz missions is a somewhat souped-up version of the one that launched Sputnik 1. Their standard unmanned recoverable vehicle is a minor variant of the Vostok capsule that carried Gagarin. They never develop anything they don't have to. That's a large part of why they've got a much more successful space program. They build on their successes, instead of dismantling them. NASA simply is not oriented towards flying operational missions. It is an R&D agency. But NASA wants control and will not give up the operational role. Notice how every attempt at getting NASA cooperation for a privately- funded orbiter has failed, not rejected outright but stalled until it died? Notice how reluctant NASA is to buy expendables, rather than using its own in-house launcher? NASA is determined to stay in the driver's seat, even though it can't drive worth beans. NASA is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem. If we want a solution, we must keep NASA out of it. -- HS] [Next: Doing It Right, Part 2: The Government Does Have A Role.] -- "The average nutritional value Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology of promises is roughly zero." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 87 23:31:49 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from March 23 AW&ST Next Mir add-on module, late this year, will be an Earth-resources photographic unit. Rockwell budgets $20M of internal funds to get the Challenger replacement underway. NASA funding starts August. NASA has agreed to repay the $20M, assuming the project is not cancelled for some reason. DoT Sec. Dole appeals to the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting to let NASA acquire a mixed launch fleet... provided that NASA buys launch services from industry, rather than buying hardware and managing its own. NOAA tells NASA that it will buy commercial expendables for the next 3 GOES Clarke-orbit metsats directly from industry, not through NASA. NOAA would still like NASA's help in evaluating and monitoring the contracts, although NASA may refuse on the grounds that it would have no control but would still be blamed if something went wrong. NASA claims that since the government does not insure its payloads, it needs to oversee booster work to assure success. NOAA says that DoC contract monitoring staff will total 5-10, only 1-2 of them working for NOAA; NASA was planning to use about 40 people to run the NOAA contract, and in the past has used up to 70. NOAA will officially ask for bids in April, for first launch by fall 1989. Something in the Titan 3 or Atlas-Centaur class will be needed. General Dynamics optimistic about commercial Atlas-Centaur, despite losing the USAF MLV. Three/year would be enough to make it viable, with Pad 36B at the Cape able to support five/year with surge to six. 36A could be reactivated if more launches are needed. Satisfactory agreements with NASA and the USAF are imminent. Three different diameters of payload fairing are planned: 10 ft (current), 10.8 ft (PAM-D2, Ariane 2-3 payloads), and 13.8 ft (Shuttle, Ariane 4 payloads -- slight loss of payload weight due to drag of the oversize fairing). [Prediction: the GOES contract will go to GD to help keep Atlas-Centaur alive. That will be the reason, regardless of the excuses offered. -- HS] Orbital Sciences, which makes the TOS upper stage for Mars Observer, has offered to finance a Titan 34D to launch MO in 1990, and has put a deposit on one. NASA would like to launch MO in 1990 but has no money just now to get a Titan started. OSC would use the Titan itself as collateral on loans to buy it, with NASA repaying the loans, interest, and costs in 1989. No commitment would be required until Oct 1988 (when the FY89 budget arrives); if NASA didn't go for it, OSC would simply sell the Titan to someone else. NASA is thinking about this novel arrangement, and is under pressure to decide quickly because minor changes to MO and TOS would be needed. Soviet Union is examining accelerating its Mars program. Penetrators, balloons, and maybe a small rover will launch in 1992. A large rover would go in 1994, with a sample-return mission in 1998 or perhaps 1996. The 1994 rover will include two robot moles for deep soil sampling. The sample return might be followed by sample return from a Martian moon, and perhaps later by asteroid sample returns. The Soviets, incidentally, have not given up on life-detection experiments. Soviets say that manned Mars missions will have to wait at least until human on-orbit stay times reach three years or so, so the effects of free fall for a 2.5-year mission are understood. White House agrees to two-phase space station, to keep initial cost down. Intelsat board votes to authorize talking to Martin Marietta about Titan launches for two Intelsat 6s bumped from shuttle. (Intelsat already has Ariane reservations for three others.) Voyager 2 fires thrusters for 70.5 minutes March 13 to fine-tune trajectory for Neptune encounter (25 Aug 1989). USAF metsat photo of Chernobyl accident released, showing a trail cut in local cloud cover by radioactive ions six days after the accident. This has been predicted but never before seen. NASA may take a relatively minor role in the new heavylift launcher. USAF says essentially "send some experts, then get lost". Congress is muttering about this; some think NASA should be in charge of the HLLV while the USAF runs the Aerospace Plane. The obvious problem is that NASA has no money for it. A related problem is that a recent memo from the White House seems to order NASA to buy its expendables commercially, rather than managing them in-house. Loud debates continue about whether the HLLV technology should be new or shuttle-derived; much will depend on how soon it is needed and what for (the USAF wants low cost and doesn't mind losing a payload now and then, while NASA wants reliability). Dale Myers, NASA deputy admin, says the HLLV would be quite useful to NASA. The space station and Galileo are obvious candidates for HLLV launch. [AW&ST appears to have made a goof in its typesetting of that item -- stuck in the middle of it are half a dozen totally unrelated paragraphs about the sad state of the US semiconductor industry! -- HS] Rockwell is still considering tradeoffs in building the Challenger replacement at the Palmdale plant or at Vandenberg. The Vandenberg idea is from the USAF, which hopes to reduce maintenance costs of the mothballed shuttle facility there by using it for this. Most everybody seems to think this is a really dumb idea; in particular, most of the skilled work force doesn't want to move away from the aerospace-oriented Palmdale area. Picture from Japan's MOS-1 (Marine Observation Satellite), showing runways etc. at Nagasaki airport. MOS-1's CCD imagers are considered comparable to those on Spot-1. DoD says that DoC should turn its weather satellites over to DoD and divert metsat funding to save the dying Landsat program. [This really gets the Turkey of the Month Award. -- HS] DoD wants to keep Landsat alive, but does not want to provide funding for it. DoD is Landsat's biggest customer, using it for mapping, routine operations planning, and intelligence work. Landsat is also useful in foreign intelligence collaboration, because DoD can use its own highly classified spysats to figure out what's going on and then supply unclassified Landsat pictures to foreign governments as evidence. DoD is already buying from Spot Image, and is interested in MOS-1. DoC prepares to issue licensing regulations for commercial remote sensing. News media fear the worst, and are pointing out that US licensing won't solve anything because others are already doing it. Mobile satellite communications work going ahead despite continuing squabbles about frequency sharing and legal authority to operate such facilities. Pan Am Pacific Satellite signs firm contract with Great Wall Industrial Corp. to launch Pacificstar 1 on Long March 3 in 1988. Price under $30M, insurance being negotiated. Letter of the week: "How is NASA to survive under the current budget priorities... "...the current commitment of our government ensures that executives of profitable space industries, space scientists, and employees living and working in low Earth orbit will be speaking French, Russian, and Japanese... "The conservativeness of our aerospace corporations also is dis- heartening. They are submitting proposals for new launchers, timidly waiting for market appraisals. As if orbital activity was expected to decline for the next 20 years! If some daring company had risked producing more launchers than they had contracts for, we could be moving ahead with the unmanned space research bumped from the shuttle... "It's been a year since Challenger; a year since the launch of Mir... We've got to get moving!" "Michael K. Desorcie, Berkeley" -- "The average nutritional value Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology of promises is roughly zero." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #238 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09457; Fri, 29 May 87 03:04:08 PDT id AA09457; Fri, 29 May 87 03:04:08 PDT Date: Fri, 29 May 87 03:04:08 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705291004.AA09457@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #239 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 29 May 87 03:04:08 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #239 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 239 Today's Topics: Re: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets Re: Why haven't they found us yet? The cold truth. Re: Gas mix onboard Shuttle Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity Re: robotics job opportunity at Kennedy Space Center, Florida Re: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets Prototype Solar Power Satellite: go for it Hardware on the Moon Photovoltaic cells for $.16/watt? Re: Soviet's launch new large booster ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 May 87 19:54:56 GMT From: tektronix!cae780!leadsv!esl!dew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Douglas Wood) Subject: Re: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets In article <8052@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> ... But within these constraints they seem to imply >> that accelerations much above 1g are not particularly valuable... > >A simpler, if less rigorous, way of reaching this conclusion is to observe >that an acceleration of 1 G is roughly c/yr (i.e., speed of light per year). >Obviously relativity will stick its nose in well before the end of the year, Hmmmm, curious statement. Acceleration at 1g does make sense from the observer's viewpoint. Remember that one is continuously increasing one's energy, therefore mass is increasing from the earth's viewpoint (if one left from earth). So, from earth, it would appear that the other ship is getting heavier and heavier when it is fairly close to the speed of light. But from the standpoint of the ship, time is slowing down. (actually your perception of your clock is not different). Length contraction gets more significant with energy. Therefore, accelerating at 1g still makes sense. dew@esl.ESL.COM ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 87 01:47:53 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA (MacLeod) Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet? The cold truth. Why haven't they found us yet? I'll tell you, but you won't believe me. The Earth is a dumping ground for all kinds of political undesirables, prisoners of war, anarchists, incurable loonies, and so on. We keep getting reborn into new bodies, forgetting about the process while in the bodies. You heard it here first. I'm writing a book about all this. On the other hand, there's the theory that humans are what happens to >evil dolphins< when they die; this is dolphin Hell. Sorry to inflict this on >sci. roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: >If the reduction weren't >sufficient to entirely eliminate the pre-breathing interval, NASA >mIght Figure That It Wasn't Worth The Liability exposure. This is a glib answer, but in an environment where there are all kinds of abnormalities, they might want to adhere to STP as a baseline for measuring other changes, like calcium leaching. I drove from San Antonio to Albequerqe (sp?) without noticing any pressure differential, but the next day, when I took the 20-minute tram ride to the top of Sandia Peak (gaining about 3500 feet, for an altitude of just over 10,000 feet) I got a mild case of Altitude Sickness. It was scary; my limbic system reacted as if my breathing were constricted by artificial means, and I became very anxious and bewildered before I figured it out. I was ok once I returned to the ground. A pity; it was very nice up there in the clouds. Don't try this trick at home, boys and girls. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 87 15:11:39 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity Newsgroups: sci.space Gee what about human heat? What about water transport? You are basically right about pressure and about joints being a problem, but please don't over simplify by creating a straw man in NASA. Al Globius should answer more suit questions since he was helping on this. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 87 20:23:41 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: robotics job opportunity at Kennedy Space Center, Florida Newsgroups: misc.jobs Malcolm is doing it again (from misc.jobs) >Seeking a robotics applications engineer interested in working with the >space shuttle ground operations, payload processing, and space station >ground operations. Applicants should have experience in one or more of >the following areas: machine vision, tactile and proximity sensors, >teleoperator applications, computer interfaces, collision avoidance and >path planning, and knowledge-based approaches to the above fields. > >Applicant must have excellent communications skills, write clearly and >effectively, assemble and give presentations, and have good administrative >skills. Must have US citizenship. > >Bachelor's degree in science, engineering, math, or computer science >is required, advanced degrees are desireable. > >Positions are available immediately. As soon as possible please send >resumes (physical, no e-mail please) to: > >Malcolm McRoberts >McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company >Dept. F880 >PO Box 21233 >Kennedy Space Center, FL 32815 >(305) 383-2569 From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 87 18:55:49 GMT From: amdcad!amd!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Howard A. Landman) Subject: Re: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets In article ??? (???) writes: >> ... But within these constraints they seem to imply >> that accelerations much above 1g are not particularly valuable... In article <8052@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >A simpler, if less rigorous, way of reaching this conclusion is to observe >that an acceleration of 1 G is roughly c/yr (i.e., speed of light per year). >Obviously relativity will stick its nose in well before the end of the year, >but the message is clear: if you can get fairly close to the speed limit in >a small fraction of a typical trip time, there isn't much point in higher >accelerations. Sorry, you're both considering things from the wrong viewpoint: that of someone on the ground. From the viewpoint of someone on the rocket, further acceleration *DOES* substantially reduce the trip time. The observer on the ground will say that this is due to time dilation, but either way the traveller will perceive a shorter trip (and hence less in the way of supplies required). I doubt that the saved food and oxygen would make up for the extra fuel, though. -- Howard A. Landman ...!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard howard%cpocd2%sc.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET "That weird shall never daunt me" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 87 11:41:35 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Prototype Solar Power Satellite: go for it Evelyn C. Leeper>> >>We propose the >>construction of a Solar Power Satellite Prototype I have my doubts about SPS for solving the energy crisis (by my rough calculation, SSPS cannot be cheaper than ground based solar using the same technology), but this idea I really like. >>...Such a mini-SPS might have a power output of >>only a few megawatts, but otherwise would function much as >>an SPS would during a trial period. [...] Keep in mind, a few megawatts is huge by the standards of existing space power sources, but is right on the line for the amounts of power that will be needed for near-term experiments and prototype industrialization. However, keep in mind that there *are* problems with small SPS's, namely, the beam divergence gets SMALLER as the antenna gets BIGGER. This problem can be lessened, although not solved by (1) using a large mirror to focus the microwaves. (2) putting the SPS in an orbit much closer than geosynch. If it is in a 500 mile high orbit and beaming to a space station in 100 mile high orbit, the maximum distance for the beam to travel is only 6000 miles, not 24,000 (nb: the station is only powered when in sight of the SPS) >> >>Construction of the mini-SPS in LEO... At the >>same time a receiving antenna would be build on the ground. >>The test phase, during which power is beamed to the >>Earth and the technology is refined. This is where I would suggest a change, based purely on politics. The big, big problem that SPS will have politically (aside from funding) is that people are going to object to beaming microwave "radiation" at the Earth. But, this is *not* a major item in a test satellite anyway. Although atmospheric tests *will* have to be made, most of the testing can be space-to space. >>Movement of the finished SPS to GEO, probably via the >>use of ion engines that provide very gentle movement. For a test SPS, it's silly to put it all the way up in GEO. You want it down much lower, where you can tinker with it, change configurations, fix problems, etc. >>The production phase during which the output of the >>mini-SPS would be diverted to the needs of commercial >>projects in LEO, including Space Station clients... Now you've hit the jackpot, and this is why I like this idea so much. You see, the space station has a *real* problem with power. It is in low orbit, see, and solar power systems have, unfortunately, a large projected area per unit power. This means, they drag. Solar panel drag is *the* limiting factor on the amount of power that will be available to the space station. But if the actual power generators were in *high* orbit, and only a receiving antenna (with much better power to area ratio, especially since an antenna can be mostly open area) were on the space station... bingo. I actually think you may be able to make this idea fly. >>or possibly to lunar orbiting or geosynchronous Space Stations Sigh, I think you're dreaming here. >>Hence, sale of power generated by the mini- >>SPS to in-space customers would pay back part of its >>cost. It might be possible to use same technology >>involved in beaming the power back to Earth to >>distribute power to a variety of in-orbit locations. >>Alternatively, the mini-SPS could be moved close to its >>customers. Or could have been there in the first place. Actually, there's a problem here. If the SPS is in the same low orbit as the space station, (a) it's so close to Earth that it's dark half the time, (b) It's low enough that there is significant atmospheric drag, made worse by the fact that a SPS would have a very large surface area and relatively low mass. You really want it much higher up. (but not necessarily as high as geosynch. In fact, preferably in a minimum of the radiation belts). However, in any other orbit it will be behind the Earth from the space station during half of the space station's orbit. A relay might be possible, essentially just a bit wire mesh in the same orbit as the SPS, but this would be an operational nightmare. I think the only solution is going to be storage batteries on the space station. CONCLUSION: Build a "prototype" SPS, put it in an orbit well below geosynch but high enough to avoid drag, and use it to power experiments & industrialization on the space station while debugging the feasability of the space power concept. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Postscript: What ever happened to the other "S" in the acronym for "Satellite Solar Power System" note to E.C. Leeper: is this address ARPA: mtgzy!ecl at rutgers.rutgers.edu correct? Our mailer rejects it as an unknown host. Do you have an alternate path via BITNET? >> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 87 16:48 PDT From: Len Reder Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Hardware on the Moon Cc: reder@white.sww.symbolics.com I am interested in finding out if any of the experiments left by the Apollo astronauts are still sending telemetry from the moon? If so does anyone know where I might find information on the specifications and locations on the moon of such experiments. I am interested is possible amateur radio and/or astronomy experiments which might be possible. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 87 17:24 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Photovoltaic cells for $.16/watt? In Electronics (5/14/87, page 22), there's a note about a new way to make photovoltaic cells. According to the note, Allen Barnett at U. of Delaware has developed a scheme that may make possible cells costing $0.16/watt (!). The technique uses a ceramic substrate (which is less costly than semiconductor grade silicon), onto which reflective silicon carbide and a polycrystalline silicon thin film are deposited. The note said light becomes optically trapped in the polycrystalline Si; I interpret that to mean that some light gets trapped by total internal reflection in the Si layer, increasing the interaction length. This is important because crystalline Si is a (relatively) poor absorber of light. A thinner cell means less high purity Si is used, so the cell is less expensive. The cells so far have an efficiency of 10%; Barnett is shooting for 17%. I hope this is more than vaporware; $.16/watt compares favorably to current DOE targets and is well below the cost threshold for economic large scale application. ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 87 19:24:17 GMT From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!hyper!harley@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Harley Grantham) Subject: Re: Soviet's launch new large booster In article <8705202101.AA18926@nic.nyser.net>, weltyc@NIC.NYSER.NET (Christopher A. Welty) writes: > > The scariest (I think) difference between now and then is that > then, everyone knew about the Soviet lead and was scared as hell, the > government was forced to move. But now, there is no news coverage, > few people realize how much the soviets are doing, and the government > feels no pressure to do ANYTHING! ... extraneous data deleted for space reasons ... > So my question (above in all caps) has two answers, either it > takes an effort to do what was done in the sixties to convince people > that there is reason to fear, and no one has done that yet - or > someone is suppressing news coverage of soviet success for some > reason... I don't know... > In the sixties space was new. They had shown they were superior to us in technology. It was a blow to our national pride. Now, we know we can do anything they can do up there. The soviets haven't done anything in space that is truly spectacular. Orbiting in a small space station for months at a time makes lousy TV coverage. The public is not interested. Add to that the president and vice president, Kennedy and Johnson were very interested in space travel. The current administration seems to care only about using space for military purposes. There is no consious conspiracy to prevent the public from knowing what goes on in space. There is only the imposed limit of the thirty second news broadcast. This is why some think showing a man setting foot on Mars for the first time will have a galvanizing effect on the American public. They may be right, but I do not think it will last. -- Harley H. Grantham, ihnp4!umn-cs!hyper!harley, Network Systems Corporation ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #239 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00357; Sat, 30 May 87 12:48:59 PDT id AA00357; Sat, 30 May 87 12:48:59 PDT Date: Sat, 30 May 87 12:48:59 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705301948.AA00357@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #240 *** EOOH *** Date: Sat, 30 May 87 12:48:59 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #240 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 240 Today's Topics: SRB Test firing Re: Question about Meissner effect Re: Reagan vs. a truck of gravel Use the Mars Juggernautto build a 500 man ***permanent*** colony on Frontiers and Men Re: The 500-Man Mars (seed) Colony is an idea that'll work Re: Commercial U.S. Rival to the NASP? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 May 87 11:33:12 PDT From: Eugene Miya Subject: SRB Test firing Yesterday there was an SRB test firing in the news. A horizontal test. I would have hoped a vertical test would have taken place, but I don't work on the manned space programs. --eugene miya NASA Ames ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 87 16:08:00 GMT From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: Question about Meissner effect In article <547865654.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: ... about Meissner effect in superconductors ... > I know that the effect excludes magnetic fields. I wonder if it works > equally well for rapidly changing fields. In a superconductor, a large fraction of the conduction band electrons are "normal", that is, not bound in superconducting Cooper pairs. This fraction becomes larger as the sample gets warmer, becoming 100% at the critical temperature (Sorry, I don't remember whether the fraction becomes zero at zero Kelvin). These normal electrons are subject to the same incident magnetic fields as the superconducting pairs, and do get accelerated (using energy). The effect can be modelled as a zero resistance inductor (representing the superconducting electrons) in parallel with a lossy inductor (for the normal electrons). The more quickly the field is changed, the more power is lost in the lossy part. The losses should go up as the frequency squared, I think... The losses aren't very big, though; if I remember right the Q of a superconducting microwave cavity is on the order of 1e10 (pump it with a milliwatt and watch it start arcing!). At frequencies much larger than the frequency related to the energy gap, (around a Terrahertz) I imagine you won't get much benefit from the superconductor, as photon quanta are energetic enough to start busting up the Cooper pairs. No improvements for visible light, much less X rays. Damn those fusty old solid state effects. They just don't have staying power. -- Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 87 01:26:56 GMT From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: Reagan vs. a truck of gravel > What is to prevent the imfamous "bad guy soviets" from simply > firing a truckload of gravel into space? Sure, it would trash > space travel, but war is hell... Space debris is a problem, but not as bad as some would suppose. Scaling it helps. Replace the gravel chunks with the same number of sticks of dynamite. That's a lot of sticks of dynamite. Now, scatter them out randomly over the entire Earth. Drive around continuously at 60 mph. How often will you hit one? (Hint: the Earth is B*I*G!!!) Not very often. Space is bigger. You are moving 300 times faster, increasing the chance of collision 300 times. However, you aren't confined to a plane. Things get RELATIVELY crowded the first 100 Km up, but that's only in relation to farther up. The volume of a low earth orbit shell 100 kilometers high is 50 billion cubic kilometers. A hundred tons of gravel in 5 gram chunks would be one grain every 2500 cubic kilometers. If your spacecraft had a cross section of 5 square meters and was moving at 8 kilometers per second relative to the average velocity of the gravel, you would encounter one chunk every 2 years or so. Keep a patch kit handy. Design your solar panels to work with holes punched through them. Geosyncronous orbit is tougher, because it is a line. If you let your satellite deviate +/- 1 degree from geosync (an elliptical, non-planar orbit), though, you haven't moved out of the aim of most ground antennas. The volume of the torus this defines is about 40 billion cubic kilometers, with retrograde gravel closing at a speed of 6 km/sec (twice orbital velocity). About the same rate as the LEO case. If this still is bothersome, move out. The volume inside the moon's orbit is 2e17 cubic kilometers. To create the same collision rates in this region would require 30 million times as much mass, considering that orbital velocity (and thus intercept rates) are much slower at high altitude. The average kinetic energy of impact would be 60 times smaller, too, so you would need about 2e11 tons of mass to cause the same amount of damage as the low earth orbit case given before. That much rock would form a ball 4 kilometers in diameter. If the USSR ever can launch that much stuff, I surrender! Until then, space debris is just another relatively small hazard. Getting to space seems much more hazardous than staying there. -- Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 May 87 09:57:59 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Use the Mars Juggernautto build a 500 man ***permanent*** colony on Mars In Vol. 7, No. 231 of Space Digest, Bill Higgins posted some remarks from the Space Development Conference in Pittsburgh. This conference was very concerned with stopping the "Mars Juggernaut". I've heard the argument against Mars exploration before and it goes like this: "A program to explore Mars will be a replay of the Apollo program, where billions of dollars will be focused on planting a flag on Mars and then the whole project will be thrown away with nothing added to a space infrastructure. Therefore a Mars program should be opposed and various space industrialization schemes such as Solar Power Satellites, should be promoted instead." Like most fallacious arguments there is a certain grain-of-truth to this position. It is true that the Apollo program did self destruct with no follow on projects after achieving its prime (mainly political) mission. Repeating this sort of stupidity is certainly not in the interests of those who wish to colonize space. However there exists two rather unpleasant questions that the Anti-Mars people have not adequately addressed: 1) Does current economics and technology admit the possibility for profitable commercialization of space? 2) Is the political process capable of major sponsorship for anything other than some flashy one shot space project? I believe the clear answer to both questions is "NO". It is possible with alot of government subsidies to make money in space with such mundane things as weather and communications satellites, certain LEO processing activities, remote sensing, etc. However the grandiose stuff like mining asteroids for gold will have to wait for three or four centuries. I and alot of other people would prefer not to wait three or four centuries for the development of Space Colonies. The dilemma is: How does one make a Space Colony that is not dependent on economics and can be entirely financed through "one shot" funding? As I see it, only a 500 man Mars colony will fulfill this constraint. There is a move afoot to plant an American flag on Mars. To simply put a flag on Mars is pretty stupid. However we can tap this gravey train for something more useful. Have the Americans planting the flag on Mars, **stay** on Mars and form a permanent colony. This can be done with 500 people. The L-5ers see Mars as their great enemy. They couldn't be more wrong. In actuality, the only way their dream of colonizing space can be achieved is by going to Mars. The trick is to convert the Mars mission from being simply a propaganda exercise into a bonafide colonization effort. Gary Allen ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 87 19:52:07 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa (MacLeod) Subject: Frontiers and Men I am one of the voices out there insisting that we go to the stars no matter what the cost, justification, or political/social prices must be paid, short of establishing a police state to do so (and of course it would not work). For about 8000 years there have been individuals who have looked over the current scene and said, "Screw this. I'm headed someplace else." So they marched off. Some headed towards Europe, some crossed the Bering Straits. Eventually Europe filled up, and there were still dissatisfied customers. They found America. Today, people are still coming to California to get away from the calcified East Coast. But what about the next step, for those who find California/ America to restrictive? Well, we've run out of frontiers, except for the obvious one. The ones who value security more than liberty can't understand the lure of the frontier. They will seek to put more and more restrictions on individuals, through fear and misunderstanding. I see this as a nearly unavoidable natural process: as new societies mature, they become dominated by security-oriented special interests, which trash individual rights for assorted altruistic reasons. The New Land, the Frontier, is a natural, crucial safety valve to bleed off the small, but virulent, percentage of anarchists. I am becoming more and more convinced that a large part of the social chaos we observe all around us is due to the perception of No More Frontiers. I believe that unless we get out into space, and soon, that our society will continue to be wracked by discontent and struggles over security versus freedom. The depressing point is that space travel is such a monumental undertaking that it has been, so far, a government-run operation. Advocates of space colonization have had to convince those who have no use for it. Perhaps the real future lies in free-market space operations; I hope so. Ultimately we must leave Earth or discover a world-sized heat sink. But I don't think we'll even make it to that point unless we >get out there<. I realize I'm preaching to the choir, but thanks for your attention. Mike MacLeod US out of America. ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 87 20:18:18 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: The 500-Man Mars (seed) Colony is an idea that'll work In article <8053@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > ... The lowest thermal > > polluting energy source is photovoltaic collectors on the roof of > > your house... > > Only if your roof had a relatively low albedo to begin with. Otherwise > those collectors are capturing energy that would have been reflected back > into space. Note that photovoltaics are lucky to get 20% efficiency, so > most of that energy turns into heat at once. Powersats do better, because > they put the low-efficiency part of the conversion process out in space > where the waste heat doesn't reach Earth. > Just to throw some data into the discussion for people to chew on: On the Earth's surface a photovoltaic array has at best (clear day, sun at zenith) 1000 watts/square meter to work with. In space, the insolation is 1390 watts/square meter. The difference is absorbtion by the atmosphere. To get the average available intensity on the ground, you have to account for sun elevations of less than 90 degrees above the horizon. This lowers the intensity even more by having more atmosphere to go through at a slant. Adding additional factors to account for clouds and night, a good location on the ground has an AVERAGE of 200 watts/square meter to work with. Now, in a 24 hour orbit, you are in the sun 99% of the time. The 1% is when the Earth is in front of the sun, which occurs seasonally around the spring and fall equinoxes. Thus you have about 1375 watts/square meter to work with. The decision on whether to install your photovoltaic array on the ground or in space then rests on whether it is less than 1375/200 times as expensive to put it in space as to put it on the ground. As for heat balance, the typical proposal for an SPS calls for receiving 300 watts/square meter at the receiving antenna on the ground, with 90% or so being converted to electricity. The remaining 10% emerges as heat at the receiving antenna. The part that gets converted to electricity emerges as heat at the place where the electricity is used. To preserve the overall heat balance of the earth, the receiving antenna should be painted white so as to lower the amount of sunlight absorbed on the ground to compensate for the added microwaves coming from orbit. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 87 19:54:35 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Commercial U.S. Rival to the NASP? In article <270@edsel.UUCP>, dxa@edsel.UUCP (DR Anolick) writes: > -- the "Orient Express." But, if a small engineering firm > in Georgia has its way, space transportation could become > affordable in about a year's time and at a cost of about > $100 million. > The secret lies in the Space Transportation Vehicle or > STV. A dream of Robert Talmage Jr., an engineer at the > Atlanta-based TAAS Co., the design would convert just about > any commercial airliner into a space transport that could > deliver a 4000-lb payload into an orbit of around 200,000 > feet. > > Well, it sounds wonderful doesn't it? But it sounds all too simplistic. > There seems to be holes in the above article, but since I am always > optimistic, I'll assume it was poor reporting rather than poor engineering. > > Has anyone heard of this before? Has anyone heard of the STV, Talmage, > TASS or Design News magazine before? Are any of these a known hoax? > I hope not. Assuming that it is real, even if the STV fails, it is the > type of commercial project that US space development needs. > > droyan David ROY ANolick > ihnp4!edsel!droyan ^ ^^^ ^^ > -- Part of my job at Boeing is keeping track of what other people are doing in the space transportation business. When I first heard about this idea, about a year ago, I called Talmage to find out more about his concept. I found myself explaining to him fundamental rocketry (like ideal velocity and the rocket equation). This does not give me confidence in his design ability. On the other hand, there was a good idea buried in his concept. I'm not proud, I'll use good ideas wherever they come from. The idea of using a big airplane as a launch platform for something that goes to orbit crops up periodically, ususally with a 747 as the airplane, it being the biggest one available. Unfortunately, a 747 is only big enough to get a fairly small vehicle payload to orbit. If you make a bigger airplane, say with twice the number of jet engines and twice the takeoff weight, most runways cannot take that much weight in one spot. Talmage's concept has a tow rope in it. The nice thing about a tow rope is that it allows the 747 (or whatever) and the rocket vehicle to run on independant landing gear, which lets you use a higher total takeoff weight than a runway can support on one set of gear. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #240 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01486; Sun, 31 May 87 03:03:13 PDT id AA01486; Sun, 31 May 87 03:03:13 PDT Date: Sun, 31 May 87 03:03:13 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8705311003.AA01486@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #241 *** EOOH *** Date: Sun, 31 May 87 03:03:13 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #241 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 241 Today's Topics: Nanotechnology Re: STV Re: low cost launch system (really low orbits) Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity Re: Why haven't they found us yet? Re: Gravel, etc. in space Supconductivity Speaker Needed for SF Convention! Help Wanted re. Astronaut Training References Re: Nanotechnology Solar power for England? Meissner effect at 225 K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 May 87 20:57:06 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa (MacLeod) Subject: Nanotechnology In article <8705201316.AA22835@angband.s1.gov> HIGGINS@FNALC.BITNET writes: >Herewith some more remarks about the Space Development Conference in Pittsburgh >a few weeks ago. >NANOTECHNOLOGY-- Eric Drexler's ideas about "nanotechnology," the (allegedly) >imminent techniques for building molecule-sized machines, tools, computers, >and factories, were much in evidence at the convention. It all seems a >little too good to be true to me, but I shouldn't comment until I finish >reading Eric's book, *Engines of Creation* (Doubleday Anchor). >A side issue: what the heck has this stuff to do with space travel? (some background on Eric Drexler deleted) >I don't want to sound smug or elitist about this group of people. But >there must be *some* good reason why nanotechnology has taken hold among >so many space buffs. Comments? For those unfamiliar with Drexler's book, let me add a few comments. Nanotechnology is an umbrella term for the extension of engineering art into smaller and smaller arenas. To be accurate, perhaps there should be other descrete levels: nanotechnolgy for cellular level mechanisms, picotechnology for molecular engineering, and attotech for atomic (femtotech for below-Planck -constant virtual (Tesla-effect?) engineering. Anyway, we are making the first strides into nanotechnology with tools like restriction enzymes, which allow for gene splicing in a very gross batch mode. Drexler claims that within 10 to 30 years there will be a series of breakthroughs that allow construction of molecular and (eventually) atomic state machinery that will pack the processing ability of a hundred Crays running in parallel into a single white blood cell, with all the I/O and memory it needs to rebuild gross structures (plaque in coronary arteries, lipofuscin deposition in the brain, renal damage from high blood pressure, detached retinas, you name it) and fine structures (repair of cross-linked tissue [aging], free radical scavenging, DNA-RNA repair, cures of genetic disease). Needless to say, this unlocks the floodgates of genetic engineering. Larry Niven's solid-fuel stage trees become a reality. Engineers create organisms that excrete diamond fiber in various shapes and use it to build currently unimplementable structures. A dazzling new world opens up; even those weaned on science fiction are caught up breathless by the Total Engineering of Every- thing. Of course, there's the Dark Side of the Force: the grey-goo catastrophe, where your classic Mad Scientist makes a nanomachine that eats anything and makes a copy of itself every day (hour, minute, second), and turns it loose. In some (short) period everything is copies of the machine. One would hope that this doesn't happen, and to Drexler's credit, he tries to anticipate public-safety objections, such as this, to implementing nanotech. To come around to the point...I had a brief discussion with Mr. Keith Henson about nanotechnology, having heard that he was interested in what I considered "fringe science". He spoke with great feeling about such topics as I have outlined above, and went on to talk of nanomachines eating PVCs and dioxin and reclaiming toxic wastes of all kinds. Then I asked him what he forsaw in terms of physics breakthroughs on a fundamental level - the kind of unified field approach that would reduce manipulation of all fields and particle interactions to engineering art. He shrugged it off, saying, "What do you need hyperdrives for? With nano- machines in your bloodstream you can live virtually forever." I made several other attempts to draw him out, but gave up. I wanted to talk about Tom Bearden's assertions that he has supplied the theoretical background to Tesla's (alleged) scalar wave and virtual particle engineering machinery, but it was no go. I think that the attraction of the basket of engineering disciplines that make up Nanotechnology is that it is purely straight-line extrapolation. There may be fallacies built into such assumptions, but when Drexler says that we have X capability today, and we will have X squared capability in the future, he makes, in general, good engineering sense (I'm a layman, but I've been a hard-science technical writer for ten years). Nanotechnology is Newtonian and appeals to those who are uncomfortable with the atmospheric speculations of physicists like Jack Sarfatti or Nick Herbert, who seem (to some) to be merging physics and metaphysics into a soft-science gruel. This is not to detract from the very real benefits of molecular and atomic engineering. But it disturbs me to hear futurists dismiss FTL drives. Yes, I know that they are "impossible". As long as you call them "impossible", and refuse to look for one, your only chance of achieving one is by accident. Why not start with the premise that we >have< to have an FTL drive, or else space travel will remain a parochial enterprise? Because it's unscientific? Perhaps, but it's not unproductive. History is full of things that were "impossible" but necessary; some were eventually obtained. If even a fraction of the promise of nanotechnology comes to pass, we will - all of us on Earth - live in material abundance and prosperity previously unimagined, and nanomachinery will do it in a matter of weeks or months at most. If we can avoid the pitfalls, and the demons within our own minds, we may have it all - peace and plenty on Earth, and an active and expanding spacefaring civilization, with reconstruction of astroids into habitats, and the terraforming of planets within years. I do recommend Eric Drexler's book, "The Engines of Creation", for those who are interested. And Greg Bear's "Blood Music" as a sobering chaser. Mike MacLeod ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 1987 14:30-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: STV Article on the STV idea appeared in L5 News (or Space Frontier depending on when it appeared) sometime last year. Probably around April-May-June 86. I've not seen a lot of detail on the concept but it does look interesting at first glance. The major concept is that he tries to balance the velocity curve to altitude so that wastage of energy due to drag is minimized. Maybe Dani Eder (Boeing) has some friends up there at Seattle who could comment on Talmadge's design idea. (Preferably someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the NASP airframe design, Dani!) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 May 87 16:07:46 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: low cost launch system (really low orbits) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1865@hplabsc.UUCP> David Smith writes: >In article <34fa7128.44e6@apollo.uucp>, nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes: >> 200,000 feet is pretty low. How long will something remain in >> orbit at this altitude? Is this altitude useful for anything or >> would the customer typically supply his own booster to get into a >> higher orbit? >> --Peter Nelson > >The Apollo program considered re-entry to begin at 800,000 feet. >John Glenn's "You are go, at least seven orbits" (i.e., he had at >least that long before re-entry would be forced by orbital decay) >was at around 550,000 feet. I beg to differ, it was not orbital decay [reminds me of Star Trek episodes (Oh Scotty!)]. It was only planned that way, lots of Sevens in that program. Certain, uh, satellites with extremely eccentric orbits fly as low at 60 miles (so I was told in certain classes). Say can you say, "Cheese?" Also we have programs (not computer) to study high altitude chemistry in the 200-300,000 foot range, if you could call it chemistry. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 87 22:56:38 GMT From: trwrb!wiley!doug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Doug Rudoff) Subject: Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity I read an article in a recent space-oriented magazine (Space World or Spaceflight or ???) about work being down at NASA on a 1 atmosphere EVA suit. At the higher pressure they decided it was appropriate to to have a rigid suit, similar to armor. However, for the gloves they still needed a flexible material, but were having problems finding a material that didn't get too stiff for use at 1 atmosphere. ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 87 10:35:55 GMT From: nsc!nsta!instable!amos@decwrl.dec.com (Amos Shapir) Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet? What do you do when you find an anthill in your back yard? Send them a delegation and ask them to take you to their queen? Or just leave an automatic tracking device to monitor their behaviour? Some ant colonies are studied, but most of them are just ignored by humans. Why should aliens treat us differently? -- Amos Shapir National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. (972)52-522261 amos%nsta@nsc.com @{hplabs,pyramid,sun,decwrl} 34 48 E / 32 10 N ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 87 03:31:21 GMT From: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Gravel, etc. in space In article <1591@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: >There is a good short story by James White ("Deadly Litter") set in ^^^^^^^^^^^ _novel_ >the next century, when intrasystem space flight is routine, and navigators >must deal with the debris left by astronauts in the early years of >space travel, before traffic control realized what a problem a cloud Actually, White somewhat overstates his case. He is using _constant boost_ ships, thus most of the jettisoned material would be well above _system_ escape velocity. The odds of running into something that is in a _significantly_ different orbit are rather slim unless you are in orbit around a planet. Objects in similar orbits aren't terribly dangerous as the relative velocity is low. Of course, if you are following the same orbit as the Mars Limited (:-)) but in the opposite direction.... -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!leonard CIS: [70465,203] ...!tektronix!reed!percival!!bucket!leonard "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker." ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 87 18:50:21 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A Andrews) Subject: Supconductivity Speaker Needed for SF Convention! QUALIFIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY SPEAKER NEARBY? Indianapolis' annual science fiction convention, Inconjunction VII, is looking for a qualified speaker to talk about what the layperson should know about the recent events in superconductivity research-- e.g., what kinds of fantastic devices, appliances, toys, machines, computers, might be forthcoming, and how the future might change because of the new phenomena. We've heard predictions of pocket Crays, maglev vehicles, robots, etc. Can someone knowledgeable give an informative yet entertaining talk, preferably using slides, videotape or other media device? Can someone close by (Purdue, I. U., IUPUI, etc.) give me a call if you're interested in presenting this kind of short talk over the Fourth of July weekend in Indianapolis? We offer free memberships to the con, a program book listing, and maybe a small remuneration (as well as droves of adoring fans anxious to lap up the wonders of physics... :) ) If nearby (or planning to be in the neighborhood during that time) call Inconjunction Co-Chairperson JoAnn Brooks at 317-769-6650. Thanks, Arlan Andrews (ToastMaster for Inconjunction VII) ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 87 23:06:55 GMT From: philabs!ttidca!jackson@nyu.arpa (Dick Jackson) Subject: Help Wanted re. Astronaut Training References My son (highschool junior) has to write a term paper on the selection and training of the astronauts for the Apollo program, Apollo 11 in particular. He has had a lot of trouble at libraries finding bokks, articles etc. describing the pre-flight activities of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins(?). We would greatly appreciate advice from you space mavens. Thanks in advance. (He already has a book called "We Seven", which is primarily about the Mercury period.) Dick Jackson ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 87 08:05:09 GMT From: jade!topaz.berkeley.edu!newton2@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Nanotechnology I think the reason it would be unfruitful, however inspiring, to search for a FTL drive is that there wouldn't be much in the way of intellectual tools to search for it with, since FTL is inconsistent with physics as it is presently understood. I guess you could whittle away at the definition of FTL travel until you came up with something that *is* consistent with SR (like saying time dilation makes a trip subjectively FTL); that's the way things which are shown to be impossible are sometimes "done" (particularly in defense systems). Doug Maisel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 87 08:40 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Solar power for England? Henry Spencer (mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov) said: >> (which is the way the energy crisis will eventually be >> solved, see latest issue of Scientific American) [referring >> to ground based photovoltaics; the issue is actually several months >> old.] > Ho ho. Not in Toronto it won't be. (Fred Hoyle commented that if you > talked about solar power in England, everyone would know you were > crazy.) The Scientific American article didn't really dwell on little > problems like weather and darkness, both of which call for major > advances in energy storage technology if they are to be solved > adequately. I think there's a good chance recent advances in superconductors may solve the problems of long distance energy transmission and storage. Transmission would be solved with underground superconducting cables. Storage could be solved one of two ways: by small magnetic energy storage coils (in which the energy stored scales as R log R, R the radius of the coil), or in kinetic energy storage rings (investigated at Argonne after some researchers were inspired by Lofstrom's launch loop proposal) in which the energy stored scales as R**2 (so energy stored per unit system mass is proportional to R). The Japanese are investigating SMES coils in their "Moonlight" program. These energy storage technologies are also useful for load leveling, so they will be developed even if most electricity is generated from fossil fuels or fission. High Tc superconductors may make some designs for the kinetic energy storage rings more feasible. One design had a levitated loop made of superconductor. A current flows around the loop, and a vertical magnetic field provides centripetal acceleration. The problem with this scheme was a small but troublesome amount of heating produced by field inhomogenities. The loop has to radiate any waste heat, which is difficult at liquid helium temperatures. At liquid nitrogen temperatures the radiated power is many orders of magnitude higher. There are many other variants of this idea, all of which are helped by cheaper s.c. magnets. Fred Hoyle's comments about solar power in England aside, I don't see anything wrong in the long term with the idea of generating electricity with photovoltaic cells in the Sahara and carrying it to France and then to the rest of Europe by s.c. transmission lines. The transmission lines and PV cells would have to be sufficiently cheap for this to be practical, but who's to say they won't discover near room temperature superconductors? Paul Dietz dietz@slb-doll.csnet ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 87 10:44 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Meissner effect at 225 K I wrote: > who's to say they won't discover near room temperature superconductors? I should read the newspaper! After sending off the message with that line, I read the NY Times (5/23/87). Wu & Chu at U. of Houston have detected the Meissner effect in a small portion of a sample at 225 K (-54 F). The Meissner effect is considered to be diagnostic of superconductivity. The effect was detected in four different compounds. Chu also reports that a fifth compound that shows tentative indications of losing resistance at room temperature. Cohen and Zettl at UC Berkeley have reported a drop to zero resistance in a sample at above room temperature, but the measurements have been hard to confirm. P. Dietz (dietz@slb-doll.csnet) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #241 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03190; Mon, 1 Jun 87 03:03:52 PDT id AA03190; Mon, 1 Jun 87 03:03:52 PDT Date: Mon, 1 Jun 87 03:03:52 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706011003.AA03190@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #242 *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 1 Jun 87 03:03:52 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #242 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 242 Today's Topics: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle Mars-land colony begs question of true space colony Get other tasks done before really going to Mars Re: Use the Mars Juggernautto build a 500 man ***permanent*** colony on Re: Hardware on the Moon Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity Re: Nanotechnology Re: Getting There disagreement with some points of (otherwise good) NJ L5 papers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 May 87 18:42:28 GMT From: trwrb!kraml@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Robert P. Kraml) Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle In article <4570@utah-cs.UUCP> u-jeivan%ug.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Eric Ivancich) writes: > >ever built to date. How will their's compare? What about their >on-board computers? I understand our shuttle uses computers of early >1970s vintage. Let's here some speculation. > >Eric > I dont have any speculation regarding the Soviets --- but why are we using such old technology on the shuttle? Bob -- Phone: (213) 536-1871 {uscvax,decvax,randvax,ihnp4,sdcrdcf} Address: One Space Park | 82/2024 ------>!trwrb!trwcsed!kraml Redondo Beach CA 90278 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 87 18:09:53 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 23 18:09:53 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 May 23 18:32:41 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Mars-land colony begs question of true space colony Date: Mon, 18 May 87 09:28:30 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: The 500-Man Mars (seed) Colony is an idea that'll work However I'd like to see a space colony established within the next century. This can be done with a 500 man Mars colony. The surface of Mars is extraterrestrial in the sense of being not on the planet Earth, or terrestrial in the sense of being on land as opposed to water, but not space in any reasonable sense that doesn't also include the outback of Australia. I don't see the relationship between a colony on the surface land of Mars and a colony in space, unless you are merely using the word "space" to mean anything not on the planet Earth. Are you? We would get to Mars **not** with an IFR (even thought this is the best way) but through a heliocentric space station that is in a resonant orbit between Earth and Mars. Note that such a station, intermittantly occupied during personnel transfer but normally unoccupied, is not the same thing as a space colony. Perhaps it would be better to have a real space colony in heliocentric Earth&Mars-transfer orbit. People living there could view both planets close-up for a while each year and at such times have an option of returning to Earth or joining the Mars colony (permanently), and the rest of the trip could (behind a sunshield) perform astronomy observations to their hearts content, unimpeded by planetary atmosphere nor even by a nearby planet getting in the field of view half the time as a LEO or GEO station would suffer. Only the 500 man [sic] Mars colony can establish a permanent space colony with a finite price tag and without recourse to economic viability. I don't consider the Mars colony (or even a Lunar colony) to be a space colony, therefore the above statement is incorrect in my view. The question of establishing a permanent space colony with finite price tag is still pending. Perhaps a large asteroid would have enough material to supply a 500-person for the indefinite future (hundreds of years, long enough to grow enough people and equipment to spawn new colonies on other asteroids)? I *do* consider a large asteroid colony to be a space colony, because the gravity is so low as not to prevent people from leaving the colony, because there is no atmosphere to impede astronomy, and because we currently have (or soon will have) technology to move the asteroid itself as if it were part of the ship rather than a fixed planet-in-orbit. A Lunar colony violates two of those, and a Mars colony violates all three. If we can find a large asteroid with all the essential chemicals for our long-term survival, we could then establish the colony with fixed cost (no additional continuing costs to keep it supplied from Earth). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 87 18:13:44 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 23 18:13:44 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 May 23 18:37:56 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: "HIGGINS%FNALC.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Get other tasks done before really going to Mars Date: Wed, 20-MAY-1987 06:19 CDT From: Subject: More impressions of Pittsburgh: Mars, nanotech,SSI 3) Co-opt it. All right, we're gonna go to Mars. Let's do it the "right" way. I like this way. Keep pointing out the things we should do first, postponing the actual stunt until it seems the appropriate time. ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 87 00:05:17 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Use the Mars Juggernautto build a 500 man ***permanent*** colony on Let me see if I've understood your argument: 1. There is no economic justification for space colonization, so presenting it as an alternative to Mars is doomed. 2. There is no political support for non-flashy non-one-shot space projects, so presenting them as alternatives is also doomed. 3. Therefore, it is realistic to campaign for a non-flashy non-one-shot space colonization project, to wit colonizing Mars. Sure. -- "The average nutritional value Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology of promises is roughly zero." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 87 00:02:30 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Hardware on the Moon > I am interested in finding out if any of the experiments left by the > Apollo astronauts are still sending telemetry from the moon? ... They were turned off about ten years ago. Not because they weren't still sending useful data, but because there was no more funding for data collection and it was thought undesirable to leave them using spectrum space when nobody was listening. This was an irrevocable shutoff, they cannot be turned on again. ARGH. The laser retro-reflectors are still usable, but that's not quite the sort of thing you were thinking of... -- "The average nutritional value Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology of promises is roughly zero." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 87 23:58:45 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity > Gee what about human heat? Cooling is done the same way it is here on Earth: sweat. The S.A.S. does not seal the body inside an impermeable bag, remember. > What about water transport? I'm not sure what water you are referring to. There is no water cooling system such as conventional spacesuits use. > You are basically right about pressure and about joints being a problem, > but please don't over simplify by creating a straw man in NASA. Well, read NASA CR-1892, "Development of a Space Activity Suit", by James Annis and Paul Webb, and tell me what you think. (Note to people asking me about references: this is the major one.) -- "The average nutritional value Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology of promises is roughly zero." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 87 04:28:43 GMT From: jade!tart8.berkeley.edu!c60a-4gd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Stephan Zielinski) Subject: Re: Nanotechnology Material abundance for everybody? That's what we said when we had the agricultural revolution, the first industrial revolution, the second industrial revolution, the Russian revolution... We've had the resources to feed the planet for at least fifty years. We (America) don't because it's not profitable. What does this have to do with space? The best (i.e. most reasonable from a moral point of view) arguments I've heard for settling space is that it will make the standard of living higher for both a small group of settlers and the people left on earth. I'm sorry, but things don't work that way. Look at every frontier in history, and look at the world today. Humanity always blows it. In fact, the only way to set up a true Post Scarcity Economy will be to build it from the ground up... which, unfortunately, implies a frontier. Which implies space. However, I will never settle a frontier: I'm a soft hacker, not a test pilot. Nor is it *likely* (although certainly possible) that any of you all will. The vast bulk of settlers have always been those who are rejected from society: religious outcasts, the poor, and criminals. The astronauts look upon a picture of a full Earth and feel in their souls that the Earth is one planet, and man belongs in space. The vast bulk of humanity yawns and flips the page to read about Princess Di's hair. Our problems are: 1) Convincing the military-industrial complex to expand into space, which implies demonstrating a profit can be made by the end of the next quarter. 2) Building a NEW society when we get there; keeping the same old, old mistakes from being made. Comments / flames? _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._ -Stephan Zielinski, evil person and defender of orcs All of this material is copyrighted. Integration of any of it into your consciousness without express written permission from the author is punishible by immediate confiscation of the offending neurons. UUCP: {Your problem}!ucbvax!miro!stephan (I don't *really* know...) ARPA: stephan@miro.Berkeley.EDU "Another 'Helpful Hint for Living,' from... The Committee." (from A Boy and His Dog) ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 87 20:03:48 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Getting There In article <1633@drivax.UUCP>, macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: > > The depressing point is that space travel is such a monumental undertaking > that it has been, so far, a government-run operation. Advocates of space > colonization have had to convince those who have no use for it. Perhaps the > real future lies in free-market space operations; I hope so. > > > Mike MacLeod The current cost of getting payload into Earth orbit in the US is on the order of $3600 per pound. On the other hand the energy cost to reach Earth orbit can be calculated as follows: g=standard gravity=9.80665 meter/sec^2 r=radius of earth =6 375 000 meters v=orbital velocity at surface= (g*r)^(1/2)= 7,906 meters/sec kinetic energy= 1/2*m*v*v = 31.26 MegaJoules/kg * mass = 8.68 kiloWatt-hours/kg * mass approx. $0.60/kg = $0.28/lb (depending onlocal electric rates). The fact that it costs about 10,000 times as much as the bare energy cost to get into low Earth orbit leads me to an obvious conclusion: WE ARE DOING IT THE WRONG WAY!!! What, you may ask, are we doing wrong? The most basic thing we are doing wrong, because it leverages everything else, is we are using chemical fuels to power our vehicles. The best reasonable propellant we have (discounting nasty combinations like H2+F2=2HF = hydrofluoric acid) is 2 H2+O2=2 H20=steam. This yields about 15 MegaJoules /kg of propellant, or slightly less than half the energy per unit weight needed to get to orbit. Hence this fuel combination cannot get itself to orbit, much less itself+vehicle+payload. The way we get around this problem is to use a large amount of fuel to push a smaller amount of fuel up to the point where the smaller amount of fuel can get to orbit, with , hopefully, some vehicle and payload coming along for the ride. This is why a well designed modern rocket is 85% fuel, 10% vehicle, and 5% payload. If we want the vehicle to be reuseable, we must increase the vehicle weight, at the expense of the payload. The propellant fraction remains the same. If you wish to have a vehicle that lasts 10,000 flights rather than 1 flight, a typical result is that the vehicle now weighs 20% instead of 10%, and the payload now becomes -5%, an unsatisfactory result. The only way out of this box is STOP USING CHEMICAL ROCKETS FOR ALL THE PROPULSION TO ORBIT. For example, if somehow half the propulsion is provided another way, a one stage 10,000 flight vehicle stacks up like this: 64% propellant, 20% vehicle, and 16% payload. This is a much nicer result. Now, the question becomes how to provide this other propulsion. In ten years of working on getting into space, I have come across over 50 ways of getting to and moving around in space. The list includes: Fanjet, Turbo-Ramjet, Ramjet, Scramjet Chemical rocket, Scramjet Gun, Balloon Gun, Artillery, Rocket fed Gas Gun Alpha particle rocket, Thermoelectric-Ion Nuclear Rocket, Nuclear -Ion, particle bed reactor -gas gun Pure fusion rocket, hydrogen augmented fusion rocket Pure antimatter rocket, hydrogen augmented antimatter rocket Orion (nuclear explosive rocket), nuclear pumped gas gun Photon rocket Electric rail rocket, Railgun, Mass driver, electric discharge gas gun Microwave rocket, cyclotron absorbtion rocket, microwave-ion, microwave lightsail (Starwisp) Laser sustained shock wave (Waverider) Laser rocket, laser-ion rocket, laser lightsail Solar thermal rocket, Solar-electric arcjet, Photovoltaic -ion, solar lightsail, Mass driver reaction engine, electrodynamic railgun engine Light Gas Gun, Underwater gas gun Aerobrake, Hydrogen Tunnel, Launch Loop, Piston driven gas gun, leveraged catapult, Static towers, orbital tethers, tow ropes planetary flyby, on-site fuel manufacture, and extraterrestrial dumb-waiter. Now you just have to figure out which is cheapest , which is a function of (time, amount of payload traffic, launch rate, passenger carrying?, individual payload size, destination orbit) Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 87 18:07:23 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 23 18:07:23 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 May 24 11:09:49 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: disagreement with some points of (otherwise good) NJ L5 papers Date: 8 May 87 23:50:48 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Commercial Space Incentives: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper We suggest that NASA make plans to use the capability provided by the Commercial Space Incentive Act to launch bulk payloads. Such payloads would consist mainly of food, water, and other supplies for the Space Station, or rocket fuel for use by Orbital Transfer Vehicles. An implication of this scheme is that the a stockpile facility should be constructed near the Space Station where these payloads are collected until they could be used. Without a remote-control space tug up there at all times, capable of docking with the payload, carrying it to the stockpile, attaching the payload to the stockpile, and departing without exhaust blast damaging either the stockpile or the payload, all we have is lots of payloads drifting in separate orbits creating a navigational hazard to other vehicles. Date: 9 May 87 04:09:50 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Goals for the Nineties: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu 3. Focus on the resources most easily returned to the Earth: information, energy, and high-value light- weight products. The mining of minerals in space for use on the Earth does not appear to be practical for at least the next 20 years. (Any chance you can flush tabs before distributing to the net?) I dispute the above paragraph. You don't make it clear in the preface whether you are in favor of using extraterrestrial materials in space (to build habitat or to build large devices such as telescopes) or on Earth (in the form of products that are extremely expensive to produce on Earth due to interference from gravity and/or air pressure). That is, are you concerned with building an infrastructure that will be generally useful for future space-based projects we haven't yet planned, so that someday we can seriously think about really major things in space, or with building an infrastructure for directly supplying Earth with stuff? As I started reading your paper I was thinking you were working on the former, especially when you said we shouldn't expect pay-back within ten years, but this paragraph seems to be directed at the latter. I would rather see the former. In any case I would like the purpose to be more clear: restrict the plan to those few materials and products which are worth returning to Earth, or also include materials and products which are of use only in space? 5. Failure to exploit economic opportunities in space will result in our international competitors (USSR, ESA, China, and Japan) exploiting these opportunities whether we do or not. From the scientific/human point of view, this statement means it's rather moot whether we do it or not, since it's going to get done anyway and that's what is really important, not whether we do it ourselves. Are you saying it's crucial that WE (the USA) duplicate what others are doing? Why?? Maybe, if they can do it better, we should just help finance their efforts instead of trying to do it ourselves too?? The Space Station represents the foundation on which all major future space efforts depend. The USSR already has designed, built and launched several space stations. Instead of re-designing our own from scratch, why not just buy one of their old ones (we can have it THIS YEAR), or contract them to build and launch a new one just for us? (Of course they won't let us share the one they are using because of military experiments etc., which is why I suggested contracting another one.) Is there any really good argument for re-inventing the wheel over ten years instead of using an existing design this year?? - Space Shuttle to lift components Doesn't this contradict the other proposal for heavy lift vehicle, as well as the present USSR heavy-lift capability we might be able to contract payload on? In conclusion, it is clear we need both a space station and an orbital transfer vehicle or other kind of space-tugboat, but while the latter doesn't yet exist and needs to be designed (therefore we might as well be the ones to design it), the former already exists and we need a good reason to design a new one instead of using existing designs. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #242 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05516; Tue, 2 Jun 87 03:03:47 PDT id AA05516; Tue, 2 Jun 87 03:03:47 PDT Date: Tue, 2 Jun 87 03:03:47 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706021003.AA05516@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #243 *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 2 Jun 87 03:03:47 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #243 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 243 Today's Topics: space news from March 30 AW&ST Re: Hardware on the Moon Re: space news from March 2 AW&ST <8020@utzoo.UUCP> Deadly litter? Military Space $$$, Societies in space Re: Why haven't they found us yet? Soviet Mars Sample Return Mission ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 May 87 00:07:16 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from March 30 AW&ST McDonnell Douglas is looking at modifying the Cape's Pad 13 -- an old Atlas pad, retired but in good shape -- as a third Delta pad. Demand may be too high for the two existing pads. Italy will play a modest role in France's Helios spysat project, and Spain may join also. Helios will be based on Spot; first launch early 1990s. Arianespace has informally asked Pratt&Whitney and NASA about availability and cost of the RL10 oxyhydrogen engine used in Centaur, as a possible alternative to the troubled third-stage engine of Ariane. The answer has been "ask us formally"; the US is unenthusiastic about selling engines to its competition. NASA has officially rejected Ali AbuTaha's latest theories about the 51L disaster, after study of radar and camera records failed to confirm his claim that breakup of the SRB started earlier than formerly thought. Dial-A-Shuttle comes to the USSR: Russians wanting an update on activities aboard Mir now have a number to call, Moscow 215-63-56. Dept. of Yet Again: Atlas-Centaur carrying a FltSatCom military comsat lost after launch March 26. Range safety blew it up when it pitched off course. Launch was in heavy rain, ceiling 2500 ft, lightning nearby; suspected cause is a lightning hit. Launch rules prohibit launches when known thunderstorms are too close, but rain is not a factor. Launch rules may be revised now. The final FltSatCom launch, aboard the last currently-available Atlas-Centaur, was scheduled for June 11 but will not fly until the loss is understood. The loss of the satellite is annoying but not a disaster: the existing FltSatCom satellites are busy but functioning well. USAF says several US military satellites, including some early-warning satellites, are operating on their final backup systems. There is also concern about the lifetime of the DSCS-3 military comsats, since component analyses suggest possibilities for early failure. The Soviet Union's small manned spaceplane, apparently distinct from the Soviet shuttle, is expected to start manned tests soon. Hermes design being rethought, may now include an ejectable cabin as a launch escape system. Another possible change is a pressurized cargo bay with an airlock, instead of a shuttle-style open cargo bay. Payload mass targets have been scaled down, and the Ariane 5 launcher is being beefed up a little. Phase One of the space station will be essentially the central horizontal boom of the Dual Keel design. Deferred to Phase Two are solar-dynamic power, the servicing facility, the rest of the booms, and the co-orbiting platform. The international contributions have been moved up in the assembly sequence to make them part of Phase One. The lifeboat issue is not yet resolved. There may be political complications in space station management again, because the phase split heavily favors Marshall and defers much of the work assigned to other NASA centers. The deferrals, notably of the co-orbiting platform, may improve the prospects for Space Industries Inc's Industrial Space Facility, which could do some of the same jobs. Peter Banks, chair of NASA science-on-space-station task force, expresses dissatisfaction with current plans, wants cheaper and earlier operational status, suggests launching a single large module with multiple docking ports (in about 1992, aboard a heavylift launcher) as a first step. Task force also pushes more Spacelab flights and scientific use of SII's ISF. NASA is not pleased with all this. India loses small scientific satellite after Indian-built ASLV booster fails. The last three Deltas currently in inventory will all be used for SDI tests. Indonesian Palapa comsat is on station after Delta launch March 20th. Six arrested in France on suspicion of espionage, Ariane cryogenic rocket- engine technology thought to have been a major target. US Space Command completes large joint exercise aimed at clearing up some problems seen in an exercise last fall. Details of US military space centers. Picture of Galileo being dismantled at JPL, partly for storage until launch and partly for changes needed for its new trajectory. Proxmire and Boland (chairs of Senate and House appropriations committees relevant to NASA) come out in support of space station, with some concern about getting science going early, perhaps with an interim man-tended station. NASA will continue the shuttle processing contract with Lockheed Space Operations, after review committee concludes that fixing its problems will cause less disruption than making major changes. Various groups disagreed on preferred solutions, mostly on predictable parochial grounds (e.g. Rockwell said the only complete solution was to make Rockwell responsible for all orbiter processing). [Mini-editorial: If Rockwell really wants to make a contribution to the US space program, what it should do is gather all its courage and commit to building another orbiter (not the Challenger replacement, but *another* one) with private funding. *Not* ask NASA about it, *not* propose the idea, but *do* it. A bit of a risk, yes... but the odds approach 100% that the extra orbiter will be needed within the next two decades. Unfortunately, my impression is that Rockwell is no exception to the rule of US companies thinking that long-range planning means two years, so I don't expect them to be brave enough for this. -- HS] "The average nutritional value Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology of promises is roughly zero." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 May 87 11:30:36 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Hardware on the Moon A request regarding the instruments on the Moon was made, but I could not reply to your message. I suggest you contact the Public Information Office at the Johnson Space Center for the number to the Lunar Receiving Lab. --eugene miya eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 May 87 19:04:17 EDT From: "Eric W. Tilenius" Subject: Re: space news from March 2 AW&ST <8020@utzoo.UUCP> To: utzoo!henry I feel pretty stupid for asking this, but what is the full title of AW&ST? I'm trying to find if it is in the Princeton library. How could I get access to this publication? Also, I'm doing an article on how business can help the civilian space program - what would be the rewards for business, etc. Do you have any ideas for companies/business leaders to interview? Thanks in advance... - ERIC - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jun 87 01:40:05 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Deadly litter? To: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov, SF-Lovers@red.rutgers.edu > From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa > There is a good short story by James White ("Deadly Litter") set in > the next century, when intrasystem space flight is routine, and navigators > must deal with the debris left by astronauts in the early years of > space travel, before traffic control realized what a problem a cloud Good writing but poor science. He is off by many orders of magnitude. Litter may someday be a problem in low Earth orbit, but, consider the volume of interplanetary space. The volume of the solar system within Jupiter's orbit is well over 1.6E36 cubic meters. If every person on Earth owned their own spacecraft, flew it constantly, and discarded one piece of litter per second for a century, that would be about 1.5E19 pieces of litter, or one piece per 1E17 cubic meters. If the average spacecraft had a cross-section of 100 square meters, and traveled at 10 kilometers per second (much faster and the litter would hurtle out of the solar system), it would collide with a piece of litter about once every 3000 years on the average. Yet White portrays littering as a very serious crime, and despite extreme precautions taken, many spacecraft are destroyed by collisions with litter. It is clear that he has no feel for the sheer size of the solar system. He has done worse. He portrays chance meetings in interstellar space, which ought to happen approximately never, even if every star system has a million starships associated with it, which travel constantly at half the speed of light and which can detect any other starship within the Earth-moon distance of it. And of course there is _The Watch Below_, in which several generations live for over a century aboard a sunken WWII ship, by cranking a generator to power light bulbs to grow green plants which produce oxygen, in violation of a few laws of thermodynamics and common sense. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 87 09:54:59 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Military Space $$$, Societies in space In article <1284@sics.UUCP> pd@sics.UUCP (Per Danielsson) writes: >In article <3701@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> c60a-4gd@tart8.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephan Zielinski) writes: >> Our problems are: 1) Convincing the military-industrial complex to expand >>into space, which implies demonstrating a profit can be made by the end of the >>next quarter. 2) Building a NEW society when we get there; keeping the same >>old, old mistakes from being made. >> Comments / flames? > >1) Let's keep the military out of this. They're usually not interested >in commercially profitable schemes. It's impossible to keep the military out of it. They've been heavily involved all along and they're the only people in the US who have a semi coherent plan along with $$$ to back it up. Hopefully the Advanced Launch Vehicle (formerly Heavy Launch Vehicle) will survive the likely SDI cuts of the next administration - NASA sure isn't going to be able to build it. The Delta II Medium Launch Vehicle and Titan 34D-7/Titan 4 programs are also dependent on the military supplying a guaranteed market and the development costs for these new boosters. Unless we want to buy launch services from the Japanese and Soviets in the 1990s, these 3 programs are likely to be our only choices. Hughes & Boeing were making noises about developing their large ``Jarvis'' booster without government support, but I haven't heard much about that recently. As for the shuttle, looking at the payload manifest suggests that we might as well paint 3 of them Air Force blue once they finally fly again. The common wisdom is that the military space budget is ~$17G, over twice NASA's. SDI is only a small part of this, incidentally. People should pause to think about what that really MEANS in terms of their role in originating projects and even more important, the amount of engineering talent that is NOT in NASA or elsewhere in the civilian aerospace community. >2) Kinda tough. How do you propose to accomplish that? We'll make lots of NEW mistakes and not so many of the old ones. Hopefully, there will eventually be a large number of relatively small habitats where people can experiment with lots of different systems. Here's my acid test to see if Libertarianism (for example) is practical: put 10000 people devoted to the philosophy in a space colony for 10 years. If they can cooperate well enough to keep it running for that period, I'd be willing to give it a try down here. Freeman Dyson is a big advocate of this small-is-beautiful concept for space colonization. I can't remember for sure where he talks about it, but possibly in his semi-autobiography, Disturbing the Universe (a fine book even if it doesn't talk about this). I remember an article he wrote proposing that we will eventually have the technology to let individual families colonize in the asteroids. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 87 19:00:10 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!sask!zaphod!wolfl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Wolf Lunscher) Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet? In article <8705062059.AA10910@angband.s1.gov> Rem@imsss writes: >[Asimov once proposed that] the first few advanced civilizations in each >galaxy are in the dense inner portions [and they tend to prefer that area]. One problem with this theory is that the inner region of our galaxy is a pretty violent place. Firstly the galactic core is known to have regular explosions with a period somewhere between 10 and 100 million years. The bath of radiation may fry most evolving life in the vicinity. Secondly the stars there are much older than out here in the spiral arms and so are more inclined to supernova. That coupled with the dense spacing of the stars will similarly fry evolving life (an astronomer commenting on the recent Magellanic Supernova, remarked that we'd be in serious trouble if there were a supernova within 50 light years). Much of this wasn't known to Asimov at the time of this early article. -Wolf- ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 87 10:20:59 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Soviet Mars Sample Return Mission SOVIET MARS MISSION AIMS TO BRING SAMPLE HOME By Lee Dye, Time Science Writer LA Times, May 21, 1987 Soviet space scientists stunned their counterparts from around the world Wednesday when they announced that the Soviet Union plans to send an armada of unmanned spacecraft to Mars and bring back chunks of the Red Planet. The ambitious plan, which is to be completed by the end of the next decade, would require launching at least 60,000 pounds of scientific instruments, support equipment and automated rovers that could roam the surface of Mars, according to US space experts. ``That's more mass in orbit than we have launched during the entire US planetary program to date,'' said Caltech planetary scientist [and former JPL director - Jon] Bruce Murray. ... Roald Kremnev, director of the Soviet Union's Center for Unmanned Spacecraft and a top official in his country's scientific establishment, said in an interview that he is ``assured'' that the project will move ahead. ... The Soviet program will include one and probably two rovers that will be able to roam the surface of Mars. The larger of the two, possibly powered by a nuclear power plant, will be able to venture as far as 250 miles from its landing site, Kremnev said. The rovers will collect samples from a wide area of the planet and return them to a launch vehicle. Meanwhile, other scientific devices will poke and drill into the planet, collecting information and transmitting it back to scientists in the Soviet Union. At the end of the surface exploration, which could take several months, the samples will be blasted up to a spacecraft orbiting Mars, and then returned to Earth. It will require at least six launches of the large Proton rocket - the backbone of the Soviet space program - to carry the heavy payloads to Mars, Kremnev said. The launches will be conducted in three segments of two each, in 1992, 1994 and 1996. The Soviets conduct parallel launches to provide total backup so that if one rocket fails, the entire mission will not be lost, according to US scientists. So if all goes according to plan, well before the end of the century Soviet scientists should have collected the first samples from another planet as part of a project many now view as a precursor to even bolder plans, most likely a manned expedition to Mars. ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are a few other headlines from the last week: SOVIET ROCKET HELD AS MOST POWERFUL `Energia' key to ambitious shuttle effort (referring to the new Soviet Saturn-class booster) FIRST SHUTTLE FLIGHT SINCE DISASTER DELAYED 4 MONTHS; 9 OTHERS PLANNED (describing a delay to June '88. Anyone want to bet on September or later?) NASA CITED FOR SHAKY US SPACE PROGRAM (a summary of the incredible Soviet mission annoucements at the AIAA planetary science conference last week. Thomas Paine, chairman of the National Commission on Space, is quoted as saying ``The biggest problem is the lack of direction of the US program.'') Let's face the truth: the second phase of the Space Race is over. We've lost so badly we aren't even in competition. And I'm not at all confident about round 3. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #243 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10482; Wed, 3 Jun 87 03:03:15 PDT id AA10482; Wed, 3 Jun 87 03:03:15 PDT Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 03:03:15 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706031003.AA10482@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #244 *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 03:03:15 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #244 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 244 Today's Topics: shuttle aerobatics??? NASA launch June/July space news from April 6 AW&ST Re: Help Wanted re. Astronaut Training References Saturn V nanotechnology Re: Soviet Space Shuttle Re: Solar power for England? Re: Soviet Space Shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jun 87 18:25:54 GMT From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: shuttle aerobatics??? A friend tells me that the shuttle performs a diving maneuver as part of its ascent (yes, ascent) to gain speed. I feel that this is off the wall but couldn't convince him. I could see this as a possibility for air-breathing craft with an operating ceiling, and I know all about the planet-diving trick for interplanetary acceleration: but that the shuttle would do it during ascent is completely unbelievable. Can someone say something authoritative on the subject? --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 87 03:18:03 GMT From: hp-sdd!paul@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Paul K Johnson) Subject: NASA launch June/July I will be vacationing in Florida the last week of June and the first week or two in July. Is anybody aware of how to find out whether or not there will be any launches in that time frame? paul johnson ucbvax!hplabs!hp-sdd!paul ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 87 23:58:17 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from April 6 AW&ST Hughes shelves plans to build satellite test/assembly facility near KSC. The facility was intended to eliminate having to ship large comsats across the country by truck, but those comsats won't be flying on the shuttle now anyway. [What this really is, is a vote of non-confidence in the US expendables industry. Assembling near the Cape would still make sense for launches aboard US expendables... but not for Ariane and Long March. -- HS] The only commercial space processing facility in the US -- Astrotech's one in Titusville -- has no work booked for at least 18 months, now that Palapa has gone up. SDI and commercial Delta customers remain possibilities. France suggests to ESA that Europe should consider its own space station, a man-tended one serviced by Hermes, if the US will not be reasonable. NASA briefs contractors on Mars rover/sample-return concepts. Study contracts to be awarded this fall. Nominal launch is 1998, return 2001; accelerated schedule would launch rover and return vehicle separately in 1996 on Titan-4-Centaur-GPrime-class launchers. Studies assume use of aerocapture on both ends. There is disagreement over separate launches vs. a single launch (which would require an as-yet-conjectural heavylift booster). In-orbit assembly of spacecraft and upper stage was considered before 51L but is now out of the running. Next Ariane launch delayed a week or so; the third-stage engine may have been damaged in a handling mishap, and another is being substituted. NASA begins probe of Atlas-Centaur loss. Lightning is clearly prominent in the investigation. NASA widely criticized for bad-weather launch. Debris recovery is being hampered by rain, winds, and poor underwater visibility. Quick-look analysis of telemetry: T+0 - T+48 everything nominal T+48 - T+53 accelerometer data strange, major electrical transients in both stages, payload-adapter microphone off scale (also, four lightning strikes near pad) T+59 radar sees multiple targets, then loses track altogether T+71 Range Safety pushes button Soviets launch Kvant ("Quantum") astrophysics module to Mir from Tyuratam. 25th Soviet launch of year. Automatic docking set for April 5 [delayed due to problems, rectified by EVA -- HS]. Kvant will dock at stern port, then jettison its service module, freeing a docking port on Kvant's stern for possible later use by Progress freighters [yup, first one has docked -- HS]. Kvant also carries instruments and equipment for Mir. US grumbles that Europeans object to military use of US space station but not to getting involved with Mir, which does military work too. Congressional Budget Office says just carrying out programs planned before 51L would require large budget increases for NASA; something will have to give. NASA asks USAF for major role in heavylift booster. Apparently NASA and USAF are close to an agreement giving NASA major technical responsibilities, while leaving USAF with management, operational, and funding responsibility. Argument about cost vs. reliability continues. NASA Langley study examines using heavylift booster for space station; *officially* no design changes to permit this are being made, yet. Study suggests either redesigning the boom and associated equipment to make it collapsible for HLLV launch, or else launching some of the pressurized modules on an HLLV. It is not clear that the HLLV will be needed once the station is manned, because the eight shuttle flights per year needed for crew rotation may suffice for cargo transport. NASA to proceed with competitive definition of an advanced SRB for first use circa 1993. Studies of liquid-booster technology to be undertaken as well [ABOUT TIME!! -- HS]. DoD/intelligence bigwigs request meeting with Reagan over Landsat crisis. Commerce and Congress want the original two-satellite subsidy deal, while the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting doesn't want to spend that much (even though it was in the original agreement with Eosat). An added complication is the question of whether Eosat's plans remain competitive in the face of sophisticated foreign competition with higher-resolution imagers. Rep. George Brown calls for an end to the secrecy surrounding US spysats, on the grounds that it is no longer justified. (This may be the first time that the KeyHole satellites and the National Reconnaissance Office have ever been mentioned in an open speech.) He wants the US to relax its 10-m limit on civilian imagesats (since other countries will soon beat it anyway), start serious work on an international arms-control verification agency, and declassify much of NRO's work. "Today, more than a decade after the first flight of the KH-11, US officials still refuse to acknowledge the existence of the satellite, even though the Soviet Union has owned a KH-11 oeprator's manual since 1977..." Nelson proposes multiyear funding authorization for space station, $15G at max $1.5G/yr; NASA thinks the yearly limit makes the idea impossible. Britain announces participation in the Soviet Phobos mission, possible later participation in other Soviet Mars missions. CNES (France space agency) and NASA sign cooperative agreement on ocean satellite research missions. Spot photo of the infamous Krasnoyarsk radar [violating Salt II], excerpted from the latest edition of DoD's propaganda sheet "Soviet Military Power". (Yes, DoD bought the picture from Spot Image for its own report.) NORAD and US Space Command to request development of space-based tracking systems: some system for detection of bombers and cruise missiles, radar for detecting Soviet satellites covertly deployed by the Soviet shuttle (Space Command could not see a southern-hemisphere deployment, especially to high orbit, with current tracking stations), and optical system for photographing Soviet satellites in orbit. Cutaway drawing of Space Industries' Industrial Space Facility. SII is pushing it as an alternative to the postponed co-orbiting platorm for the space station. Interestingly, SII also says that DoD could use ISF for technology research, but SII won't permit use for weapons testing. Australia setting unusual terms for its Aussat 2 comsat program: it wants to buy the satellites on orbit, with a penalty clause for late delivery, thus having the supplier assume much of the responsibility for launch delays and failures. Three letters of note: "James C. Fletcher said that President Reagan was a space enthusiast. ... If Reagan is a space enthusiast, why did he cut $604M from NASA's budget after the space shuttle's first flight in April, 1981?" "Christopher Gamble, Geneva" "I read with incredulity the article on NASA's loss of space program leadership, especially the comments by 'an Administration official'. He speaks of NASA being upset 'because they see their empire being carved up and can do little to stop progress'. What progress!? ... This same official states 'it's time they come down with everyone else and be part of normal Administration operations'. 'Normal' operations implies studying problems extensively in the hope that they go away, instead of facing them. ... This person said that 'NASA is now finding they have to join the real world'. Treasury Secretary Baker's letter to Fletcher, which said that Spacelab is not a shuttle-unique payload (!), makes one wonder which real world is being referred to..." "Edward J. Rudnicki, Teaneck NJ" "An editorial stated: 'Why were the needs of DoD space officials not thoroughly examined early in NASA's station studies?'. For years the Defence Dept. has insisted repeatedly, almost to the point of rudeness, that it had no interest whatever in a space station..." "Ed Prior, Poquoson VA" Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 87 21:36:58 GMT From: cbmvax!eric@rutgers.edu (Eric Cotton) Subject: Re: Help Wanted re. Astronaut Training References In article <739@ttidca.TTI.COM> jackson@ttidcs.UUCP (Dick Jackson) writes: >My son (highschool junior) has to write a term paper on the selection >and training of the astronauts for the Apollo program, Apollo 11 in >particular. He has had a lot of trouble at libraries finding bokks, >articles etc. describing the pre-flight activities of Armstrong, >Aldrin and Collins(?). >We would greatly appreciate advice from you space mavens. Thanks in >advance. (He already has a book called "We Seven", which is primarily >about the Mercury period.) [Sorry for posting this but I am having problems E-mailing personally. Besides, others might be interested anyway...] You might try "Carrying the Fire", a book by Mike Collins, one of the Apollo 11 astronauts. It is a very personal, very revealing account of an astronauts training, carreer, and opinions, as well as a first hand history of the flight of Apollo 11. Eric Cotton ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 87 20:19:21 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Saturn V All this talk about our now non-existant Saturn V has made me very depressed. Does anyone know if any of our politicians tried to keep the Saturn V capability? (I'll vote for them) Thanks ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 87 03:11:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Subject: nanotechnology >I don't want to sound smug or elitist about this group of people. But >there must be *some* good reason why nanotechnology has taken hold >among so many space buffs. Comments? A lot of SCI.SPACE people (including yours truly) are into science fiction. Also a lot of them think that OMNI is a SCIENCE magazine. Seriously, I don't know if any of this nanotechnology will come to pass in our lifetimes. Technology has a way of advancing both faster and slower than we expect. A lot of 'futurists' of past decades thought we'd all be flying around in air cars by now. It was predicted that skyscrapers would be 200 or 300 stories in major cities by the 1960's. On the other hand advances in semiconductor and genetic engineering technology were largely missed, except perhaps by some S.F. writers. *BUT* most of us are space enthusiasts. While we're discussing pie-in- the-sky our own nation's space program is floundering from lack of direction, lack of leadership, and lack of public support. The Soviets, using very UN-pie-in-the-sky technology have taken the lead in the 'space race'. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 87 07:24:58 GMT From: hao!murphy@husc6.harvard.edu (Graham Murphy) Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle In article <8079@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> I dont have any speculation regarding the Soviets --- but why are >> we using such old technology on the shuttle? > >Same reason almost everything in an Apollo/Saturn was 1960 technology: >long design lead times and a need for well-proven hardware. As I >recall, There is another constraint imposed by the considerably higher radiation levels inherent in being above the atmosphere. This constraint is severe and is only just being fully addressed. The most significant aspect of going to new technology i.e. faster cpu's and denser memory, is that the design is built at substantially smaller physical scales. As a consequence, stray cosmic ray particles, positrons, and electrons have a much larger influence leading to more errors. These errors can be of two types, either soft or hard, soft meaning a bit might get flipped but no permanent damage occurs, a hard error means permanent damage to the area effected. (A bit of dynamic random access memory suffers badly from being clobbered by a high energy proton.) The point is that the 'old' shuttle computers (IBM370 cpus I seem to recall from somewhere dim and dark) will suffer some soft errors (hence the need for five of them) but are very unlikely to suffer hard errors, so whilst they are slow (comparatively) they tend to be accurate (within the limits imposed by Big Blue :-) An IBM PC/AT or Mac, would be very difficult to use (I suspect) due to much higher rates of soft errors and significant hard errors (though one could probably have 50 of them to adjudicate with :-) The solution is radiation-hardened technology, which I think was developed by either Motorola or National Semiconductor over the last 5-7 years under the auspices of the DoD. It is still not 100% but has significantly lower errors rates (soft and hard). (Of course, it is also very useful if you want your Macintosh to work during a nuclear attack.) Whilst I have no way of confirming, I would assume that the next generation of shuttle computers would use this technology heavily. To these considerations, one should add a general conservativeness of design. It was not possible to easily test radiation sensitivity in space in a manned environment at the time the shuttle was designed as there was no manned capability - so it was important to be certain that the computers would work (so a timing problem with them on the ground delays the first launch :-) Again, I seem to recall that the Air Force had a few satellite missions that were dedicated to testing these sorts of things but it's never the same as being able to tell someone to "hit the stupid thing with a screwdriver", and it's not cheap. Graham Murphy High Altitude Observatory ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 87 16:01:32 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Solar power for England? > I think there's a good chance recent advances in superconductors may solve > the problems of long distance energy transmission and storage... Hm, that hadn't occurred to me. Could be, with some reservations. > Fred Hoyle's comments about solar power in England aside, I don't see > anything wrong in the long term with the idea of generating electricity > with photovoltaic cells in the Sahara and carrying it to France and then to > the rest of Europe by s.c. transmission lines... I can see one major obstacle to this: it means that Europe is dependent on the Sahara, not the most politically stable region in the world, for minute-to-minute energy supply. Don't underestimate the complications that politics can cause for long-haul energy transmission. For example, in Canada there is considerable political opposition to large long-term sale of water or power to the US, on the grounds that if the US becomes dependent on this, Canada effectively loses what little political independence it now has. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 87 20:31:38 GMT From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Kurt Allen) Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle In article <686@hao.UCAR.EDU> murphy@hao.UUCP (Graham Murphy) writes: >The solution is radiation-hardened technology, which I think was >developed by either Motorola or National Semiconductor over the last >5-7 years under the auspices of the DoD. There have been radiation hardened versions of certain micro processors for a while. The problem is that these versions of these chips tend to not sell extremely well, because of the small numbers needed. Hence there is not a large market, and small incentive to spend the money to produce radiation hardened versions of newer processors. BTW John Hopkins Applied Physics Lab was designing a special Forth engine specifically designed for use in space. From what I remember it was using larger lines/transistors that are less likely to change state from random ionizing radiation (newer technologies tend to use smaller transistors within the chip) and was running at 1 megahertz. Kurt W. Allen 3M Center ihnp4!mmm!allen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #244 ******************* 1,forwarded,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02169; Thu, 4 Jun 87 03:03:27 PDT id AA02169; Thu, 4 Jun 87 03:03:27 PDT Date: Thu, 4 Jun 87 03:03:27 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706041003.AA02169@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #245 *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 4 Jun 87 03:03:27 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #245 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 245 Today's Topics: Re: Shuttle flight profile I was there, working my tail off. HLV Re: HLV Re: HLV Re: Saturn V Re: Saturn V Re: Saturn V Can one tap electricity from the solar wind bow shock? Adult 10-day Space Academy Session Re: Photovoltaic cells for $.16/watt Polycrystalline Si solar cells Re: Can one tap electricity from the solar wind bow shock? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Jun 1987 15:49-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Shuttle flight profile "The shuttle now consists of the Orbiter and External Tank. It continues to gain speed and altitude; 6.5 minutes into the flight you are traveling 15 times the speed of sound at an altitude of 80 miles (130 kilometers). Flying a path resembling a roller coaster, the shuttle begins a long shallow DIVE to 72 miles (120 kilomters). During this maneuver, you expereince the maximum acceleration of 3g. Near the end of the dive, 8.5 minutes after you left the ground, the MAIN ENGINE CUT-OFF (MECO) command is geiven. The External tank is discarded 20 seconds later. The Orbiter maneuvers down and to the left of the tank which will splash down in a remote ocean area. Remember - throughout the ascent, you travel "upside down" with your head toward the ground." The Space Shuttle Operators Manual Joels, Kennedy & Larkin Section 1.5 As far as I know, the only purpose of the maneuver is to insure that the tank does not go into orbit and that it impacts quickly in a known location. I believe that this maneuver is the reason it is said that it would cost less fuel to take the tank into orbit than it does to discard it. ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 87 07:34:29 GMT From: k.cs.cmu.edu!jwa@pt.cs.cmu.edu (James Anderson) Subject: I was there, working my tail off. This is in responce to ESG7, old subject was about Sagan groupies being used to build the 500 man Mars colony. As a (hard) working member of the conference crew I was there for the whole thing, in fact almost from start to finish, with the exception of the last few hours of the dead dog party since I was one by then. By the way, does anyone remember who the guy was that kept talking about difficulties with submarine toilets? I think he was from Chicago. Anyway back to the original subject. The point missed or at least distorted in the article by ESG7 is that the Mars project as a one shot deal is what is opposed, not the concept of a manned Mars mission. The main idea was to convince the Mars proponents to do things in a way that was as reusable as possible, thus allowing inclusion into the fledgling infrastructure and quite probably reducing the cost for future Mars missions should the effort continue. The point is to fight against the build it cheap and pitch it later mentality that has caused the sorry state of the U.S. space program. Anyway Mr. Allen's statements that we have not addressed the questions of economic and technical feasibility as well as political environment are quite untrue. The true "clear answer to both questions is" not "NO" but "Yes" for the economic and technical feasibility question if the problem of the "NO" for the political situation is negated by allowing an increased degree of COMMERCIAL and true CIVILIAN space access. This is the big hurdle. We have already seen time and again that a government bureaucracy cannot do ANYTHING at reasonable cost. Let's face it the U.S. government has become little more than a self perpetuating entity with delusions of integrity while it's pork barrel members sell out to the highest bidding power group. Mr. Allen is sadly correct on this point. I strongly disagree with his assertion that mining of asteroids is hundreds of years away. The technology exists to handle it. Mining is one of the things we can do, getting there and back is the hard part and that appears more than workable. The other "mundane" activities will provide a stable near Earth by product and as such are still highly desirable. Other than these differences I basicly agree with the rest of the mentioned previous posting, especially as I have said when it comes to the incorporation of the two sets of desires. Jim uucp: ...!seismo!cmu-cs-k!jwa ARPA: jwa@k.cs.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 87 20:11:11 GMT From: hao!murphy@husc6.harvard.edu (Graham Murphy) Subject: HLV I have memories of an American heavy launch vehicle that was developed at about the same time as the USSR's Proton, could be used either manned or unmanned, and which proved itself to be extremely reliable. Does anyone know what the retooling time and cost of bringing back Saturn V would be ? The electronics in the original design would need replacing but the basic mechanical design is (compared to the shuttle) simple and reliable. I was thinking of this as an interim measure in these dark days. I assume it has been examined and rejected due to cost and time but I have no idea how these compare to developing a new vehicle 'as soon as possible', as the HLV would represent. I realise it is a random thought with no possibility, but I periodically get very depressed about the lack of 'space' in the USA. Honestly, Doctor, that's what caused it. Graham Murphy High Altitude Observatory ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 87 09:07:57 GMT From: philabs!ttidca!sorgatz@nyu.arpa ( Avatar) Subject: Re: HLV Graham- There is really no need to modify _anything_ electrical on the Saturn 5. Those components were choosen because they meet the specs for HD use in a near-vac environment. None of them are unavailable, since they were all made-to-order for the Saturn vehicle. Just order up some more. Have your friends @ NASA whip up a PO and zip it over to Rocketdyne's Canoga plant...my father has it on good authority that the order could be processed without delay. Afterall they're still making Atlas booster parts for the Japanese, and the 'prints for the Saturn 5 stuff are still on file! (-| Seriously, it's just a matter of money. You don't need to change anything....especially the Turbopumps, or so the designer tells me...;-) -Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 87 17:53:23 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: HLV > Does anyone know what the retooling time and cost of bringing back > Saturn V would be ? ... My impression is that there are people seriously interested in the idea. The plans are still *mostly* on hand. The tooling went for scrap long ago. The biggest problem in building it would probably be re-qualifying the engines. There would then be some problems in launching it: the KSC facilities are officially dedicated to the shuttle at the moment, and they have also been modified substantially for it. One obvious compatibility problem is the service towers, which have changed a great deal, as have (I'd assume) the service platforms in the VAB. Almost certainly it's quicker and simpler than building an HLV from scratch, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 09:54:34 CDT From: marco@ncsc.arpa (Barbarisi) Subject: Re: Saturn V This concept has probably been brought up before, but I was wondering if anyone had considered using the Saturn design for the proposed Heavy Launch Vehicle? If not, why not? We've already spent the cash on the design and development. Also, could a modified Saturn/Apollo system be used for an unmanned sample and return mission to Mars? Enquiring minds want to know. Marco Barbarisi marco@ncsc.arpa ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 09:04:23 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Saturn V Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: >Enquiring minds want to know. > >Marco Barbarisi Just so happens in the SJ Merc yesterday was a copy of an NY Times article on this subject. It says that several companies (like Huge Aircrash ;-), Boeing, and others have looked into this. There are several problems: 1) many of the original blueprints are now lost: as momentos to the project, or trashed, 2) many of the machine tools were sold as scrap and melted down, 3) some suppliers are now out of business. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 87 20:15:06 GMT From: vygr!mae@sun.com (Mike Ekberg, Sun {Graphics Sub-Division}) Subject: Re: Saturn V My question is why was Saturn V abandoned? Was it too costly on a per/pound basis vis-a-vis the shuttle? I vaguely recall NASA doing a study years ago that was something like a PERT chart of the Whole space program. The gist of the study was, "Yup, to do all this {space station,Mars,LEO sats} we need a shuttle". Was this an error? It's interesting that many people express admiration for Soviet space program, in particular their "build on existing hardware approach", yet the same people don't attempt the same approach with the U.S. program. My question to the world at large? Starting with what we have *NOW*, how would you build a space station? Why not launch a shuttle and leave it up there? mike - Sun uSystems, MStop 5-40 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 87 12:15:55 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Can one tap electricity from the solar wind bow shock? Paul Dietz in an earlier posting came up with some wild ideas that touched upon a screw ball idea that I've long had. The Earth is in a stream of charged particles that come from the Sun. These charged particles are often refered to as the "solar wind". The Earth's magnetic field shields the earth's atmosphere from the solar wind by forming a bow shock which the solar wind passes around. This bow shock is similar to a super sonic shock wave around a sphere except the fluid flow is free molecular rather than continuum. The shock "discontinuity" is not very thick. I was told that it is on the order of a few meters. The electric potential across this shock must be enormous. Also, since the sun is driving it, the total energy must also be enormous. The screw ball idea: From a platform in a sun synchronous orbit, extend an electrode into this shock and tap electric current from it. I've not checked any of the numbers on this idea and it is probably totally impractical. Probably the particle density is too low, or the potential difference isn't high enough, or there's some other show stopper. However if someone wants to play with this idea, they're welcomed to it. ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 87 16:01:46 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Adult 10-day Space Academy Session The Alabama Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL (near but not part of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center) has for the past 2+ years run 3 day Adult sessions of their 5 day Space Camp/Academy. This program led to two 1.5 hour missions in the Center's shuttle simulator. It was the feeling of camp administrators that adults would not be interested in a longer/more involved session. Beginning in August 1987, they will be offering to high school juniors, seniors and college freshpeople (frosh?) what they call Space Academy Level II, a 10 day program leading to several 8-24 hour missions including neutral boyancy work in their own tank, designing and "flying" experiments and specialized training in three tracks: pilot, engineering and science. As a two time attendee of the adult session, this looked great, and I've been trying to convince them to let me attend one of these sessions. They have (valid) problems with mixing adults and "kids" (yes I know some who qualify are on the net...I'm just a big kid myself), but are very willing to run an adult session of the Level II camp this fall, if there's interest. Some details: Length: 10 days (Monday to following Wednesday) Price : $775 includes all food, housing and the camp add transportation and souvenirs I have no connection with Space Camp/Academy except as an attendee. If you want more info, or are interested, please send me email and we'll go from there. For general info on Camp programs 800-633-7280 Rich Kolker ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 87 9:02:12 EDT From: Thomson@udel.edu To: dietz%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net Cc: space@udel.edu Subject: Re: Photovoltaic cells for $.16/watt This is not vaporware; I worked for Dr. Barnett through a summer research program when I was a sophomore. The guy definately knows his stuff when it comes to device and solar cell fabrication. He has several plans for making low-cost solar cells, the ceramic substrate being one of them. Another was a plan to form a solar cell on a metal substrate, although I am no longer familiar with the current status of these techniques. I have confidence in Dr. Barnett's ability to debug the cell to the point it can reach 17% efficiency; he's one determined and dedicated individual. Rich Thomson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 87 12:50:34 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Polycrystalline Si solar cells Alan Barnett has produced the highest efficiency poly silicon/foreign substrate solar cells made to date, with an efficiency of 12%. (A paper on this was in the 19th Photovoltaics Specialists Conference the first week of may; the proceedings won't be out for a while yet.) This efficiency is the same as the best made by amorphous silicon single-junction (12%, solarex), Cadmium Telluride (11.5%, ISET), and Copper Indium Selenide (11.9%, Boeing); and slightly worse than the best amorphous silicon multijunction cascades (13%, I think) and amorphous silicon/Copper Indium Selenide cascades (14%, I think). All of the above are thin-film technologies on foreign substrates and thus potentially low cost processes. The efficiency needed for economic viability is about 16%. The other technologies are being hotly pursued. Poly thin film Si and GaAs were a topic of research in the 70's, and mostly dropped, since nobody could beat 10%. Barnett may be the only person still doing significant research on poly thin film Si. He claims that efficiencies of about 17% are feasable on poly si. This sounds about right to me. The best single crystal Si cells, by the way, are about 21% (for unconcentrated sunlight, about 27% under concentration). 16 cents/watt sounds awfully low to me. My estimate of the technology would be more like 50-80 cents/watt. Are you sure that the figure wasn't 16 cents/kilowatt-hour? At 12% efficiency, that sounds about right. Possibly Electronics misprinted. Light trapping is now standard for amorphous si, and indeed is important for thin-film poly si because of the comparatively low absorption. The highest possible pathlength enhancement for isotropic light is a factor of 4(n**2) where n is the index of refraction; this is a factor of 50 for silicon. However, it is possible to beat this figure for anisotropic light. For more info on light trapping, see also M.A. Green and P. Campbell, "Light Trapping Properties of Pyramidally Textured and Grooved Surfaces", Ninteenth IEEE Photovoltaics Specialists Conference, New Orleans, LA, May 1987; M.A. Green and P. Campbell, Journal of Applied Physics, to be published (1987). which includes an analysis of the trapping effectiveness of G.A. Landis "Cross-Grooved Solar Cell", United States Patent 4,608,451 (1986). If you're interested, I have several papers on economics on disk somewhere that I could drag up and send a copy of. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 87 00:47:23 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;608C) Subject: Re: Can one tap electricity from the solar wind bow shock? Sorry to throw cold water on this idea but I think there's a major problem with it. The location of the bow shock is variable. The solar wind is not constant; when its flux is low the bow shock balloons outward, when its flux is high the bow shock contracts. The changes can occur rather rapidly, much more rapidly than the satellite could change orbit. I remember hearing that one of the probes to the outer solar system crossed Jupiter's bow shock about 5 times on its inbound path. Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #245 ******************* 1,, Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04808; Fri, 5 Jun 87 03:03:33 PDT id AA04808; Fri, 5 Jun 87 03:03:33 PDT Date: Fri, 5 Jun 87 03:03:33 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706051003.AA04808@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #246 *** EOOH *** Date: Fri, 5 Jun 87 03:03:33 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #246 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 246 Today's Topics: Soviet space advances: 2 big launches, Progress 30 & Big Booster Re Skylab's MDA & Mir's docking ports Re: Soviet Space Shuttle Soviet Shuttle Re: HLV Re: Soviet Space Shuttle photon rocket Re: FTL ? Re: FTL ? (beliefs) Just assume FTL exists :-? intersteller rockets FTL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 May 87 11:16:34 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet space advances: 2 big launches, Progress 30 & Big Booster The Soviets have been running a very strong space program in the past few weeks. In addition to the launch of Energia, their big booster on May 16th (see my note of that date) they launched in Gorbachev's presence 3 other boosters during his visit to the Baikonur Cosmodrome. First they sent up a Proton on May 11th with a Gorizont Communications Satellite. This was a very important launch as they have had two Proton failures so far this year (on Jan. 30 and Apr. 24). This lends credence to the Russian statements that these were due to the testing of a new high energy upper stage on those earlier flights. In addition they sent up a SL-16 (their new 15 tonne booster) and one of their standard A-2 boosters. Gorbachev made the following statement while there: "Everything here at the cosmodrome, from the rockets, space vehicles, their life-supporting systems fitted out with modern computers and highly sensitive instruments - all of this is Soviet-made, everything is of a high quality and of modern technological standard." By the way, a person at Dartmouth who was watching Gorbachev's visit on Russian TV said that when he went into one building they saw in the background a "shuttle like vehicle". In addition to these the Soviets sent up the Progress 30 tanker, which docked with Mir on May 21. This means the Russians have sent some 6 cargo ships with 15 tonnes of supplies to Mir, along with some 5 other craft. They have also announced that the space walk the crew was going do to attach additional solar panels to Mir has been delayed because the men are overworked. In the past month they have had to do an extra EVA to save Kvant, unload the 10 tonne Kvant, and Progress 29 & 30. Most experts here ( eg. James Oberg) think that this delay is reasonable. Also the Soviet's have revealed more information about energai. The first stage uses Liquid Oxygen and Kerosene, while the second is the LOX/Hydrogen system (not both stages as has been stated in the press). Also they have stated that the vehicle contains its cargo section slung to the side of the booster, where their shuttle would be placed. They are certainly proud of this ship. In the past week statements about the launch have appeared every night on the shortwave. Look, the Russians now moving faster than ever. We must start going forward now - not adding even more delays to the Shuttle's launch like were announced this week. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 May 87 14:07:10 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Re Skylab's MDA & Mir's docking ports In his reply to my posting on Mir's advantages Henry Spencer correclty points out in Space Digest issues 233 -234 that the Multiple Docking Addaptor on Skylab had two working ports (down from the 5 of the original design). Since only the axial port was used for docking (including the time when Skylab 2 tried 8 times to dock before doing it successfully after an EVA to fix their docking latches) I had assumed incorrectly that the side port could not be used. However prodded by his note the reference to both being operational was found. There even was a statement that two command modules could be docked at once for purposes other than crew rescue. However the short duration nature of Skylab is shown by their not making use of it. Indeed consider that the plans for a second skylab was killed as soon as the first one was shown to be working in orbit. OK I was wrong on Skylab having only one, but Mir still has 6 ports, 3 times Skylab's. Thus I still think that Mir is a long duration operational station in the sense that Skylab was never meant to be. When is this country going to stop living on past accomplishments? Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 87 01:42:44 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle > I dont have any speculation regarding the Soviets --- but why are > we using such old technology on the shuttle? Same reason almost everything in an Apollo/Saturn was 1960 technology: long design lead times and a need for well-proven hardware. As I recall, there is preliminary work being done on the notion of replacing the shuttle computers with more modern ones. Remember, those computers had to be fully flight-qualified around 1980. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 87 13:34:03 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Soviet Shuttle From information published in Aviation Week it appears that the soviet shuttle is much simpler than ours. To start with our shuttle main engines are attached to our shuttle and are designed to be reused. The engines used to launch the soviet shuttle are part of the booster and are thrown away after one use. This gives a simpler vehicle design with a lower dry weight. Meaning either higher return cargo capacity or lower wing loading. Lower wing loading should mean less stress and less heat load during reentry and lower speed when landing. Other things to think about the soviet shuttle. 1) The shuttle launch vehicle is also a heavy lift launch vehicle. Almost no extra work to get both. 2) The strap on boosters are also capable of being used as medium launch vehicles. It has been suggested that these boosters will be used to launch the soviets small space plane. This is a Titan IIC class booster. So for the cost of developing a space shuttle the soviets got a medium launch vehicle, a heavy launch vehicle, a heavy shuttle, and a space plane. When we developed a space shuttle we got a space shuttle. Extra work is needed to develop a heavy launch vehicle. The soviets are developing a space transportation system. We developed a space shuttle. Our space shuttle defined the state of the art. The soviet shuttle will ( my opinion ) not advance the state of the art, but will be cheaper to build and operate. According to the 1987 "Soviet Military Power" the soviets are about 10 years behind the U.S. in applications of computers in industry and science. I would bet that the thechnology level in the soviet shuttles computers is about the same or a little better than that in our shuttle. Bob Pendleton ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 87 04:58:07 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: HLV In article <753@ttidca.TTI.COM> sorgatz@ttidcb.UUCP (Erik Sorgatz - Avatar) writes: >Graham- >for the Saturn vehicle. Just order up some more. Have your friends @ NASA LOTS of money. I recall that the Jarvis booster concept (or perhaps another HLV) was going to use F-1 engines, until they were quoted a ridiculously high cost for restarting production, O($1 billion). Extrapolate this to all the other components in a Saturn V and it becomes clear why nobody has actually proposed this. Maybe we could license the `Energia' design from the Soviets for export production... with less powerful engines, like the F-5s we sold to all those 3rd world countries back in the 60s and 70s. No, on second thought, they wouldn't want to give technology that advanced to us :-( Question: did anyone actually see the Soviet TV coverage of the `Energia' launch? The pictures printed in the latest AW&ST are so bad I had to rely on the captions to make anything of them. Was the actual transmission that bad? Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ``There is only one spacefaring nation today. And it's not the United States, comrade!'' ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 87 16:36:07 GMT From: mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle >I dont have any speculation regarding the Soviets --- but why are we >using such old technology on the shuttle? The shuttle received its start in 1972. In the relatively conservative NASA way of doing things, the rule is to go with the proven technology. Apollo was not permitted to use technology beyond 1963. Some of the systems on the shuttle were made to easily be updated, as appropriate. I guess, that, that's the nature of the business. If something does the job, use it. We're still launching Atlas rockets which are 30 years old, and the Soviets are still using Vostock spacecraft and launch vehicles for unmanned missions. *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 87 19:57:27 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!lew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lew Mammel, Jr.) Subject: photon rocket A while back David desJardins posted an analysis of a photon rocket. He assumed constant acceleration, adjusting the rate of mass consumption to be consistent with that assumption. I found that the principal result, which I take to be the velocity attained as a function of the fraction of mass consumed, can be derived very easily from elementary considerations. Suppose the rocket operates for some unspecified period at the end of which it has emitted a total photon flux of energy P, as measured in the initial rest frame. In that frame we can equate the four-momentum ( or two-momentum with only one spatial axis ) of the rocket+photons to the initial four-momentum of the rocket: (1) ( -P, P ) + ( gamma*m*v, gamma*m ) = ( 0, M ) M is the initial rocket mass and m is the final rocket mass. v is the final velocity of the rocket and gamma is (1 - v^2 ) ^ -1/2. Also, c has been set to 1. We can immediately write ( from the second component of (1) ): (2) P = M - gamma*m and then ( substituting for P in the first component of (1) ): (3) gamma*m*( 1 + v ) = M (4) m/M = sqrt( (1-v)/(1+v) ) Inverting (4) gives the desired result: (5) v = ( 1 - (m/M)^2 ) / ( 1 + (m/M)^2 ) This yields v as a function of proper time, T, simply by plugging in an assumed m(T). No calculus! An interesting double check is to assume the rocket fires twice, reducing its mass by the ratios r1, and r2, in succession. We can calculate the successive velocity boosts, v1, and v2, using (5). Then if we calculate the final velocity with the velocity addition rule: (6) v = ( v1 + v2 )/( 1 + v1*v2 ) we get: (7) v = ( 1 - (r1*r2)^2 )/( 1 + (r1*r2)^2 ) which is equivalent to a single boost with fractional mass reduction of r1*r2, as it should be. Lew Mammel, Jr. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 87 17:47:46 GMT From: mcvax!botter!klipper!biep@seismo.css.gov (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) Subject: Re: FTL ? Questions about whether FTL is possible, and why or why not, and what if, etc., belong in sci.philosophy.tech and are in fact being discussed there. The same is true for Quantum Mechanics, undecidability (Heisenberg), but also for formal incompleteness in logics (Goedel's theorem that no sufficiently strong logical system can be both consistent ("correct") and complete (being able to prove all true facts about it - "sufficiently strong" means e.g. able to describe natural numbers), and things like logical paradoxes. People in groups like sci.{math,physics,astro,space,lang} tend to get bored to talk about those problems, that's why the new group exists. So, if you want to tell/ask something about one of these subjects, do it in sci.philosophy.tech. Biep. (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 16:59:28 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: FTL ? (beliefs) >RE: "impossibility" of FTL >"Anything the mind of man can conceive, and believe, can be > achieved." > Napoleon Hill Yes, I believe it is possible to trisect an arbitrary angle using a straight edge and a "rusty" compass. Exercise left to the reader. Now go to it, it will make you rich. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 17:26:19 PDT From: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Just assume FTL exists :-? Cc: ota@galileo.s1.gov The problem with just assuming an FTL drive exists is that it just isn't convincing enough. If we want an FTL drive we may have to stupe to stealing one. The suggestion I've heard in this regard is to attract the attention of passing ETs. The trick is to do something so noticable that anyone "out there" will be sure to show up and investigate if they exist at all. The cases where "they" don't appear at all or arrive at sublight speeds are beyond the scope of this article. The ETs that show up will fall into three basic categories: Scientists, Social Workers and Beserkers. The latter possibily is also outside this article's scope. In the first two cases there is a some hope that we can arrange to capture one of their ships. They probably won't know much more about FTL travel than we do and ET graduate student field workers may be relatively careless. How many radios, calculators and the like are pirated by aboriginies being studied by today's anthropologists? Even if we can't get one of their ships the "mere" existance proof of an FTL drive will almost certainly be sufficient to motivate it's actual invention. In spite of the difficulties with this approach it may still be easier than discovering an FTL drive ourselves. Isn't that a daunting thought? Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29-MAY-1987 15:42 EST From: GORDON D. PUSCH To: Subject: intersteller rockets There has been considerable discussion here lately on the relative merits of constant-boost vs boost-and-coast for intersteller flight, and whether it's worth it in fuel to save some time and supplies by "piling on the gees". However a constraint I haven't seen anyone mention yet is the weakest link in the system, namely, the passengers ... 1) Additional acceleration puts all sorts of wear and tear on the human body. I don't think the savings of a few subjective months (or even years) of supplies will be worth the human cost in hernias and fallen arches ... particularly if the ship has a closed ecology. 2) Relativistic flight through the intersteller medium is much like flying down the throat of FermiLab or CERN. At a mere .25c, and assuming a density of 100 atoms/m^3, you've got 7.8*10^9 30MeV protons per square meter per second hitting the front of your ship. This translates to 38 mW/m^2 of hard radiation, which doesn't sound like that much, until you convert it to rads. Then you realize that it's 1.5 rads per minute. I think this might be cons- trued as a health-hazard ... unless some other form of shielding can be worked out, either we're going to be limited to velocities below about .5c, or we'll have to carry one of Arthur C. Clarke's flying icebergs along for the ride ... Gordon D. Pusch Physics Dept., VPI&SU Blacksburg VA 24061 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 May 87 20:49:54 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: FTL >it disturbs me to hear futurists dismiss FTL drives. Yes, I know that >they are "impossible". As long as you call them "impossible", and >refuse to look for one, your only chance of achieving one is by >accident. Why not start with the premise that we *have* to have an FTL >drive, or else space travel will remain a parochial enterprise? >Because it's unscientific? Perhaps, but it's not unproductive. History >is full of things that were "impossible" but necessary; some were >eventually obtained. For the record, I maximally disagree with this statement. The way to get things done is to study the universe we live in, not to sit around wishing for another one. I would claim that if we start with the premise that we *have* to have FTL or space travel will remain parochial, then we will be beaten to the stars by people willing to work with what they have. History is full of things that were accomplished after people quit trying to do things that were not possible, and instead started to find out what can be done with what was possible. Thousands of alchemists looking for the philosopher`s stone to turn lead into gold got nowhere; a handful who abandoned wishful thinking and started to ask questions about how the world was really put together started to get real results. Also keep in mind that the main objection to FTL travel is that it implies time travel as well, since space and time are a single four- dimensional object. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #246 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07473; Sat, 6 Jun 87 03:02:50 PDT id AA07473; Sat, 6 Jun 87 03:02:50 PDT Date: Sat, 6 Jun 87 03:02:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706061002.AA07473@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #247 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 247 Today's Topics: FTL ? Microwave beams, powersats Re: Solar power for England? Powersats The SPS/Space Station idea has show stopper problems Re: Solar power for England? Re: Solar power for England? Re: Powersats Re: Powersats RE: PowerSats Re: PowerSats RE: PowerSats ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 87 01:09:20 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: FTL ? To: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa > But it disturbs me to hear futurists dismiss FTL drives. Yes, I know > that they are "impossible". As long as you call them "impossible", > and refuse to look for one, your only chance of achieving one is by > accident. How would you suggest going about looking for one? The problems with FTL are: 1) Nobody has any idea how to go about making an FTL drive, or even how to go about researching the possibility of one being possible. 2) There is no evidence that FTL could exist, except that it would be a neat thing to have. And that is no kind of evidence for anything. 3) It has been proven that FTL would imply at least one of the following: a) Causality can be violated, i.e. time travel is possible. b) There is an absolute frame of reference. c) The speed of light in a vacuum is not constant. None of these seem likely. > Why not start with the premise that we >have< to have an FTL drive, or > else space travel will remain a parochial enterprise? That is not a very constructive attitude. To say we can do wonderful things given some unlikely technologoy which relies on unknown physics isn't very interesting. Nor does it provide any guidance as to what we should do next. Just sit around and wait for someone to discover FTL, I suppose. And if there is no FTL, we are out of the game. It is more interesting and more useful to study what can be done with known physics. Better yet, with known technology. The latter can get us the solar system. The former can get us the stars. FTL would be covenient, but it isn't a necessity. Railroads are a convenient way to cross the continent, but the first pioneers walked. Fortunately, it isn't up to any one individual to decide what premises we have to work from. Hundreds of possible ways to get into space efficiently, and dozens of ways to get to the stars, are being researched. FTL isn't one of them. I don't know how anyone would go about researching FTL. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 87 05:53:11 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Microwave beams, powersats In article <5893@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: >I really think this (as well as similar ideas for beaming power to >Earth from solar-collector satellites) is extremely dangerous. What is >to keep someone (even a poor little bird) from flying through the beam >by accident? Restricting the airspace and having a radio beacon should suffice. It's not as though people would be flying through a death ray. Even in the case of SPS, the energy densities are comparable to sunlight. Powersats are pretty much a dead issue until the Soviets or Japanese build one, however. DOE and others did the basic research and then threw the idea away long ago (well, late 70's. That's long ago when you're 24) for political and economic rather than scientific reasons (i.e. SPS had no constituency in Congress, and the O($100G) projected costs found no friends). Birds can take their chances. We haven't stopped flying because the occasional bird gets sucked into an engine. I suspect they will quickly learn to avoid beams when they start feeling warm. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 87 10:00:51 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Solar power for England? In article <8082@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Fred Hoyle's comments about solar power in England aside, I don't see >> anything wrong in the long term with the idea of generating >> electricity with photovoltaic cells in the Sahara and carrying it to >> France and then to the rest of Europe by s.c. transmission lines... > >I can see one major obstacle to this: it means that Europe is dependent >on the Sahara, not the most politically stable region in the world, for >minute-to-minute energy supply. This is worse than being dependent on Persian Gulf oil? It seems like a wash to me, except that the Sahara is closer to home and certain European nations have long had colonial interests in the area (Algeria, for example), so they might well favor it for that reason. By putting your solar cells in orbit on a powersat, you reduce the political risk to a certain degree (now you're only dependent on the goodwill of the nations that can get a payload to GEO). Perhaps this explains the Japanese interest in powersats; their dependence on imported energy is ridiculously high right now (something over 90% if I recall correctly). Note redirection to talk.politics.misc. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 87 15:08:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Powersats In regard to PowerSats, what is the proposed means of converting the beam to 60 Hz AC electricity once it is received on Earth? --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 May 87 11:40:38 MEZ From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: The SPS/Space Station idea has show stopper problems In Vol. 7, No. 239 of Space Digest, Geoffrey Landis had the following to say about an SPS prototype: > >>The production phase during which the output of the > >>mini-SPS would be diverted to the needs of commercial > >>projects in LEO, including Space Station clients... >Now you've hit the jackpot, and this is why I like this idea so much. >You see, the space station has a *real* problem with power. It is in >low orbit, see, and solar power systems have, unfortunately, a large >projected area per unit power. This means, they drag. Solar panel >drag is *the* limiting factor on the amount of power that will be >available to the space station. But if the actual power generators >were in *high* orbit, and only a receiving antenna (with much better >power to area ratio, especially since an antenna can be mostly open >area) were on the space station... bingo. I actually think you may be >able to make this idea fly. Unfortunately there are some technicalities that make this idea unworkable. Orbital period is a 3/2 power function of semi-major axis. If the SPS is in a higher orbit, then it will have a longer period. Since the Space Station will have an orbital period on the order of 90 minutes, there will be about 45 minutes where the SPS is eclipsed by the earth. You will be required to have at least 2 SPSs for this to work. Second problem is the receiving antenna and the transmitting antenna will have to be gimballed and very precisely pointed. It is doubtful that the microwave beam can be very parallel, so the collection antenna will have to be rather large (which really defeats the whole idea). Also the crew of the station and all electonics will be exposed to a fairly intense beam of microwaves (this can mean cataracs, infertility, etc.). Finally there will be some slop over from the transmitted beam that will miss the station and hit the earth. Raster scanning the earth with a high energy microwave beam lacks appeal. Sorry Geoffrey, this SPS/Space Station idea can be dismissed. Gary Allen --last posting-- ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 87 20:18:53 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Solar power for England? > By putting your solar cells in orbit on a powersat, you reduce > the political risk to a certain degree (now you're only dependent on > the goodwill of the nations that can get a payload to GEO)... More significantly, a powersat in orbit is not actually on somebody else's property. This makes you dependent on people's unwillingness to engage in piracy, as opposed to their unwillingness to flip a switch that is located in their back yard. The former seems more dependable. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 87 18:02:04 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Solar power for England? > >I can see one major obstacle to this: it means that Europe is > >dependent on the Sahara, not the most politically stable region in > >the world, for minute-to-minute energy supply. > > This is worse than being dependent on Persian Gulf oil? ... Yes, it is. Unless there are *big* storage facilities, in Europe not in the Sahara, the slack time in the system is a whole lot shorter than for oil. It's the difference between being told that your power will be shut off at the end of the month, and having somebody flip the breaker without warning. The former is trouble, but there is time to plan for it and try to work around it; the latter is an immediate major emergency. That's why I said "minute-to-minute". > ... Perhaps this explains the Japanese interest in powersats; their > dependence on imported energy is ridiculously high right now > (something over 90% if I recall correctly). If not more. I have been told that a tanker captain on the run from the Persian Gulf to Japan can, on a clear day, see the funnel smoke from the tanker ahead of him and the one behind him. It's not obvious where the Japanese are going to put their rectennas, though, except perhaps offshore. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 87 02:08:37 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Powersats > In regard to PowerSats, what is the proposed means of converting > the beam to 60 Hz AC electricity once it is received on Earth? The rectenna is called a rectenna because it incorporates rectifiers to change the microwaves to DC. Final conversion to AC is done with power- semiconductor inverters of the sort already in industrial use for DC power transmission. With the rise of power semiconductors, this sort of thing is no longer a big problem. "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 87 23:54:08 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Powersats The incoming microwaves are converted into DC electricity by a device called a 'rectenna', which is short for 'rectifying antenna'. It has many many elements, each of which is a 1/2 wave dipole with a diode connected to it. Depending upon where the rectenna is, the voltage will probably be stepped up in a DC transformer to long distance transmission voltages (order of 100kV). From there, you are in the existing power grid. 60 Hz AC comes in after you get off the high- voltage DC transmission lines. (I worked on an SPS study in 1984, where we found that 99% of the SPS parts can be made from lunar-derived materials. Some of the people I work with did the original SPS work at Boeing from 1976-1980). Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 87 00:35:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Subject: RE: PowerSats RE: my question about how the microwave signal from a powersat gets turned into 60 Hz AC electricity. Dani Eder says: >The incoming microwaves are converted into DC electricity by a device >called a 'rectenna', which is short for 'rectifying antenna'. It >has many many elements, each of which is a 1/2 wave dipole with a diode >connected to it. OK, so far... > Depending upon where the rectenna is, the voltage will probably > be stepped up in a DC transformer What is a 'DC transformer'? A transformer is an AC device. There are circuits that perform DC to (different voltage) DC conversion by switching capacitors across diodes. Is someone proposing to do this on a megawatt scale? What kind of efficiencies to they get? > to long distance transmission voltages (order of 100kV). From there, > you are in the existing power grid. 60 Hz AC comes in after you get > off the high-voltage DC transmission lines. The existing power grid, you may recall, is AC. How did you get to AC, specifically sine-wave AC? The commercial power 'inverters' that I've seen tend either to generate square waves or tend to be relatively inefficient (due probably to having to operate in the linear part of some semiconductor's curve and therefore dissipating a lot of heat). N.B. I'm not nay-saying this stuff; I assume someone's already thought it all out. I'd just like to know what they've concluded. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 87 16:46:49 GMT From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard Harter) Subject: Re: PowerSats In article <35359e37.44e6@apollo.uucp> nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes: > What is a 'DC transformer'? A transformer is an AC device. There are > circuits that perform DC to (different voltage) DC conversion by > switching capacitors across diodes. Is someone proposing to do this > on a megawatt scale? What kind of efficiencies to they get? Yep, there are DC transformers. (Shocking isn't it.) They are solid state devices to do just that. Capacity and efficiency are high, and they are used routinely. If you think about it, the term DC transformer should be legitimate. > The existing power grid, you may recall, is AC. How did you get to > AC, specifically sine-wave AC? The commercial power 'inverters' that > I've seen tend either to generate square waves or tend to be > relatively inefficient (due probably to having to operate in the > linear part of some semiconductor's curve and therefore dissipating a > lot of heat). They ship power on the west coast using big DC line, about 500KV as I recall. There is an 1100 mile line running down from Washington to California. The cute thing is the way that they go from AC to DC. The voltage is stepped using big AC transformers. They have a whole slew of switchable power diodes floating on the line (each one handles a segment of the output voltage, a few hundred volts each.) The diodes are switched using lasers -- no way to send control signals via wire to the diodes. They've been doing this for quite some time. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.] ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 87 21:52:21 GMT From: voder!apple!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Smith) Subject: RE: PowerSats I think you got it. DC to DC converter is most likely what was meant. But I don't think you will need one. Take a field of 10**6 rectennas each putting out a volt. Hook them up in groups of 10 in parallel. Take the groups and put them in series. Viola, 10**5 kv with no voltage conversion. (These numbers are all made of whole cloth, but the logic is real.) A couple of things. First is a low tech fix. Motorgenerators. Yup, they still work. About 85% effecient if you do a good job. So the problem is solvable even if a high tech high effeciency answer was not so easy to come by. Second is a trend: The world of power transmission is moving toward DC as a grid power type due to the lower losses and the dropping cost of inverters. Third is an expansion: True sine wave power inverters of very large size are becomming much less expensive. DC to AC on the power company scale is much different from what you see at the local electronics shop. The Japanese are running a commercial pilot plant fuel cell right now. Fuel cells produce DC... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #247 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09339; Sun, 7 Jun 87 03:03:02 PDT id AA09339; Sun, 7 Jun 87 03:03:02 PDT Date: Sun, 7 Jun 87 03:03:02 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706071003.AA09339@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #248 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 248 Today's Topics: Re: The SPS/Space Station idea Re: The center of the universe star Charting Routine Yale Star Catalog Flashes of light in the sky Astronaut information Re: NASA launch June/July Galileo cancellation??!! Re: Nanotechnology SPACE Digest V7 #244 this horrible ol'world we live in ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jun 87 18:50:29 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: The SPS/Space Station idea In article <8705301939.AA00250@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes: > In Vol. 7, No. 239 of Space Digest, Geoffrey Landis had the following > to say about an SPS prototype: >> [advocates deriving Space Station power from SPS instead of >> using solar panels] > If the SPS is in a higher orbit, then it will have a longer period. > Since the Space Station will have an orbital period on the order of 90 > minutes, there will be about 45 minutes where the SPS is eclipsed by > the earth. You will be required to have at least 2 SPSs Solar panels have the same problem. Batteries have to be provided for the ~30 (not 45) minutes the station is in shadow. With an SPS, one has a problem if either the SPS-Sun or SPS-station line crosses the Earth, although the former is small if SPS is in a high orbit. An alternative, as you note, is to build 2 SPS's. > Second problem is the receiving antenna and the transmitting antenna > will have to be gimballed and very precisely pointed. Again, so do solar panels. The pointing accuracy required for either transmitting or receiving antenna is proportional to the diameter of the antenna, and the product of the antenna areas scales as the square of the distance between transmitter and receiver (~= height of SPS orbit, if that is much higher than station orbit). Presumably one would put a large antenna on the SPS, where the pointing direction doesn't change much, and a smaller antenna on the station. Pointing could be either by phased-array techniques or by physically moving the antennas. One would have to have a proper engineering study to determine costs, but I wouldn't expect pointing to add much to the basic SPS cost. > Also the crew of the station and all electonics will be exposed to a > fairly intense beam of microwaves Not if they are surrounded by an electrically conducting shield, as they would be if the station is made of metal. (One might have to put screen wire over the windows, as on microwave ovens.) > there will be some slop over from the transmitted beam that will miss > the station and hit the earth. Or at least the atmosphere. It won't get anywhere near the surface if the frequency is one that is strongly absorbed. > Sorry Geoffrey, this SPS/Space Station idea can be dismissed. > Gary Allen --last posting-- SPS for powering Space Station may be too expensive to be practical, but none of the reasons you give appears sufficient for instant dismissal. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 87 01:49:36 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: The center of the universe > ...The galaxies farthest out we see as they were billions of years > ago, where they were billions of years ago. At that time, they were > closer to the source of the "big bang". Which means they are nearer > the center of the universe than galaxies close at hand, or ourselves. Uh-uh, wrong, watch those verb tenses: they *were* nearer the center then. As were we. Think of the surface of an expanding balloon: all points on the surface are receding from all other points, with the relative velocity increasing with increasing distance. There is no "center" on the surface itself. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 87 03:41:47 GMT From: mtune!akgua!ohgua!cels@rutgers.edu (cels) Subject: star Charting Routine I'm looking for a program to display star information on an AT&T PC6300. I saw something once about a routine called StarChart. Does anyone know anything about this or any similar programs. I have also seen some information concerning the Yale Star Catalog. I do have C capability, and would be very interested in anything anyone has to offer. Cliff Grimes ohgua!ohguc!ohce!cbg ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 87 04:02:12 GMT From: labrea!Umunhum!paulf@decwrl.dec.com (Paul A. Flaherty, N9FZX) Subject: Yale Star Catalog Some time ago, somebody posted a copy of the Yale Star Catalog. Well, true to form, I didn't copy it, and I need it, so if you have a copy available via anonymous ftp, let me know. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 87 19:18:56 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Flashes of light in the sky In 1986, Katz et al. (Astrophys. J. Lett. vol. 307, p. L33) reported visual observations of 24 bright flashes of light in the sky. One flash was photographed. The authors stated "While there is no doubt about the reality of the sightings, their origin is a mystery." Many astronomers suspected that the flashes might somehow be connected with whatever kind of objects produce bursts of gamma rays. In the latest Astrophys. J. Letters (vol. 317, p. L39), P. D. Maley reports a study entitled "Specular Satellite Reflection and the 1985 March 19 Optical Outburst in Perseus." (This refers to the flash that was photographed.) The abstract is as follows: "An analysis of the bright photographically recorded flash of 1985 March 19 shows that its celestial position is most conicident with the trajectory of Cosmos 1400, a Soviet electronic intelligence spacecraft. This artificial Earth satellite was found to have passed across the coordinates of the flash point within the error box defined and has been recently observed to have an optical behavior pattern capable of generating intense mirrorlike glints. Two other documented flashes are found to be correlated to the simultaneous presence of Earth satellites in the fields of view. It is suggested that Earth satellites are a likely source of many isolated, nonmeteoric flashes seen by ground-based observers. However, three unrelated transient optical emissions reported fram a gamma-ray burst source in the supernova remnant N49 were analyzed and found not to coincide with the known satellite population." The last paragraph of the conclusions is: "The ground-based astronomical science community will have to seriously consider the side effects of the expanding population of space debris as it continues to increase in the years to come. The rate of intentional insertion of new satellites into long-lived orbits exceeds the natural decay rate of those already in space. Without a mechanism to remove these observation hazards, long-exposure survey plates and the apertures of observatory detectors will experience increasing contamination from this clutter. Tumbling spacecraft may yet act as triggers for other unexpected discoveries or observational anomalies." The article includes two very interesting diagrams of all known satellite positions at two instants. For more on the hazards of space debris to astronomy (and to HST in particular), see Shara and Johnston (1986, Pub. Astron. Soc. Pacific vol. 98, p. 814). Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 11:04:10 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Astronaut information I spoke to the Astronaut Selection Board office. They no longer issue Announcements of Opportunity but have gone into an `as needed basis.' Decisions are typically made during Spring (the current review having past). I have asked that a copy of the requirements be forwarded to me (or you could get your own copy at anytime by writing the ASB at the Johnson Space Center). If you need an address, let me know, but please think about this VERY seriously. You should be in good physical and mental health. The training is rigourous and very hard. You will have to make obvious sacrifices. This is the real thing. (also note that the real thing also means that only 1 in 3 astronauts really do fly). --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 87 11:46:49 GMT From: mtune!codas!novavax!hrshcx!hechcx!jfb@rutgers.edu (Jerry Berlin) Subject: Re: NASA launch June/July According to the Kennedy Space Center launch information tape: "The next NASA launch will be an Atlas-Centaur rocket, now scheduled for no earlier than 7:58 AM, Friday, July 24, 1987." The toll free (Florida only) phone number is: 1-800-432-2153 Jerry F. Berlin Harris CSD - Education Center UUCP: jfberlin@HEC.HARRIS.COM 2101 West Cypress Creek Road (305) 977-5603 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-1892 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 11:14 EDT From: Gary M. Palter Subject: Galileo cancellation??!! From the "Washington Roundup" page of the June 1 AW&ST: NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher has discussed the possibility of canceling the Galileo mission to Jupiter in meetings with other NASA officials. Although space science officials believe it is very unlikely that the $1-billion mission will be killed, they admit that Galileo could fall victim to difficult choices NASA currently faces associated with the Fiscal 1989 budget and the new shuttle manifest. NASA is developing a new shuttle manifest based on a June 1988 first launch and space scientists are once again facing a fight with other shuttle users for early flight assignments. If they have the gaul to cancel Galileo, I'm writing my Congressmen and ask that they cancel NASA... - Gary ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 87 08:17:01 GMT From: k.cs.cmu.edu!jwa@pt.cs.cmu.edu (James Anderson) Subject: Re: Nanotechnology To start off let me state that I had extensive oportunity to talk to Eric Drexler while I was working the hospitality suite at the Pgh. conference. Since I was more or less just helping Wendy it was pretty flexible when I really wanted to talk to someone, (and a good excuse to get away from discussions of toilets). Anyway, as the previous article stated, Eric is taking a pretty straight forward progression view based on current biotechnology. Nothing really all that strange here just some very logical conclusions about some of the permutations of this kind of technology. A reasonable individual in my acquaintance, as is incidentally Dr. Forward, another person I had the pleasure to meet at the conference. These two people were the keystones of the conference in my book and deserve a lot of credit. >...I had a brief discussion with Mr. Keith Henson about nanotechnology, >having heard that he was interested in what I considered "fringe >science". He spoke with great feeling about such topics as I have >outlined above...... Quite true, to the point of fanatacism I expect. >Then I asked him what he forsaw in terms of physics breakthroughs on a >fundamental level - the kind of unified field approach that would >reduce manipulation of all fields and particle interactions to >engineering art. He shrugged it off, saying, "What do you need >hyperdrives for? With nano- machines in your bloodstream you can live >virtually forever." I can validate what is stated here having heard the same thing from the person named myself. As a person relatively new to the space movement I would like to make a few points that I feel are very important. The first point is that has already been implied in the previous article is that Mr. Henson is a fairly "fringe" individual. Quite true in my experience. Until a very short time ago I had been going on second hand information that the L5 society was to a large extent made up of just this sort of person and for that reason did not seek to associate with them. Obviously this kind of image is very bad for any group which is trying to be taken seriously and accomplish something. I particularly would like to state that I've found the opposite to be true of most people I've encountered that are members. As a rule the people involved in L5 and SSI are stable, responcible individuals. I was fortunate enough to run into Dale Amon around CMU and see for myself that the society's members were not all fruitcakes in Star Trek uniforms, though Dale can get pretty weird in the trailing hours of parties....... Too bad I had family commitments conflicting with the last one, who had the bright idea to have a party on Mother's Day weekend? Anyway the point is; don't think that all of us have given up on FTL drives, or that we are all weird. Neither is true, though admittedly the latter is rather subjective. Particularly don't think all of us are preoccupied with death as Mr Henson seems to be. (If you don't believe this I can site other - somewhat tasteless - examples) Boy am I glad that guy isn't running the show any more. The rest of the article concerning FTL drives and sticking with the dream of star travel is excellent, keep the chin firm and keep swinging! Jim uucp: ...!seismo!cmu-cs-k!jwa ARPA: jwa@k.cs.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1987 11:46 EDT From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #244 Peter Nelson wonders if there is any good reason why nanotechnology has taken hold among so many space buffs, and wonders if any of this nanotechnology will come to pass in our lifetimes. The answer to the first question, of course, is that present technology permits us easily to ship tons of payload around the solar system - but not thousands of tons. This means that we can do much more exploration if we can build much smaller payloads. Similarly, we could easily ship grams to the stars, but not kilograms. As for nanotechnology in our lifetimes, I recommend careful reading of the article by Julius Rebek on "Model Studies in Molecular Recognition" in Sciences, 20 March, 1987, pp1478-84. ------------------------------ Date: Wed 3 Jun 87 13:42:27-CDT From: AU.ALANMCKENDREE@a20.cc.utexas.edu Subject: this horrible ol'world we live in Cc: AU.ALANMCKENDREE@a20.cc.utexas.edu From: jade!tart8.berkeley.edu!c60a-4gd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Stephan Zielinski) [Herewith some selected lines from the above posting, with my comments in []s] Material abundance for everybody? That's what we said when we had the agricultural revolution, the first industrial revolution, the second industrial revolution, the Russian revolution... [ Perhaps the promise of abundance for *everybody* is/was premature (although I don't think anyone who really understands the logistics of the problem is/was promising that). But I hope you're not suggesting because of that that the mentioned advances are worthless.] We've had the resources to feed the planet for at least fifty years. We (America) don't because it's not profitable. [Correction: We (America) don't because we so far have had enough sense not to hold ourselves out as singlehandledly ready, able, and willing to support the rest of the world (in the style to which they would like to become accustomed--and beyond). Like it or not, food *belongs* to those who produce it. The government's primary responsibility to such producers is precisely to let them produce, not confiscate their products for redistribution.] Humanity always blows it. [Pretty pessimistic view of the race--but that's your problem] In fact, the only way to set up a true Post Scarcity Economy will be to build it from the ground up... which, unfortunately, implies a frontier. Which implies space. [What's a PSE? If you mean an economy after some cataclysm then we will certainly have to build it from the ground up..but the frontier will consist of securing survival basics. If you mean we are already in some Scarcity situation and thus must adopt 55-mph speed limits and the like for the national welfare I would refer you to _The Doomsday Myth_ (authors disremembered). This convincingly argues that throughout history man has been plagued with predictions of doom pending the exhaustion of this or the other resource--which never really happens due to the rising costs of using that resource, leading to less use of it. (EX: Did you know that at the turn of the century there were frenzied warnings of an imminent wood shortage, as the railroads were cutting down forests and using enormous amounts of wood for ties and trestles? Sounds pretty quaint now but they were serious--then. Hint: Water is predicted as the shortage crisis we face)] However, I will never settle a frontier: I'm a soft hacker, not a test pilot. [Armchair Marxists can be the worst] UUCP: {Your problem}!ucbvax!miro!stephan (I don't *really* know...) [I couldn't have said it better myself...] ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #248 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10939; Mon, 8 Jun 87 03:03:41 PDT id AA10939; Mon, 8 Jun 87 03:03:41 PDT Date: Mon, 8 Jun 87 03:03:41 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706081003.AA10939@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #249 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 249 Today's Topics: Re: Use the Mars Juggernautto build a 500 man ***permanent*** colony on Next Shuttle Flight what the Russians plan Re: Soviet Space Shuttle (really International Space?) NASA sabotage of Saturn V? Request for Information. Re: what the Russians plan Re: Just assume FTL exists :-? What to do on Mars Re: Saturn V ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Jun 87 23:48:54 GMT From: ptsfa!pttesac!ahrens@AMES.ARPA (Peter Ahrens) Subject: Re: Use the Mars Juggernautto build a 500 man ***permanent*** colony on In article <8065@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Let me see if I've understood your argument: > >1. There is no economic justification for space colonization, so presenting >it as an alternative to Mars is doomed. > >2. There is no political support for non-flashy non-one-shot space projects, >so presenting them as alternatives is also doomed. > >3. Therefore, it is realistic to campaign for a non-flashy non-one-shot >space colonization project, to wit colonizing Mars. > >Sure. In following the discussion of a permanent colony on Mars in the very near future ( < next fifty years ), two factors seem to argue against any kind of real public support: a) It is not attractive to potential participants: 500 other guys are going to be on Mars forever while the rest of us are stuck here. Orbital colonization has vastly more potential for getting us non-astronaut-ex-fighter-jocks into space, doesn't it? b) You're still on the ground. Something like 1/3 g, but manned missions to the outer solar system and beyond do not seem likely to be launched from the surface of Mars--or Mars orbit, unless the planet is lot wealthier in natural resources than it currently appears. Let's face it: Free World space activities are just going to have to generate a lot of public interest and benefit (somehow) if they are to remain civilian projects...a lot of human interest and excitement needs to reach everybody in a spacefaring society, including the beancounters. -Pete Ahrens ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 87 03:17:11 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (UUCP Admin) Subject: Next Shuttle Flight NASA NEWS - MAY 20, 1987 NASA PLANS NEXT SHUTTLE FLIGHT NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher announced June 1988 as the new target date for the next Space Shuttle launch. The exact date will be selected by the Administrator based upon the results of expanded testing of Shuttle systems, revised launch crew procedures and actual hardware deliveries. This new target date reflects the decision, announced in April, to perform two major systems tests prior to flight. These tests are a "wet" countdown demonstration test, in which the external tank is filled with fuel for a simulated launch countdown, and a flight readiness firing in which the three main engines will be fired for about 20 seconds. These two tests, which will be conducted approximately 6 weeks prior to launch, will provide engineering data to evaluate various systems modifications and provide an opportunity to exercise the launch and mission control teams and the revised procedures. The plan also permits acquiring new fabrication tooling to improve the tolerance on the redesigned solid rocket motor insulation J-seal. Current plans are for two additional flights in 1988 and seven flights in 1989. Admiral Richard H. Truly, NASA associate administrator for space flight, indicated that necessary adjustments to the Shuttle manifest, published in October 1986, will be worked out over the next few months. In establishing the target for launch, Dr. Fletcher stated, "Safety returning the Space Shuttle to flight is NASA's highest priority. Our revised plan for Space Shuttle recovery is ambitious and assumes that we will successfully complete our test and processing objectives. I know I can count on the whole NASA team -- and, of course, I include our contractor partners -- to move out enthusiastically toward this new goal." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NASA News Release 87-80 By Sarah Keegan Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 87 23:18:11 GMT From: mtune!mtgzz!dls@rutgers.edu (d.l.skran) Subject: what the Russians plan In the June 1 issue of AvTech on pg 24 the following statement appears: "Guiry Marchuk, president of the Soviety Academy of Sciences, said last week the Energia will be used to launch heavy communications satellites into geosynchronous orbit, large planetary missions, large new space station elements, and experimental solar power satellites that could beam electricity to Earth." Apparently the Soviets are unaware of Gary Allan's proof that Solar Power Satellites are not possible. I have the feeling that by the time we get done refuting Gary's half-baked objections to everything, we'll be able to buy tourist passes to visit the Soviet SPSs -- for a huge sum, of course, and on the Concorde IV. Seriously, folks, I am getting very close to the point of saying I'm ashamed of being an American. It is starting to look more and more like American society cannot compete over the long run. Still, let's all remember one thing. There will be NO or VERY FEW places for Americans in Soviet, French, or Japanese space factories, stations, or colonies. We(that's you, me, and our kids) will have entirely secondary roles to play, like working in fast-food restaurants or collecting unemployment. Basically, either this country goes into space and us with it, or we stay here and watch Japanese TVs. We are going together, or not at all. Right now it looks like we're not going, but it's not over till it's over. How about some constructive(and REALISTIC) suggestions for organizing/inspiring new support for the space program? Send the 500 PERSON Mars colonies plans to /dev/null. Dale Skran ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 87 19:17:55 GMT From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@ames.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle (really International Space?) > You state ...'a lot simpler than ours.' yet your signature line shows you > in Toronto. I am assuming that you are Canadian ... > Do Canadians feel a sense of ownership of the shuttle in the same way as > the US folks? (It does have a Canadian arm ...) No real sense of ownership here, except in the vague and nebulous sense of being part of the same general culture and political bloc, which is the sense I was using "ours" in. > I would like to think that space efforts tended to erase national boundries, > perhaps this is an indication that in some small way they do? Only in the smallest of ways, I fear. There is still far too much chauvinism in the way things are being run by (e.g.) the US for the rest of us to feel any great sense of brotherhood in it. Example, the arguments over operating policy for the second space station. (Mir is the first.) For that matter, never mind the operating policy: nobody has yet explained to me why it's necessary to design and build all-new pressurized modules for said space station, when the only thing obviously wrong with Spacelab modules is that they don't have "Made In USA" labels. -- "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 87 23:49:16 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa (MacLeod) Subject: NASA sabotage of Saturn V? In article <2262@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: > >All this talk about our now non-existant Saturn V has made me very >depressed. Does anyone know if any of our politicians tried to keep the >Saturn V capability? (I'll vote for them) I read yesterday that Dr. John Lewis, who is involved in this controversy in some respect (I apologize for not remembering what, or for not having the reference here), claims that NASA actually encouraged and expedited the sale of Saturn V tooling and infrastructure materials, and then did its best to obscure, muddle, and misdirect those searching for SV engineering documentation. This was because the Shuttle group saw heavy boosters as a threat to their own project. Hang these knaves, I say, with >no< smiley face... The rest of the article describes the pathetic efforts of various companies and individuals to track down the remaining engineering specs, with an eye toward building new heavy boosters. The article claims that if they started now they might have a product in 7-8 years. *Groan* *Grinding of teeth* Mike MacLeod ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 87 09:49:14 EDT From: SHADOW%UMASS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Astronomy Undergraduate) Subject: Request for Information. To the readers of this digest: Can anyone send material, or refer me to sources concerning the following: 1.) The recently discovered atmosphere on Pluto, during it's occultations with Charon. 2.) The Mariner probe's data revealing a sodium atmosphere on Mercury. 3.) A good, recent paper on OH Masers. Any reply can be sent to me, or to this digest, and is greatly appreciated. I am aware that these topics may be ambigious, or too generally stated. Right now, I would like to keep as non-specific as possible. Thank you in advance: James Belfiore (SHADOW@UMass.Bitnet) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 87 15:46:18 GMT From: ptsfa!pttesac!ahrens@ames.arpa (Peter Ahrens) Subject: Re: what the Russians plan In article <2717@mtgzz.UUCP> dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes: >In the June 1 issue of AvTech on pg 24 the following statement >appears: > >"Guiry Marchuk, president of the Soviety Academy of Sciences, >said last week the Energia will be used to launch heavy communications >satellites into geosynchronous orbit, large planetary missions, large >new space station elements, and experimental solar power satellites >that could beam electricity to Earth." >Still, let's all remember one thing. There will be NO or VERY FEW places >for Americans in Soviet, French, or Japanese space factories, stations, >or colonies. We(that's you, me, and our kids) will have entirely >secondary roles to play, like working in fast-food restaurants >or collecting unemployment. >Basically, either this country goes into space and us with it, >or we stay here and watch Japanese TVs. We are going together, or not at all. >Right now it looks like we're not going, but it's not over till >it's over. > >How about some constructive(and REALISTIC) suggestions for >organizing/inspiring new support for the space program? >Send the 500 PERSON Mars colonies plans to /dev/null. > >Dale Skran I would like to second Dale's appeal. A few postings back, Gary Allen, I believe, pointed to the (remote but real) possibility of the cancellation of Galileo...this is honest doomsday talk for American Civilian Space. Many discussions of late have concerned somewhat more remote future space projects, or unrealistic near future leap-before-look attempts. Meanwhile, the Russians are DOING IT: Earth orbit operations with a serious near-term view for a manned mission to Mars following an elaborate robot visit. (They are industriously working to OUTFLANK whatever SDI deployment we might make in the 21st Century--if spaceflight devolves into military armwrestling.) Isn't a joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. manned Mars mission _something_like_ what we are all looking for here: the people of both nations could certainly get excited about it...perhaps add a few of the other nations' cosmonauts who have been going up on *Russian* spacecraft... On this side of the planet, we who desire human expansion into the solar system and beyond have got to persuade enough people that it is worth doing. If it is worth doing, it should not be impossible to find the means of persuasion. -Pete ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 87 21:35:10 GMT From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andre Guirard) Subject: Re: Just assume FTL exists :-? In article <8706040026.AA06289@galileo.s1.gov> ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes: > there is a some hope that we can arrange to capture one of >their ships. They probably won't know much more about FTL travel than >we do and ET graduate student field workers may be relatively careless. >How many radios, calculators and the like are pirated by aboriginies >being studied by today's anthropologists? Ha! And how many aborigine copies of radios, calculators and the like have we seen to date? -- ^^ Andre Guirard o o '` "Pockets" o ihnp4!mmm!cipher ~ ~ ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 87 21:52:39 GMT From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andre Guirard) Subject: What to do on Mars Part of the problem about convincing people to go to Mars is that it's not a very hospitable place. If we can't convince the Powers that Bleat to start a permanent colony there, perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of robots capable of reproducing themselves. These would be directed in part from the Earth, but because of slow communications, they would have to be "smart" enough to do some things themselves. Once there were enough of them, they could be used to construct a place for people to live. The chances of a return mission and a permanent colony are much better if there is some place already there worth going to. Anyone care to comment on how difficult this would be to do? -- ^^ Andre Guirard o o '` "Pockets" o ihnp4!mmm!cipher ~ ~ ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 87 19:02:58 GMT From: philabs!ttidca!sorgatz@nyu.arpa ( Avatar) Subject: Re: Saturn V In article <20291@sun.uucp> mae@sun.UUCP (Mike Ekberg, Sun {Graphics Sub-Division}) writes: >My question is why was Saturn V abandoned? Was it too costly on a per/pound basis >vis-a-vis the shuttle? I vaguely recall NASA doing a study years ago that was >something like a PERT chart of the Whole space program. The gist of the study >was, "Yup, to do all this {space station,Mars,LEO sats} we need a shuttle". Was >this an error? At least this was the theory, it was proposed to utilize the Shuttle atop a Saturn 5 / saturn ][ assembly for the Manned Mars Encounter...budget probs stopped this cold. The decision to scrap the Saturn 5 was a politics-only decision. IE-there could be no firther "glory" from using it! > >It's interesting that many people express admiration for Soviet space program, >in particular their "build on existing hardware approach", yet the same people >don't attempt the same approach with the U.S. program. > Same problem. We allow non-tech people to decide tech issues, hence there is the tendency for management to wrap thick layers of expensive insulation, (read: project management) around themselves. The net effect is to insure the generation of new, expensive projects...managers perceive this to equate to more "glory"; which to them is more important than actually doing Space! >My question to the world at large? Starting with what we have *NOW*, how would >you build a space station? Why not launch a shuttle and leave it up there? Q1-Yes I would. 3-500 people, fully operational in 2 years using existing hardware and technology. Cost 1/3 of the proposed kludge. Q2-because it's too small. > >mike - Sun uSystems, MStop 5-40 >SONG: "You have a right to say NO[Drugs]!" >WIFE: "Does that mean I have a right to say YES!?" I like your spouse's spirit...unfortunately, the same mentality that has been running the NASA empire has decided that _noone_ has the right to decide such things for themselves...:-( (scheduling: Just say NO!) -- -Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY Citicorp(+)TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #249 ******************* 0,unseen,, *** EOOH *** Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13659; Tue, 9 Jun 87 03:03:56 PDT id AA13659; Tue, 9 Jun 87 03:03:56 PDT Date: Tue, 9 Jun 87 03:03:56 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706091003.AA13659@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #250 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 250 Today's Topics: Re: Just assume FTL exists :-? FTL travel Informal Survey of Southern Attitudes... Re: Saturn V Re: FTL travel Re: Saturn V Re: Saturn V Re: Just assume FTL exists :-? Re: What to do on Mars Re: What to do on Mars Re: Just assume FTL exists :-? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Jun 87 06:06:46 GMT From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: Just assume FTL exists :-? In article <1340@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes: >In article <8706040026.AA06289@galileo.s1.gov> ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes: >> there is a some hope that we can arrange to capture one of >>their ships. They probably won't know much more about FTL travel than >>we do and ET graduate student field workers may be relatively careless. >>How many radios, calculators and the like are pirated by aboriginies >>being studied by today's anthropologists? > >Ha! And how many aborigine copies of radios, calculators and the like >have we seen to date? I don't know the numbers, but I do know that they are serious enough competition to cause some of our companies to pressure Reagan and Congress for special protection acts. . . . You may not think of the Japanese (and now other Asian nations) as being composed of aborigines, but they do live in the areas that were theirs for thousands of years, and 100 years ago they were incredibly far behind us technologically and socially (although that last is not to give us any great praise. . .), and look how they're walking all over us now with technology that they (so far) have mostly learned from us. (-: 1/2 If we manage to steal or con out a hyperdrive, turn it over to the Japanese! 1/2 :-) If, on the other hand, we were the only examples of Earth aborigines exposed to alien technology, your point would probably stand the test. . . :-( Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu {insert your favorite brave system here}seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jun 87 09:22 EST From: RON PICARD Subject: FTL travel There used to be a time when scientists thought FTS travel was impossible within the Earth's atmosphere. If scientists blindly accept everything that was once mathmatically proven our technological age will come to an end. Remember, when we express something mathmatically, we are actually expressing a model of reality. All models have their limitations. Ron Picard General Motors Research Labs Warren, Mich. 48090 ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 87 12:32:03 GMT From: ecsvax!tcamp@mcnc.org (Ted A. Campbell) Subject: Informal Survey of Southern Attitudes... Well I don't know about all yall yankees but down here in the seamy southland there's two things that make the grits between our ears boil and one of them is just to think about those soviet communist pinkos flying around in their little space- ships while all we can do is just sit down here on the bayou and watch and the other thing well the other thing is how all these military jocks want to get their grimey hands on the civilian space program you know the other day my cousin Vernon and his wife Sue and their kids came up and after church on Sunday Vernon and Sue go to the Babdist church and won't come to the Holiness Church with us anyway after church we were sitting around having Sunday lunch with ham and redeye gravy and Vern said well I think next time we go to the moon we ought to take off that silly plaque that says we came in peace for all mankind and replace it with one that says we came to kill commies for Christ now Sue did not appreciate this at all and gave Vernon an ugly look that would turn sweetmilk into yogurt and I said oh Susan a man has a right to be mad about that we used to be proud of the civilian space program and Vern's little girl July said her daddy was going to organize a Union of Southern Space Researchers and my boy Charlie said yeah and the initials would be USSR and I said shut up kid but hoo boy did Sue ever think that was funny anyway then Charlie smarts off again and says well why don't we just write our congressmen and senators about it and I said no that won't work because as soon as they get to the DC when they cross the Potomac those fatcat Reagan defense contractors meet them on the bridge and start feeding them barbeque and beer until they come out talking like the destruction of the civilian space program is a patriotic duty dangit and I shouldn't have said that because now Sue was glaring at me if you know what I mean and I think you probably do. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jun 87 10:08:25 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Saturn V Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: Since you posted the follow up directly, I felt I should resond in a follow up, Pat: >Eugene, > >When you offered up the possibility that the blueprints no longer >exist, I was startled. You work at Ames (for NASA?), and I have >worked for DOD-type contractors for quite a while. Knowing as I do >the frenzy the customers get into over documentation, I find it >almost impossible to believe that NASA, which spent Mega-bucks on the >Saturn V, cannot find the plans to build more of them. If it is >true, somebody should be spaced! > >Pat Yes, but Ames is out of it as far as space projects go (it's an aeronautics Center [only 20% space funding]), and my other work was at JPL which is also small peanuts (unmanned deep space) which I also worked on a project with LMSC [Seasat] which used an Altas-Centaur BTW. Back to the point, the problem is historical [hysterical] and political and I explained this is a letter to a correspondent from DRIvax. The problem was all those people who pushed for a Shuttle in the 1970s basically sold their ELV souls for a reuseable vehicle. That is why the SV documentation was literally given away. It costs $$s to just store and the Shuttle documentation took up several times the volume of the SV documentation. If you want to push an idea, how much information on opposing ideas would you keep around? Long time followers of space would note I have never been a fan of manned space (but recognize some needs), and hence have to call the JSC or MSFC PIO offices for manned flight info or JPL for DS info (now). I hope you can appreciate some of the paradoxes even in this group: robotics people pushing manned space and vice versa in some cases. Yeah, I have tons of old project doumentation, too (well many kilos). LMSC is no exception. I'm not a NASA love it or leave it type, but I feel a little bit better about it than working in certain private sector areas, and I consider my options all the time from LLNL/LANL type jobs to ESSA/JSA and private sector/venture capital things. The question is when things waste every one's time, hence, my interested in net collective memory ala 451. P.S. Dale, I'm back, let's organize this thing further. I just hope this is the last SV discussion and we minimize rehash, let future readers read history of discussions rather than cover the same ground again. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 87 16:38:19 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: FTL travel In article <8706051333.AA05442@angband.s1.gov>, PICARD@gmr.COM (RON PICARD) writes: > There used to be a time when scientists thought FTS travel was impossible > within the Earth's atmosphere. This is misleading, at best. Objects moving faster than sound inside the atmosphere have been known for thousands of years. (No, "thousands" is not a misprint.) WW II naval guns propelled shells weighing up to 2700 pounds at supersonic speeds. The doubts about FTS "travel" were whether a manned, controlled aircraft could transistion from subsonic to supersonic flight and back. The arguments against were of a wholly different kind than current arguments against FTL travel being possible. (In fact, they resemble arguments against "skyhooks": currently known materials are too weak to withstand the expected stresses.) For supersonic flight, the mistake was that aerodynamic stresses at Mach 1 turned out to be much less than most people expected, so conventional materials were able to withstand them. This was new physical knowledge, but hardly a revolution in physics. None of this proves that FTL travel is impossible. But current physical knowledge gives not the slightest hint that it can be done, and the most obvious way (Just keep speeding up...) is pretty clearly ruled out by experiment. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 87 12:43:02 GMT From: mtune!codas!novavax!augusta!bs@rutgers.edu (Burch Seymour) Subject: Re: Saturn V in article <2262@calmasd.GE.COM>, jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) says: > > Does anyone know if any of our politicians tried to keep the > Saturn V capability? (I'll vote for them) > While this is not about the Saturn V, I thought this would be a good place to note one political horror. In his book _Deep_Black_, author William Burrows notes that Robert MacNamera (or however that's spelled) had the tooling for the SR-71 destroyed so that it could not compete for funds with some of his pet projects. (I think these were the B1 and F-15 or 16 I loaned out the book and don't remember for certain). -Burch Seymour- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 87 03:20:47 GMT From: cetron@cs.utah.edu (Edward J Cetron) Subject: Re: Saturn V I seem to recall that the tooling was destroyed because certain people where paranoid - but about the 'threat' getting hold of the tooling, not that it would impede other projects. -ed ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 87 18:40:40 GMT From: dayton!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@rutgers.edu (Andre Guirard) Subject: Re: Just assume FTL exists :-? >>In article <8706040026.AA06289@galileo.s1.gov> ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes: >>>[We could learn to make FTL drives by capturing some from aliens] >>>How many radios, calculators and the like are pirated by aboriginies >>>being studied by today's anthropologists? >In article <1340@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (me) writes: >>Ha! And how many aborigine copies of radios, calculators and the like >>have we seen to date? In article <2199@husc6.UUCP> lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu (lucius) writes: >[The Japanese and other Asian nations] were >incredibly far behind us technologically and socially ... > and look how they're walking all over >us now with technology that they (so far) have mostly learned from us. Yes, dear, but they initially learned it not by studying captured radios, but by going to our schools. My point stands. -- ^^ Andre Guirard o o '` "Pockets" o ihnp4!mmm!cipher ~ ~ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 87 16:36:33 GMT From: ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!west@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Darrin West) Subject: Re: What to do on Mars In article <1341@mmm.UUCP>, cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes: > Part of the problem about convincing people to go to Mars is that it's > not a very hospitable place. Isn't the average temperature -40c? > there, perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of > robots capable of reproducing themselves. These would be directed in ^^^^^^^^^^^ Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible? > part from the Earth, but because of slow communications, they would > have to be "smart" enough to do some things themselves. Once there > were enough of them, they could be used to construct a place for people > to live. I barely trust robots to put together cars (and those are pretty simple robots!), much less an air tight environment. Actually I barely trust people to do something like this. A small mistake would be deadly. How safe were the apollo's in terms of environment? And what did it cost in time (including research) and money to develop a relatively short term system? > The chances of a return mission and a permanent colony are much better > if there is some place already there worth going to. Just like the banana belt, and the settlers > Anyone care to comment on how difficult this would be to do? Too hard. But I imagine that even more people said the same thing about going to the moon, but then again they didn't stay very long. -- Darrin West, Master's Unit (read: student). ..![ubc-vision,ihnp4]! Department of Computer Science alberta!calgary!west University of Calgary. Can you say '88 Winter Games? Brain fault (cortex dumped) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 87 15:30:27 GMT From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu (lucius chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: What to do on Mars In article <952@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> west@calgary.UUCP (Darrin West) writes: >In article <1341@mmm.UUCP>, cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes: >> there, perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of >> robots capable of reproducing themselves. These would be directed in > ^^^^^^^^^^^ >Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible? First of all, you don't need to comprehend yourself to reproduce. We do it all the time. Second, a properly-designed system can comprehend itself. The design constraint is that the system be composed in large part of arrays of repeated elements which are switchable so as to be able to store information (such as bits in memory or on magneto-optic disk, or collections of neurons). -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 87 15:19:11 GMT From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu (lucius chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: Just assume FTL exists :-? In article <1344@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes: >In article <2199@husc6.UUCP> lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu (lucius) writes: > >[The Japanese and other Asian nations] were > >incredibly far behind us technologically and socially ... > > and look how they're walking all over > >us now with technology that they (so far) have mostly learned from us. > >Yes, dear, but they initially learned it not by studying captured >radios, but by going to our schools. My point stands. Well, I could give you the story about a Japanese company who had copied a circuit so exactly that they copied the American company logo, but I wont. . . I guess this just means we'll have to stowaway on an alien ship and settle on their planet as illegal aliens, and then go to their schools. . . . :-) -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #250 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Jun 87 19:16:15 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00589; Thu, 11 Jun 87 11:19:42 PDT id AA00589; Thu, 11 Jun 87 11:19:42 PDT Date: Thu, 11 Jun 87 11:19:42 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706111819.AA00589@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #251 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 251 Today's Topics: Re: shuttle aerobatics??? Re: Shuttle flight profile Re: What to do on Mars Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots? Openhouse at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory space news from April 13 AW&ST space news from April 20 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Jun 87 20:05:38 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: shuttle aerobatics??? In article <12402@topaz.rutgers.edu>, josh@topaz.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes: > A friend tells me that the shuttle performs a diving maneuver as part > of its ascent (yes, ascent) to gain speed. I feel that this is off > the wall but couldn't convince him. I could see this as a possibility > for air-breathing craft with an operating ceiling, and I know all > about the planet-diving trick for interplanetary acceleration: but > that the shuttle would do it during ascent is completely unbelievable. > Can someone say something authoritative on the subject? > --JoSH I asked Marc Martin, who is our trajectory / performance person why this happens. He gave me several reasons: (1) the Shuttle has a 'Max-Q' constraint. Q is the dynamic air pressure in flight. The Shuttle is limited to about 650 pounds/square foot dynamic pressure. Dynamic pressure is a function of air pressure and velocity, so the Shuttle flies a high trajectory to get to lower air pressure. This trajectory is too high for what comes later. (2) The shuttle does a 'depressed trajectory' later in the flight to make sure the External Tank reenters in a well defined area. The way they do this is by flying to a 57x2 mile orbit at main engine cut-off. The apogee of this orbit is 57 miles, about where the orbiter is, and the perigee is 2 miles, halfway around the earth. The tank follows this orbit until it gets to thick air somewhere above 2 miles, and burns up. The orbiter fires it's OMS engines and raises its' orbit before it follows the ET in. (3) In general, an efficient launch trajectory want you to spend as little time firing downwards as possible, and as much time firing sideways (horizontal velocity is what is needed to stay in orbit). If you are outside the atmosphere, you can point your engines in the most efficient direction, without having to worry about aerodynamic forces caused by your velocity (wind). In the atmosphere you want to point your vehicle along its long axis to minimize drag. So if you are out of the atmosphere quick, you can fly a more efficient trajectory. If you are thrusting purely sideways, it is possible that you will start to fall vertically before reaching orbit. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 87 15:37:21 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Shuttle flight profile In article <549748179.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >As far as I know, the only purpose of the maneuver is to insure that >the tank does not go into orbit and that it impacts quickly in a known >location. I believe that this maneuver is the reason it is said that it >would cost less fuel to take the tank into orbit than it does to >discard it. > Let's see... A maneuver which burns more fuel so reducing the payload which can be carried, ...which needs a more complex flight plan, ...and which destroys fuel tanks which could be very useful for building structures in orbit. This idea must have been dreamed up by the anti-spaceflight lobby Or perhaps the russians are running NASA these days :-> Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jun 87 00:54:17 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: What to do on Mars > ...perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of > robots capable of reproducing themselves... [with some remote control] My understanding is that getting a system that will 98% self-reproduce looks easy, but the remaining 2% is hard unless you add humans to the self-reproducing system. -- "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jun 87 06:18:35 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 09 06:18:35 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 09 06:19:30 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!west@beaver.cs.washington.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots? Date: 5 Jun 87 16:36:33 GMT From: ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!west@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Darrin Wes t) Subject: Re: What to do on Mars > there, perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of > robots capable of reproducing themselves. These would be directed in ^^^^^^^^^^^ Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible? That's such a misstatement of Goedel's theorem that I feel I must refute it immediately! Goedel merely proved impossible a system that PERFECTLY understands its own capabilities, that is can decide whether or not it would be able to accomplish a task (solve a problem). His theorem says nothing about what imperfect understanding, such as is present in "higher" biological creatures and some predicted computers or robots or androids of the future, could exist. Lots of living creatures try things they think might be possible and productive, and if they fail to achieve desired result before they get distracted or bored or disenchanted they move on to something else, never knowing for sure whether with additional effort they might have been able to accomplish the task or not. But such lack of perfect knowledge of one's capabilities never stopped people and even other animals from inventing tools and performing all sorts of intelligent tasks. And in regard to merely reproducing, even the tiniest bacteria can do that, with no formal understanding of self whatsoever, and in the right non-natural (i.e. biologically-created) environment even viruses and memes can reproduce. I see very early in the next century robots which can mechanically fabricate copies of themselves (except without exactly the same memories, since that requires synchronization of mental processes which may require stopping the unit; it may, however, be quite possible for robot #1 to turn off identical-except-for-memory robot #2, make a copy of robot #2 including exact memory, then turn robot #2 back on. If robot #2 has initiated the request for copy-service, then for all practical purposes we might say that in the environment where robot #1 exists, robot #2 has total self-replication capabilities (modulo trusting robot #1 not to disobey instructions and leave robot #2 turned off), which will beat out what biological creatures can presently do (create copies of their genes, but with no copies of memories whatsoever). > part from the Earth, but because of slow communications, they would > have to be "smart" enough to do some things themselves. Once there > were enough of them, they could be used to construct a place for people > to live. I barely trust robots to put together cars (and those are pretty simple robots!), much less an air tight environment. Actually I barely trust people to do something like this. A small mistake would be deadly. (I feel like calling you a twit.) Have you never heard of quality control, of inspections, of supervision, etc.? You don't just commission some people to build a car, totally unsupervised, then jump in it and drive it on the freeway. You check the car out to make sure it passes safety tests before you even put the car on the car lot. As a consumer, you buy new cars only from reputable dealers at reputable companies that have a lot to lose if lots of people get killed and their next of kin start suing. Sure, sometimes you get cars with subtle bugs like gasoline tanks that explode in certain kinds of collisions, but for the most part you get a car that does basically perform its proper function without being horribly dangerous to drive normally. So, in robotics on Mars, the company supervising the work must be one that stands to lose a lot if the colonists die because of lack of air due to faulty construction, so the company makes sure the robots perform tests to verify everything's reasonably ok before the colonists arrive on Mars, and the design is such that if a mistake does happen it doesn't kill many colonists. You don't have to trust the robots directly. You have to trust the company that owns them, and that company has to trust the robots. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 87 11:49:35 PDT From: tencati@jpl-vlsi.arpa Subject: Openhouse at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory X-St-Vmsmail-To: ST%"space@angband.s1.gov",TENCATI For those of you in Southern California, JPL will be having an lab-wide openhouse on the weekend of June 13-14. The general public is invited. There will be lectures, slide shows, films, displays. As well as mock-ups of virtually every spacecraft that JPL has had a hand in (Voyager, Viking, Surveyer, Mariner, Pioneer, etc) and the actual Galileo spacecraft which will fly to Jupiter in 1991(2?) and send a probe into the Jovian atmosphere as well as study and photograph the planet. The openhouse hours are 9-5 both Saturday and Sunday. A number of computer demonstrations are also scheduled (Image processing, Satellite Navagation, Space Flight Operations Center prototype - to name a few). Last weekend, the lab was also open but primarily for employees and their families. This coming weekend, it is for everyone. It is the first time in about 5 years that JPL has done this. It is truly on a grand scale. If you are in the area, I would highly recommend you plan on attending. And of course, bring your camera! Ron Tencati System Mgr, JPL-VLSI.ARPA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, Ca ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 87 23:47:32 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from April 13 AW&ST [Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is PO Box 1505, Neptune NJ 07754 USA. Rates depend on whether you are an "unqualified" or "qualified" subscriber, which basically means whether you look at the ads for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial or military interest. Best write for a "qualification card" and try to get the cheap rate. US rates are $55 qualified, $70 unqualified at present. It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of it has nothing to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth it to you. -- HS] Hughes finishes tests on prototype Intelsat 6, clearing way for production of five, first to fly on Ariane in 1989. Weinberger continues to advocate a US-first space-station policy. DoD DepUnderSec Woodruff says decisions are needed soon on whether the Air Defense Initiative will use space-based radars. Proposed new Hermes design has smaller, three-person, ejectable crew cabin, pressurized payload bay, and docking port at rear of fuselage. Kvant docks with Mir on second attempt, although there are indications that problems still exist. [The Mir crew later did an EVA to remove a bag of some sort that was interfering. -- HS] Rep. Nelson, House space chair, criticizes the $12.2G space-station funding level approved by Reagan on the grounds that it does not include full costs of operations and is not in current-year dollars. Says $20G is closer. NASA objects that this includes lift costs, which are not counted against the budget of other space-science projects. Space station users unhappy about reduction in available power in new plan. Ohio congressmen pressuring NASA over reduction in work for Lewis center. NASA changes mind about ESA proposal for detachable man-tended station module, says it is now permitted. New KSC assessment slips next shuttle launch to Sept 1988, assuming no changes in procedure and inclusion of a wet (fueled) countdown test and a flight-readiness firing. Also assumes no serious problems or delays. NASA congressional testimony shows possible cost overrun in FY88 for shuttle recovery work, from budgeted $400M to as much as $750M. DoD's DSP (early warning) and DSCS (comsat) missions may switch from shuttle to Titan 4: the current shuttle payload limits reduce their life by making it impossible to launch them fully fueled. Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle price tag goes from $400M to $465M. Fletcher says this is "normal growth"!! McDonnell Douglas now has nine $50k deposits for commercial Delta launches. Lightning looks more and more likely as cause of Atlas failure. Pinhole puncture in nose fairing, and associated damage, closely resembles that expected for lightning hit. NASA asks for better weather sensors for KSC. University of Leeds professor and grad student analyze signal format of the Soviet Glonass navsat (Navstar/GPS equivalent) system, say common receiver for Navstar and Glonass should be possible. Report with full details is for sale. Generally similar to Navstar, some differences. "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 87 23:43:09 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from April 20 AW&ST Editorial criticizing DoD's latest space-station uproar, asking what DoD has to gain from making a fuss now -- is there a hidden agenda here? Govt. of Queensland (one state/province/whatever of Australia) continues to pursue the idea of locating an international spaceport on the Cape York peninsula. USAF heavylift booster renamed the Advanced Launch System. Telesat Canada books two Ariane 4s for Anik E1 and E2. Next Ariane launch may slip again: turbopump overheating problems found in ground tests. Arianespace was hoping for June-July. Romenenko and Laveikin do short-notice EVA on April 12 to remove an object obstructing docking between Mir and Kvant. Cosmonauts say the object was a small white bag, perhaps some sort of protective cover left on Kvant by a ground-crew mistake. The cosmonauts pulled Mir and Kvant apart a foot or so, the docking probe remaining attached, and removed the object; the ground controllers then commanded another docking attempt, which worked. Kvant propulsion module jettisoned April 13, clearing a docking port on the rear of Kvant. Cosmonauts then entered Kvant and began setup work. [Having discussed the real space station, we now move on to the latest news (bad news, of course) about the hypothetical one... -- HS] Space station negotiations stalled by DoD's latest pigheadedness; nothing can happen internationally until the US gets its act together. NASA looks at going to Reagan about it. International partners particularly upset because DoD is proposing its "national security purposes" language as an alternative to "peaceful purposes consistent with international law" -- what in the world has DoD got in mind? Part of DoD's motivation is probably the current fuss over just what the ABM treaty's language means for SDI. There is general agreement that the timing (and apparently-deliberate leaking of) Weinberger's latest communique on the subject is suspicious -- is DoD deliberately trying to kill the station? DoD has refused to say anything implying that it would replace the international partners if they withdraw. Canada will definitely drop out of the space station if DoD has its way, although nobody is saying so out loud yet -- it is not a significant domestic political issue, and Canada would prefer to avoid offending the US without good reason. Canada is particularly unhappy about rumors of SDI involvement. Questions again being raised in Europe about the future of the space station. The Weinberger letter "was an obvious attempt to sidetrack the negotiations. The letter's timing was too coincidental, coming as it did just before the next meeting was to be held." Europe is starting to review alternatives, although there isn't yet a firm contingency plan. A breakdown in US/Europe cooperation would probably lead to a rise in USSR/Europe cooperation. "[we] wonder if the US realizes what horrible timing they have with the whole affair. They are deciding whether or not to honor their commitments to their best allies, while at the same time the Soviets are offering flights on the Mir space station and to the planets." "Our attitude is straight- forward--that Ronald Reagan invited international participation in 1984. We should not have to remind a President of the US of the promise he made only a few years ago." Canadian Center for Arms Control and Disarmament questions usefulness of current US/Canadian joint military space-based radar project, saying that tracking cruise missiles in particular will rapidly get impossibly difficult. Europeans to do microgravity experiments on NASA KC-135 research aircraft. Primary focus is combustion phenomena, secondary applicability to fire-safety issues for the space station. Two top US space scientists resign advisory positions with NASA after issuing statements critical of current NASA policy. Changes in Hermes design, notably deletion of the payload-bay doors in favor of a pressurized payload bay, bring into question Hermes's role in jobs like servicing the European polar platform. Control computer from Atlas-Centaur recovered from water off the Cape. NASA says there are nine locations on the nose fairing with damage that looks like lightning hits. General Dynamics and NASA sign agreement on commercial use of Atlas-Centaur. More images from Spot 1: the Kharg Island oil depot in the Persian Gulf, showing war damage, and the Soviet air base on Etorofu (Japanese island occupied by USSR since 1945). Also picture of Spot 2 being readied for launch (sometime within 18 months). Management shakeup within Spot Image. Problems with slow delivery of data to customers cited. Demand has been about as expected, but processing time has been underestimated, and demand has been split among more individual orders than expected. Programming of imaging coverage is also being revised; customers often make very specific requests, using Spot's flexibility more than expected and complicating scheduling. Martin Marietta taking steps to make commercial Titan 3 more attractive. MM now offers reflight insurance at 10% premium. MM is recompeting the Titan SRB contract in hopes of lower cost, and plans to recompete the guidance system. MM has decided to buy Ariane payload fairings from Contraves (Switzerland) for use on Titan, increasing Titan/Ariane compatibility. Use of Ariane's Spelda dual-payload adaptor is being considered. MM is booking five launches/yr after 1989; the facilities can handle seven, but conflicts with facilities shared with the adjacent Titan 4 pad, and the possibility of NASA Titan orders, require some safety margin. "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #251 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Jun 87 06:19:57 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03991; Fri, 12 Jun 87 03:17:03 PDT id AA03991; Fri, 12 Jun 87 03:17:03 PDT Date: Fri, 12 Jun 87 03:17:03 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706121017.AA03991@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #252 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 252 Today's Topics: Rectennas, Motor-generators, superconductors Re: Galileo cancellation??!! Re: Saturn V Soviet shuttle and NASA funding Aerospace America, June 1987 Re: spacefaring nations :-) Re: Breaking out of the Cradle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 7 Jun 87 13:59 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Rectennas, Motor-generators, superconductors Mike Smith suggested getting high voltage DC out by hooking up rectenna components in series. I think this would lead to large losses in the rectenna array due to arcing or corona, not to mention making on-line maintenance exciting. Mike also suggested motor-generators, which he says have an 85% efficiency. High temperature superconductive wire could boost this considerably. But wait, you might say: making superconductive wires out of the new ceramics is going to be a royal pain. Yes, but... We don't necessarily need perfectly superconductive wires. When s.c.'s only operated in liquid helium, any resistive heating of the wires was an economic disaster, since you need to expend (in practice) about 400 W to pump 1 W from 4 K to 300 K. But if the superconductor operates near room temperature (and the last I heard, someone claimed to have found the Meissner effect at 49 deg. F), cooling is much less difficult. So, let's embed needle-shaped microcrystals of high temp. superconductor in a copper matrix. Current in the wire will tend to jump from needle to needle, reducing the average resistivity. Other approaches could also work. A material with 1/10 or 1/100 the resistivity of copper would be very useful if it needn't be refrigerated too much and wasn't too expensive. Cheap room temperature superconductors would profoundly change the economics of all forms of electrical power generation. It remains to be seen if the powersat's competitors are helped more. P. Dietz dietz@slb-doll.csnet ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 87 23:07:00 GMT From: cybvax0!frog!john@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (John Woods, Software) Subject: Re: Galileo cancellation??!! In article <870603111418.5.PALTER@LARRY-BIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, Palter@ALDERAAN.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM (Gary M. Palter) writes: > From the "Washington Roundup" page of the June 1 AW&ST: > > NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher has discussed the possibility > of canceling the Galileo mission to Jupiter...unlikely...difficult > choices...Fiscal 1989 budget...bleakness...desolation...plastic forks [What!? :-] > > If they have the gaul to cancel Galileo, I'm writing my Congressmen and > ask that they cancel NASA... > - Gary Wrong answer. Write your Congressthing and offer to cancel him/her/it, by voting for someone in the next election who gives a flying damn about the space program, and will be willing to put enough money in the budget for it. John Woods ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jun 87 00:51:58 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Saturn V > My question is why was Saturn V abandoned? Was it too costly on a per/pound > basis vis-a-vis the shuttle? ... It looked rather costly compared to the rosy projections of shuttle costs. A further problem was that there were no missions for it, since Congress had refused to fund Apollo 18, Apollo 19, and the second Skylab. NASA did hang onto the remaining Saturns for several years, but eventually had to decide whether the ongoing expense of preserving equipment (and not altering it for use by new programs, e.g. the shuttle) was worth it when there was no indication that any more Saturns would ever fly. In hindsight a mistake, but not obviously so at the time. Actually, the real heart of the problem was not the NASA decision to abandon Saturn V launch capability. The real problem was the Congressional decision, circa 1966, to terminate funding for Saturn V production after the first 15. -- "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 87 10:15:55 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Soviet shuttle and NASA funding This worked once before. If you have questions about the Soviet Shuttle program, ask them. I would like to point out that the world first learned of the Soviet program because a listener to Radio Moscow called them up and asked them (in 1978). They gave dimensions and a slew of other information. It's not really a Shuttle, as has been pointed out; it is not a copy, of US designs (although comment has been made about "tiles" on the side, yeah, but it has wings, too, does this mean they are copying? ;-) Anyway this story (of Radio Moscow) was relayed to us by Marcia Smith of the Library of Congress and the recent Space Commission. About the cancelling of Galileo, I tried sending mail to a failed mail path. My answer is if Galileo is killed, do it, tell Congress to kill NASA. I'm looking for a good excuse to join ESSA or JSA. Military space is a black hole. I'm tired of some of the indifference of the people in this country (not the people on this net of course). Perhaps, if we had a flood to technical expertise away from the US (like studying physics in Germany before WWII), perhaps, a few people will wake up..... Naw... >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 87 15:19:17 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Aerospace America, June 1987 The June issue of Aerospace America, a publication of the AIAA, has several articles that I thought would be of interest to the readers of this news group. "Soviet shuttle mysteries." by James E. Oberg This article makes a case for the NON-existence of any kind of soviet space shuttle. Using quotations on the subject from many soviet sources, known performance limits of the Bison bomber, and the lack of needed industrial base, Oberg argues that what we have been seeing is a aerodynamics research program. NOT an actual space shuttle development program. Oberg says that if the soviets decide to build a shuttle, it will take them at least another ten years to finish it. "Ferry to the moon." by Graeme Aston Describes work being done at JPL on xenon-ion and krypton-ion electric propulsion systems. Describes an all electric earth to moon cargo ship. The ship would be able to haul 20 metric tonnes from 300 km earth orbit to 100km lunar orbit. Round trip time 370 days. Payload fraction between 60% and 65%. This is a reusable system that could be launched in a shuttle bay and be refurbished and refueled at a space station. The only technology needed to make it real is a 15% efficient radiation hard thin film solar cell. Radiation hard, 13% efficient thin film cells are available, and the author thinks 15% efficient cells will be available soon. "Robots on the space station" by Eric J. Lerner Describes on going work to develop advanced robots for use on the space station. "One gate to do job of eight" Describes the RTBT ( Resonant Tunneling Bipolar Transister ) developed by Frederico Capasso and his colleagues at AT&T's Bell Labs. This interesting device implements an XOR in one transister. The RTBT also has multiple stable states, opening the possibility of non-binary computer logic. Switching speed is in the 20 to 30 GHz range. The claim is that using this technology complex logic gates can be implemented as single transisters. You find the neatest articles about computers and computer technology in the aerospace trade journals. Bob Pendleton ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 87 18:13:51 GMT From: elsie!ado@seismo.css.gov (Arthur David Olson) Subject: Re: spacefaring nations :-) > "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry Canada? -- UUCP: ..seismo!elsie!ado ARPA: elsie!ado@seismo.CSS.GOV Elsie and Ado are trademarks of Borden, Inc. and Ampex. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 87 00:52:02 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle In article <2717@mtgzz.UUCP>, dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes: > > How about some constructive(and REALISTIC) suggestions for > organizing/inspiring new support for the space program? > Send the 500 PERSON Mars colonies plans to /dev/null. > > > Dale Skran What you need is to show the average person off the street that there is a way for THEM to be involved directly in future space activities. Here's a program that involves 'building bridges to space', analogous to building bridges on Earth. It opens an easier route to space than the one we are using now, such that many ways of getting there will work. The program involves several phases, with economic justifications for each phase. Phase I: Demonstration of Orbital Capability Estimated time: 3 years Estimated cost: $15 million This phase demonstrates the replacement of the first stage of a rocket with a compressed gas launcher. Why a compressed gas? A group of space development enthusiasts, including several aerospace professionals (myself included) have surveyed all the known means of launch off the Earth. We concluded that in the near term, with no extensive development money, the best launcher concept is using compressed gas. The launcher consists mainly of a storage chamber, a valve, and a barrel. Up to a certain launch velocity, such a system is far cheaper than any other concept, including mass drivers. What is even better, such 'light gas guns' have been used for many years as research devices in laboratories (in smaller sizes than we propose), so there is lots of data on how they work. Replacement of the first stage of a conventional rocket has the most leverage for lowering costs, since the first stage is the largest and (usually) most expensive. The gun would have a muzzle velocity of 2 km/second, and have as a projectile a two stage solid rocket. The rocket projectile would do the rest of the job of gtetting to orbit. The total mass of the rocket is about 1 ton, and the payload is small (kilograms), just enough to demonstrate the concept. Off-the shelf solid rocket motors and guidance components should suffice. For this phase, revenues from sounding rocket/very small payload to orbit customers could offset a large part of the cost. Phase II: Operational Launcher Time: Additional 1-2 years Cost: $75 million The goal of phase II is to have an operational launch system that delivers to orbit for about $600/lb. It is basically an expanded version of the phase I launcher. It has a larger diameter barrel, a longer barrel (higher muzzle velocity), and larger solid rocket motors. Revenues from this phase would come from customers who want up to 1000 lb payloads in orbit. Phase III: Reuseable Rocket Time: Additional 4 years Cost: $300 million In phase III we replace the larger of the two solid motors with a liquid (methane/oxygen) stage. The stage is designed with a factor of 2.0 strength margins, as compared to 1.4 for the Shuttle. This should be sufficient to give it a 1000 flight operating life. We can tolerate the high design margin only because it is part of a 3 stage system (gas gun, liquid stage, solid stage), as opposed to two or 1 1/2 stage chemical rockets. We are now in the $100-200/lb regime. The only part that is being thrown away is a 1000 lb solid motor, the payload is 1000 lb. Note that the reuseable liquid stage does not have to re-enter from orbit. It comes back from 2/3 of orbit. This allows using metallic thermal protection. This is much more durable than ceramic (Shuttle tile) protection. Phase IV: Orbital Bridge (Skybridge) Time: Additional 2 years Cost: $200-500 million In this phase we are approaching the end goal of an open road to space. The Earth is large enough that reaching orbit is a major challenge. If there were a stopping point on the way, our vehicles would be much easier to design. We build such a stopping point using the launch system from the earlier phases to deliver the parts. In this phase we place a ballast weight in a medium Earth orbit (1000-2000 km). From that we suspend a multi-stranded cable system (like a suspension bridge) to lower altitudes. At the lower end we place a landing platform. The center of gravity of this Skybridge is near the ballast weight. Being fairly high, its' orbital velocity is lower than for things in low orbit. The platform goes around the Earth at the same angular rate as the center of gravity, but is closer to the Earth's center, hence its' velocity is even lower than the C.G. The combined effect is that the platform will be moving considerably slower than a free object at that altitude would be. We have here a small portion of the 'Geo Tower' concept, the part extending from, say 200 km to 2000 km. This is a small enough part that it can be built with existing materials. Now the reuseable rocket can be flown without the solid motor stage. We now are in the $20-50/lb range for cargo. Phase V: Bridge Open for Traffic Time: 0 years Cost: $2-5 billion? We have from the previous phase built a platform about 2/3 of the way to orbit in velocity terms, and 4/9 of the way to orbit in energy terms. It now becomes much easier to build fully reuseable MANNED transports. This was our goal all along. The manned transports could use chemical rockets, air breathing (scramjet) engines, or a combination. The main point is that they no longer have to go all the way to orbit. They also do not have to re-enter from orbit (simply fall off the platform, you are suborbital). So it becomes possible to achieve the holy grails of space launcher design: full reuseablility and decent safety margins. ---------- Additional detail about the Skybridge: you don't get the rest of the way to orbit for free once you are on the lower platform. As payloads climb the bridge, the bridge gets pulled down (the combined center of gravity of bridge+payload stays put). You have to make up the energy by putting some kind of propulsion on the bridge. Fortunately you have a choice of high efficency engines to use: electrodynamic, resistojet, arcjet, and ion. All of these have at least twice the fuel efficiency (specific impulse) of conventional rockets. ---------- Where to go from here? The first phase only takes $15 million or so. This amount could be raised by (1) venture capaital (2) pursuing government research money (3) private research groups (as in Space Studies Institute) (4) find one rich widow (like the one who gave Caltech $75 million to build a telescope. Just promise to name it after them). A space company called 'Space Research Associates' , of which I am a principal, and which was started by Seattle area L5 members at the University of Washington and Boeing, is pursuing route #1 above (venture money). We heartily encourage you to spread the message that such a plan could work. We encourage you to think on how to improve it. (caution, we have put a lot of thought into this. Take the time to try and answer yourself 'why not use concept xxx' After about 20 rounds of doing that, we found that the best method to find better ideas is to have the person who asks 'why not' go find out if it is really better). We encourage anyone else to out and do as much as possible on this program. The more that is done by someone else, the easier it is to convince a venture capitalist to put up the money to finish the job. We'd like to here from you. We'd like you to pester you congresscritter to put more of NASA's budget towards 'advanced propulsion research'. Anything. Make lots of noise. Ad Astra! (If you stir up enough interest, maybe even my employer would start thinking about it. Then I could work on such things during the day, rather than nights and weekends) Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space TRansportation/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #252 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Jun 87 06:21:03 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07272; Sat, 13 Jun 87 03:18:20 PDT id AA07272; Sat, 13 Jun 87 03:18:20 PDT Date: Sat, 13 Jun 87 03:18:20 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706131018.AA07272@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #253 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 253 Today's Topics: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle Re: Breaking out of the Cradle FTL ==> paradoxes? Reason Foundation paper - "Privatizing Space Transporation" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Jun 87 00:14:53 GMT From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu (lucius chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle In article <1279@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >In article <2717@mtgzz.UUCP>, dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes: >> >> How about some constructive(and REALISTIC) suggestions for >> organizing/inspiring new support for the space program? >> Send the 500 PERSON Mars colonies plans to /dev/null. /dev/null: write failed, device is full. /dev/null: write failed, device is full. . . . :-) > . . .It opens an easier route to >space than the one we are using now, such that many ways of getting >there will work. Not only that, but the skybridge concept seems considerably more sound than the skyhook and space elevator ideas. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is sound enough to work, just more sound than the other exotic transportation systems proposed in this newsgroup to date. I do, however, question your estimated development times and development and launch prices. Maybe the times and prices you quote are in line with what is reasonable, but with the current political/bureaucratic situation reasonable is a foreign concept. After all, it just wouldn't do for the military-industrial complex companies or politicians to miss out on all those expensive contracts and handouts of bureaucratic pork. Are you sure your plan could be undertaken (at least the first part) without government interference? > In phase III we replace the larger of the two solid motors >with a liquid (methane/oxygen) stage. The stage is designed with >a factor of 2.0 strength margins, as compared to 1.4 for the Shuttle. >This should be sufficient to give it a 1000 flight operating life. One problem: how much acceleration is this thing going to have to stand up to? That and the problem of attaching it to a sleeve (I presume you don't want the sides of the rocket rubbing directly against the wall of the gas gun) are going to run your weight way up. [And now about the star idea, Phase IV: the skybridge.] > In this phase we place a ballast weight in a medium Earth orbit >(1000-2000 km). From that we suspend a multi-stranded cable system >(like a suspension bridge) to lower altitudes. At the lower end we >place a landing platform. . . >. . .We have here a small portion of the 'Geo Tower' concept, the >part extending from, say 200 km to 2000 km. This is a small enough part >that it can be built with existing materials. Even with super materials, you are still going to have to put up a lot of ballast to make it stable enough for your shuttles to land on (as you describe later). It will require a lot of 1000 kg payloads to make a skybridge big enough for your shuttles to land on. Perhaps you might want to consider just a few conventional heavy-launch vehicles? >Phase V: Bridge Open for Traffic > Time: 0 years It would be better to spend time (hopefully concurrent with a previous phase) to develop a vehicle actually capable of landing on the platform with cargo. Using the first stage rocket plane from phase III would not be practical due to the considerably different configurations that would be needed for efficient first stage rocket plane and cargo plane functions (I suppose you could have the second stage in the cargo hold of the first stage, but this would severely limit its size; if instead you had it on the front you could use the space that would have gone to the cargo hold for more fuel; the difference in amounts you could launch this way is probably enough to justify the development of two different although related vehicles). > We have from the previous phase built a platform about >2/3 of the way to orbit in velocity terms, and 4/9 of the way to >orbit in energy terms. . . Actually it's even better: for velocity it's (2/3)^(3/2) = about 0.55 times orbital velocity (at the altitude of the platform, not the center of gravity); for energy it's 0.55^2 = about 0.3 times the energy of an orbit at the same altitude as the platform. [And, not only do you get cheaper and safer reusable shuttles, but also. . .] >Additional detail about the Skybridge: you don't get the rest of the >way to orbit for free once you are on the lower platform. As payloads >climb the bridge, the bridge gets pulled down (the combined center of >gravity of bridge+payload stays put). You have to make up the energy >by putting some kind of propulsion on the bridge. . . And unlike skyhooks and space elevators, you don't have problems of interactions with the ground and atmosphere to mess you up. So if your thrusters croak, you have some safety margin (the sky bridge won't crash if it swings some), and no urgent deadline to fix it (its orbit won't decay rapidly like that of a skyhook (which experiences considerable air friction), and it doesn't have the autocatalytic instabilities of a space elevator which can rip a space elevator off its moorings or cause it to crash by wrapping itself around the Earth). Just send up a shuttle with a repair crew and fix it at your leisure. Furthermore, the skybridge doesn't have the engineering and maintenance headaches of skyhooks and space elevators. Because it only rotates as fast as it goes around the Earth, it is under much less tensile strength than a skyhook; also, it doesn't undergo varying tidal forces the way a skyhook does. Because it is much shorter than a space elevator, it doesn't require quite the awesomely strong materials needed for a space elevator; it is also much more stable than a space elevator, as mentioned above. Furthermore, its much lower altitude makes it much easier to build; its lesser length also contributes to this and to some extent makes it less likely to be hit by space trash (and less garbage to fall on your head if it does get broken) (even though most of the space trash is in Low Earth Orbit). >Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space TRansportation/ssc-vax!eder -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jun 87 16:00:38 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle In article <2220@husc6.UUCP>, chiaraviglio@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (lucius chiaraviglio) writes: > In article <1279@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: > Not only that, but the skybridge concept seems considerably more sound > than the skyhook and space elevator ideas. Note that this does not > necessarily mean that it is sound enough to work, just more sound than > the other exotic transportation systems proposed in this newsgroup to > date. Also, a joint Italian-US project called the 'tethered satellite system' which consists of the Shuttle, a 100 km cable, and an instrumented ball massing about a ton at the far end, provides a good start at understanding the dynamics of a skybridge. This experiment is currently scheduled for 1990 (modulo Shuttle flight rates). > I do, however, question your estimated development times and > development and launch prices. ... Are you sure your plan could be > undertaken (at least the first part) without government interference? My figures assume no government participation (interference) > One problem: how much acceleration is this thing going to have to > stand up to? That and the problem of attaching it to a sleeve (I > presume you don't want the sides of the rocket rubbing directly > against the wall of the gas gun) are going to run your weight way up. A typical acceleration is 200 gravities. The gas gun is not a people launcher. But well over half of the stuff you want to send to space (propellants, breathing gases, structural members, even properly supported electronics) is acceleration insensitive. I do assume there will be some other launch system available to deliver the acceleration- sensitive stuff (people, science instruments). But once people are in orbit, how their supplies get there, as long as long as it is cheap doesn't much matter. > Even with super materials, you are still going to have to put up a lot > of ballast to make it stable enough for your shuttles to land on (as > you describe later). It will require a lot of 1000 kg payloads to > make a skybridge big enough for your shuttles to land on. Perhaps you > might want to consider just a few conventional heavy-launch vehicles? Typical values are the skybridge masses 10 times the vehicle that lands on the platform, and the ballast 100 times the vehicle. Initially, you would work without a large ballast, and get about 50% of the velocity benefit for arriving cargo (not people, it is expensive to redesign manned transports, so you want to make that design once, for the final system. Rendezvous for an unmanned cargo rocket could be as simple as: Place a 100 meter diameter net horizontally at the bottom of the skybridge. Have it be fairly taut. cargo rocket has a barb on the front slightly larger than the net mesh size. The barb can be slightly compressed sideways to push it through the net, then springs back to full diameter. Now the rocket has to have a positional accuracy of +- 50 meters, and a velocity accuracy of 5 m/s or so, pretty sloppy by today's standards for rockets. The rocket simply flies into the net and gets caught by the barb (originally we wanted to use velcro, but it didn't stick hard enough). To 'reenter', compress the barb and away you go. > > We have from the previous phase built a platform about > >2/3 of the way to orbit in velocity terms, and 4/9 of the way to > >orbit in energy terms. . . > > Actually it's even better: for velocity it's (2/3)^(3/2) = about 0.55 > times orbital velocity (at the altitude of the platform, not the > center of gravity); for energy it's 0.55^2 = about 0.3 times the > energy of an orbit at the same altitude as the platform. The specifics are: center of mass of skybridge 2000 km above Earth's surface. Orbital velocity in circular orbit is square root of (K/r), where K is a constant for Earth=3.986x10E+14 meters cubed per second squared (m^3/s^2), and r is the orbit radius in meters. hence orbital velocity is 6899 m/s for the center of mass, The landing platform is 200 km above the Earth's surface, hence 6575 km/8375 km closer to the Earth's center, and moving proportionally slower than the center of mass. The platform is then moving 5416 m/s which is 69.5% of orbital velocity at 200 km (7786 m/s), and 67.6% of the difference between orbital velocity and the rotation of the Earth at the equator. Note that there is nothing sacred about this particular size for the skybridge. Start small and add to over time. > Furthermore, the skybridge doesn't have the engineering and > maintenance headaches of skyhooks and space elevators. Because it > only rotates as fast as it goes around the Earth, it is under much > less tensile strength than a skyhook; also, it doesn't undergo varying > tidal forces the way a skyhook does. Because it is much shorter than > a space elevator, it doesn't require quite the awesomely strong > materials needed for a space elevator; it is also much more stable > than a space elevator, as mentioned above. Furthermore, its much > lower altitude makes it much easier to build; its lesser length also > contributes to this and to some extent makes it less likely to be hit > by space trash (and less garbage to fall on your head if it does get > broken) (even though most of the space trash is in Low Earth Orbit). The working stress of a skybridge and a skyhook are not different, but as you noted, it is the difference in gravitational and centrifugal accelerations at the tips. The skybridge only rotates once/orbit, giving a smaller acceleration at the tip. The result is the cross section, and hence the mass is smaller. The kind of material available today is 820,000 pound/square inch carbon fiber . Million psi carbon fiber is expected about 1990. Space debris is still a problem. Expect one cable cut per 1000 kilometer-years of exposure. Thus we expect a cable cut every 6 months/strand, or monthly with 6 strands. That's why we have a multi-stranded bridge. Cross-ties are placed every 10 km or so to redistribute loads around a cut cable, then you have to replace that 10 km section of cable. Think of it as being like the continuous painting that a suspension bridge requires. We'll have to replace 1% of the cable per year until the orbital garbage problem is solved. > -- Lucius Chiaraviglio > lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu > seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Jun 87 22:48 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: FTL ==> paradoxes? I think this talk about FTL necessarily violating causality (if there are no prefered frames of reference) is a bit premature. One might imagine an FTL "radio" that would suffer from static whenever someone tried to use it to transmit a message that would cause temporal paradoxes. Perhaps some sort of quantum mechanical interference could do this, just as interference prevents two electrons from getting into the same state. It's incorrect to say there are no theoretical reasons to look for FTL phenomena. Old versions of string theories, for example, predicted the existence of tachyons. The totalitarian principle of physics might also predict their existence. It would be useful if there were a consistent quantum field theory in which tachyons existed. While the existence of tachyons would not allow us to build FTL spaceships that could "jump to hyperspace", it might permit sub-c tachyon rockets (exploiting the bizarre fact that lower energy tachyons have higher momenta), and FTL radio, which could be used for teleoperation and transmission of computer programs. If, as some visionaries suggest, it will be possible to "download" a human personality into some kind of programmable computer, such transmission of programs will be as good as a real spaceship. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jun 87 17:17:12 PDT From: "William J. Fulco" To: mnetor!utzoo!henery@seismo.css.gov Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov, kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu, liberty@mordor.s1.gov Subject: Reason Foundation paper - "Privatizing Space Transporation" Henry you're right on with your editorial. Have you seen the Reason Foundation's Federal Privatization Project paper called "Privatizing Space Transportation" by James Bennett and Phillip Salin?? The paper's objections lie very much along yours. I have included the Summaty of the paper (with permission): ----------------------------- Cut here -------------------------------- PRIVATIZING SPACE TRANSPORTATION James Bennett and Phillip Salin EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The primary long run objective of US space transportation policy should always have been to lower as quickly as possible the cost of getting payloads into orbit. Since free competition among agressive, private companies is well known to be the most effective way to promote rapid improvements in price/performance, the ***primary short run objective of American space transportation policy should be to encourage the emergence of a strong American commerical space transportation industry.*** Since the inception NASA of its space program [sic], the US government has developed only three generations of space transportation technology. Two of those (Saturn and the Space Shuttle) have had almost no useful economic impact; and the first was primarily the result of the military's work. Each step took NASA further away from a situation in which real-world feedback could quickly aid in cost effective improvements and upgrades to bring about low-cost transportation to space. The four flight versions of the shuttle performed only 24 successful launches. The money spent on the shuttle, estimated consertatively at $25 billion, has provided to date a small ammount of technical experience for the enormous ammount of money spent. Putting over 95% of the nation's space transportation R & D dollars in one gigantic basket, as the government has done twice now, first with Saturn V and then with the shuttle, is the greatest possible discouragement to the discovery of economically usefull innovations. The government's inability over the past 30 years to lower the costs of space transportation has had serious consequences. The more it costs to get to space, the less we can afford to do there, for two reasons. First, high space transportation cost directly reduce funds available for on-orbit activity. Second, they also increase the costs of on-orbit activity. Only privatization will permit a restructering of American space activities necessary and sufficient to establish self-sustaining and growing economic activity in space. Though the administration has recently moved partly in the direction of privatization, NASA itself continues to push for programs that would repeat past errors. To avoid these errors, the US government should encourage privatization in three key ways. First, the government should encourage the development of all new launce vehicles on a private basis. This involves several distinct elements: the government should begin to purchase all launch services from the private sector, except for specialized military and shuttle-specific payloads; the government should encourage progress in commercially usefull R & D to come from the private sector; and the government should create a climate in which the private sector can better compete in space launch activities. This includes efforts to reduce foreign subsidities of space launches, further deregulate space activity, streamline access to space launch sites, renegotiate the highly disadvantageous provisions of the Outer Space Treaty, and formally reject the Moon Treaty. Second, the government should complete the privatization of all existing launch vehicles that can be operated by the private sector. Third, the government should not reinstate direct subsidies for non-shuttle specific commercial payloads. NASA's own role in planetary research, space science, and basic technology R & D, long having suffered in the face of NASA's gigantic expenditures on space transportation development, should be strengthened, returning NASA to it's original role as a research organization. NASA should continue to operate the shuttle, as it is *not* a viable candidate for privatization. However, it's role should be as a transportation mode for specialized military missions and shuttle-specific payloads. US commercial satellite operators, high-tech industry, the private space-launch industry, NASA space researchers, US defense interests, US space contractors, and the general public all have a strong interest in attainment of low-cost transportation to space, an should therefore support this privatization agenda. America's international competitiveness and US defense all will increasinly depend on a vigorous US presence in space. Without low-cost transportation to space, the united States will be unable to take full advantage of the opprtunities space holds for our economy and our defense. Privatization is the key to providing this essential low-cost space transportation. The United states still has an enormous amount of talent and energy, inside and outside of government. Given the spproiate incentives, this talent and energy can yet lead humankind to the stars. I. HOW DEEP IS THE CRISIS NASA: An Agency with Conflicting Missions The NACA Model and Where It was Lost The Failure to Make Access to Space Easy and Affordable II. GENESIS OF A POLITICIZED INCENTIVE SYSTEM The Post-Sputnik Era: Creation and Early Years of NASA The Shuttle Era: NASA Seeka a Mission Emergence of the Private Transportation Option The Post-Challenger Era III.EVOLUTION OF SPACE TRANSPORTATION Commercial Aircraft Development Evolutionary Patterns in Space Transportation Gigantism in Space Transportation IV. STRATEGIES FOR PRIVATIZATION Circumventing the Iron Triangle in Space Development Alignment of Forces For and Aginst Privatization The Government Agencies The Customer Communiuty The Contractor Companies Congress Workers--Professional and Others Inappropriate Privatization Options Space Transportation Today Recommendations: Toward Competitive Commercialization V. REFERENCES AND NOTES ---------------------------- Cut here -------------------------------- The paper (40 pages) should be read by anyone interested in some concrete proposals for the future of US (and Canada too henry :-) space utilization. The cost of reprints are a nominal $5.00, and can be ordered from: The Reason Foundation, Federal Privatization Project 2716 Ocean Park Bl., Suite 1062 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 392-0443 (bill) P.S. I'm not affiliated with the authors or the foundation. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #253 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Jun 87 20:01:56 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01505; Sun, 14 Jun 87 03:17:02 PDT id AA01505; Sun, 14 Jun 87 03:17:02 PDT Date: Sun, 14 Jun 87 03:17:02 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706141017.AA01505@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #254 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 254 Today's Topics: Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots? Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Jun 87 03:08:05 GMT From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots? In article <965@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> west@calgary.UUCP (Darrin West) writes: >In article <8706091423.AA14311@angband.s1.gov>, REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU >(Robert Elton Maas) writes: >> Date: 5 Jun 87 16:36:33 GMT >> From: ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!west@beaver.cs.washington.edu >> (Darrin West) >> Subject: Re: What to do on Mars >> >> > there, perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of >> > robots capable of reproducing themselves. These would be directed in >> ^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible? >> >> That's such a misstatement of Goedel's theorem that I feel I must >> refute it immediately! Goedel merely proved impossible a system that >> PERFECTLY understands its own capabilities, that is can decide whether >> or not it would be able to accomplish a task (solve a problem). > > Does this not then also imply that it could not PERFECTLY understand HOW > it is able to accomplish a task? Is not an understanding (yes, perhaps > even imperfectly) of its own function, necessary for reproducing that > function? It is not necessary to understand how to do something to do it. >> And in >> regard to merely reproducing, even the tiniest bacteria can do that, >> with no formal understanding of self whatsoever, and in the right >> non-natural (i.e. biologically-created) environment even viruses and >> memes can reproduce. > >But only with severe damage to themselves! A cell after mitosis is >half the size it was before (even though it has accomplished a >reproduction). It takes a long time (relative to the reproduction >time) to regenerate to the same state it was in before. This regeneration >may be compared to a relearning period. In humans, we reproduce a >potential human being which is only 5% our original mass with relatively >little harm. It takes 15-20 years of programming and "regeneration" for >it to become comparable to the creature which spawned it. Merely being half the size is not considered damage -- no information is lost (although the number of copies of information is reduced). Very simple organisms divide and continue to grow without further ado -- in rapidly growing E. Coli, for instance, all metabolism is going on continuously throughout the cell cycle; DNA is being replicated all the time, and division occurs with a periodicity the same as that of DNA replication but always lagging behind it (as long as the growth rate stays the same), so that the whole thing proceeds like clockwork. No damage. >What I am trying to get at is that even biological creatures do not >perfectly reproduce. Some of them do (see example above). > The goal is to create more self-propogating, >self-sufficient entities. This is accomplished mainly (although >never entirely) through the efforts of the progenator. I would >suspect that a robot of similar complexity to a human would require >similar support for similar periods of time. Well, what of it? Once you had the cycle started, you could have other robots provide this support (along with the environment that they would maintain, as we do with ours (-: and hopefully more competently :-) ). The speed of this would depend on how fast the robots (both developing and support could perform the required functions, and on how many functions were required to do it (the robots would not necessarily be just like us)). . . . >I challenge someone the dream up the simplest entity which can reproduce >itself from "atoms" which do not have that kind of information encoded >in them. Cyanobacteria (or E. Coli, if you're willing to let them get away with using molecules as complicated as ammonia and glucose; both need water, but neither that nor the other two molecules nor any of the other required atoms (trace metal ions, etc.) nor the light used by cyanobacteria for photosynthesis have anything resembling information for reproduction encoded in them). -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL. TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL. TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL. TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL. TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL. TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL. TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL. TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL. TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL. TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL. TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 87 17:35:48 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!calgary!west@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Darrin West) Subject: Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots? In article <8706091423.AA14311@angband.s1.gov>, REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes: > Date: 5 Jun 87 16:36:33 GMT > From: ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!west@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Darrin Wes > t) > Subject: Re: What to do on Mars > > > there, perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of > > robots capable of reproducing themselves. These would be directed in > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible? > > That's such a misstatement of Goedel's theorem that I feel I must > refute it immediately! Goedel merely proved impossible a system that > PERFECTLY understands its own capabilities, that is can decide whether > or not it would be able to accomplish a task (solve a problem). Does this not then also imply that it could not PERFECTLY understand HOW it is able to accomplish a task? Is not an understanding (yes, perhaps even imperfectly) of its own function, necessary for reproducing that function? > And in > regard to merely reproducing, even the tiniest bacteria can do that, > with no formal understanding of self whatsoever, and in the right > non-natural (i.e. biologically-created) environment even viruses and > memes can reproduce. But only with severe damage to themselves! A cell after mitosis is half the size it was before (even though it has accomplished a reproduction). It takes a long time (relative to the reproduction time) to regenerate to the same state it was in before. This regeneration may be compared to a relearning period. In humans, we reproduce a potential human being which is only 5% our original mass with relatively little harm. It takes 15-20 years of programming and "regeneration" for it to become comparable to the creature which spawned it. What I am trying to get at is that even biological creatures do not perfectly reproduce. The goal is to create more self-propogating, self-sufficient entities. This is accomplished mainly (although never entirely) through the efforts of the progenator. I would suspect that a robot of similar complexity to a human would require similar support for similar periods of time. > I see very early in the next century robots which > can mechanically fabricate copies of themselves (except without > exactly the same memories, since that requires synchronization of > mental processes which may require stopping the unit; it may, however, > be quite possible for robot #1 to turn off identical-except-for-memory > robot #2, make a copy of robot #2 including exact memory, then turn > robot #2 back on. If robot #2 has initiated the request for > copy-service, then for all practical purposes we might say that in the > environment where robot #1 exists, robot #2 has total self-replication > capabilities (modulo trusting robot #1 not to disobey instructions and > leave robot #2 turned off), which will beat out what biological > creatures can presently do (create copies of their genes, but with no > copies of memories whatsoever). I am having trouble with this. You are saying robot 1 builds robot 2. Then somehow copies its program into robot 2. So robot 1 found the ore, refined it, manufactured the structural components of robot 2, then found some different ore, refined it, pulled wire, then wrapped it into servo motors, then found some different ore, refined it, and created some batteries, then "built the control unit". This would require forging some silicon chips. Well, to make it easy, lets say robot 1 has some masks in his back pocket which he hooks up to the kiln etc, and pushes the green button, waits for a week until the chips are nicely tested and packaged, then pops them into robot 2. Robot 1 then reaches into his other pocket and pulls out a mag tape. This is the boot code for new robots. He may even have made this copy himself, of himself. I don't know where he would get the tape drive read/write heads though? If they were part of him, he would need to pass copies of them on to his progeny. Well lets ignore that. He hooks up an rs/232 port and downloads the binaries. How does he make copies of the chip masks? Maybe he uses a camera. Is the camera part of him? Does he know how the grind lenses? Could he fix the kiln if it broke? Is the kiln part of him? What I am driving at is that the robot CAN NOT reproduce himself without the help of a pretty complicated external environment. Perhaps so complicated that it is the environment that is creating the copy, not the robot! What would be ideal (and I propose impossible) is to have an entity that can reproduce itself from constituent atoms + energy. We can now fight about what a constituent atom is. If it were as complicated as a mother board or modular robot arm assembly, then I beleive that the robot could plug another copy together, but then the argument falls apart, because the "atoms" had the structure and (probably!) the reproductive process already encoded in them. I challenge someone the dream up the simplest entity which can reproduce itself from "atoms" which do not have that kind of information encoded in them. I suspect that there may be certain catalysts which cause chemical changes around them, producing more catalysts, but who would know? > I barely trust robots to put together cars (and those are pretty simple > robots!), much less an air tight environment. Actually I barely trust > people to do something like this. A small mistake would be deadly. > > (I feel like calling you a twit.) Have you never heard of quality > control, of inspections, of supervision, etc.? Again, you are refering to external controls. I am being pedantic, (I'll say!) but the original statement said "robots capable of reproducing themselves". I took issue with the statement. I don't beleive that anything can reproduce itself without external influence. This does not preclude the construction of robots on mars, but does necessitate human intervention. And the more intervention from the environment (ie the greater the complexity of the "atoms") the more efficiently the robots could "reproduce themselves". > You don't just > commission some people to build a car, totally unsupervised, then jump > in it and drive it on the freeway. You check the car out to make sure > it passes safety tests before you even put the car on the car lot. So you don't let robot 2 reproduce itself (its primary objective?) until you "check it out". Like make it do jumping jacks, then read the core dump to see if there are any glitches? > As > a consumer, you buy new cars only from reputable dealers at reputable > companies that have a lot to lose if lots of people get killed and > their next of kin start suing. Sure, sometimes you get cars with > subtle bugs like gasoline tanks that explode in certain kinds of > collisions, but for the most part you get a car that does basically > perform its proper function without being horribly dangerous to drive > normally. So, in robotics on Mars, the company supervising the work > must be one that stands to lose a lot if the colonists die because of > lack of air due to faulty construction, so the company makes sure the > robots perform tests to verify everything's reasonably ok before the > colonists arrive on Mars, and the design is such that if a mistake > does happen it doesn't kill many colonists. Well I still say that I don't trust a robot as far as I can throw one (I sound like Elija Baily's first boss [the ex-cheif of police?]), which isn't far, because they are so dense :-). If I were a colonist, I would be paranoid about anything that I had to trust with my life. This springs from an intimate understanding of computers. I am just finishing a Masters in Computer Science. I realize that I may not be as trustworthy as a machine, but at least a mistake (even a deadly one) is of my own choosing. > > You don't have to trust the robots directly. You have to trust the > company that owns them, and that company has to trust the robots. This is like (80% trust) ** 2. :-) Thanks for the reply. It is fun to spar with someone who has a sense of humour, and some common sense, as well as a person who was also forced to take formal logic. -- Darrin West, Master's Unit (read: student). ..![ubc-vision,ihnp4]! Department of Computer Science alberta!calgary!west University of Calgary. Can you say '88 Winter Games? Brain fault (cortex dumped) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #254 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Jun 87 11:49:38 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03708; Mon, 15 Jun 87 03:16:24 PDT id AA03708; Mon, 15 Jun 87 03:16:24 PDT Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 03:16:24 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706151016.AA03708@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #255 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 255 Today's Topics: Some Info on SPACE CAMP/ACADEMY (re-post) NASA Office of Exploration USA screwing ESA again, sigh ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jun 87 14:19:37 GMT From: atux01!jlc@rutgers.edu (J. Collymore) Subject: Some Info on SPACE CAMP/ACADEMY (re-post) Since there has been an increasing amount of discussion on SPACE ACADEMY lately, I thought I'd re-post this article of mine for those of you who'd like a little more information. =============================================================================== SSSSPPPPAAAACCCCEEEE AAAACCCCAAAADDDDEEEEMMMMYYYY (The Astronaut Experience) Have you ever wondered what it's like to be an astronaut? What's it like to work in micro-gravity? Or be in mission control, or onboard the shuttle during a mission from launch to landing? Well, wonder no more, now _y_o_u can get a taste of this experience at SSSSPPPPAAAACCCCEEEE AAAACCCCAAAADDDDEEEEMMMMYYYY!!!! SPACE ACADEMY (a.k.a. U.S. SPACE CAMP) is located on the grounds of the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Ala- bama. SPACE ACADEMY offers the average person a 3-day, intensive exposure to the space and space shuttle programs. Individuals arrive the day before the start of their session (40 people maximum), and upon their arrival are divided into two, 20-person teams: Atlantis and Discovery. On the first day, everyone is sized for, and issued their flight suits (light blue jump suits adorned with various space program patches). After this point, with everyone beginning to look and feel like a team, training begins in earnest. Now the real fun begins as your days become filled with fam- iliarizing yourselves with the simulators, attending lec- tures by experts in the field of space, and watching movies about the shuttle program in a dome-shaped, planetarium- sized theatre. (Super-wide screen OMNIMAX film is used.) The lectures vary from session to session depending on which guest speakers are available. During my trip we had the following: - a lecture (with slides and video tapes) on the proposed space station by an engineer from Boeing Corp., - a lecture on rocket propulsion by Konrad Dannenberg, who at one time worked with the renowned rocket scien- tist, Werner von Braun, - a lecture on the history, and present-day acheivments and efforts of the Soviet Space program, - a talk by Ron Evans, Apollo 17 Astronaut, on his experiences in space, - tour of the Marshall Space Flight Center a few miles away. - 2 - These talks are all fascinating, and like the rest of the program, do not require you have a college degree to under- stand what is being talked about. As for the various simulators you'll get to use, they are: - multi-axis chair (simulates the disorienting effects of being _i_n a space vehicle tumbling out of control), - the five degrees of freedom (5DF) chair (allows you to move and rotate in a manner similar to that of an astronaut performing EVAs*), - manned maneuvering unit (MMU) (working mock-up of the rocket pack/chair often used during EVAs), - lunar microgravity chair (simulates 1/6th gravity of the moon), - mission control, - space lab, - space station, - and not least, the space shuttle (a.k.a. orbiter) cock- pit. Everyone gets a chance to try all the simulators once. After this, however, each team must begin preparations for the two, 2-hour simulated missions it must fly (2 missions for Atlantis, and 2 missions for Discovery). Once your flight assignments are given out you must start mastering the simulator(s) and duties relevant to your particular assignment. For one mission you will work in mission con- trol, the next you are given an "in-flight" assignment. Your mission assignment may be as a director or specialist in mission control, or as a mission specialist on the space station, or in space lab, or doing EVAs. You may even be chosen to be pilot or commander of the orbiter. Although there is a mission profile "script" all members of the mission are to follow, things _n_e_v_e_r go according entirely to the script. One of the staff, known as the "simulation director" monitors, and controls, all video and __________ * Extravehicular activity or "space walk". - 3 - radio communications, as well as all simulator operations, during the mission. At various times during the mission, he creates a variety of problems throughout any and all the simulators, and we "cadets" must spot, isolate and correct the problems _b_e_f_o_r_e they can "seriously jeopardize" the mis- sion. And many of them are a rrrreeeeaaaallll challenge! When each mission is completed, there is a de-briefing (i.e. critiquing) of what you did correctly, and what you did not. You finally begin to realize how much can really go wrong on a mission. You also begin to appreciate how much knowledge, team work, and coolness under pressure makes the space pro- gram work, and has brought it so many success over the years. So what does this whole experience cost? What are the requirements? Well, the fee for adult SPACE ACADEMY** is $450 for the 3-day session. Sessions run from September through mid-November.*** Cost includes dorm room, 3 meals per day, and a temporary issue flight suit. Flight suits may be purchased for ~$65. You must be over 18 years of age and in reasonably good health. If you would like more information, or a brochure, about SPACE ACADEMY or U.S. SPACE CAMP, call: 1111----888800000000----666633333333----7777222288880000 (outside of Alabama), 1111----888800000000----555577772222----7777222233334444 (within Alabama). __________ ** U.S. SPACE CAMP is for children grades 5-7. SPACE ACADEMY (LEVEL I) is for teens grades 8-10. Sessions for both of these run during the spring and summer. Cost and duration of sessions differ from that of adult SPACE ACADEMY. Call SPACE CAMP for more information. *** Because of the increasing popularity of SPACE ACADEMY/SPACE CAMP, it is best to register as far in advance as possible. Jim Collymore Space Academy Class of 1986 ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 87 03:17:39 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (UUCP Admin) Subject: NASA Office of Exploration NASA NEWS NASA ESTABLISHES OFFICE OF EXPLORATION Dr. James C. Fletcher, administrator of NASA, announced the creation of an Office of Exploration to coordinate agency activity that would "expand the human presence beyond Earth," particularly to the Moon and Mars. He said that Dr. Sally K. Ride would serve as its acting assistant administrator until mid August. She is scheduled to leave Nasa in early autumn to assume a position at Stanford University. Dr. Ride has been in charge of a NASA study to determine a possible new major space goal for the United States. "There are considerable - even urgent - demands for a major initiative that would re-energize America's space program and stimulate development of new technology to help the nation remain pre-eminent both in space and in the world's high-tech market place, " Dr. Fletcher said. "This office is a step in responding to that demand, "Dr. Fletcher said. "It will analyze and define missions proposed to achieve the goal of human expansion off the planet. It will provide central coordination of technical planning studies that will involve the entire agency. In particular, it will focuson studies of potential lunar and Mars initiatives." Dr. Fletcher noted that Dr. Ride's study group recently identified four major areas for concentrated examination as possible initiative in pursuit of a new national space objective. These are: Intensive study of Earth systems with the goal of exponentially expanding knowledge required to protect the environment. A substantially stepped-up robotic program to explore the planets, moons and other bodies in the solar system. Establishment of a scientific base and a permanent human presence on the Moon. Human exploration of Mars preceded by intensive robotic exploration of the planet. Dr. Fletcher said the Ride study group developed these possible goals in a "workshop/task force environment." He said that at that plateau "Sally concluded that these and other potential initiatives deserved further intensive and systematic consideration to help determine a NASA position on a goal and to follow through after a goal is identified. Therefore, in the case of the two initiatives related to human expansion off the planet, she recommended that this new office be established." Further studies of the Earth systems and robotic solar system proposals will be managed by the Office of Space Science and Applications where these interests have been well established for years. "Planning for the civil space program that NASA recommends may well include a combination of the areas under consideration," Dr. Fletcher said. The new office will concentrate on mission concepts and scenarios, schedules, transportation requirements, facilities utilization, resources requirements and science opportunities. Dr. Fletcher said that a decision to go to the Moon or Mars would not impact the first phase of Space Station development. Current plans are to build the Station in two phases. A lunar or Mars initiative would influence the design of the second phase so it could serve as a technology test bed and a logistics terminal for lunar or Mars activities. --------------------------------------------------------------- NASA NEWS RELEASE 87-87 June 1, 1987 By Edward Campion Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jun 87 02:22:12 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 10 02:22:12 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 10 02:22:55 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov Subject: USA screwing ESA again, sigh Date: 31 May 87 00:07:16 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from March 30 AW&ST Arianespace has informally asked Pratt&Whitney and NASA about availability and cost of the RL10 oxyhydrogen engine used in Centaur, as a possible alternative to the troubled third-stage engine of Ariane. The answer has been "ask us formally"; the US is unenthusiastic about selling engines to its competition. After all the agreements with Eurospace that we backed out of (dual solar-polar, et al), and the extreme restrictions we're planning on their use of the second space station (MIR is the first), I think we owe them one. If after all that we've done wrong to them already, we refuse to do business with them when they need our help, they have every reason to be totally disgusted with us. Dial-A-Shuttle comes to the USSR: Russians wanting an update on activities aboard Mir now have a number to call, Moscow 215-63-56. (There does indeed seem to be something to this "Glasnost" (SP?) thing. They really do seem to be giving their citizenry access to information more willingly than before. But of course, do they charge as much as our 900-number racket does?) Peter Banks, chair of NASA science-on-space-station task force, expresses dissatisfaction with current plans, wants cheaper and earlier operational status, ... So now there's one person in NASA who is saying what we've been saying in general. Can he change things in the right way, or will this merely confuse things and make things take even longer due to infighting? (HS, your expert opionion please?) Proxmire and Boland (chairs of Senate and House appropriations committees relevant to NASA) come out in support of space station, with some concern about getting science going early, perhaps with an interim man-tended station. Proxmire is one guy I do *not* trust to "help" us with the design of the space station. (HS, what do you think about P&B suggestion?) [Mini-editorial: If Rockwell really wants to make a contribution to the US space program, what it should do is gather all its courage and commit to building another orbiter (not the Challenger replacement, but *another* one) with private funding. *Not* ask NASA about it, *not* propose the idea, but *do* it. A bit of a risk, yes... but the odds approach 100% that the extra orbiter will be needed within the next two decades. Is Rockwell large (rich) enough to be able to risk so much capital? If not, maybe a consortium of really large companies (ITT, Exxon, IBM, Western Union, Xerox, ...) could share risk (and potential profit) with Rockwell? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #255 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Jun 87 06:21:00 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02296; Tue, 16 Jun 87 03:17:46 PDT id AA02296; Tue, 16 Jun 87 03:17:46 PDT Date: Tue, 16 Jun 87 03:17:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706161017.AA02296@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #256 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 256 Today's Topics: private space companies Privately built shuttle Re: Privately built shuttle Re: Privately built shuttle 98% self-replicating robots, testbed on Earth needed Re: What to do on Mars Re: Compressed gas launchers Re: Breaking out of the Cradle Re: Compressed gas launchers - seems unlikely. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Jun 87 21:38:14 GMT From: unc!skinner@mcnc.org (Andrew Skinner) Subject: private space companies A common opinion seems to be that space would be better handled by private companies. I am studying for an M.S. in computer science, and may be interested someday in working for such a company. Has anyone compiled a list of companies or other organizations, and what they are and will be doing? Please mail me suggestions, and I will try to make a list. Also, if someone more knowledgeable than I am (not hard, I am interested but ignorant) would like to take over, let me know and I'll send you what I get. And if there already exists such a list, post real soon and just get that out. Thanks lots. Andy Skinner ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jun 87 23:55:35 GMT From: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Privately built shuttle >Is Rockwell large (rich) enough to be able to risk so much capital? If >not, maybe a consortium of really large companies (ITT, Exxon, IBM, >Western Union, Xerox, ...) could share risk (and potential profit) with >Rockwell? Sorry, but this would almost certainly be illegal! Any such large group would have to have an agreement on how to split the costs. According to our wonderful Anti-trust laws, this is considered to be the same as an agreement on how to split profits. Thus, they would be open to an anti-trust suit (wanna bet that NASA wouldn't do it?) Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!leonard ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 87 06:58:25 GMT From: hanley@NYU.ARPA (John Hanley) Subject: Re: Privately built shuttle (Leonard Erickson suggests that if Rockwell were to form a consortium with other large companies to privately build a shuttle, their agreement on how to split profits would open them up to an anti-trust suit from NASA.) I always thought anti-trust laws were supposed to protect the little guy. Whoever would have thought the industrial giants would be the "little guys," compared to a big bad government agency that's trying to protect its monopoly? *ANY* lawyers out there who think they see a way to finance such a venture, please mail your comments to me and I'll summarize to the net. I figure, if it's financially attractive, 'tis but a matter of time before someone takes the bait... --John Hanley ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 87 11:05:16 GMT From: ubc-vision!alberta!bjorn@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Bjorn R. Bjornsson) Subject: Re: Privately built shuttle This last cannot possibly be correct. The simple fact of a bunch of entities getting together and building a gadget, and a space shuttle in particular, does in no way constitute any sort of monopoly. First of all we are talking a about a shuttle that has no buyer. Second, no offer of use nor attempt at price fixing in any conceivable segment of the economic marketplace is implied by the act of building an orbiter with your own money. Heck it could be worse, the US Gov. might prevent you from flying it. Regarding the suggestion put forth by Henry Spencer, that Rockwell bite the bullet and finance out of their own pocket the construction of an additional orbiter (a sixth flight worthy vehicle). Making a valiant attempt at hoisting myself out of my ordinary footwear and placing my toes in the (expensive) shoes of Rockwell directors I would at the moment vote against. I see no indications that these birds are ever going to be ALLOWED to reach their former glory. I see evidence indicating a few tens of flights before the shuttles will be officially (or by history) declared obsolete. Does anyone have information to the contrary? If you do, give me firm data on when the next mission will take place. Sorry as a Rockwell director I would be remiss in my fiducial duties if I supported the use of $2-3B of shareholders money on this specific technology. An alternate STS, yes. The current one: NO. Bjorn R. Bjornsson {ubc-vision,ihnp4,mnetor}!alberta!bjorn ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 87 14:17:03 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 11 14:17:03 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 11 19:22:37 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: 98% self-replicating robots, testbed on Earth needed Date: 7 Jun 87 00:54:17 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: What to do on Mars > ...perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of > robots capable of reproducing themselves... [with some remote control] My understanding is that getting a system that will 98% self-reproduce looks easy, but the remaining 2% is hard unless you add humans to the self-reproducing system. Sounds good. Let's do it. If we can reduce the amount of stuff we have to shop from Earth to only 2% of the total, using local materials for the 98%, mined and fabricated by robots, we have an immense cost savings (assuming we want to establish a mining colony in the first place, which I think we do). This applies to Mars or to Luna, and also to other hard gravitated bodies we might want to land on and mine (Moons of Jupiter and Saturn, Mercury; probably not Venus, definitely not Jupiter&Saturn themselves nor the Sun; this message doesn't apply to asteroids and tiny moons which are essentially gravityless and hence can be visited easily by manned spacecraft or cargo ferries). Has anybody started a prototype totally-robot mining operation on Earth to work out the bugs in the overall design? If not, let's start one, huh? The rules would be that there's an outer perimeter and an inner perimiter. All mining and fabrication (replicating) operations are to be conducted within the inner perimeter, while all humans are to remain outside the outer perimeter. The annulus between the perimeters is to be used exclusively for transportation by automated (teleprsence or totally-robot etc.) vehicles. If a vehicle breaks down inside the annulus, it must be either abandoned where it is or dragged or carried etc. by a robot vehicle to the human-outside or to the robot-inside where it can be repaired by humans or robots respectively. The amount of mass passed across the perimeters must be carefully measured and accurate records kept. The goal is to minimize the ratio between mass that moves across perimeters and total mass of robots and other installations developed inside the inner perimeter, trying to achieve the 1:50 ratio for transport:robotmass that HS says is "easy". Once we have established that bootstrapping by a combination of local robots and remote human guidance/control really works, we can decide whether the first non-Earth robotic-mining colony should be Luna or Mars. On the other topic, of asteroid mining, unfortunately there's no good way to demonstrate the technology of microgravity mining processing and fabrication anywhere on Earth, we'll just have to go out and try it for real. But the Luna/Mars testbed on Earth should help work out some common bugs in the bootstrapping, ignoring the gravity technology differences, so should be of some aid. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jun 87 01:16:00 GMT From: necntc!frog!john@ames.arpa (John Woods, Software) Subject: Re: What to do on Mars > >> robots capable of reproducing themselves. These would be directed in > > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible? No, self-comprehending systems abound. Goedel simply showed that there were limits on consistency and (what you might call) the degree of instrospection. Basically, a consistent system cannot be complete; there can be true statements that the system cannot prove (the canonical example is the statement "This statement has no proof in system S."; if system S can prove it, system S has a contradiction -- but if system S can't prove it, it is true). There are probably "beellyans and beellyans" of books on Goedel's little theorems, and some of them are even good. I just finished reading Raymond Smullyan's "Forever Undecided" which is on this topic. But I'm nattering about mathematics in sci.space, so I'll shut up now. John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 87 21:30:18 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Compressed gas launchers In article <291@qtc.UUCP>, law@qtc.UUCP (Larry Westerman) writes: > In article <1279@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: > >The gun would have a muzzle velocity of 2 km/second... > > Now, with v = 2000 m/sec, and some reasonable d's, the acceleration is > > d = 100 m, a = 2 * 10^4 m/sec^2 ~= 2000 g > > d = 1000 m, a = 2*10^3 m/sec^2 ~= 200 g. > > There are few electronic or mechanical components which will stand this kind > of stress. Even with a 10 km barrel, you have 20 g's of acceleration, > which is still too much for people. And higher muzzle velocity makes it > worse by the square of the velocity. > >Larry Westerman Quantitative Technology Corporation Beaverton OR 503-626-3081 Your calculation of average acceleration is done correctly. This is a high acceleration device. A typical value is 500 g's peak acceleration, which occurs at zero velocity. As the gas expands and the projectile starts to outrun the slower gas molecules, the effective pressure drops, as does the acceleration. I never said this launcher was for people. It is designed for bulk cargo, initially propellants for going higher than low Earth orbit, and fluids and gases to resupply a space station. Later on, structural members (girders, tubes, and cables for tethers) could be launched. All these are acceleration-insensitive payloads. You are incorrect in stating that electronics cannot stand this kind of stress. The correct statement is that improperly packaged electronics cannot stand it. Present research work is pressing to 100,000 g-capable homing missiles to be fired out of railguns, and 10,000 g artillery with fancy fuzes have been around for quite a while (in WWII they used VACUUM TUBE fuzes). It's a matter of proper design. Your consumer electronics isn't normally designed for such stresses. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 87 22:34:06 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle In article <431@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: > In <1279@ssc-vax.UUCP>, Dani Eder offers a five phase proposal for > achieving low cost space transportation: > > > Phase I: Demonstration of Orbital Capability > > Estimated time: 3 years > > Estimated cost: $15 million > > > I can believe that this might be doable. But recognize that, while you > may be saving the cost of the first stage, you're totally changing the > nature of the game for the upper stages. There's a HELLUVA difference > between a stack that has to withstand a couple of gees, and goes > transonic at high altitude, vs. one that has to take two hundred gees > or more, and blasts through the lower atmosphere at hypersonic > velocities. Not clear at all that you'd have a win. I'm leaning more toward 'missile' experience than 'rocket' experience for the rocket stages. Rockets traditionally have been very fraigle objects, like if you let the air out of a Shuttle external tank, it deflates. Yes, there is a big difference between 3g design and 500g design. > > Phase III: Reuseable Rocket > > Time: Additional 4 years > > Cost: $300 million > > > > In phase III we replace the larger of the two solid motors > > with a liquid (methane/oxygen) stage. .. > > VERY doubtful! Oh, it's probably possible to build a liquid fueled > stage that could stand up to a multi-hundred gee catapult firing, but > the tankage would be so heavy that you'd lose any performance advantage > over a solid stage. In fact, the low density of liquid methane would > mean that the dry weight of the liquid fueled stage would be much > higher than that of a solid stage, and you'd be hard pressed to equal > the performance of the solid, despite the higher exhaust velocity. > I'll grant you, though, that if you could build a reusable liquid > fueled stage that would work, you'd have no worries about reentry > stresses causing structural fatigue and limiting the operating life. > The thing would not be delicate! In fact, I start with an existing Thiokol solid motor case in the design. They use Titianium for their upper stage motor cases (most of them, anyway). I increase the wall thickness by 8/5 over what they use, since I want a factor of 2 rather than 1.25 design margin. This is to get a 1000 cycle life rather than a 1 cycle life the solids are presently designed for. Because the walls are so strong, I can go to a pressure fed liquid engine, rather than a pump-fed engine. This saves about half the engine cost (no pumps), and the weight of the pumps saved compensates somewhat for the heavier tanks. The stage dry weight is 19% of total weight, versus 7.5% for a solid motor, but you get the stage back. You mention that there is no performance advantage to switching. That is approximately (+-10%) correct. PERFORMANCE IS NOT THE POINT, COST IS! The solid motor costs me $30/lb to buy, and it lasts once. The reuseable liquid costs about $2,700/lb, and I get to use it 1000 times, for an amortized cost of $2.70/lb. Adding the propellant for the liquid at about $0.30/lb, You are 10 times lower than the solid cost per flight. > > The "Skybridge" would be a handy thing, independent of how it > eventually got built. For reasons that I'll get to, I tend to think > that it won't be built until there's a LOT of traffic to orbit, and a > fairly vigorous commercial space economy. I think it will be build > from lunar material, rather than bootstrapped in the manner that Dani > proposes. It's a matter of timing. I want to build a Skybridge SOON, as a stepping-stone to get to the Moon. I'm proposing a system that can start from today's market, delivering needed commodities to LEO, and make money doing it at an equivalent of one STS cargo bay/year of customers. Then, as the market expands, bootstrap up to more advanced systems. > > I don't want to throw cold water on creative ideas, but people who > propose exotic alternatives for orbital transport systems would do > well to keep in mind just how much room for improvement there is--from > a cost standpoint--in conventional approaches. > > I once calculated that a moderately advanced, fully reusable two-stage > system would consume about 12 tons of liquid oxygen, two tons of > liquid hydrocarbon, and one ton of liquid hydrogen, for every ton of > payload delivered to orbit. Sixteen tons of propellant for every ton > of payload sounds like a lot, until you realize that the ultimate cost > limit that that imposes on orbital transportation is only on the order > of ten dollars a pound. We've a LONG way to go before that sort of > limit gets to be a problem. When we get there, we can start looking > to sky bridges and other exotic schemes. Until then, what we mainly > need is a way to persuade someone to build the appropriate two-stage > system. > > - Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger I have no quarrel with your estimate. I am just completing work on the proposal for the 'Advanced Launch System' the Air Force wants. It's stated objective is to get a factor of 10 reduction in launch costs by 1996 over the Shuttle and Titan 4 we have today. Part of my contribution to the proposal is collecting the cost estimates for the parts of the system, to see if we can meet the goal. Our numbers say we can, but the up-front investment required to get that reduction is on the order of $20 billion. Only governments can afford that kind of money. The gas gun/liquid rocket can get competitive cost per pound to the ALS for about a $500 million investment. Not too much if you have an on-going business using solids/gas gun, to go to a lender/investor and raise the money. The stumbling block in conventional rockets is that they have to be fairly large (100,000 lb payload) to be really efficient, and start to approach the kind of economics Mr. Arnold was talking about above. But developing 2,000,000 lb takeoff weight or larger rockets (as required for that payload), costs lots of money, on the scale only govt's can afford. Hence we have to wait for gov'ts to get things done. Concepts with smaller entry sizes can go commercial, and get started/developed/operational quicker, which is what we want, true? Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 87 21:37:39 GMT From: unmvax!hi!jedi!sundc!rlgvax!takashi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Takashi Iwasawa) Subject: Re: Compressed gas launchers - seems unlikely. In article <291@qtc.UUCP>, law@qtc.UUCP (Larry Westerman) writes: > d = 100 m, a = 2 * 10^4 m/sec^2 ~= 2000 g > d = 1000 m, a = 2*10^3 m/sec^2 ~= 200 g. > There are few electronic or mechanical components which will stand > this kind of stress. Even with a 10 km barrel, you have 20 g's of > acceleration, which is still too much for people. > Larry Westerman Quantitative Technology Corporation Beaverton OR I agree that human beings can't stand it, but with the right packaging, electronic components will do fine. The Copperhead smart round is fired out of a 155mm howitzer. The barrel length and muzzle velocity are 6 meters and 600 m/sec, giving acceleration of 30,000 g's, but the electronic com- ponents survive just fine, allowing the round to home in on a coded laser designated target. Even more amazing is the VT fuse developed in World War II. For the 90 mm anti-aircraft gun, barrel length would be < 5 meters and muzzle velocity > 800 m/sec, giving 64,000 g's, but even the vacuum tubes used in the VT fuse survived. As for mechanical fuses to stand 30,000 g's, they've been around for a century... Takashi Iwasawa Computer Consoles Inc. Reston, VA ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #256 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Jun 87 06:20:52 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05007; Wed, 17 Jun 87 03:18:03 PDT id AA05007; Wed, 17 Jun 87 03:18:03 PDT Date: Wed, 17 Jun 87 03:18:03 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706171018.AA05007@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #257 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 257 Today's Topics: private space activities SPACE Digest V7 #250 Re: SPACE Digest V7 #250 Re: PowerSats SSPS in resonant polar orbit to a space station Not any NASA staff/funds for non-STS projects? Re: Space Academy Level II for Adults (theoretical) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 18:08:04 EDT From: Hank Walker Subject: private space activities Robert Elton Maas writes: Is Rockwell large (rich) enough to be able to risk so much capital? If not, maybe a consortium of really large companies (ITT, Exxon, IBM, Western Union, Xerox, ...) could share risk (and potential profit) with Rockwell? One business principle that has been proven time and again is "stick to the knitting." Companies that tried to branch out into something they knew absolutely nothing about, like Exxon into electronics, lost big money. I think almost all private space activity will come from established aerospace companies and startups, not some other big company moving into a new area. Note that this does not mean that big companies won't get into space activities, but that they will stick to activities that they understand, such as 3M investigating zero-g coating and bonding. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1987 01:23 EDT From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #250 One of our correspondents said: <> Surely no thoughtful scientist ever said FTS travel was impossible, since bullets, etc., routinely go faster than sound. Perhaps eningeers said that human FTS travel would be impractical, expensive, and dangerous. It is true that all imperfect models have limitations, and the Einstein limit could turn out wrong. But such basic changes in our conceptions of physics do not happen so often. Changes like that have occurred perhaps only 4 or five times in 2000 years, e.g., with Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and Shrodinger. Contemporary theories of fundamental physics could someday be revised, but we shouldn't hold our breath till then. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 87 18:18:22 GMT From: dayton!mmm!cipher@rutgers.edu (Andre Guirard) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #250 In article MINSKY@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU writes: >... basic changes in our conceptions of physics... >that have occurred perhaps only 4 or five times in 2000 years, e.g., >with Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and Shrodinger. Contemporary theories >of fundamental physics could someday be revised, but we shouldn't hold >our breath till then. That's not really fair. We haven't been studying physics for 2000 years. In the 300 years or so since the beginning of physics as a science, there have been no less than four major overhauls. Three of those you mention are within the last 150 years. I'd say we're about due for some fundamental changes. That's not to say that any future theories will permit FTL travel or whatever was the point of the original article. It seems unlikely. We'll see. Andre Guirard ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 87 03:12:50 GMT From: lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@mordor.s1.gov (Peter DaSilva) Subject: Re: PowerSats > > The existing power grid, you may recall, is AC. How did you get to > > AC, specifically sine-wave AC? The commercial power 'inverters' > > A couple of things. First is a low tech fix. Motorgenerators. Yup, > they still work. About 85% effecient if you do a good job. So the Not only do they work, but they're in use. There are tarrifs on interstate transfer of AC, so power companies use short-haul high-voltage DC lines at state borders. The term for this practice is "wheeling". Yet another example of your government in action. -- Peter da Silva @ Ferranti International Controls. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 87 13:25:55 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: SSPS in resonant polar orbit to a space station The idea of putting a power-satellite into a sun-synchronous orbit resonant with the space station grabbed hold of me and wouldn't let go until I did the calculations. Turns out that the worst problem is the power station being able to "See" the space station when the space station is 180 degrees past conjunction. This constraint makes the minimum orbit 0.5 Earth radii above the surface, so it won't work for the NASA space station. 0.5 radii is also just about right at the max proton flux of the (inner) radiation belt, too.... Oh, well. A complete explication follows. SSPS IN SUN-SYNCHRONOUS ORBIT RESONANT WITH A SPACE STATION Space stations will require a level of power considerably higher than any previous manned or unmanned satellites. The proposed NASA space station, for example, will have an initial electrical power capacity of 75 kW, and a "growth" power capability of 300 kW. Solar power has two significant disadvantages: (1) A low-orbit station is in the shadow of the earth for a significant fraction of its orbit (35 minutes of each 90 minute orbit for the NASA design), and for this time the station must run on storage batteries; (2) Solar panels are large, and therefore drag on the panels due to atmosphere in low orbit will be a major contributor to the orbital decay. These problems can be eliminated if the solar generator is physically separated from the manned space station, and power is transmitted to the station by a microwave beam. Since the power station need not be in a low orbit, it can be placed high enough that drag is not a significant factor. In general, the line of sight between objects in different orbits will be blocked ("eclipsed") by the earth for some fraction of the orbit. However, for resonant orbits where the ratio of orbital periods s:p is a ratio of odd integers, and the orbital planes are nearly perpendicular, orbits can be chosen such that the line of sight is never blocked if the lower orbit is chosen to have an altitude greater than a calculatable minimum. This proposal is essentially the same as the satellite solar power system ("SSPS") concept for terrestrial power proposed by Glaser, but on a much smaller scale, hundreds of kilowatts rather than on the order of 5 gigawatts. Typical SSPS power densities proposed are on the order of sunlight intensities, however, there is a considerable advantage to converting power from a focussed microwave beam rather than directly from sunlight: (1) Conversion efficiency is higher: 87% conversion efficiency has been demonstrated, and over 90% is expected to be feasable; (2) A microwave collector consists of an array of dipole antennas spaced at distances comparable to a wavelength, on the order of 1 cm. Since such a structure is mostly open, the drag is considerably lessened. Antenna size: the maximum distance between transmitter and receiver is on the order of 20000 km. Diffraction-limited beam spread is w=d lambda/A, where d is the transmission distance, lambda the wavelength and A the transmitter aperture. Clearly, the shorter the transmission wavelength, the smaller the transmission and reception antennas can be. The minimum total area is spanned when transmitter and receiver antennas are on the order of 150 m for transmission at millimeter wavelengths, on the order of 500 m at centimeter wavelengths. Higher power densities at the receiver will allow a smaller receiving antenna, and thus reduced drag, at a cost of a larger transmission antenna. If we increase the assumed power density to 1 kW/m2 at the receiver, a 400 kW system will require a beam width of w less than 20 m and thus a transmitting antenna of size A greater than 1 km for millimeter-scale wavelengths, or 10 km for centimeter waves. Although this is a large structure by current standards, the transmitting antenna may be little more than a thin mirror of aluminized plastic. The antennas will have to be precisely pointed. This is not a major problem, since we expect the system would use electronic steering [5] with closed-loop feedback. If the receiving antenna is attached to the station, the crew of the station, and all electronics will be exposed to microwaves from the beam fringes. However, the receiving antenna could be separated from the space station by several hundred meters to reduce the microwave intensity. Power transmission from the primary receiving antenna to the space station could be either by cable or by a secondary microwave link, which could be highly collimated and use very small antennas, since it only has to transmit hundreds (or even thousands) of meters instead of thousands of kilometers. To provide full-time power with only one power station, the power station must be in line of sight of the space station at all times. To do this, we put the power station into an orbit inclined 90 degrees to the orbital plane of the space station, and in a 1:3 resonance (ie., the space station orbits three times in the time it takes the power station to orbit once). When the power station is over the pole, it can "see" the space station no matter where it is in its orbit, as long as the space station orbit is higher than a given minimum. When the power station orbit returns to the space station's orbital plane, because of the resonance condition, they are again on the same side of the earth. Many other resonances also work. The ratio of orbital periods must be odd integers, since if the periods are in the ratio of an even integer to an odd integer, the two satellites will be on exactly opposite sides of the Earth half a synodic period after conjunction. The 1:3 resonance allows the lowest space station orbit. Orbital distance for the power station can be calculated by Kepler's law, r**3/T**2=constant. A period three times that of the space station requires rp/rs= 3**{2/3}, or an orbit 2.08 times the space station's (r here is altitude from Earth's center, subscript p for power station, s for space station). The minimum space station altitude comes from the requirement that when the space station makes its first pass behind the Earth after conjunction, the power station must be high enough above the orbital plane that the Earth does not block the line of sight. For the 1:3 orbit, the power station has risen pi/3 radians, or 60 degrees. (The actual worst case comes slightly before this, at a power station elevation of 52 degrees, but the result is nearly identical.) From the geometry, at the minimum space station altitude the beam is tangent to the Earth and the minimum altitude rs (expressed as a multiple of Earth's radius) is: $$r_s=\sqrt{{({{r_s}\over{{r_p} sin \alpha}}+cot \ \alpha})|2+1} $$ where $\alpha$=60 degrees and $r_p/r_s$=2.08 for the 1:3 resonance. This comes out to be 1.5 Earth radii, or an altitude of 0.5 radii (about 3000 km) above the surface. Refraction in the atmosphere will bend the microwave beam, allowing slightly more leeway. This is considerably higher than the proposed NASA space station, which orbits at 330-460 km. For the 1:5 resonance, the power station orbits 2.92 times as far as the space station, and the minimum space station orbit is at rs =2.2 Earth radii. There remains the problem of power loss when the power station enters the Earth's shadow. This problem can be eliminated by placing power station into a "sun-synchronous" orbit, where it is never be eclipsed by the earth. Unlike geosynchronous orbit, sun-synchronous orbits are possible at a range of altitudes. Sun synchronous orbits are close enough to polar for the orbital planes to be effectively perpendicular to a space station in a low-inclination orbit. Also note that the advantage of such a non-eclipsing orbit over the geosynchronous orbit commonly proposed for satellite solar power stations may be sufficient to override the advantage of having the power station at a fixed location in the sky. This design is not practical for currently proposed NASA space station, which is in an orbit too low to allow continuous line-of sight to the power station, but may be useful for future space stations, or for powering other satellites such as communications satellites. For geosynchronous satellites, the altitude is large enough that minimum altitude is not a problem, and a 3:1 orbit (or, more generally, a N:1 orbit) as well as the discussed 1:3 orbit could be used. REFERENCES [1] W.E. Simon and D.L. Nored, Manned Spacecraft Electrical Power Systems, Proc. IEEE 75, 277-307 (1987). [2] P.E. Glaser, Power from the Sun: Its Future, Science 162, 857-861 (1968). [3] J.F. Cassidy et. al., Space Power Development Impact on Technical Requirements, Acta Astronautica 16, 323-333 (1987). [4] W.C. Brown, Technology and Application of Free-Space Power Transmission by Microwave Beam, Proc. IEEE 62, 11-25 (1974). [5] E. Brookner, Phased-Array Radars, Scientific American 252, 94-102 (1985). --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 87 13:16:42 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 11 13:16:42 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 11 13:17:08 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Not any NASA staff/funds for non-STS projects? Date: 3 Jun 87 03:17:11 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (UUCP Admin) Subject: Next Shuttle Flight NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher announced June 1988 as the new target date for the next Space Shuttle launch. (Yeah. I heard it on news or read in newspaper too. I wonder if this date will slip like other dates have slipped in the past?) Current plans are for two additional flights in 1988 and seven flights in 1989. When will we have routine access to space, like 12 or more flights per year, like two craft in flight readiness at all times so that if we have an emergency we can launch one or the other depending on local weather at two launch sites? It looks like at least 1990 before we are even considering having the STS fully operational again, sigh. If the first flight is successful, any chance of rapid setup for second? If second is also successful, any chance of speeding up the recovery of operational capability? In establishing the target for launch, Dr. Fletcher stated, "Safety returning the Space Shuttle to flight is NASA's highest priority. Just like avoiding thermonuclear war is the world's highest priority, but there are other things to do too, you can't spend 100% of your manpower on your #1 priority. See below. I know I can count on the whole NASA team -- and, of course, I include our contractor partners -- to move out enthusiastically toward this new goal." Shit. Does the whole damn NASA team have to be dedicated to this one task? Wouldn't half of NASA on this one project and the rest on other projects be better? I remember the late 70's when the planetary program was ignored for years while nearly everyone worked on getting STS working. STS would be operational in 1979 and Galileo would be orbiting Jupiter in 1985. But STS slipped to first-launch in 1981 and Galileo is still "mothballed" in 1987 as STS awaits first launch after repair in 1988 and operational status sometime after 1990, and the planetary program is stopped completely while everyone (unless the NASA message is misworded) works on STS. Effort on STS really did drain money and manpower away from everything else in the period around 1980, and it's doing the same again, and I'm feeling like I did around 1980 except I'm more upset now (and more able to express my upsetness now that SPACE-Enthusiasts exists, which didn't in 1979-80). If the whole NASA team is just barely enough to do the STS fixup and checkout, does that mean NASA is underfunded, and we should pressure Congress to provide enough money so that at least as much effort is spent on all other projects combined as is spent on STS? Or is NASA grossly inefficient, i.e. they have plenty of money and plenty of staff but don't have the ability to get the job done properly? Or is the above NASA statement just a bunch of BS/PR that I should not take literally? ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 87 13:12:50 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Re: Space Academy Level II for Adults (theoretical) In article <464@atux01.UUCP> jlc@atux01.UUCP (J. Collymore) writes: >After having been at the the Adult Space Academy last year I think that >it would be a GREAT idea to extend the 3-dayer to a 7-dayer, but NOT a >10-dayer. "WHY?" (You ask.) >First of all, many of us can easily take off 3 or 4 days (i.e. extended >weekend), or a full week from our work assignments, families and >spouses. However, most of us would find it difficult to schedule a >WEEK and a HALF off! I agree, and maybe down the road, the extended aduly program should be 7 days (actually you could get 9 in with 2 weekends, but that would possibly lead to camp overload). Right now, there IS a 10 day program for 11th,12th and 13th :-) graders, and the first extended adult sessions would be set aside out of those programs. >Next, I think a one-shot 10-day program would be more difficult to >schedule for the Space Camp people (and less profitable) than having >SEVERAL ONE WEEK sessions. Such one week sessions would be easier to >fit into their calendar (I would think), and be attractive to more >adults. So saying, this would meet their needs of making workable >schedules, and the possibility of getting more adults to sign up as >opposed to a 10-day program (and that's the BOTTOM LINE!). Like I said above, the 10 day program exists, and the first adult session would be one (or more if there's interest) set aside from those. It would be an experiment, just as the first 3 day adult sessions were experiments. >As an alternative, I propose that Space Academy try the following as an >optimal solution: >In terms of scheduling, days for the staff to rest and recharge, time >to fix up the place for the next session, Space Academy should >institute a mixture of one 7-day session, followed by a traditional >3-day session. This should appeal to their staff/counselors, their >needs for scheduling, and attract more adults: those that can afford >(in time and money) the 7-day session, and those that can only afford >the 3-day session. >So to summarize, I am all in favor of a longer adult Space Camp >session, but I think it should be 7-days, and offered separately from >the original 3-day program. I was never suggesting the 3 day program go away. Indeed, I agree that taking off only a week of work is preferable to the week + 2 days. The thing right now is to push for a longer camp, and let the details be worked out later. I don't know if there are any reasons 10 days was set as the length, but you could certainly find out. And Deb Barnhart has always been open to suggestions in the past. Rich Kolker ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #257 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jun 87 06:21:30 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09044; Thu, 18 Jun 87 03:17:44 PDT id AA09044; Thu, 18 Jun 87 03:17:44 PDT Date: Thu, 18 Jun 87 03:17:44 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706181017.AA09044@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #258 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 258 Today's Topics: Reason Found. Paper Evidence for Superconductivity at 360 Kelvin Good News for activists GOES West OTL? SPACE Digest V7 #251 Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots? Von Neuman Machines (was re: Goedel & self replicating robots) wriglys in space! The limitations of mathematicians Re: The limitations of mathematicians Re: The limitations of mathematicians Re: What to do on Mars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 87 09:42:37 EDT From: weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Reason Found. Paper Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #253 That summary looked good, and just about summarized the feeling I think a lot of people have displayed on this net as well. But again I ask the question: "Aside from us, who saw that? Were they influenced at all?" -Chris ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 09:32:53 PDT From: ota@galileo.s1.gov To: DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net Cc: physics@unix.sri.com, space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Evidence for Superconductivity at 360 Kelvin I attended a lecture given by Edward Teller at LLNL on Thursday June 11th wherein he exponded some of his views of the new superconduction. A considerable amount of the discussion was over my head but he did mention the Isotopic experiment mentioned in the WJS article. He claimed to be suspicious of the experimental procedure used to replace the O-16 with O-18 in particular the resulting isotopic abundance was not actually measured nor was the resulting oxygen deficit from the stoichiometric ratio. This experiment was reported in the June 1 (I think) Phys. Rev. Letters. Anyway without claiming to understand what is really going on Teller did support a variant on the BCS theory at the most likely explaination. The highest Tc he reported was 145K. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jun 1987 17:14-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Good News for activists The L5 and NSI membership databases have been combined and the good news is that we are 17000 strong now, AND GROWING!!! This is about 1000 larger than our most optimistic estimates. A fund raiser will be going out very soon, and I request that all our members out there consider making substantial donations. We have just completed the move from Tucson and the move into our new townhouse on Pennsylvania Ave: all of this cost a considerable amount. I will be attending the NSS congressional reception in two weeks and I'll let you know if I pick up any interesting scuttlebut from the Congressional committee people. Incidentally, I've heard the Ride report has been pushed back to August. Dr. Ride will leave NASA as soon as she finishes it. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 87 06:26:19 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA (MacLeod) Subject: GOES West OTL? For the last few weeks the images I've seen on weather reports for the West Coast of the US have been what looked like slanted, enlarged GOES-East views, rather than the Hawaii-to-Denver panorama that GOES-West usually gives. What's happening? Is GOES-West out to lunch? For that matter, what will happen to our weather satellite program if we can't get replacements up there? (I'm afraid that I can answer the latter for myself...) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1987 22:48 EDT From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #251 I suppose this isn't the forum for long discussions about Godel's theorems, but I was about to comment on it when I read REM's remarks - which were better and more to the point than what I was about to say, namely that there is no theoretical problem about a machine's understanding its own operating principles, provided that the description is at some higher level of summary. What machines can't do is predict precisely which problems they can ultimately solve in the indefinite future. But as REM points out, we all live with such limitations. Curiously enough, though, we should not scold DW for not appreciating this, since I don't think that Godel himself really did. The last time I met Godel (having lunch at Princeton), he maintained with seemingly perfect faith that those limitations applied only to machines but not to people. He seemed to believe that a person can have some other, noncompotational way to recognize mathematical truth directly. "Nonsense," I thought to myself, but I found myself (uncharacteristically) uncomfortable at challenging him about this. My problem was that I couldn't recall ever hearing of him announcing a theorem that turned out later to be false. My explanation, though, is not that he could decide the undecidable, but that he merely had a very good higher level understanding of his own capabilities, and was thus able to steer away from areas in which those abilities were unreliable. In any case, as I remarked in section 15.10 of "The Society of Mind", it seems likely that our human ability to uderstand how our own minds work may be handicapped by some minor architectural limitations that happened to evolve in our brains - namely, an acute shortage of certain kinds of temporary memory. Accordingly, I argued that when we design the AI machines of the future, we'll probably find it easy to give them more self-insight than we have ourselves. Eventually, in other words, our machines will be more conscious than we are. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 87 05:41:28 GMT From: pt!unh.cs.cmu.edu!agn@cs.rochester.edu (Andreas Nowatzyk) Subject: Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots? Goedel's theorem, aka the halting problem of Turing machines, etc... has little bearing on the problem at hand: You don't need to prove *completness* of a non-trivial logic system or to decide for any TM if it halts in order to prove that it *is* *possible* for a system to produce an identical copy of itself. Von Neumann did this a long time ago: The model-world is a 2D array of identical finite state machines that are nearest neighbor connected. Each of these cells is rather simple: originally it had 27 states, later versions of this world used 4 state cells. A 2 state-cell (similar or equal to the Game of Life) might do, but such a proof seems rather difficult. Anyway, given this world of simple cells (aka atoms), V.N. constructed a configuration of cells (= a program, a DNA-string, ...) that will produce a identical copy of itself in the area next to it. Not quite the same thing, but similar in spirit are programs that can print their own source. -- Andreas ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jun 87 06:27:50 GMT From: zen!cory.Berkeley.EDU!iverson@cad.berkeley.edu (Tim Iverson) Subject: Von Neuman Machines (was re: Goedel & self replicating robots) I think y'all are missing the point here. First, you're thinking of robots with a 1960's mindset - flashing lights, whirring servos, and a mechanical voice that shouts, "Danger! Will Robinson, Danger!". A robot is merely something designed to fulfill a specific task; in this case, it goes somewhere and builds a *functionally equivalent* replica of itself (i.e. the replica must be able to fulfill the same task). Now, to me this sounds alot like any given animal on the face of the earth - be they ants, amoebas, or humans, they all reproduce in kind. Using the advanced bioengineering techniques of 300 years from now :-), it shouldn't be too hard to design an organism to do whatever you like as far as purpose & self-replication go. In fact, if you want to limit yourselves to current day technology, you could just nab a few handy humans and 'condition' them to your task. This might be frowned upon by local governments, so I suggest that you be circumspect in your experimentation, but it is definitely possible. You might even say that people are just God's own Von Neuman machines! - Tim Iverson iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU ucbvax!cory!iverson ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jun 87 04:01:16 GMT From: tektronix!tekcrl!tekfdi!donp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Don Primrose) Subject: wriglys in space! A magazine (I don't know which) recently reported an interesting fact. In the US, we spend more on chewing gum then we do on unmanned exploration. Sounds about right! Don Primrose ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 87 19:21:59 GMT From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard Harter) Subject: The limitations of mathematicians Minksy relates one of his conversations with Goedel in which Goedel felt that humans were not subject to the same limitations as a machine would be re the incompleteness theorems. The issue is a bit more subtle than it appears at first sight. Given a particular machine, with a particular program, we know that there is knowledge that is inaccessible to it. Given a good enough program it can deduce this for itself. It can even extend the domain of knowledge accessible to it by altering its program. E.g. it might have a formal representation of itself and a subsystem which derives true but unprovable statements and then amends the system to include them. Ultimately, however, the machine is up against the essential incompleteness of arithmetic. (In the case of self extending subsystem the limitation derives from the fact that the Goedel extension subsystem is a specific one.) Now consider the possibility that we have a number of such machines, each with its own extension subsystem, each 'randomly' created. Then, although each machine has its own particular limitations, one machine can 'see' things that another cannot. If the 'self viewing' components of the machines were deterministically created according to some grand pattern, then the collection as a whole would have a characteristic determined incompleteness. Given that the extension subsystems are randomly created, the collection does not have a predefined incompleteness. Thus we might well argue that humans, who constitute a collection of machines of this sort, are not subject to the same limitations that any particular single deterministically defined machine is, no matter how cleverly it is constructed. To tie this into sci.space, suppose that intelligent biological species all invent artificial intelligence, and that the resulting AI system takes over, in the general sense that it becomes the dominant intelligence of the solar system. (I am inclined to believe that some such scenario is inevitable.) Suppose further that these AI systems can communicate with each other over interstellar space. Then each offers the others a different viewpoint, a different basis for intelligence that extends the capabilities of the Galactic AI culture as a whole. And what is the reaction of the Galactic AI culture to an inscipient developing biological intelligence? The reaction is to wait for it develop a new AI system to be a new member of the community. And that explains the Fermi silence -- we are just precursors. -- Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 87 11:39:05 GMT From: ubc-vision!alberta!bjorn@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Bjorn R. Bjornsson) Subject: Re: The limitations of mathematicians In article <16698@cca.CCA.COM>, g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) writes: > Now consider the possibility that we have a number of such >machines, each with its own extension subsystem, each 'randomly' >created. Then, although each machine has its own particular limitations, >one machine can 'see' things that another cannot. This is defensible. Some of the people that argue against the possibility of artificial intelligence talk about the fact that you can always stand outside the machine and "Goedelize". Ever overlooking the possibility of the machine "Goedelizing" them at the same time. >If the 'self viewing' components of the machines were deterministically >created according to some grand pattern, then the collection as a whole >would have a characteristic determined incompleteness. Given that the >extension subsystems are randomly created, the collection does not have >a predefined incompleteness. This is not true. Goedel gives a foolproof method for finding the offending constructs. This is known as Goedelization. The incompleteness that shows up using Goedels theorem is fixed at system definition time. It doesn't matter whether you know the system or not. The incompleteness(es) is(are) there, you may not find it(them) unless you have the system definition in hand, but it's there all the same. By the same token, the more complex the system the harder it is to Goedelize. >Thus we might well argue that humans, who constitute a collection of >machines of this sort, are not subject to the same limitations that any >particular single deterministically defined machine is, no matter how >cleverly it is constructed. I'll say nought but point at my remarks above and add: we are in extremely hot water here. Bjorn R. Bjornsson {ubc-vision,ihnp4,mnetor}!alberta!bjorn ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 87 16:52:11 GMT From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard Harter) Subject: Re: The limitations of mathematicians >This is not true. Goedel gives a foolproof method for finding the >offending constructs. This is known as Goedelization. The >incompleteness that shows up using Goedels theorem is fixed at system >definition time. It doesn't matter whether you know the system or not. >The incompleteness(es) is(are) there, you may not find it(them) unless >you have the system definition in hand, but it's there all the same. >By the same token, the more complex the system the harder it is to >Goedelize. Technically true, but you are missing the point. There is no system definition time, per se, since the collection is being extended over time in a random way. At any point in time the collective system constitutes a formalizable system, and, as such, is incomplete. This remains true at all times. However, given a collective system, if we add a new component system with a Godelization extender which was created randomly, then there is some probability that the addition has removed some of the incompleteness. [Is that clear? I thought not.] Let's try again. Suppose I start with a formal system S, and a procedure for generating a Goedel extension to S (i.e. the procedure determines a true but unprovable statement for S.) Call the procedure P. Then we can generate a sequence of formal systems, S1=S+P, S2=S1+P, ... Let S* be the closure of systems S,S1,S2,... Is S* complete? No, because the entire process for generating S* is recursive, i.e. it can be specified effectively, and we can derive a true and unprovable statement for S*. Similarly, we could start with S* and generate a series of formal systems from it, but the same problem arises. Now, suppose that we start with a different procedure P1 for generating Goedel extensions. We get a different sequence of formal systems. We can join the two machines and get a composite machine which is still incomplete, which is stronger than either of the two component machines. Suppose further that we have some procedure for generating such machines ad infinitum that is effectively computable. Then we are still caught -- the procedure for generating machines is an algorithm which recursively specifies a formal system, and Goedel strikes again. So far, so good. Now suppose that we have some procedure which RANDOMLY generates such machines. Then the Goedel procedure does not work for the sequence of machines because there is no predefined system definition time. I.e. I start with machine M0 and then add M1 and so on. For machine M0 we can apply the Goedel procedure. For machines M0 and M1 considered together we can do the same. What we cannot do is determine in advance what the limits of M2 are. There is no algorithm for constructing the sequence of machines, M0, M1, ... and accordingly the sequence cannot be treated using the Goedel procedure. I.e. although each finite subsequence is incomplete, Goedel's incompleteness theorem does not follow for the sequence as a whole. Is this clear? Actually the situation is a bit more difficult than I have presented it. There are two questions that occur to me. The first is whether the Goedel process exhausts the incompleteness of arithmetic. The Goedel process is an effective algorithm which can applied, effectively, via transfinite induction, effectively, up to the the first non-effective ordinal. Is the system given by the closure of the sequence of systems so generated complete? I haven't the vaguest idea. The second is whether the Goedel extender subsystem can, in fact, be specified randomly. Here, I think the answer is negative. We can specify a machine size so large that it cannnot be realized in the physical universe. Correspondingly we can specify a finite limit to the possible machines. This leads to some collateral issues which I will defer discussing for the moment. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.] ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 87 15:03:20 GMT From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andre Guirard) Subject: Re: What to do on Mars In article <952@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> west@calgary.UUCP (Darrin West) writes: >In article <1341@mmm.UUCP>, cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes: >> .. perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of >> robots capable of reproducing themselves. These would be directed in > ^^^^^^^^^^^ >Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible? Perhaps. However, this is beside the point, since reproduction does not require self-comprehension. Single-celled bacteria reproduce themselves by division, so if theory predicts this is impossible there is something wrong with the theory. Practically, I expect the procedure would be: build hardware using plans stored in memory, turn on, then do a memory dump to the new unit. Andre Guirard ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #258 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Jun 87 06:20:35 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11979; Fri, 19 Jun 87 03:17:21 PDT id AA11979; Fri, 19 Jun 87 03:17:21 PDT Date: Fri, 19 Jun 87 03:17:21 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706191017.AA11979@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #259 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 259 Today's Topics: How to change or circumvent anti-trust laws to build STS orbiter? Re: Privately built shuttle space news from April 27 AW&ST Re: Goedel Self-reproducing machines (Re: Simulation eating mips) Re: Dale Skran posting Re: 98% self-replicating robots, testbed on Earth needed Nuclear-powered aircraft - photo Paris Air Show 1987 Re: Von Neuman Machines ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 87 18:25:45 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 17 18:25:45 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 17 18:28:55 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: How to change or circumvent anti-trust laws to build STS orbiter? Date: 12 Jun 87 23:55:35 GMT From: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Privately built shuttle >Is Rockwell large (rich) enough to be able to risk so much capital? If >not, maybe a consortium of really large companies (ITT, Exxon, IBM, >Western Union, Xerox, ...) could share risk (and potential profit) with >Rockwell? Sorry, but this would almost certainly be illegal! Any such large group would have to have an agreement on how to split the costs. According to our wonderful Anti-trust laws, this is considered to be the same as an agreement on how to split profits. Thus, they would be open to an anti-trust suit (wanna bet that NASA wouldn't do it?) Let's get Congress to make exceptions to the anti-trust laws to handle space and any other areas where risk is too great for any single company. We'll have to be careful not to make the exception so general as to invalidate the still-useful part of anti-trust laws. What about the other companies merely buying lots of Rockwell stock, without any formal agreement? Would that be legal even now? Rockwell could announce a big project and issue lots of new stock to cover its capital needs, and any company that wanted to share the risk and profit could buy the stock. Of course existing stockholders would also share risk, but if the new stock issue were sufficiently large the existing stockholders would share only a small portion of the new risk. I think existing law says any company can buy up to 20% of another company's stock without any special permission, so four companies could buy 20% each leaving 20% for the original investors. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 87 14:16:05 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Privately built shuttle In article <8706111919.AA00948@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes: >Is Rockwell large (rich) enough to be able to risk so much capital? If >not, maybe a consortium of really large companies (ITT, Exxon, IBM, >Western Union, Xerox, ...) could share risk (and potential profit) with >Rockwell? The feds, DOD and NASA, tend to own the tooling used to build things like missiles, aircraft, and maybe even space shuttles. The Navy likes to own the whole manufacturing plant, look around at the NIROP plants all over the country. I don't know this for a fact, but my guess is that Rockwell doesn't own the tooling for the space shuttle. If you were Rockwell would you put up the money for the tooling to build 4 items for ONE customer? If anyone out there knows for sure please post the information. Rockwell can't use what it doesn't own. Of course congress/NASA might let them build their own shuttle. I've read that one of the hold ups on the Boeing Jarvis booster project is that they want to use tooling, owned by NASA, for building shuttle external tanks. Last I heard, and this is several months old, NASA was dragging its feet. Having to replicate the tooling, at Boeings cost, might just kill Jarvis. If it isn't already dead. Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 87 20:45:36 GMT From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@ames.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from April 27 AW&ST Well, DoD seems to have backed down over the space station, presumably because it didn't think it could win a head-to-head confrontation in front of Reagan. The international partners are taking a wait-and-see attitude, since the real issues have mostly been deferred rather than resolved. France is starting to push for an independent ESA space station, while Germany and Italy are pushing for resolution of the current problems with the NASA/international station. France thinks more effort should go into the Columbus man-tended free-flier, to be serviced by Hermes. There may be an ulterior motive here: the recent redesign of Hermes makes it less suitable for general payload carrying, as opposed to the specialized job of station servicing. ESA's long-term planning is in chaos right now, but the mess in Washington certainly isn't helping. "For the French, I don't think ... Weinberger's letter could have come at a more opportune time than if they had planned it themselves. It played right into the hands of those who have been saying the time is ripe to go it alone..." NASA rejects OSC's offer of private startup funding for a Titan 3 to launch Mars Observer in 1990, on the grounds that NASA has no authority to commit funds out of a future budget year. House slams NASA for not moving more quickly on competitive SRB procurement. DARPA is recalling the original Aerospace Plane models, because their paint job -- similar to Air Force One -- has caused confusion over the nature of the program!! Details of the work being done on the Aerospace Plane project. 16 Soviet spacecraft launched since early March, including an imaging spysat (launched five weeks after a major failure of a similar satellite) and a Clarke-orbit comsat (launched by a Proton six weeks after a Proton failure). [Can you say "fast recovery"? Can you say "real space program"? Sure you can. Or at least, the Soviets can. -- HS] American Rocket Co. successfully tests thrust vectoring on its hybrid rocket motor design. Earlier nozzle problems appear to have been solved. Details of a curious nozzle concept known as the "integrated stage" idea, getting attention from the USAF because it now looks feasible. Major use is in volume-constrained applications like submarine-launched missiles, but it might improve the performance of shuttle upper stages. FBI is investigating charges of fraud against Morton Thiokol in connection with its SRB contracts. Roger Boisjoly, ex-MT engineer, has filed several civil suits alleging improper behavior on MT's part. MT denies everything, and is still nicely profitable despite 51L. Aeronautical Radio Inc (Arinc) files request with FCC to deploy global aviation communications system using six Clarke-orbit satellites. The system would provide voice and data communications between flight crews and air traffic control, automatic data transmissions from on-board navigation systems to air traffic control, and voice and data communications for passengers en route. Arinc hopes that that last item will eventually cover most of the operating costs. The six satellites will cover the whole world below about 75 degrees latitude with 100% redundancy in case of satellite failure; there will also be an on-orbit spare. The battle between Arinc and Inmarsat over who is to provide an avsat system is heating up; the Soviet Union has now backed Inmarsat, a surprise because the Soviets appeared to be ready to propose their own system. -- "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 1987 20:19-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Goedel Darrin West: I'd suggest reading "Engines of Creation" by K. Eric Drexler. He discusses the technology of self-replicating machines that replicate from atoms. The projected technology is based on current trends in Biotechnology and computer science and is 30-50 years away. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 17:53:19 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Self-reproducing machines (Re: Simulation eating mips) Newsgroups: comp.arch For those of you on the ARPAnet side, there is an ongoing discussion about self-reproducing machines in the USENET group which disucsses computer architecture. I think Dick could present a case that we have just reached such a system. Not self-contained yet, perhaps, but something to think about. --eugene miya >> Enuff on how graphics will chew MIPS. It will, but not like SIMULATION ! > >If you don't get too serious about it, the philosophical implications are >striking... > >At the point that we are using our fastest computers to design new >computers, we have reached the point that the computers are self-repro- >ducing--in fact, self-evolving. We exist in some bizarre symbiotic >relationship with them, but it's the computers that are reproducing now >with our help. And, of course, adding AI to the CAD work and robotics to >the assembly process only carries it further! Too trite for good sci-fi >material, but reality is sometimes like that. >-- >Dick Dunn {hao,nbires,cbosgd}!ico!rcd (NOT CSNET!) (303)449-2870 > ...I'm not cynical - just experienced. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 87 20:02:06 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Dale Skran posting > We've gone beyond shooting ourselves in the foot. Nowadays we're so > advanced we only go for head shots. > > What are citizenship requirements like in Canada, Henry? Maybe some of > us should try to escape before our brains require export licenses. Unfortunately, the Canadian government is convinced that if the US shoots itself in the head, that must be the right thing to do. Don't expect a major improvement. (Also, Canadian immigration is a hassle nowadays. Even having an employer who wants you badly isn't necessarily enough.) Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 87 20:30:25 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: 98% self-replicating robots, testbed on Earth needed > ...trying to achieve the 1:50 ratio for transport:robotmass that HS says > is "easy". Well, "easy" may have been a poor choice of words, and I'm not prepared to defend the exact number, and I'm not sure the numbers I mentioned will translate into mass: they could just as easily translate into assembly effort, in which case remote control won't suffice for that last 2%. The idea of trying to build an Earth-based prototype to explore the issues is a good one, though. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ From: shawn@acc.arpa Date: 17 Jun 87 16:19:00 PST Subject: Nuclear-powered aircraft - photo Reply-To: Its'June 17th , and I haven't cought up on my mail, so someone else may have posted this. The May 1987 American Photographer magazine has a picture on page 46 that is captioned "Engine for nuclear-powered aircraft, Lost River Range, Idaho, 1981. Photograph by Rene' Burri." Photo credit to Rene' Burri/MAGNUM. There is in fact a 5x7 B and W glossie of some large piece of equipment that could pass for just about anything with pipes/hoses/tubes routed/protruding from what is obviously a large object. The photo is included as part of a review on Rene' Burri's new book Ein Amerikanisher Traum (Delphi, available through ICP) (with no indication of who ICP is). Burri is a Correspondent for MAGNUM (like UPI but for photogs) in Europe. Sorry, no other indications, or words to accompany the photo. Take Care, shawn@acc.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 87 17:08:51 GMT From: mcvax!unido!stollco!til@seismo.css.gov (tilgner) Subject: Paris Air Show 1987 Last weekend I made a random walk at the Paris Air Show (Le Bourget). Perhaps someone out there is interested in my observations. According to AW&ST, April 27, 1987 issue this air show is the largest in the history of the salon: 79,000 sq. meters (1985 data: 66,500), 438 chalets (344), more than 200 aircraft are to be shown. Though much civil and military (sigh) aviation and weapon systems were on display, I'll concentrate on space-related items, which are of interest here. Friday, June 12, was a nice day, no rain, with moderate temperatures (about 18 centigrade). Special security measures were taken: All bags were X-rayed, all persons were checked airport-like. Policemen were hanging all around. PART 01: US/USSR The US Pavillon was *very*, VERY disappointing. It was divided in two parts, one part for professionals, one for the general public. As a private person, I could only see the latter. Before entering, all security measures were repeated. Finally, we went into a small auditorium, where NASA showed a film "Flight Path to the Future" with horrible marketing slogans. The Challenger catastrophe wasn't even mentioned. When leaving, we saw a videoclip with NASA people saying "Bye", "Goodbye": somewhat strange. Or ridiculous? I had the strong feeling that NASA even lost the contact to the people... - No model, no photographs, nothing. Then a small AirForce multi-slide-show. OK, forget it! The companies in Hall 2 - as you may have read, companies like Grumman, Hughes, Ling-Temco-Vought, Northrop, and Thompson-Ramo- Woolridge were missing, Boeing and Lockheed reduced their presence - were concentrating in aircraft equipment, electronics etc. Only Lockheed had a model of reduced size of the Hubble Space Telescope on display. Teledyne let me know that it was proud in participating in the upcoming Space Station (responsible for some integration work). The USSR, however, had a *very* impressive pavillon: They had a 1:1 model of their "Soyuz TM-Mir-Kvant-Progress" complex, which is used for training purposes normally, with a length of 34 meters. Perhaps next time they have to expand their pavillon? It was possible to step inside and to have a look around. One could see the cockpit, a small cabin for a crew-member, a toilet, a douche, and - it was said to be original - some apparatus of unknown functions. The overall impression was that it looks quite professional, though the technological level wasn't as high as in the US - I would guess: mid-seventies or earlier - but obviously working. Stepping outside one had a look into Kvant with some experiments which I could not identify. Anyway, the whole complex was very spacious, though I don't know how it is to live in it for some months. People were extensively photographing this gigantic model. In addition, there were to be seen (all 1:1 models): - VEGA with a Venus lander and a balloon hanging above, - PHOBOS, which should be launched in 1988, - COSMOS 1500, a oceanographic satellite, - KOSPAS, a satellite for helping people in sea or air accidents, all in all, a representative exhibition of the Soviet space activities. OK, a poster of Gorbatchev was greeting the people when they entered the hall, emphasizing the new policy of renovation of the Soviet society, but the campaign against SDI were nearly notexistent in this hall. In sum, there was more proud resting in past successes and less rhetoric than in previous years. NEXT: Europe in space. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 87 08:15 EST From: RON PICARD Subject: Re: Von Neuman Machines I've been reading all this talk about reproducing robots and began to wonder, would we really want to make carbon copies of the robots we send? If we send 50 robots to a planet to prepare it for humans, I would think it would be more practicle for these robots to build other types of robots that are better equipted to build buildings, mine the planet... An all purpose robot that is capable of doing everything we could desire is a long, long way off. Ron Picard General Motors Research Labs Warren, Mich. 48090 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #259 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Jun 87 06:20:23 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01232; Sat, 20 Jun 87 03:17:41 PDT id AA01232; Sat, 20 Jun 87 03:17:41 PDT Date: Sat, 20 Jun 87 03:17:41 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706201017.AA01232@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #260 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 260 Today's Topics: Re: Orbiting Solar Power Solar Panels added to Soviet Mir in EVA Re: spacefaring nations :-) Second Soviet EVA finishes solar array construction Evidence for Superconductivity at 360 Kelvin High Tc Superconductors Re: Breaking out of the Cradle Re: People and Hi G's Re: Compressed gas launchers - seems unlikely. Re: People and Hi G's ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Jun 1987 16:03-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Orbiting Solar Power I posted the rumors about soviet use of Energia for powersats some weeks ago. Well folks, it's official and if you want the details, read page of the Sunday 6/14/87 New York Times: "Soviet Studies Satellites to Convert Solar Energy for Relay to Earth" The gist is that the soviets have announced that a major purpose of the Energia (Energy!!!) booster is to put up town sized solar cell based power stations by early years of the next century. They have been studying it for a number of years. They are also seriously discussing the Solaria concept. It's for real and it's not our side. Maybe Gary can convince them that Solar Power Sats won't work. Of course, it might be hard to do it after they're delivering power to their own cities and selling it to third world countries (in small demonstration amounts suitable for cheap PR). Meanwhile we'll be trying to pay of our debt by selling off the rest of the country, and be using horse's and buggies because OPEC will drain us for the remaining oil. Technology moves very fast in our Future Shocked world, and second rate powers can transition to world leadership in decades instead of generations. The United States is well on it's way to becoming a second tier power by the early 21st century. Why won't those idiots in congress wake up? Instead they're busy trying to cut up the pie in different ways and seeing if they can ram through enough protection to insure the entire western world goes into a deep recession (which invariably follows tariff wars). If I sound mad, it's because I'm furious... PS: Good news: Trans time researches lowered the temperature of a dog to 38F, totally replaced it's blood with a special preservative fluid, held it at the lowest T for 15m, at under 50F for about 1hr, and SUCCESSFULLY brought it back to unimpaired consciousness and full normal doggy activity. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 16:56:26 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Solar Panels added to Soviet Mir in EVA The Soviet cosmonauts on board the Mir space station have started construction of a third solar panel to increase their station's power levels. On June 13th the two man crew of Col. Yuri Romanenko and Alexander Laveikin made a 1 hour 52 minute space walk in which they constructed a tall tower to which the main solar panels are to be attached. They then connected up some of the panels, but will leave the remainder of the work until a second EVA scheduled for June 18th. The exact size of the array is not stated, but last year the Soyuz T-15 crew constructed a 20 meter tower during their visit to Salyut 7. Probably that was a test of the same system, so this will be about that tall. If so that suggests that the final panels will be about the same size as the current ones on Mir, adding about 4-5 KW, for a total of about 13 KW (about twice Skylab's). The materials for this system were brought up in Progress cargo craft, and possible the Kvant module. In addition they are said to have connected up more storage batteries on the inside of the station during the last few weeks. The Russians do need more power. The Kvant astrophysical module added to Mir uses large flywheel/gyro systems to obtain accurate pointing of the telescopes. Those are very power hungry. In addition they have being doing extensive materials research and the furnaces they use take about 4KW at maximum. Finally they have just come out to the period where sun light at their orbital inclination was at a minimum. Mir really getting to be a true space station such as people have talked about for years. The core section was designed to have several modules added to it, and one expansion has been made. Men have assembled structures on it in EVA's that were difficult to have on the core when it was launched. It is refueled and resupplied in orbit. The one major difference is that it has not yet been manned continuously for a long duration (years) by different crews for a "permanent habitation" capability. If the Soviets do not have troubles this difference too will fall within year or so. Yes it is smaller than was imagined, but the important thing is it being used to do the things we all have talked about. Isn't it about time we had a space station too, not plans for one that might be in orbit by the end of this century (does anyone really think construction will start by NASA in '95-'96)? Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 87 19:54:14 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: spacefaring nations :-) > > "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > > nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry > > Canada? If only it were... The Canadian government prefers a "space program" which is ninety percent hype. This makes good speech material and is cheap. -- "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 87 11:59:37 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Second Soviet EVA finishes solar array construction The second space walk in a week was done by the Soviet cosmonauts on board the Mir space station last night (June 16). This completes the construction of a third solar panel to increase their station's power levels (see the posting of June 15th for 1st walk and description of the reason for this walk). Col. Yuri Romanenko and Alexander Laveikin spent more than 3 hours in "raw space" attaching the upper sections of the solar panels to the tower/array section they built on June 13th. It was said that this outer section spreads out more than the lower part (like the arrays on Mir itself). They specifically mentioned that this will be used to increase the number of materials science (crystal grow) experiments that they are doing. This crew by the way is now into its 131st day in space during this mission. As an indication of the importance they place on this event the announcement of the walk was the top item on their short wave news broadcast last night. They also called it the prototype of future manned construction in space on Soviet systems. The New York Times had an article last weekend talking about the solar power satellites and solar reflector systems the Russians could build in space. Mostly it was taking what they had said before and combining it with comments of people in the west. The current work shows that they are really using man to do construction in space, not just talking about it. A few more years of this and the USSR will have both the boosters (Energiya), and the EVA experience to build solar power sats if they want to. There is now one truly space fairing culture that has come from earth. Let us try and make it two by getting this country moving in space. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 87 07:58 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Evidence for Superconductivity at 360 Kelvin To: physics@unix.sri.com, space@angband.s1.gov Todays Wall Street Journal (6/11/87) reports that Chu and his group in Houston have evidence of superconductivity at 360 degrees K (189 F). What the evidence was was not reported. This Tc is high enough for practical application at room temperature. The composition of the compound was not reported; earlier reports said Chu and workers were using yttrium-barium-strontium-copper oxides. The same report also described a technique developed at MIT for making superconductor. Molten europium/barium/copper mixture is rapidly cooled on a spinning copper plate, forming thin ribbons. The ribbons are oxidized to form a 90 K superconductor that is denser than that formed by the usual heat/grind/compress-the-oxides process. A Japanese company has reportedly formed 90 K superconducting wires with a critical current density of 4000 A/cm**2, still too low for practical applications, but 1000x better than early attempts. DOE has directed Argonne National Labs to develop practical wires for use in superconducting transmission lines within five years. DOE has also set up an on-line database to speed dissemination of results. Experiments in which substitution of oxygen-18 for oxygen-16 caused no significant change in Tc have put the final nail in the coffin for theories in which the high temperature superconductivity was caused by the conventional BCS phonon-mediated pairing mechanism. Bipolaronic superconductivity is also apparently ruled out. Detection of antiferromagnetism in La2CuO4 appears to support P. Anderson's resonating valence bond model. (Antiferromagnetism persists in other nonsuperconductive compounds up to around 600 K.) Examination of fresh YBa2Cu3O7 crystals show that defects are not necessary for superconductivity, contrary to the NY Times report some weeks back. Apparently the crystals deteriorate when exposed to atmospheric water and carbon dioxide, causing defects to appear. The materials will have to be encapsulated when finally applied. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 14:36 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: High Tc Superconductors To: ota%galileo.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov, space@angband.s1.gov, physics@unix.sri.com I am skeptical of Teller on this one. First of all, two groups did oxygen isotope replacement experiments and got essentially identical results (see 6/1/87 PRL; I suggest you read the two papers). Both groups did analyze the isotope ratios of their samples, according to the papers. The first group, at Bell Labs, used mass spectroscopy, Rutherford backscattering, and actual IR spectroscopic determination of phonon frequencies (which *did* change, at least in the outer 1 micron of the samples that this technique sees). The second group, Zettl's group at Berkeley, did isotope analysis of the samples as follows: they first heated them to 800 C and did mass spectroscopy on evolved oxygen. They then reduced the sample in hydrogen and mass analyzed the water produced. The oxygen removed, a total of 50% of that in the samples, was in both cases 90% O-18. Tellers argument that the oxygen deficit was not measured seems odd: changes in the oxygen deficit between the O-18 and the O-16 control samples would introduce spurious changes in Tc or in the width of the transition, which were not observed. So, given that two groups have independently found no isotope effect, why should I believe Teller? Where's *his* evidence? See Nature, 6/4/87, for a "News and Views" article by Nobel Prize winner P. W. Anderson arguing against any mechanism based on phonons (and championing his RVB model, in which a purely electronic mechanism operates). Like you, I'm not an expert in this area by any means. But the combination of evidence seems to be against phonon models. Paul Dietz ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 87 01:27:11 GMT From: pyramid!bigbang!telesoft!roger@decwrl.dec.com (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle In <1292@ssc-vax.UUCP> and <1293@ssc-vax.UUCP> Dani Eder () replies to comments from Larry Westerman () and myself () concerning his proposal for a launch system based on a gas catapult. d = 1000 m, a = 2*10^3 m/sec^2 ~= 200 g. Your calculation of average acceleration is done correctly. This is a high acceleration device. A typical value is 500 g's peak acceleration, which occurs at zero velocity. As the gas expands and the projectile starts to outrun the slower gas molecules, the effective pressure drops, as does the acceleration. .. There's a HELLUVA difference between a stack that has to withstand a couple of gees, and goes transonic at high altitude, vs. one that has to take two hundred gees or more, and blasts through the lower atmosphere at hypersonic velocities. Not clear at all that you'd have a win. I'm leaning more toward 'missile' experience than 'rocket' experience for the rocket stages. Rockets traditionally have been very fraigle objects, like if you let the air out of a Shuttle external tank, it deflates. Yes, there is a big difference between 3g design and 500g design. Over the weekend, I started to write a reply describing how to design the catapult so that the average acceleration was close to the peak acceleration. (The idea is to program the chamber pressure profile so that it peaks when the projectile is part way down the barrel). That way you only have to design for about 200 gees, rather than 500. But I didn't think that even that would help enough to make the whole concept feasible. Looking at a few numbers, it just didn't seem possible to achieve the mass ratios you'd need to obtain a delta vee of 7000 mps in a two stage vehicle, if the stages had to be designed for that kind of acceleration. Then an interesting thing happened. In setting down the arguments for why the concept wasn't feasible, I realized that I was making an assumption that wasn't required. I was analyzing the stages as if they would be freestanding stages subjected to 200 G's. I pictured the reusable liquid fueled stage, in particular, as a winged stage driven down a large diameter barrel by a sabot. And that concept just won't fly. Not all the way to orbit, anyway. However, the stages don't have to be freestanding. If they are simple cylinders with a constant diameter closely matched to the diameter of the barrel, then the barrel provides the structural support to keep the stages from collapsing. That would allow the stages to remain light enough to make the scheme work pretty well. There would probably have to be a network of microchannels milled or etched on the outside surfaces of the stages to provide a self- regulating gas cushion between the cylinder and the barrel. There would be a high level of force transfer between the barrel and the walls of the stages, and without some sort of protection, friction with the barrel could conceivably melt the walls. How to provide for controlled reentry and recovery of the reusable stage also presents an interesting problem. A deployed heat shield for initial reentry, followed by deployment of a drogue chute and then a remotely controlled parasail, maybe? You mention that there is no performance advantage to switching. (from a solid to a reusable liquid fueled stage) ^^^^^^^^^ That is approximately (+-10%) correct. PERFORMANCE IS NOT THE POINT, COST IS! The solid motor costs me $30/lb to buy, and it lasts once. The reuseable liquid costs about $2,700/lb, and I get to use it 1000 times, for an amortized cost of $2.70/lb. Adding the propellant for the liquid at about $0.30/lb, You are 10 times lower than the solid cost per flight. I presume that you're trying to keep the discussion simple, for the sake of illustrating a point. Given the job you hold, you're bound to be aware that you can't just divide the acquisition cost for the reusable stage by the number of uses to arrive at a meaninful cost per use figure. You have to include the cost of capital. The cost of capital, unfortunately, is not a minor consideration. I heard a fellow who seemed to know what he was talking about say, recently, that for any high risk venture, you had to figure the cost of capital at an absolute minimum of 30%, to have a prayer of attracting that capital. Even 50% was not an unusual figure to use. But taking the 30% figure, if your estimates on the acquisition costs are correct, the reusable stage must fly an average of 30 times a year just to break even with the expendable solid fueled stage. Of course, if you can keep it booked and flying at that rate, 30% is a nice ROI for somebody. But you won't be able to offer your customers a significant price break unless you can sustain a flight rate of over 50 per year PER VEHICLE. That's a lot of traffic. Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 1987 15:59-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: People and Hi G's People CAN survive 20G. Properly secured, people have survived a transient peak of ~32G (?) in rocket sled tests at Alamogordo back in the 50's. Wish I could remember the name of the guy who did it. He looked TERRIBLE in the picture taken immediately afterwards. (broken blood vessels, black eyes, a cracked rib I think, but otherwise fine.) I'm not sure what the tolerance function of continuous G's vs t looks like though. I'd guess it's downward exponential in time as sustained G rises. Probably some max G that is indefinitely tolerable as an asymptote. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 87 19:58:50 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Compressed gas launchers - seems unlikely. > d = 1000 m, a = 2*10^3 m/sec^2 ~= 200 g. > > There are few electronic or mechanical components which will stand > this kind of stress. Even with a 10 km barrel, you have 20 g's of > acceleration, which is still too much for people... As several people have pointed out, multi-kiloG accelerations are not a serious problem for carefully-designed unmanned payloads. The old HARP project build atmospheric-research payloads to be shot from guns; they worked all right. As for 20 g's, water immersion raises human G tolerance to that level or higher. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 87 22:25:20 GMT From: uunet!rosevax!carole@seismo.css.gov (Carole Ashmore) Subject: Re: People and Hi G's In article <550871960.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu<, Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.EDU writes: < People CAN survive 20G. Properly secured, people have survived a transient < peak of ~32G (?) in rocket sled tests at Alamogordo back in the 50's. < Wish I could remember the name of the guy who did it. He looked < TERRIBLE in the picture taken immediately afterwards. (broken blood < vessels, black eyes, a cracked rib I think, but otherwise fine.) I believe his name was Stapp, and he was an air force colonel. Carole Ashmore ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #260 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Jun 87 06:20:12 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02649; Sun, 21 Jun 87 03:17:19 PDT id AA02649; Sun, 21 Jun 87 03:17:19 PDT Date: Sun, 21 Jun 87 03:17:19 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706211017.AA02649@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #261 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 261 Today's Topics: Re: People and Hi G's Re: Soviet Space Shuttle (really International Space?) Re: USA screwing ESA again, sigh spaceplanes Goedel, robots, intelligence, Fermi paradox, gallactic culture Re: People and Hi G's Re: Privately built shuttle (ownership of tooling) and max Gs Re: People and Hi G's NASA Safety Reporting System ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Jun 87 21:25:00 GMT From: sxt2443@acf3.nyu.edu (Space Cadet) Subject: Re: People and Hi G's Guiness (sp?) lists the highest G a human survived (I can't remeber the actual number) was by a race car driver (at Indianapolis, I think) when his car hit the wall at about 200 mph. He stopped in 14 inches. (aka Brian Reynolds) c00.b-reynolds@nyu20.nyu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 87 20:34:17 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle (really International Space?) > >over operating policy for the second space station. (Mir is the first.) > ...and I thought SkyLab was the first... Skylab was not built for ongoing use, so whether you include it is a matter of definition. (The same applies, less forcefully, to the Salyuts.) Major subsystems of Skylab were not really designed for on-orbit maintenance, and certain consumables were not set up for on-orbit resupply. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 87 20:25:47 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: USA screwing ESA again, sigh > So now there's one person in NASA who is saying what we've been > saying in general. Can he change things in the right way, or will this > merely confuse things and make things take even longer due to > infighting? (HS, your expert opionion please?) Probably the latter, if it has any effect at all. I think Banks may have resigned, in fact. > Proxmire and Boland (chairs of Senate and House appropriations > committees relevant to NASA) come out in support of space station, with > some concern about getting science going early, perhaps with an interim > man-tended station. > > Proxmire is one guy I do *not* trust to "help" us with the design of > the space station. (HS, what do you think about P&B suggestion?) The science concerns are real and serious, but I don't think much of this particular suggestion: it isn't going to solve the real problems, and it may end up being used as an excuse for postponing or cancelling the "full" station. > [Mini-editorial: If Rockwell really wants to make a contribution to the > US space program, what it should do is gather all its courage and commit > to building another orbiter (not the Challenger replacement, but > *another* one) with private funding... > > Is Rockwell large (rich) enough to be able to risk so much capital? ... I suspect they could afford it if they really tried hard. The odds that that orbiter will be needed are virtually 100%, according to NRC, and it's not as if there were any alternate suppliers for comparable hardware. I do not think they'll do it, but I don't think it would be impossible. It *would* require a determined management and a heavy commitment, which is part of why it's not going to happen. Trying to get a consortium together to do it strikes me as hopeless. If it were done at all, it would probably be because one man, or a few, had real vision and pushed the idea hard. A consortium would inevitably be run by committee, and that just doesn't work for projects that are beyond US industry's two-year planning horizon. It would fall apart the first time serious doubts were raised. In particular, the project needs enough faith to survive until NASA discovers that it needs that extra orbiter badly. That won't happen right away. NASA's current reaction would be something like "gee, we'd like it, but we can manage with what we've got, and we'll never be able to afford another, so it's pointless to build it". Whoever's behind it has to be able, willing, and determined to defend the project against years of official indifference from the only customer. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 87 15:55:27 EDT From: weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: spaceplanes I saw a show on the A&E network recently called "The Rocket Pilots", about the glory days of Edwards, the X1, the X15, etc. It was quite fascinating, and brought to mind many questions that I thought I'd bring up (since there doesn't seem to be enough inthe group as it is..ahem). First, the top speed the X15 reached was almost mach 7, using rocket egnies that produced 1million horsepower (!). (1) ANyone know anything about these engines? I'm not talking about the twin X1 engines it had early on, I mean the big ones. Did they breath air? Is there a reason this plane couldn't go higher than it did ~60 miles (which is technically space, I guess). Was anything of this technology used in anything else? (2) There was a lot of discussion a short while ago about the SR71, everyone has their own pet story about it it seems (which tends to make me doubt the one I have), I heard everything from top speed=mach3.5 to top speed=mach8. Is this plane slower or faster than the X15? does it fly into "space", and are the engines similar at all to the X15? Please don't answer if you don't know, but you heard it from some pilot once. -Chris "Pro is to con as progress is to congress" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 87 16:56:22 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 18 16:56:22 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 18 16:57:46 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu, cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Goedel, robots, intelligence, Fermi paradox, gallactic culture Date: 13 Jun 87 19:21:59 GMT From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard Harter) To tie this into sci.space, suppose that intelligent biological species all invent artificial intelligence, and that the resulting AI system takes over, ... wait for (humans to) develop a new AI system to be a new member of the community. And that explains the Fermi silence -- we are just precursors. Well thought-out and said. So we are like flowering fruit-trees, our fruit isn't yet ripe so we haven't yet been picked. I think this kind of idea is a major candidate for answer to Fermi paradox. (More generally, they are waiting for or culture to develop something they can use, whether it be a race of AI devices, or some great piece of music, or some really novel way of doing thermonuclear fusion, etc. The longer they wait the more chance we have of randomly creating something they can really benefit from. But if they interfere, our cultures merge, and we don't invent anything that they wouldn't have invented themselves anyway. Too bad we weren't wise enough to leave various aborigine cultures mostly alone so we could benefit from what they might have invented. I wonder if we still have a chance to learn Dolphin culture before we destroy it?) Date: 14 Jun 87 16:52:11 GMT From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard Harter) Subject: Re: The limitations of mathematicians ... However, given a collective system, if we add a new component system with a Godelization extender which was created randomly, then there is some probability that the addition has removed some of the incompleteness. [Is that clear? I thought not.] If the system itself can prove that both the new axiom and its contradiction are unprovable in the system, then it can flip a coin and add either the axiom or its contradiction to create a new consistent system. But if doesn't know the contradiction of the axiom is unprovable then it might be adding an axiom which causes the overall system to be self-contradictory, so that is a dangerous action. But then if done at random, in a large population, this introduced FATAL mutation will affect only the descendents of that one robot, and only after the contradiction is accidently discovered. The only really bad thing that might happen is that the FATAL mutation (axiom) might be very useful for a long time, allowing the robots with that axiom to eliminate all other robots, and then suddenly when the contradiction is discovered the fact of discovery may sweep the whole population dead in an instant. Let's try again. Suppose I start with a formal system S, and a procedure for generating a Goedel extension to S (i.e. the procedure determines a true but unprovable statement for S.) I'm afraid I don't see how you can have a deterministic procedure for deciding that some sentence is true but unprovable, unless that procedure is just a hack that hasn't been proven correct because if you could prove it correct (that everything it generates is true) then you could prove any particular sentence it generates, which can't occur because it is supposed to be generating unprovable, not provable, sentences. If by "true" you merely mean "unrefutable", i.e. both the new sentence and its contraction are "true", then I accept the extender algorithm. We can specify a machine size so large that it cannnot be realized in the physical universe. Correspondingly we can specify a finite limit to the possible machines. I think what we have is lots of robots with surplus supplies decided to spend some of that surplus to make themselves more intelligent (having faster collection of CPUs, or more memory, etc.). The new improved robot can figure out problems better and thus compete better for resources, but the enhanced robot also consumes resources faster. Probably initially the tradeoff is favorable, the more intelligent robot increases its supplies faster than it consumes them, but if the robot over-extends itself it may find itself starving at times when supplies are short while more thrifty dumber robots are simply waiting out the shortage. Thus there may be a practial optimum size (of intelligence), but multiple ways of reaching that size which are different in being able to solve different kinds of problems better. A community of different beings can make better use of all these different kinds of intelligence than can any individual isolated robot. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 87 17:34:45 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!mjohnson@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Mark Johnson) Subject: Re: People and Hi G's In article <2033@hplabsc.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >In article <550871960.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.EDU writes: .... {section deleted} >> Wish I could remember the name of the guy who did it. He looked .... {section deleted} > >He was Captain Stapp. I don't recall his first name. I thought that >the pictures you are talking about came from a 40G stop. > > David Smith He was in fact Colonel (later Brig. Gen) John Stapp Mark Johnson -- [NCR pays me for programming and support work. They do not pay me to have opinions. Therefore the above represents *MY* opinion, not theirs :-)] net address: mjohnson@ncrwic.Wichita.NCR.COM SW Bell:316/688-8189 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 87 09:41:23 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Privately built shuttle (ownership of tooling) and max Gs Newsgroups: sci.space In article <358@esunix.UUCP> Bob write's: >The feds, DOD and NASA, tend to own the tooling used to build things like >missiles, aircraft, and maybe even space shuttles. The Navy likes to own >the whole manufacturing plant, look around at the NIROP plants all over the >country. No, you are wrong. NASA does NOT own the tooling. Sort of. Rockwell certainly holds the tooling, but technically the plans and the tools are in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Rockwell could certainly ask NASA to use the build it's own shuttle using such tools. The Navy does not own Northrup as an example. Technically, all my stuff (research) is in the public domain, hence, I cannot put copyright notices in my postings for example. All this and more are covered in the Space Act and its amendments. On the string of G rate postings: The highest G's I've heard of for experience to a human was about 120G for Scott Crossfield who survived an explosion from 20 feet of the X-15 on the ground. Scott now has permanent vision problems due to detached and reattached retinas (sad). Regarding electronics, totally serious, we have needs of microprocessors for data analysis at the tips of helicopter rotorblades: 800-1600Gs. I hope that provides some sense of scale. This discussion topic seems a bit weird (silly). The word used in the original posting was "survive." We don't want "survival," we want application. We have test pilots and volunteers who survive. Few people in this group would survive more than 4 Gs sustained without blacking out and modern fighters can take 9G (in G suits) and reclining. The suggestion about water almost sounds like the inert fluorocarbon down the lungs thing again. Sure, works in theory, works in mice, are your ready to experiment on humans? Are you willing to volunteer? They have been working to reduce G load for years. Like they say in the ads: Interested principals only. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 87 13:40:30 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A Andrews) Subject: Re: People and Hi G's > People CAN survive 20G. Properly secured, people have survived a transient > peak of ~32G (?) in rocket sled tests at Alamogordo back in the 50's. > Wish I could remember the name of the guy who did it. He looked > TERRIBLE in the picture taken immediately afterwards. (broken blood > vessels, black eyes, a cracked rib I think, but otherwise fine.) > Colonel Stapp rode the sled at Holloman AFB. (I got to White Sands a few years later and got to see the track once.) As a matter of interest, the world land speed record (unstaffed!) is held by the sled designed by an old NMSU classmate of mine at Sandia Labs, Lou Feltz. Over twenty years ago he gave a talk to an ASME meeting in Las Cruces in which he reported his rocket sled did over 5700 mph (!!) before it came to an abrupt halt (planned) through a water deceleration trough and into a sand berm. (Talk about acceleration; that shot almost makes Indianapolis interstates look tame...) Surely sombody has beaten this record since the 60's? Anyone know of a faster speed? --Arlan Andrews ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 87 03:17:31 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Felton) Subject: NASA Safety Reporting System NASA NEWS NASA ESTABLISHES SAFETY REPORTING SYSTEM NASA has established a voluntary, confidential safety reporting system for its 100,000 employees and contractor personnel to alert NASA management of safety concerns. The new reporting system supplements existing safety reporting procedures and, initially, will focus on safety concerns associated with NASA's Space Transportation System, more familiarly known as the Space Shuttle program. The new system is being established as a result of the Shuttle Challenger accident. The NASA Safety Reporting System (NSRS) will encourage employees to supplement existing safety reporting procedures by completing and submitting an NSRS confidential report form to Battelle Memorial Institute's Columbus Division, Columbus, Ohio. Battelle Institute is under contract to NASA to develop and administer the NSRS for NASA Headquarters' Safety Division. Use of the NSRS report form will provide anonymity to the maximum extent possible within the law for individuals disclosing their safety concerns. The form will contain a section at the top for individuals to include their names, addresses and telephone numbers. Upon receipt of the report form, the Battelle NSRS team will remove this top section unless team members determine that additional data would be useful. If so, the team will contact the sender for the needed information and then remove, stamp and return the top section to the sender as proof that the sender has successfully filed a NSRS report. No record will be maintained of reporting individual's identities. Battelle NSRS and NASA specialists then will determine whether the reported concern is of a critical nature requiring immediate action. The Battelle NSRS team will summarize all reported concerns, store the deidentified data in a computerized data management system and forward summaries to the NASA Headquarters Safety Division for further analyses in cooperation with a technical advisory group. The Safety Division and technical advisory group also will determine what corrective action should be taken and track the resolution of these recommendations. --------------------------------------------------------------- NASA NEWS Release 87-91 By David W. Garrett, Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #261 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Jun 87 06:21:10 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04500; Mon, 22 Jun 87 03:18:31 PDT id AA04500; Mon, 22 Jun 87 03:18:31 PDT Date: Mon, 22 Jun 87 03:18:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706221018.AA04500@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #262 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 262 Today's Topics: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots? Space Camp 10 day session is ON! Re: Space Camp 10 day session is ON! Re: Privately built shuttle (ownership of tooling) and max Gs Room-temperature superconductivity for Soviet energy HOTOL Energia for powersats? Re: Goedel, robots, intelligence, Fermi paradox, gallactic culture Re: spaceplanes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Jun 87 20:45:14 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle In article <441@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: > > Over the weekend, I started to write a reply describing how to design > the catapult so that the average acceleration was close to the peak > acceleration. (The idea is to program the chamber pressure profile so > that it peaks when the projectile is part way down the barrel). That > way you only have to design for about 200 gees, rather than 500. But I > didn't think that even that would help enough to make the whole concept > feasible. Looking at a few numbers, it just didn't seem possible to > achieve the mass ratios you'd need to obtain a delta vee of 7000 mps in > a two stage vehicle, if the stages had to be designed for that kind of > acceleration. Here's some calculations on the subject. My data source is the Thiokol Rocket Motor Data Book. The example motor is the 'STAR 30BP'. It is the apogee motor for the SBS, ANIK-C, and RCA SATCOM communications satellites (i.e. has actually flown). The motor weights are as follows: Propellant 1113.0 Case 29.6 Nozzle 34.5 Other 19.0 TOTAL 1196.1 lb The case is made from 6Al-4V Titanium, with an ultimate strength of 165,000 psi. The case wall thickness is 0.042 inches. The motor is 30 inches in diameter and circular in cross section. The cross sectional area of the case is pi*30*0.042=3.96 square inches. Assume we allow the compressive stress on the case in the axial direction to be 80,000 psi, or about half the ultimate strength. Then the allowable axial force is 80,000*3.96=316,800 lb. Assume further that there is 300 lb of 'stuff', like payload, sitting in front of this motor. The gas gun acts from behind. The total weight of motor+ stuff is 1496.1 lb, which produces an allowable acceleration of 316,800/1496.1=211.75 gravities. This motor will buckle if you actually tried to do 200 g's with it, so additional stiffeners are required for buckling, but not for strength. Let us say the stiffeners double the case weight, to 59.2 lb. The burnout weight will then be 112.7 lb for the motor and 300 lb 'stuff', totalling 412.7 lb. The initial weight is 1525.6 lb.Thus the mass ratio is 3.70. The specific impulse of this motor is 295 seconds, leading to a delta vee of natural log(3.7)*295*32.174 ft/sec squared = 12,409 ft/sec or 3782 meters/sec. Repeat this process for another stage , now treating the 'stuff'+STAR 30 motor as the new 'stuff'. This leads to a two stage solid rocket with a total delta vee of about 7,500 m/s, sufficient to get to orbit after a running start out of a gas gun. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space TRansportation/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 87 18:18:10 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots? Seems to me that the obvious thing to do is to send a few functional robots and enough control systems (the complicated stuff, like boards, motors, wiring harnesses, cameras, etc.) for a whole horde of them. Then the robots only have to produce bodies for the other robots. Not unreasonable, if you're assuming the robots are there to begin the infrastructure necessary for human habitation. Just sending the complicated stuff should cut WAY back on weight. --Rod ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 87 19:03:06 GMT From: sundc!hadron!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Space Camp 10 day session is ON! Okay...the experimental first session of 10-day Adult Space Academy Level II (That's a mouthful) is going to happen. Thanks to all who contacted me and who called and wrote Deb Barnhart at Huntsville. The dates are September 28 - October 7 (That adds up to 10, doesn't it?) Cost is $775 and includes all food and a place to stay, but not transportation. Information is available by calling the Camp at 800-633-7280, or writing them at the address below. A few side notes.-- These dates overlap an adult 3-day session which includes a group from Compuserve's Space and Space education forums. I'm driving down from Washington, DC, so if anyone wants to join in a convoy heading down, let me know. Huntsville is served by American,Eastern, Delta and maybe other airlines. Eastern is the official airline of Space Camp, and they generally have a special deal going, Camp will provide you with the details. Payment to camp can be by check, money order, MasterCard, Visa or Amex. They'll loan you a jumpsuit to wear for your missions. If you want to buy one of theirs, they were $79 last time I checked. For about the same money you can get a much better one from "The Cockpit" 33-00 47th Avenue Long Island City, NY 11101 or, I am talking at the moment with Barrier Wear, the folks that make the shuttle clothes for NASA, to buy some duplicates of the shuttle jumpsuit in polyester/cotton (instead of expensive Nomex). As soon as I know more (probably next week), I'll pass the information on re: prices, possible group discounts, etc. The astronauts are now wearing a royal blue jumpsuit instead of the light blue ones you are used to seeing. The Barrier Wear suits will be the royal blue, the Cockpit can provide either, and Space Camp's are light blue. The session starts Monday, but we are welcome to arrive as early as Saturday. I don't know if that means they feed us, but they will house us. I'll check. Definitely be there by Sunday night. The address is :U.S. Space Camp/Academy The Space and Rocket Center Tranquility Base Huntsville, AL 35807 Any questions, email me, I'll try to answer. ++rich +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+ | Rich Kolker The work goes on... A|W|A | | 8519 White Pine Drive The cause endures... H|T|H | | Manassas Park, VA 22111 The hope still lives... /|||\ | | (703)361-1290 (h) And the dream shall never die. /_|T|_\ | | (703)749-2315 (w) (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker) " W " | +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+ ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 87 22:33:57 GMT From: uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!ed@unix.macc.wisc.edu (Ed Ahrenhoerster) Subject: Re: Space Camp 10 day session is ON! The Supreme Court today made a landmark decision in the Creationism-Evolution debate. It ruled, 7-2, that a Louisiana law stating that Creationism must be taught side by side with Evolution theory was supporting one particular religion, which violated separation of church and state, and was therefore unconstitutional. YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Yes I do hold a view on this decision :-). Maybe with people getting educated, they may start to realize the necessity of funding research, in space and elsewhere. This is the only science group I belong to; if anyone knows any other/better places this should go, please forward it, or tell me where to send it. And please, do NOT suggest talk.religion, I don't own that much asbestos! :-) -Ed Ahrenhoerster ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 87 01:47:25 GMT From: oliveb!epimass!epiwrl!parker@ames.arpa (Alan Parker) Subject: Re: Privately built shuttle (ownership of tooling) and max Gs In article <8706181641.AA16876@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >The Navy does not own Northrup as an >example. Technically, all my stuff (research) is in the public domain, >hence, I cannot put copyright notices in my postings for example. All >this and more are covered in the Space Act and its amendments. > But isn't it true that many of these plants are owned by the government. I once went to a Lockheed plant at Palmdale, and it said "AF Plant NN" in big letters on the side of the building (where NN is some number I don't remember). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 87 06:33:39 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 20 06:33:39 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 20 06:34:08 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Room-temperature superconductivity for Soviet energy Re superconductivity, it seems there's one topic we Yankees are doing right. But perhaps it'll turn out that we're developing the technology for zero-resistance power lines to transport energy from Siberian rectennas to European consumers, sigh. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 87 11:49 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: HOTOL On pages 60+61 of the 6/15/87 AW&ST, there are three photos of the 1/5 scale model of HOTOL that was displayed at the Paris Air Show. HOTOL has four large rocket-type nozzles, plainly visible in the rear view picture. Below the nozzles are two smaller rockets (for maneuvering in space?) and a row of four protuberances (two circular, two square) that are directly behind the low slung air intake structure. A side view show the redesigned intake structure stretching nearly half the length of the vehicle. A front view of the intake shows that it is bilaterally symmetric with a rectangular cross-section. In the center of the intake is a sharp wedge-shaped protrusion, followed by a broader wedge that directs the air flow into two narrow vertical channels at the outer edges of the intake. I'd guess from the picture that the ratio of intake cross sectional area to channel area is between 4 and 5 to 1. Looking at the model, I'm confused: I don't see how the thing can land! The intake extends quite a ways beneath the fuselage, you'd think it would scrape on landing (HOTOL takes off on a carriage). I also don't see how that intake could survive reentry. BUT... delete that air intake, and the underside of the HOTOL is nice and flat. Could that be the secret? The airbreathing part is jettisoned on the way up, after it is no longer needed? Those four protrusions could be where jet exhaust emerges. The airbreathing segment could be recovered somehow. Or, it could be discarded with each launch. I'd guess that would be economical only if the engine were mechanically simple; i.e., a ramjet. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 87 12:42 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Energia for powersats? To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Dale Amon wrote: > The gist is that the soviets have announced that a major purpose of the > Energia (Energy!!!) booster is to put up town sized solar cell based > power stations by early years of the next century. They have been > studying it for a number of years. This can't possibly be right. Energia can't be cheap enough to make it worthwhile. Remember the study that shot down powersats built from earth-launched materials? Even at $10/lb to orbit their economics were questionable, and I find it hard to believe you could reach that figure with expendable boosters. Now I could believe that Energia is to be used for putting up reflectors, or maybe to lift components for a small scale demonstration of the in-orbit parts of a powersat system. > It's for real and it's not our side. Maybe Gary can convince them that > Solar Power Sats won't work. Of course, it might be hard to do it after > they're delivering power to their own cities and selling it to third > world countries (in small demonstration amounts suitable for cheap PR). How do you sell small amounts of powersat power? Beam size is fixed by the wavelength you're using, and turning down beam intensity is uneconomical. Now they might orbit reflectors late in this century. If so, those reflectors will be in relatively low orbits, so they could sell time on them when Russia was in daylight or beyond the horizon. There is an excellent reason for a strong space program if the russians do this: it will *ruin* ground based astronomy. Sensitive detectors would be destroyed if they focus on large, bright orbiting objects. All this powersat stuff may be a smokescreen for less publicly acceptable missions, such as lofting military payloads. Not that I think the Soviets could build an effective BMD system, but they could make space unpleasant for SDI, and there are other military uses for space. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 87 04:45:34 GMT From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard Harter) Subject: Re: Goedel, robots, intelligence, Fermi paradox, gallactic culture In article <8706190103.AA11260@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes: > Let's try again. Suppose I start with a formal system S, and a procedure for generating a Goedel extension to S (i.e. the procedure determines a true but unprovable statement for S.) I'm afraid I don't see how you can have a deterministic procedure for deciding that some sentence is true but unprovable, unless that procedure is just a hack that hasn't been proven correct because if you could prove it correct (that everything it generates is true) then you could prove any particular sentence it generates, which can't occur because it is supposed to be generating unprovable, not provable, sentences. Oh dear. Given a fixed formal system, there is a determinstic procedure for generating a sentence that is true but unprovable in the system. The general idea is that once we have spelled the system out in detail, we can talk about the system at a higher level, using the language of the system. There is a trick whereby we can conmingle the statements in the system with statements about the system. This trick can be used to specify a statement which, within the system, says something innocuous. At the same time, in the language about the system it says "this very statement is unprovable in system S". A bit of thought shows that the statement must be true but unprovable in system S. I do not wish to explain how the trick is worked; take my word for it, it does. The key point is that, given a system, we can step outside of it and talk about it. From the outside we can say things that can't be said in the system. Within the system there are statements that can't be proved; from outside the system we can see that, nonetheless, the statement is true even though it can't be proved WITHIN the system. -- Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.] ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 87 16:29:34 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: spaceplanes > ... First, the top speed the X15 reached was > almost mach 7, using rocket egnies that produced 1million horsepower (!). High power outputs are nothing unusual for rocket engines. Total power output of the Saturn V first stage was about 35 gigawatts. (A one-gigawatt power plant is a very big one.) A million HP sounds a bit high to me for the X-15, but it might be correct. Note, though, that the pumps alone in a Saturn V first stage approached that level of power. (I'd quote numbers but I don't have them handy.) > ...(1) ANyone know anything about these engines? I'm not talking > about the twin X1 engines it had early on, I mean the big ones. Did > they breath air? Is there a reason this plane couldn't go higher than > it did ~60 miles (which is technically space, I guess). Was anything > of this technology used in anything else? Fairly ordinary rocket engines, nothing particularly special about them. Not air-breathing. The X-15's record was 67 miles, as I recall, and I'd guess that it could have gone higher. The engine technology was nothing unusual, much the same sort as used in other rocket engines of the time. > [SR-71] Is this plane slower or faster than the X15? "Slower" or "faster" depends on what you mean. The SR-71 probably can't match the X-15's top speed. On the other hand, the SR-71 can cruise at Mach 3 (at least), while the X-15 was good for a short sprint and nothing else. Also, the SR-71 doesn't need a mother ship to carry it aloft (which is the reason why the X-15 never set any official speed/altitude records). > does it fly into "space", and are the engines similar at all > to the X15? ... What do you mean by "space"? There is no single definition of the word. A cruising SR-71 is operating in air that's far too thin to breathe, but on the other hand it's still running on aerodynamic lift (the X-15's high flights were ballistic trajectories) and air-breathing engines. This probably does not qualify as "space" by most definitions. There is no similarity in the engines: the SR-71 engines are sophisticated, specialized turbojets (with some ramjet crossbreeding) while the X-15 was a pure rocket. -- "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #262 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Jun 87 06:20:57 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07149; Tue, 23 Jun 87 03:17:21 PDT id AA07149; Tue, 23 Jun 87 03:17:21 PDT Date: Tue, 23 Jun 87 03:17:21 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706231017.AA07149@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #263 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 263 Today's Topics: Re: How to change or circumvent anti-trust laws to build STS orbiter? Re:Privately Built Shuttle space news from May 4 AW&ST Re: max Gs Re: People and Hi G's Re: max Gs (playing with life) Mass produced expendables 28-Mile Crater Found on Sea Floor Re: Spaceplanes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jun 87 21:36:37 GMT From: ritcv!eer@cs.rochester.edu (Ed Reed) Subject: Re: How to change or circumvent anti-trust laws to build STS orbiter? Actually, there is substantial precedent - the Justice department seems to be allowing all manner of consortia for the purposes of research - such as MCC in Texas, COS in the northeast, etc. These are generally independant R&D organizations with members from all over the computing industry (IBM, AT&T, DEC, Honeywell, Harris, TI, etc.) for the purpose of competing with Japan's 5th generation computer efforts - and other purposes. Sure it can be done. On another issue, I agree with HS point that it will take an individual or a very small group of couragous people to drive the effort - even with large companies like Boeing (who will invest several Billion dollars in the design of a new line of airliners - and who have 4.5 Billion in cash on hand now against future design requirements) it will likely take a forward thinking billionare to make the initial investment in design studies, feasibility studies, and to lend credibility. Who knows H. Ross Perot? Sam Walton? etc? Has anybody asked them to take the reigns and do it yet? Why not? Ed Reed RIT ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 87 14:51:45 GMT From: pt!andrew.cmu.edu!ta0e+@cs.rochester.edu (Thomas S. Abdallah) Subject: Re:Privately Built Shuttle >> The Navy does not own Northrup as an >> example. Technically, all my stuff (research) is in public domain >> hence, I cannot put copyright notices in my postings for example.... > But isn't it true that many of these plants are owned by the government > I once went to a Lockheed plant at Palmdale, and it said 'AF Plant NN'... It's my understanding that when contractors work for the government they are designated as government installations. This is the reason, for example, that Cincinnati is in the top20 target list because GE has one of its two jet engine facilities there. At the plant enterance and on the fuel tanks on the perimeter there are signs designating the plant as an installation affiliated with the U.S. Government. -- Thomas-Sharif Abdallah ARPA: ta0e@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: ta0e@cmuccvma ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 87 00:37:02 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from May 4 AW&ST Rockwell delivers first production Navstar to the Cape. It will go into storage until launch, tentatively Oct 1988. Concern grows about the inadequacy of the shuttle fleet to support the space station. Station flights could be as low as 5/year, rather few. USAF claims that NASA is not becoming militarized. Explains that DoD is interested in using the space station but doesn't want to pay for it. Recovered control computer from the FltSatCom Atlas-Centaur wreckage did indeed issue the go-off-course command that caused the launch failure. Memory upset, presumably due to lightning, appears to be the cause. The software has been exonerated after analysis; in any case it was not a major suspect, since several previous A-C launches used it. China announces new large booster to fly in 1989, performance comparable to Saturn 1B or Ariane 3/4. Pad construction to begin this fall. The new booster will use existing Long March technology and engines, with a stretched Long March 2 core with four large liquid boosters augmenting the first stage. China and Matra (French aerospace company) are exploring commercial microgravity flights using Chinese hardware. Late this summer Matra will fly a microgravity payload aboard a Chinese film-recovery spysat launched by Long March 2. Cute picture of Hughes testing Intelsat 6 antenna deployment, using large helium balloons attached to the antennas to simulate a free-fall situation. Dept. of Oops Once Again: Soviets lose another Proton payload. Same problem as the last Proton but one: fourth-stage failure, leaving three navsats in a useless elliptical orbit. Progress tanker docks with Mir, using docking port on back of Kvant. First four-vehicle linkup in space (Soyuz, Mir, Kvant, Progress). Mir cosmonauts will conduct EVA in May to install more solar arrays on the complex [this issue says "on Kvant", but they're on Mir -- HS], mostly because Kvant uses a lot of power. USAF narrows competition for new shuttle upper stage to four contractors from nine. Also of interest is a proposal from Bell Aerospace to develop a souped-up version of its thoroughly-proven Agena upper stage, which could deliver performance substantially exceeding the specs. (Agena has flown 362 missions, with fewer than a dozen failures, but officially is out of production now unless the USAF goes for this idea.) DoD lists possible military uses for space station, claims it has no "hidden agenda" despite the difficulties it has been causing lately for the project. Red Letter Day: April 24th, NASA finally issued space station RFPs, after some compromises with Congress, notably including larger solar arrays and slightly earlier start of deployment. Fletcher asks groups looking at major new US space goals to take a harder look at a manned lunar base, enthusiasm for Mars notwithstanding. Carl Sagan and Bruce Murray (former JPL head) criticize current space station as a staging base for Mars operations, calling for a more modular design to permit earlier practical use and more long-term growth. "[This] approach has served the Soviet Union well." Next Ariane flight not expected before August. Third-stage engine problems are causing delays. Dan Brandenstein replaces John Young as chief astronaut; Young is now special assistant to JSC director. France and Germany working to define upgraded version of ESA's free-flying laboratory concept, for greater European autonomy in space. Shuttle recovery proceeds slowly. NASA is now firm that a tanking test and a flight-readiness firing will precede the next launch. NASA management says April is a realistic goal, but field workers say September is a better estimate. Head of USAF Space Command proposes smaller, simpler, shorter-lived satellites to stabilize production/launch activity and funding levels, and permit quicker exploitation of new technology. [Gee, seems to me that there's an outfit already using that approach very successfully -- its initials are USSR, I think. -- HS] Head of Space and Missile Test Organization observes that more effort is needed on range safety for various new programs, notably SDI's increasingly elaborate multi-satellite tests, the US Asat, and the Aerospace Plane. Chief financial officer of American Rocket Co. observes that there will be opposition to private launchers because of loss of government jobs. Says that in government programs, for every producer "there are four guys carrying clipboards". Claims that Amroc is getting a lot of interest from customers, including government agencies not bound by procurement rules (notably DARPA and SDIO), because Amroc won't insist on building to MilSpec. Also notes that Amroc will not launch under terms requiring that it disclose proprietary information about things like engine design. Pictures of Kvant mockup in Soviet training facilities. AW&ST claims that design of Kvant suggests it was originally meant for use with Salyut 7 [this would explain its use of the rear docking port rather than Mir's new multi-port scheme -- HS]. Letter slams NASA for launching the FltSatCom Atlas-Centaur in weather too poor to permit photography of flight, which would have clarified the cause of the loss quickly. Letter from John S. Powers, California: "...operating the [Shuttle] system on the assumption that we would never lose a vehicle is the most ridiculous ever postulated for a complex aviation system. The only way to guarantee never losing another shuttle is to ground them permanently... If we built only four F-16 aircraft before shutting down the assembly line, we might find their unit cost such that we could never `afford' to fly one in combat... if we do not abandon the skies to the Soviets, we will lose another vehicle in the future... If we are going to have a viable space program, we will have to commit ourselves to maintaining, perpetually, an assembly line in which a replacement vehicle is slowly being readied for the inevitable... "The current space station design is an overly complex, logistically absurd and overly expensive joke and I have yet to hear a coherent argument why we are not exploiting the huge resource represented by the shuttle main tank. This is particularly strange given the past experience of the enormously successful Skylab, which was simply a converted Saturn fuel tank... "The exploration and ultimate colonization of the solar system is the only future worthy of truly great nations at this time in history. The Soviets, who cannot even feed themselves, seem to understand this." Letter correcting error: Spot Image has not acquired technology to process satellite images into 3D terrain models, it merely has acquired some samples of the results from the owner of the technology, GeoSpectra Corp. "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 87 23:31:26 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: max Gs > ... The word used in the original posting was "survive." We don't > want "survival," we want application. We have test pilots and > volunteers who survive. Few people in this group would survive more > than 4 Gs sustained without blacking out and modern fighters can take > 9G (in G suits) and reclining. For a space launch system, it's not necessary that the passengers remain conscious, so the blackout point is irrelevant. What matters is the acceleration at which the probability of substantial injury (I don't object to things like bruises and nosebleeds in a good cause, e.g. getting me into orbit) becomes significant. > The suggestion about water almost sounds like the inert fluorocarbon > down the lungs thing again. Sure, works in theory, works in mice, are > your ready to experiment on humans? Are you willing to volunteer? Sorry, Eugene, wrong concept. Any good source on human G tolerance will cite *experimental* results for *humans*, breathing air through masks while floating in water, at 20-30 Gs depending on details like posture. The idea hasn't been followed up much, but it worked fine in tests. "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 87 12:41:59 GMT From: pyramid!nsc!nsta!instable!amos@decwrl.dec.com (Amos Shapir) Subject: Re: People and Hi G's In article <230001@acf3.UUCP> sxt2443@acf3.UUCP (Space Cadet) writes: >Guiness (sp?) lists the highest G a human survived (I can't remeber >the actual number) was by a race car driver (at Indianapolis, I think) >when his car hit the wall at about 200 mph. He stopped in 14 inches. You don't have to remember the actual number - just compute it (assuming the data are correct): v**2 = 2*a*s where v = 90m/sec and s = 0.35m (rounded somewhat) yields a = 11571m/sec2 or 1180G. Amos Shapir National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. (972)52-522261 amos%nsta@nsc.com @{hplabs,pyramid,sun,decwrl} 34 48 E / 32 10 N ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jun 87 14:14:47 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: max Gs (playing with life) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <8169@utzoo.UUCP> Henry Spencer suggests: >> ... The word used in the >> original posting was "survive." We don't want "survival," we want >> application. > >For a space launch system, it's not necessary that the passengers remain >conscious, so the blackout point is irrelevant. What matters is the >acceleration at which the probability of substantial injury (I don't >object to things like bruises and nosebleeds in a good cause, e.g. getting >me into orbit) becomes significant. Oh contrare: irrelevant? Can you discriminate Henry? The point of my posting Henry is that you are playing with human lives in dangerous ways which is the whole point of my posting. I would suggest if propose something like that you should be the first guinea pig to undergo the experiment and not on a space flight (which is an expensive proposition). That some one goes unconscious is cause for concern, which I have learned about the hard way working in a psycho-physiology lab. Neuroscience does not understand the phenomena of blackouts and the different tolerances makes study even more difficult. Even short periods of blackout make a person suspect to neurological damage which are in some cases measureable but go undetected for years. Frankly you SHOULD object to bruises and nosebleeds, these are warning signs of the envelope which pilots and others of hazardous directions. Please learn to discriminate. And if you want to push the issue, please correspond via mail, as the issues of human experimentation begins to stray from space. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 87 09:46:00 EST From: "R2D2::BRUC" Subject: Mass produced expendables Reply-To: "R2D2::BRUC" One approach to lower the cost to orbit is mass production of expendable boosters, which is largely what the Russians are doing. Has anyone made a realistic estimate of how cheaply something like an Atlas Centaur or Delta could be mass manufactured? Bob Bruccoleri bruc%r2d2.decnet@mghccc.harvard.edu ------ ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 87 13:30:35 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: 28-Mile Crater Found on Sea Floor NEW YORK - A crater at least 28 miles in diameter and 1.7 miles deep, formed by the impact of a comet or asteroid some 50 million years ago, has been discovered on the sea floor 125 miles southeast of Nove Scotia, according to Canadian geologists. While larger impact craters have been found on the continents, this is the first time such a scar has been discovered beneath the oceans, which cover 70 percent of the Earth's surface, the geologists said. The object that crashed through hundreds of feet of water into the sea floor was probably one to two miles in diameter, the geologists said in a report in Wednesday's issue of the scientific journal Nature. Copied from the Chicago Tribune, June 18, 1987. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 87 17:25:54 GMT From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!brett@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Brett Van Steenwyk) Subject: Re: Spaceplanes I believe that the X-15 used LOX and Annhydrous Ammonia. This is definitely a combination one doesn't normally see in rockets, but I suppose that its only one step away from the Nitric Acid/Hydrazine combinations that were under active consideration at the time the X-15 was conceived. The X-15 does go to "the edge of space" in a ballistic trajectory, though the Mach 7 speed was attained in a relatively flat trajectory made for setting speed records. This plane is not an air breather like the SR-71. I would believe that the max for the SR-71 is somewhere around Mach 3.5. The main limitation is that the physics of the airflow in the jet engines (even souped up ones as in the SR-71) cause the air to heat up more and more the faster you go. By the time the air travels to the turbine, it is *plenty* hot. We have gotten up to 3.5 out of the benefits of some wierd (and expensive) alloys that can take the heat and the stress in such an environment, but if one pushes it faster than the present limits, the extra heat and stress will hose the engine. However, a different airbreathing engine configuration (RAMjet, SCRAMjet, etc.) may allow much higher operating speeds--its just that the plane can't do an ordinary take-off. The implications of the original discussion on spaceplanes are very significant. Consider that the US anti-satellite weapon is this itty-bitty missile launched from an F-15. While I do not think that a plane would be the most cost- effective way to get into space, the use of a plane to provide a platform for a rocket based stage would seem fairly optimal. A rocket wastes a LOT of high-quality (and expensive) fuel and LOX to blast through the lower atmosphere. This is not very efficient. A launch platform that could carry a rocket up to 15 miles and some multiple Mach number would seem fairly practical, and reduce the cost of getting something into orbit. We can build big planes. We can build fast planes. Can we build big, fast planes? Brett Van Steenwijk ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #263 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jun 87 06:31:16 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02049; Wed, 24 Jun 87 03:17:27 PDT id AA02049; Wed, 24 Jun 87 03:17:27 PDT Date: Wed, 24 Jun 87 03:17:27 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706241017.AA02049@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #264 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 264 Today's Topics: Re: space news Government property/copyright Re: spaceplanes Paris Air Show at Le Bourget Plans for a Future European Space Transportation System ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 87 07:22 EST From: RON PICARD Subject: Re: space news HS> Chief financial officer of American Rocket Co. observes that there will HS> be opposition to private launchers because of loss of government jobs. HS> Says that in government programs, for every producer "there are four HS> guys carrying clipboards". Has anyone ever read "Atlas shrugged" by Ayn Rand? Ron Picard General Motors Research Labs Warren, Mich. 48090 ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 87 22:00:53 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Government property/copyright There was some discussion of who owned the tooling for the Shuttle orbiter: Rockwell or NASA. The discussion got a little of the track with a discussion of copyrights, and some wrong information got posted. Under US law, the US government does not copyright any government publication. Since I am a federal employee and this posting is part of my official duties (The "increase and diffusion of knowledge..." is the purpose of the Smithsonian Institution.), there is no copyright. If you can make a profit by reselling this message (or any other government publication), you are free to do so. No permission is needed, and no royalties are payable. On the other hand, the government owns property just as any other legal entity may. Trying to make a profit by reselling the government-owned terminal I'm typing on would get you in big trouble. (At least if you get caught...:-) Getting back to the specific question of orbiter tooling, the owner should have been specified in the original contract. You might think that since NASA paid, NASA should own the tooling, but it doesn't necessarily work that way. Ownership is subject to negotiation, and I don't know how this particular contract was written. (Having Rockwell own the tooling might in fact be advantageous to NASA, because the owner of property is generally obliged to withstand any damage or loss.) Another complication is that ownership does not always imply permission to use for all purposes. In any event, the chance of Rockwell wanting to build its own orbiter seems remote. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 87 17:50:21 GMT From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: spaceplanes In article <8706181955.AA05970@nic.nyser.net>, weltyc@nic.nyser.NET (Christopher A. Welty) writes: > > ... First, the top speed the X15 reached was > almost mach 7, using rocket egnies that produced 1million horsepower > (!). (1) ANyone know anything about these engines? I'm not talking > about the twin X1 engines it had early on, I mean the big ones. Did > they breath air? Is there a reason this plane couldn't go higher than > it did ~60 miles (which is technically space, I guess). Was anything > of this technology used in anything else? The X-15's Rocketdyne XLR-99 produced 57,000 pounds of thrust burning anhydrous ammonia with LOX, and was notable in being throttleable. 57,000 pounds of thrust at 4500 mph translates to 684,000 hp. After X-15 #2 broke its back in a hard landing, it was rebuilt, given large drop tanks, spray-on heat shield, and provision for a test ramjet in the place of the lower ventral fin. The first time they flew it like that at high speed (~4550 mph), the shock waves off the dummy ramjet burned through the lower fuselage, and they never flew it again. The military pilots who took the X-15 above 50 miles were awarded astronaut wings. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 87 15:38:34 GMT From: mcvax!unido!stollco!til@seismo.css.gov (tilgner) Subject: Paris Air Show at Le Bourget Last weekend I made a random walk at the Paris Air Show (Le Bourget). Perhaps someone out there is interested in my observations. PART 02: Europe in Space There were several interesting European pavillons reflecting the continuing efforts to compete with commercially successful satellites and launchers and the first steps of manned space activities based solely on a European technological base. - ARIANESPACE showed a film with a typical launch sequence preceded by some interesting pre-launch activities. - ESA had also much to show and public interest was greater than ever. Besides the Giotto spacecraft the Columbus space station was on display and models of other ESA spacecraft. Information was provided on many ESA missions. - CNES - the French version of NASA - had an impressive pavillon of its own. Among other displays much room was given to the remote sensing satellite SPOT 1 with nearly a dozen or so images (1 sq. meter each) and a detailed description of the uses which can be made of them. But the highlight was a 1:1 (!) model of the proposed HERMES spacecraft. According to information in this pavillon, the first operational flight is now scheduled for 1999. The French put so much emphasis on their space efforts, one could even forget that most projects were international bi- and multilateral ones. In addition, in the halls many companies presented their space activities, for example, British Aerospace (HOTOL), the West German MBB-ERNO (Saenger, several satellites) and so on. I am sure that I missed many stands with their space contribution due to lack of time. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition I want to mention the Chinese. They showed models of their launchers in a reduzed size, a model of their first satellite and a model of a recoverable satellite. I would have liked to get some written information, unfortunately it was not possible to get any. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I think my observations in Le Bourget reflect the current status of space exploration of the big spacefaring powers. The US is losing grounds rapidly and their superiority, whereas the USSR is slowly, but steadily advancing on the path they devised for the utilization of the cosmos, now reaping the first fruits even on the commercial sector. The Europeans are ready to make the quantum leap to manned spaceflight and have attractive offers for many: Communications, weather and remote sensing satellites, an aggressive scheme for planetary research and space science, and now they are even trying to get a man into space. I shall provide some information I got at Le Bourget over the next weeks, which may be of interest for all. Hope you will enjoy them. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 87 18:26:10 GMT From: mcvax!unido!stollco!til@seismo.css.gov (tilgner) Subject: Plans for a Future European Space Transportation System The following informations were distributed at the Paris Air Show, 1987. 1. ARIANE 5 & HERMES -------------------- CNES - the French version of NASA - proposed a launch vehicle to satisfy the increased demands for launches around 1995. The preparatory program extends from Dec. 1984 to March 1987 for element 1 (Vulcain HM60 engine) and from Jan. 1986 to March 1987 for element 2 (ARIANE 5 work excluding Vulcain engine). The Final Review will take place in late 1987. A detailed proposal for the development program has been drawn up for presentations to the conference of European ministers, where a decision is to be taken regarding the ARIANE 5, COLUMBUS and HERMES development programs. In Oct. 1986 the ESA council adopted a resolution whereby member states would participate in a preparatory program for HERMES to be run within the Agency. This proposal was accepted in Dec. 1986. HERMES thus takes up a similar status to COLUMBUS and ARIANE. Progress has been made on the preliminary pre-project. The strict safety requirements for HERMES manned flights have led to design modifications, and study is under way on HERMES' new ejectable cabin. PERFORMANCE OF ARIANE 5 LAUNCH VEHICLE - Double launch into geostationary transfer orbit: 5,900 kg - Launch into sun-synchronous orbit (800 km, 98,6 deg): 12,000 kg - Launch of HERMES spaceplane (500 km, 28,5 deg): 21,000 kg HERMES: OPERATION AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS - Structure: Aircraft airframe type - Thermal protection: -- external Thermal protection for structure -- internal Thermal control system - Avionics: Guidance, navigation, flight control and stabilisation during all phases - Length: 14.5 meters - Wingspan: 10 meters - Diameter of pressurized cargo bay: 2.85 meters - Cabin volume: 4 cu. meters - Crew space: 8 cu. meters - Payload volume: 18 cu. meters - Airlock volume: 4 cu. meters - Crew: 3 astronauts - Cargo capacity: 3 tonnes - Total mass at lift-off: 21 tonnes - Ejectable cabin PARTICIPATION OF ESA MEMBER STATES IN HERMES PREPARATORY PROGRAM > 5 % Belgium 6.40 % Spain 7.00 % France 39.00 % Great Britain 7.35 % Italy 15.00 % West Germany 30.00 % (Sum is > 100 %, I don't know why) (These informations are based on the 1986 Annual Report of CNES.) 2. HOTOL -------- British Aerospace's horizontal take-off and landing, single-stage-to-orbit aerospaceplane is designed to place a 7-8 tonne payload in a 300 km orbit. It is 52 meters long, 20 m in wingspan and has a gross take-off weight of about 240 tonnes. Landing weight is less than 50 tonnes. Similar in size and weight to Concorde it has a payload diameter of 4.6 meters to provide compatiblitity and interchangeability of payloads with the Shuttle Orbiter. At take-off it is eight times lighter than the Orbiter assembly, but has double the payload/take-off mass fraction, i.e. 3.0 % as opposed to 1.5 %. The quantum improvement in performance has been achieved primarily by the use of a radically new hybrid engine - the Rolls Royce RB 545 - which breathes air while in the atmosphere and uses on-board oxygen in the vacuum of space. ... brings the ambitious target of an 80 % reduction in launch costs within reach ... THE DESIGN Of the 240 tonnes total, appr. 55 % is LOX, 25 % LH2, 10 % airframe, 5 % engines and 2 % systems, leaving 3 % as useful payload. The payload bay measures 7.5 meters by 4.6 meters and is capable of accomodating very large satellites (Olympus class). Work over the past 12 months has led to several changes from the original design: - Modifications to fuselage shape, - Deletion of the canard foreplans, - Modified air intake for better engine performance, - Deletion of rear fins, - Substitution of an active, all-moving forward fin, - Change to an even number of engines. OPERATIONS Operations Base HOTOL will fly from a standard airfield with facilities for transport aircraft flying-in the prepared payloads; fuel and pyrotechnics loading bays and a maintenance and loading hangar. Turnround from landing to take-off could be as little as 48 hr if necessary. Missions - satellite launch and recovery, - servicing of manned and unmanned platforms, - microgravity and scientific experiments, - military operations. Take-off and Climb Take-off at 250 knots is from a trolley and a conventional runway of appr. 3,500 m. Provision is made to abort safely during the 1,800 m take-off run or during the climb. After take-off the vehicle will accelerate to between 500 and 600 knots and then climb at constant airspeed during the airbreathing phase to Mach 5 at 26 km (85,000') when the air intake closes. The engine then converts to pure rocketpower, using the on-board LOX. Thereafter acceleration continues to 90 km and a velocity of 7.9 km/sec. Re-entry Mission duration can range from 12 to 100 hours with 24 hours fairly typical. For the re-entry phase a high-angle of attack is maintained to maximize lift co-efficient. This enables re-entry to be achieved at high altitude to minimize peak velocity and aerodynamic heating. In general, re-entry temperatures exceeding 1,200 K will occur only under the nosecone, the leading edges and the lips and center body of the intake. These 'hot spots' are in the order of 1,750 K. Approach and Landing For the final phase of the unpowered glide recovery the upper portion of the flightpath is lengthened or shortened to cater for tail or handwinds and an 18 deg glideslope is maintained by deploying and retracting the air brake. Descent is at 2.5 to 3 deg., touchdown at 160 knots, and groundroll on a wet runway is 1,500 m. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME Following the Proof-of-Concept Study there will be a sequential project definition and initial development phase over a period of about 4 years. Successful completion should allow entry with confidence into a development phase beyond 1991, leading to flight trials in the final two years of the century and operational service at the turn of the century. The cost of the development program are currently estimated at a round figure of 5 billion pounds. When the concept has been "proved" in the unmanned role, a dedicated manned version will be introduced to support the European man-in-space program. CONCLUSION HOTOL is the key to Europe's attainment of total autonomy in Space. (Information from a paper by British Aerospace, Space & Communications Division.) 3. SAENGER ---------- Eugen Saenger (1905-1964) conceived the project of a rocket-propelled aerospace plane in 1943(!). In the period 1962-64 Saenger acted as advisor for the MBB-Junkers studies on single-stage and two-stage winged space transport systems. Europe needs a cost-effective Space Transportation System ... which reduces the space transportation to some 10 % of the present values by replacing expendable launchers by fully reusable systems. DESIGN FEATURES - SAENGER is a fully reusable 2-stage winged space transportation system, - it allows maximum operational flexibility; it is the only system which allows launches from European airports into all orbital inclinations, - The total launch mass is < 500 tons (B 747 class), - For launch and landing conventional airport facilities are foreseen without any special launch assist installations, - The first stage is a forerunner of a future hypersonic global transport plane, carrying the second stages a rocket plane (HORUS) or an expendable rocket (CARGUS) to its separation speed of Mach 7 at an altitude of 35 km, - The payload mass and volume of HORUS is designed for convenient transport of people and small payloads to the Low Earth Orbit space station, - The unmanned second stage for cargo transport (CARGUS) is a derivative of the ARIANE 5 core stage with minor modifications. MISSIONS AND PAYLOADS - Space station crew exchange plus supply of material: 2-6 astronauts/ mission specialists plus 2-4 t cargo, - Orbital passenger transport: up to 36 passengers, - Platforms servicing missions: 2-4 specialists, payload 3 t or 1 t (polar), - Small cargo transport: 2 pilots plus up to 4 t payload in 500 km orbit, - Heavy cargo transport: up to 15 t by expendable ballistic second stage CARGUS. HORUS - Advanced rocket propulsion (ATC-engine) with 250 bar chamber pressure, - Payload bay design for 2-6 astronauts plus cargo transport (2-4 t), - Cabin design for Space Tourism, - Total mass ~90 tons including 65 t propellants (LH2/LOX), - Advanced lightweight thermal protection system (metallic multiwall concept). LAUNCH FROM EUROPEAN AIRPORTS The two-stage assembly is accelerated by the first-stage turboramjet engine to the ground lift-off speed of 140 m/s, followed by the ascent and acceleration to the maximum speed of Mach 7 (2,100 m/s). Ignition of second stage engine and separation occurs at 35 km altitude. The two second stage main engines with 700 kN initial thrust (each) accelerate the HORUS vehicle to a velocity of 7,940 m/s at 80 km altitude. This MLAT (Minimum Loss Ascent Trajectory) comprises the Hohmann ascent to the final orbit altitude, e. g. 500 km, with an apogee injection maneuver. (This information was provided by MBB Space Systems Group.) Additional information from MBB International, distributed at Le Bourget: - SAENGER could be realized until 2005, - The German Ministry of Research and Technology (BMFT) introduced SAENGER to ESA. Note: In troff SAENGER could correctly be written as follows, when using the -ms macro definitions: .AM SA\*:NGER or Sa\*:nger ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #264 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Jun 87 06:22:12 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04196; Thu, 25 Jun 87 03:17:46 PDT id AA04196; Thu, 25 Jun 87 03:17:46 PDT Date: Thu, 25 Jun 87 03:17:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706251017.AA04196@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #265 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 265 Today's Topics: Re: space news from April 27 AW&ST 250,000 miles Re: 250,000 miles Re: soviet sps Re: Orbiting Solar Power Max Gs and tissue damage ETs,FTL,Nuclear Disarmament Re: Orbiting Solar Power (frustration? not me) Re: SPACE Digest V7 #262 Re: Orbiting Solar Power ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jun 87 23:34:58 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news from April 27 AW&ST I should clarify one item that I've already had one inquiry about: > Details of the work being done on the Aerospace Plane project. The reason why I didn't go into this at greater length was not the desire for terseness, but the nature of the "details". This article was basically two pages of stupefyingly boring discussion of which companies had gotten how much money to do what. The technical content was effectively nil. "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 87 19:19:00 GMT From: wsmith@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: 250,000 miles Is this accurate?: No human has ever been more than a 1/4 million miles from the surface of the earth to date? (Is Apollo 13 an exception? By how much?) Bill Smith wsmith@a.cs.uiuc.edu ihnp4!uiucdcs!wsmith ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 87 18:17:19 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!6089031@princeton.edu (Shantanu Saha) Subject: Re: 250,000 miles Apollo XIII at apocynthion was 248,665 miles above the surface of the earth. Guiness lists this as the greatest altitude reached by humans. Robert A. West (Q4071@PUCC) US MAIL: 7 Lincoln Place / Suite A / North Brunswick, NJ 08902 VOICE : (201) 821-7055 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 1987 17:03-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: ST401385%BROWNVM.bitnet@wiscvm.edu Subject: Re: soviet sps Cc: space@angband.s1.gov I would very much expect they are trying for some propaganda. I suspect there are other points to their reasoning: 1) They do not want to become dependant on outside sources for energy, ie oil. They have good reserves now, but nothing lasts forever. They are much more fearful of dependency than we are. 2) They depend on the foreign exchanged gained by selling energy, gold, etc to make up for the weakness of their economy in other areas: ie purchase of wheat. Thus internal expenditures are more like university 'funny money' to them. The value of prestige, foreign exchange etc more than offset the cost for them. 3) There is great propaganda to be had by doing it before we do and supplying some demonstration rectenna to a third world client. Maybe Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, or a nonaligned country. They needn't supply much, just SAY this is only the beginning, and that the superior technology of the peoples socialist...(etc) 4) The USSR has the dream and has had it built into their culture since Tsiolkovsky. This may actually be one of the more important reasons underlying it all. Leaders have to justify things in terms of ideology though. 5) When the world wakes up and starts seeing the glint of a multitude of giant orbiting structures, who do you think the peasant in the fields of the 3rd world, or even the kid in the industrialized world, will look to for leadership? The US can produce all the marvels it wants, but when you look up in the sky at night, that's where you will see the pioneers, and that is who the world will follow. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 87 12:56:37 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: Orbiting Solar Power Dale Skran reports: > "Guiry Marchuk, president of the Soviety Academy of Sciences, said > last week the Energia will be used to launch heavy communications > satellites into geosynchronous orbit, large planetary missions, > large new space station elements, and experimental solar power > satellites that could beam electricity to Earth." > > DALE SKRAN: Apparently the Soviets are unaware of Gary Allen's proof > that Solar Power Satellites are not possible. First, SPSs are certainly possible. The real question is whether they are economical and desirable. Second, I don't understand why such a vague statement is being taken so seriously. I have seen a couple of articles in the newspapers claiming that the Soviets are planning to launch SPS, but all they contain is a couple of vague quotations like the above, and a lot of elaboration by "informed Soviet observers in the US". If THAT is evidence that the Russians are planning to launch SPSs, then any O'Neill speech is proof that General Motors is planning to build a Chevrolet factory in the asteroid belt. My impression is that Mr. Marchuk is just delivering the standard space industrialization hype that NASA and the space societies have been delivering for the past twenty years. If NASA does it, why shouldn't they do it too? It does make nice propaganda, doesn't it? Actually, there seems to have been some discussion of Powersats by Russian spaceniks (including refrences to launching on the Energia booster) well before the latest "revelations". From a summary I read in an US magazine [1] a while ago it seems the general tenor is not very different from the US literature on the subject. It says there that in some cases, it is not clear whether they are reporting their own dreams, or merely echoing the American ones. In view of this, Mr. Marchuk's statement is hardly a revelation. * * * I am seeing more and more postings that basically say "the Russians are doing X, which shows X is the right thing to do". That is funny; I always imagined the Russians reacting that way to Western technical decisions. Please folks, don't take the current Russian exploits as proof that everything they do --- in particular, their manned program --- is more sensibly directed than ours. After all, the basic outlook of their manned program, like that of NASA, is in good part a carryover from the Apollo era. The fact that they are now doing it better than the US doesn't mean they are doing the right thing. The Soviet space establishment can hardly be assumed to be immune to inefficiency, mismanagement, red tape, and institutional inertia. Their space policy, like that of NASA, must be in large part determined by pressures from their aerospace industries, the military, and the politicians' need for flashy results and rosy projections. Like at NASA, the one thing everyone in there wants most is a secure job and a promising career. Like NASA, they will surely use anything they can to justify their continued existence. Many of the criticisms that have been made to the goals of the US space program apply to theirs, too. Reference: [1] Alain Dupas, "The USSR and space power plants" Space Policy vol. 2 no. 4 (November 1986). Additional references mentioned in [1]: [2] Leonid Leskov, "Power-industry orbital complexes of the 21st century" Space Policy, February 1985. [3] Alain Dupas, "Le programme spatial sovietique" La Recherche, November 1984. (No, I didn't read these.) Jorge Stolfi ARPA: stolfi@dec.src.com USENET: ...!decvax!decwrl!stolfi ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 87 01:10:55 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA (MacLeod) Subject: Max Gs and tissue damage In article <8169@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >I don't >object to things like bruises and nosebleeds in a good cause, e.g. getting >me into orbit. My nose can bleed as much as it pleases during liftoff. I'm more concerned with brain trauma, specifically microhemorrages, that have a cumulative effect. If every launch is the equivalent of a round with Mike Tyson, I'll pass. Until it gets easier... ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 87 23:37:30 GMT From: smeagol!jplgodo!wlbr!wlbreng1!jru@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (John Unekis) Subject: ETs,FTL,Nuclear Disarmament A modest proposal : Why not combine three goals in one- A)The quest for an FTL drive B)The search for extraterrestrial intelligence C)Nuclear Disarmament How , you may ask? Simple, The strongest argument against nuclear disarmament is that the other side might cheat and not really dissasemble all their missiles. We might then find ourselves being attacked with missiles that should, by treaty at least, not exist. The solution is to disarm by launching the missiles into space and detonating them there. We could challenge the Russians to match us explosion for explosion until both arsenals were exhausted. Bombs which have been detonated already cannot later be reassembled and used in a sneak attack. A serendipitous benefit of this big fireworks display would be to attract any curious forms of life posessing FTL drive ships to come see what the backwards locals of Earth were celebrating. Their arrival would prove once and for all the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Having made contact with the aliens, we would then influence them with liquor and loose women (or formaldehyde and Iguanas, whatever turns an ET on) to learn their secrets. With the knowledge of FTL drives in hand, we could then construct a fleet of spaceships and make our presence felt in galactic society. Just think how impressed a society of sentient beings which has existed for hundreds of thousands of years would be with our cultural achievements. Picture Yoda drinking Budweiser from an aluminum can and watching Vanna White do her thing on Wheel of Fortune. Suddenly a question comes to mind. Maybe ETs have known about us for some time. Maybe they have been watching us develop as a civilization. Maybe they would be just as happy if we didn't make it off this little ball of rock. ------------------------------ From: mdc14!wbm Date: Tue Jun 23 17:05:43 1987 space Dear mailer: Please add me to the space information mailing list. Thank you, -------- William B. McCormick uucp: !{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!mdc14!wbm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 87 14:42:58 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Orbiting Solar Power (frustration? not me) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <211@nysernic> Chris writes: > Your point is valid that the Soviet Powersat report may be no >more than propaganda, but understand that whoever said it (Dale or >Eugene?) exagerated out of frustration at the impotence of the US >program in comparison the the Soviets. > -Chris "Not I," said the little hen. Must be Dale for all the amon@h.cs.cmu's. One thing you learn working for NASA is patience. You can tell my slant on space: un-manned, deep space exploration (not what Ames is known for currently). I will be posting something on that shortly, I am waiting for permission (not NASA, author's). The Soviets, ESSA, China, and Japan are all pretty much the same regarding technology (see aeronaut comment below). That something is orbiting is nothing more than a visual symbol to one's technology. Are you afraid of "rocks dropped by an overpass" like Johnson's character in Wolfe's "Right Stuff?" There are distinguished scientists who have waited 20 years to fly instruments; the problem is computer people have this problem of wanting it RIGHT NOW. The thing you have to remember is that all these rockets are bascially 1950s technology including the Shuttle. It's the aeronauts, not the computer people, who make the decisions what goes into them. I would also hate to base any "space race" on "escalation." How do you think the Soviet's felt in the late 1960s? Can we go into space together? Sally Ride just proposed a joint Mars mission. I hated Star Trek and Star Wars because we could not seem to shake the military slant from space (but I admit to watching and sometimes enjoying them as films). "And all of our rockets blow up....." (Wolfe) >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 87 11:10:44 SA From: Tero Siili Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #262 Re:HOTOL The structure of HOTOL landing gear is very light, because the basic idea is as follows: HOTOL takes off from a conventional runway on a carriage, which is eventually not raised to orbit. This carriage has the structural strength, which supports HOTOL empty weight PLUS the weight of the payload carried PLUS all of the fuel load(LH2 and LOX). Most of the fuel is burned during ascent and the payload is left on orbit, as expected. This means, that landing mass is very small comapared to take-off mass. Therefore, the landing gear has much lighter structure, than the take-off carriage and uses thus much less space. If someone wants detailed info on HOTOL, its best to send a letter to British Aerospace Info dep. I can't recall their address, but contact nearest UK embassy or equivalent. Tero Siili Helsinki University of Technology, Finland ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 87 19:00:47 GMT From: vanvleck!uwmcsd1!leah!itsgw!nysernic!nic.nyser.net!weltyc@rsch.wisc.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: Orbiting Solar Power In article <828@jumbo.dec.com> decwrl!jumbo!stolfi (Jorge Stolfi) writes: >I am seeing more and more postings that basically say "the Russians are >doing X, which shows X is the right thing to do". That is funny; I > ... > ... The fact that they are now doing it better than >the US doesn't mean they are doing the right thing. > I don't recall seeing anyone say that everything the Russians do is the right thing. The point, which perhaps you have missed, is that they are doing a lot. THey have a working, productive space program which has advanced them years as far as space productivity is concerned. Can you deny this? Sure, they could be doing it better, but they are doing it better than us. With all our fancy managemnet styles and MBAs, we are so over managed that nothing ever gets done. THe US hasn't made a significant contribution to space technology in years. The criticism is that we SHOULD be doing it better than the Soviets, but instead we are doing it worse than everyone. No one says we have to do it the way they are, but shouldn't we be doing it at least as well as them? They are doing it the easy way and GETTING RESULTS. We were at one time trying to do it the harder/better way but somewhere along the line got bogged down and now we aren't doing anything. Doing half bad is many times better than doing nothing. Your point is valid that the Soviet Powersat report may be no more than propaganda, but understand that whoever said it (Dale or Eugene?) exagerated out of frustration at the impotence of the US program in comparison the the Soviets. Understand also that all the hoopla in this group about the Soviet program is not meant as "Look at the Soviets and what they are doing, aren't they great, aren't they wonderful, they always do it right", it is meant to be read as "Those *&&^&*#$%*^&%*^%%#*^$ Russians are doing all that and WE CAN'T DO SQUAT???!!!!???!!!???!!! *&*&*&&&^%$%$##@$**%**%%$$# ... something is VERY WRONG here!!!" Of course most people (including myself) applaud any advancement in space and science, and don't neccisarily hate the Soviets, but are very frustrated that WE aren't contibuting anything. -Chris ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #265 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Jun 87 06:21:25 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01796; Fri, 26 Jun 87 03:18:13 PDT id AA01796; Fri, 26 Jun 87 03:18:13 PDT Date: Fri, 26 Jun 87 03:18:13 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706261018.AA01796@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #266 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 266 Today's Topics: Re: Privately built shuttle (ownership of tooling) Jobs in space Re: Launch Vehicle Size (was Re: Breaking out of the Cradle) Re: X-15 engines launch method to replace first stage West German space activities Soviet space shuttle Upcoming Soviet Manned Spaceflight Re: High G and playing with life Reducing population pressure ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Jun 87 15:21:21 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Privately built shuttle (ownership of tooling) in article <8706181641.AA16876@ames-pioneer.arpa>, eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) says: >>The feds, DOD and NASA, tend to own the tooling used to build things like > No, you are wrong. NASA does NOT own the tooling. Sort of. Thank you for the correction. I should have known that NASA does not operate the same way as the armed services. With the tooling and plans in the public domain, why does Rockwell need permision to use them? Could you clarify the "sort of" part of your reply? >>The Navy likes to own the whole manufacturing plant, look around at >>the NIROP plants all over the country. NIROP stands for, I believe, Naval Industrial Reserve Ordinance Plant. NIROP plants are, as was explained to me during new hire orientation, owned by the Navy and operated by individual corporations, such as Hercules Areospace and LMSC, maybe even by Northrup, I don't know. If THIS is also incorrect please tell me. I hate "knowing" things that are wrong. > Like they say in the ads: Interested principals only. > > --eugene miya > NASA Ames Research Center Bob Pendleton ------------------------------ Posted-Date: Wed 24 Jun 87 11:47:41-PDT Date: Wed 24 Jun 87 11:47:41-PDT From: Alan R. Katz Subject: Jobs in space To: BBOARD@venera.isi.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Cc: katz@venera.isi.edu Mail-System-Version: I am forwarding this for anyone who may be interested or knows someone who may be interested. Please do not direct questions to me: Alan : : : : : : : : : : : : Date: Wed 24 Jun 87 10:38:29-PDT From: Rand Simberg Subject: Hiring Space Cadets I have to hire about eight people in the next few weeks, to handle the new business which Rockwell has been winning lately. We just got a large contract for SDI development and testing (KEW), we are going to start flying the STS again in about a year and need flight support people, and we are developing new launch vehicle concepts. We are also looking for people to analyze lunar bases and Mars mission scenarios. The specific skills that I need are in the areas of space mission analysis and planning, ascent and on-orbit performance, requirements derivation and functional flows for launch and orbit transfer systems, space and ground operations, system reliability, and programmatics. We also have several openings in mechanical design, avionics, mass properties and system configuration. Please distribute this message to any pertinent mailing lists and respond either online to Simberg@ECLA.USC.edu, or by mailing resumes to: Rand Simberg MC AA96 Supervisor, System Analysis & Integration Rockwell International Space Transportation Systems Division 12214 Lakewood Blvd Downey, CA 90241 I am looking particularly for people who have a strong interest in space. You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it sure helps! ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 87 19:57:31 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Launch Vehicle Size (was Re: Breaking out of the Cradle) In article <448@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: > I've heard similar comments before about the necessary size and the > estimated development cost for efficient rocket transporation systems. > While I can't prove they're wrong, I do have a hard time buying 'em. > Let's consider the issue of size: > > What we're talking about is mainly just the ratio between vehicle dry > mass and the propellant mass that it can carry. Vehicle dry mass is > heavily dominated by the mass of propellant tankage. Now there's a > theoretical result (can't remember whom it's named after, offhand) > that says the minimum ratio between tankage and propellant mass is a > function of the height of the tank. The shorter the tank, the lighter > it can be in relation to the propellant it can hold. From that result, > you'd expect that "small is beautiful" for rockets. It should be > possible to build small rockets with better mass ratios than large > ones. That's a theoretical result, however, that seems to run counter > to actual experience. How come? There are two main contributors to why big rockets generally have better payload fractions. These are (1) hardware that does not scale linearly with propellant mass, and (2) atmospheric drag. A rocket stage can be divided into the following parts: propellant airframe, engine section, and electronics. The engine section includes the rocket engines themselves, fuel valves, and some device that steers the engine exhaust (called a thrust vector controller). The sizing criterion in this part of the stage is engine thrust. Thrust, in turn, is mostly determined by propellant weight (i.e thrust=about 1.4xpropellant weight). Engine weight is mostly linear with thrust, since the combustion chamber and nozzle are pressure designed. Valves are sized by fuel flow rate, which is proportional to thrust. Engine steering is driven by engine weight, again proportional to thrust. So basically, the engine section scales linearly with propellant mass. The electronics includes sensors such as thermocouples for engine temperature, tank pressure gauges, and accelerometers and gyroscopes to tell you how you are moving. All of these feed a guidance computer and a radio. The former figures out how to steer the rocket engines to maintain a programmed flight path, and the radio sends back to the ground information on how the flight is going. All of these items need a power supply. All of them, including the power supply, are independant of how large the rocket is. A typical value today is 2500 lbs total for this set of hardware. The airframe includes tanks and the intervening structures between the tanks, engines, and everything else. The most efficient shape for a propellant tank is a flattened ellipsoid with the vertical axis = 0.5*sqrt(2) times the horizontal diameter. This shape is most freqently seen in water storage tanks in the suburbs. Two effects conspire to distort the tank of a small rocket from this ideal. The first is the pressure head required on the inlet side of the engine pumps. A typical value is 50 psi, and one way to get pressure head is by making the tank taller. The other way is by making the tank thicker and pressurizing it. Either way, the tank is heavier than required purely for holding a given mass of propellant. The second effect is aerodynamic drag. Drag is proportional to vehicle cross section, so there is a benefit to making your vehicle skinny. Drag is proportionally more important as you get smaller, by the square-cube rule of area to mass. So smaller rockets optimize to skinnier shapes than big ones, with a weight penalty in the process. The fixed weight of the electronics and the tank weight penalties for smallness are equivalent to about a 10000 lb loss in payload. The size at which this penalty becomes 'small' you can decide for yourself. I use 100,000 lb payload, so it is a 10% penalty. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jun 87 11:57:07 PDT From: John Sotos Subject: Re: X-15 engines The X-15 was flown with at least two different types of engines, the Little Engine and the Big Engine. The Big Engine was the XLR-99 and had a thrust of 57,000 pounds - only 21,000 pounds less than the Redstone booster which launched Shepard & Grissom into their suborbital flights. This is on page 200 of The Right Stuff. John ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 87 23:58:33 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 25 23:58:33 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 25 00:55:06 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: launch method to replace first stage Can somebody refute these two ideas (or are they workable ideas)? (1) Launch ramjet from open end of wind tunnel. Air is sucked into the tunnel a supersonic rates near the fans, but the tunnel tapers larger upwind (outward) so wind rate tapers down to a mere hurricane near end of runway. Ramjet starts at supersonic part, where the wind itself is fast enough to stuff air into the engine. It accellerates rapidly so by the end of the runway it is going supersonic itself no longer needing such a strong headwind to stuff air into the engines. The advantage of that idea is you wouldn't need a first stage, you could just start with ramjet at ground level. This is comparable to laser launch in that most of the launch facility stays on ground instead of going up and then getting jettisoned. (2) Ramjet or rocket is carried to high altitude, where it is dropped with only slight forward velocity (a few hundred MPH from the 747 or whatever carrier). It dives into lower atmosphere as it fires its engines, both gravity and engines causing speed increase until its little teeny wings have enough lift to allow the vehicle to bank upward. Ideally, for minimum wing drag, the design is to almost but not quite reach the ocean at the bottom of the drop, but of course allow a margin of safety of a few thousand feet. This method still needs a first stage, the carrier airplane, but avoids needing to fire rockets in the vicinity of the carrier. Thus the breakaway is soft instead of hard, and there is no danger of blast from rocket or ramjet damaging the carrier plane. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 87 20:02:45 GMT From: mcvax!unido!stollco!til@seismo.css.gov (tilgner) Subject: West German space activities West Germany's government will have to make some important decisions on its space activities late this year: whether - to participate in ESA's ARIANE 5/HERMES project and whether - to participate in ESA's COLUMBUS project, the European module of the US Space Station. According to the press many scientists and engineers are thinking that the HERMES concept is already out of date now and are preferring HOTOL or SAENGER. But, however, due to political reasons, the chances of HERMES of getting a go-ahead soon, are very good. A study of the "Deutscher Industrie- und Handelstag" (DIHT), an organization of West German industry and trade proposed a NASA-like organization for coordinating the West German space efforts. [You may believe it or not, until now the space activities are loosely coordinated by the Federal Ministry of Research and Technology, the space activities are scattered among universities, private companies and special research institutions.] In addition the DIHT criticizes the lack of a long-term concept of space exploration. The study discussed these problems in some detail. In conclusion it proposes to participate in HERMES as well as in COLUMBUS, provided that the West German industry will get an important part of HERMES and that there is a complete equality between the US and Europe concerning the Space Station. In addition the study of such advanced space transportation systems like HOTOL or SAENGER should not be cancelled. ("Sueddeutsche Zeitung", June 22, 1987) The Socialdemocratic Party of Germany (SPD), now in opposition, is favoring the same position, according to a news report today. However, if the US wants to use its Space Station militarily, Europe should go its own way, a spokesman said, summarizing an opinion which is quite common here. ("Sueddeutsche Zeitung", June 23, 1987) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 87 22:24:46 GMT From: amdahl!dlb!auspyr!sci!daver@AMES.ARPA (Dave Rickel) Subject: Soviet space shuttle I was looking through the June issue of Spaceflight magazine (one of the magazines of the British Interplanetary Society). In it, they have a drawing of a soviet space shuttle docked to a soviet space station (the station is labeled Novii Mir, or "New World"). The shuttle is docked to the station by its tail. The shuttle seems to have a name on it, but i can't make out the last two letters. It starts off "beh oo err" (gack, transcribing cyrillic is painful). The last two letters could be "yerii (61) en". The next to the last letter could be either a hard or a soft sign (or quite a few other letters if the top somehow got cropped). The last letter could be an "i" (the backwards N) or a "u". I don't know enough russian to make a guess as to what word it should be. In the blurb, they said something about it having undergone six [test?] flights already, and would be ready sometime in 88 for a (probably unmanned) launch. Anyone have more details? I seem to remember reading an article somewhere that doubted even the existence of the soviet shuttle. It would be somewhat amusing if the soviets had their shuttle flying before ours does. david rickel decwrl!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 87 19:35:37 GMT From: mcvax!unido!stollco!til@seismo.css.gov (tilgner) Subject: Upcoming Soviet Manned Spaceflight The USSR announced a new manned spaceflight with two Soviet cosmonauts and one Syrian cosmonaut, beginning at July 22, according to a West German newspaper. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jun 87 12:26:23 PDT From: John Sotos Subject: Re: High G and playing with life There are several points to be made about high G forces, blackouts, neurological damage, and so forth. Not all episodes of unconsciousness are created equal. The biggest hazard of someone passing out while, say, getting their blood drawn or during a real hellfire-and-brimstone Baptist sermon is head trauma from the fall, not from the blackout per se. The Air Force regularly takes pilots to unconsciousness in their centrifuges without ill effect, and in fact this is an important part of their training. The issue of "posture" is not a detail, it is critically important. People blackout from G-forces when the acceleration is in the +Gz direction (ie, blood is drawn out of the head toward the feet). Pilots of high performance aircraft can usually tolerate about +9 Gz with use of G-suits, straining maneuvers, etc. A shuttle re-entry inflicts about +1.7 Gz over a period of ?20 minutes, which ain't no problem at all - unless you've been weightless for a week. Acceleration from front to back (+Gx) can be tolerated to a much higher degree. Ham the chimp took +17 Gx during the launch of his Mercury-Redstone flight and -14 Gx during re-entry. (The description in The Right Stuff is a joy!) Apollo re-entries gave the astronauts -7 Gx ("eyeballs out") or so. I would be willing to be blacked out by acceleration stress, but only for a second or two. Brain cells do not appreciate being without oxygen for very much longer than that. John Sotos Stanford U. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 87 20:04:53 GMT From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andre Guirard) Subject: Reducing population pressure In article <8706210908.AA01344@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> brahms.Berkeley.EDU!carrier@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Stephen Paul Carrier) writes: > d. Maybe technological sophisticates have no use for planetary > surfaces. >Expect population pressure to be a real consideration in colonization. >Suppose a colonizer expands so that its dominion is a sphere whose >radius increases at a constant rate. The volume of the sphere varies >only as the cube of time so the population cannot grow exponentially, >as it would like to do. Realistically, unless interstellar travel is much easier than scientists now think it is, shipping your excess population off to nearby stars is impractical. One ship might be enormously expensive to build, and it could carry, say, 10^5 beings, together with all the equipment (biological and technological) they'll need to set up shop in another solar system (and that is one BIG ship). Add either equipment to hold them in suspended animation or a complete ecosystem to support them while they travel. And sufficient fuel (much here depends on how fast you want to go and what constitutes fuel). To get rid of 10^9 beings you need 10^4 of these huge ships. And meanwhile the population is still growing. It's a losing battle. I can think of three cheaper alternatives: (1) Warfare. This method has been successfully used on Terra many times. (2) Restrict breeding. Why assume population growth _has_ to be exponential? (3) Build space habitats rather than ships. Much less expensive because no motors, no fuel, no structural requirement to withstand acceleration, no requirement to minimize mass (so you can just tunnel into an asteroid or small moon, for instance). Also easier to get volunteers for. Andre Guirard ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #266 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Jun 87 06:19:22 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04168; Sat, 27 Jun 87 03:16:21 PDT id AA04168; Sat, 27 Jun 87 03:16:21 PDT Date: Sat, 27 Jun 87 03:16:21 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706271016.AA04168@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #267 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 267 Today's Topics: Re: ETs,FTL,Nuclear Disarmament Re: The limitations of mathematicians Can we follow in the Soviets footsteps? Adult Space Academy Information (last time I promise) (long) Re: Adult Space Academy Information (last time I promise) (long) Re: High G and playing with life Who to talk to at Space Camp SuperNova and Fermi Paradox SCRAMjet engine tests? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Jun 87 03:51:24 GMT From: ihnp4!upba!dsndata!denny@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Denny Page) Subject: Re: ETs,FTL,Nuclear Disarmament > [...] The solution is to disarm by launching the missiles > into space and detonating them there. And how do you propose explaining this when the Galactic Cops show up and charge the planet Earth with discharging a Weapon inside the limits of a solar system? :-) Denny hplabs!hpfcla!dsndata!denny ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 87 13:53:26 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arpa (Peter DaSilva) Subject: Re: The limitations of mathematicians Isn't there a math group where you can all go play Tortoise-and-crab while we talk about space? ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 87 18:01:23 EDT From: Donald.Schmitz@arm.ri.cmu.edu Subject: Can we follow in the Soviets footsteps? To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu Given recent discussion, it seems many of us are ignoring the potential of the NASA space station and shuttle because they are not the best or most efficeint design. Ironically, at the same time people are proposing exotic (relative to shuttle) alternatives, they are also praising the Soviets for using obsolete but working and reliable hardware to mount a successful space program. Given the political inertia of NASA projects, a good idea may be to think of ways to do the most with what we (will hopefully) have, ie. a fleet of aprox. 4 shuttles and a small space station with a crew of aprox. 10. For example, can we use space station construction technology and spare shuttle parts to build space launched boosters? Assume it is practical for the shuttle to carry external tanks to the station (we now have a place to store them until there are enough to use). Imagine a vehicle assembled from 6 external tanks tied together via a light framework similar to that used for the space station. Add a shuttle load of engines, maybe 6 SSME's, or possibly 2 resurrected F-1s (its probably much more practical to retool F-1s than an entire Saturn). Seems like such a beast could deliver a good sized payload to the moon (roundtrip) or Mars (anyone with the background care to work out ball park numbers?). Enough raw materials (tanks and engines) could be delivered every year to build 1 or 2 boosters, at very little additional cost to the originally planned missions. Of course this would require the ability to deliver large quantities of fuel and payload to orbit. Hopefully this will provide an incentive for private companies to develop commercial orbital transport systems. Imagine the number of competitors working on such systems if 1/3 of NASA's budget was allocated for buying fuel for such missions (once the station is built, hardware costs should be low). If capitalism lets us down, we can contract with the Soviets; they'd probably trade LOX in orbit for SUN workstations delivered to Moscow, pound for pound :-). I'd be interested in seeing dicussion along these lines, such as missions for the vehicle I've described, and other general schemes. This seems more constructive in the near term (next 5 years) than ideas for skyhooks, etc. A question I haven't seen addressed here is how to suggest such ideas to the people who actually make NASA project plans. Maybe if we hash out the details of promising plans, we can forward them to the right place, and have a chance for our collective armchair engineering to make a difference, or at least get people thinking (guess I'm a perpetual optimist). Don Schmitz@arm.ri.cmu.edu.ARPA Robotics Institue, Carnegie Mellon Pittsburgh, PA 15213 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 87 22:29:26 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Adult Space Academy Information (last time I promise) (long) Here is the most complete information I have on Adult Space Camp. I will do no more general postings except to modify or change this information if necessary, or to keep the group updated on the status of the Adult Level II program Thanks to all of you for writing to Huntsville, the staff was very impressed by the amount of interest generated through Usenet. Adult Space Academy comes in three flavors: 1. Adult level I(3day) - The program they've been offering for the past two + years, suitable for the person off the street. 2. Adult level II(3day)- That program upgraded with new simulators and computer hardware, more complicated mission, etc. Suitable for people who've attended before, space enthusiasts, etc., but probably still simple if you work in the field. Program begins with adult sessions this fall (September 18). 3. Adult level II(10day)- There is only one session planned this fall as an experiment. The 10 day program is designed for high school juniors, seniors and college frosh. The session is Sept. 28 - Oct. 7. Missions of 8-24 hours, advanced training, neutral boyancy work. Details below. In the past, only 3 day Adult sessions of Space Camp/Academy have been offered, because the people at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville were under the impression that adults would not want to take the time off of work for a longer session. The single Adult Space Academy Level II 10 day program came about because people (mostly Usenet and Compuserve types) wrote camp and expressed their interest in attending. The date was set to overlap a previously planned 3-day Level II session being attended by a group from Compuserve's Space and Space Education forums, at least in part so a group session of 10 day for 1988 can be discussed and organized. The Space Academy Level II program is described in the brochure as follows: The training curriculum for Level II is patterned after NASA crew training manuals and performed in facilities designed from astronaut training simulators. The academic curriculum is written and kept current by engineers and scientists currently working at NASA and in the private sector, by University of Alabama professors and researchers, and by certified instructors in SCUBA and aviation. There are three tracks of study and training: aerospace (pilot or commander), engineering (mission specialist), or science (payload specialist). The three tracks will combine as a team for final training and the simulated missions. 24 students per session with 8 in each of the three tracks. Aerospace Track trainees will focus on the foundations needed for a potential aerospace engineer, Shuttle commander or pilot, or aviation career. The academic program includes celestial navigation, aviation ground schooling, meteorology, orbital mechanics and space piloting. Field visits include the U.S. Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center where advance wind tunnel facilities are testing tomorrow's fighter aircraft, or a visit to the flight line of the Air National Guard for briefings, engine testing and a day's mission. Engineering track students study robotics, optics, materials science, structures and thermodynamics, and space environment to prepare for their mission specialist role. They are trained in SCUBA techniques to conduct EVA's and microgravity experimentation in the underwater neutral boyancy facility at U.S. Space Academy. Science Track students design, build and conduct their own space shuttle experiments with instruction in solar and space plasma physics, space biology, astrophysics, remote sensing, materials science, optics, computers and instrumentation. SCUBA instruction will allow them to test their experiments in a microgravity environment prior to mission simulations. Their experiments will be considered as candidates to fly on future shuttle missions in the Space and Rocket Center's Get-Away_Special canisters. All three level II tracks work together in integrated working group sessions to plan their space shuttle missions using NASA's Mission Integration Planning software. -------End brochure info The program is located at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama, home of Marshall Space Flight Center. The museum and camp/academy are operated by the state of Alabama with much help from NASA and various contractors. The museum is comparable in quality to the space sections of the National Air and Space Museum, with the additional advantage of a large outdoor rocket park that includes a Saturn V, and a full shuttle stack (mockup orbiter Pathfinder, ET and SRBs). I have no connection with Space Camp/Academy except as a pleased attendee, and the person who organized the drive to get them to schedule an adult 10-day session. If you have any specific questions about the program I will be glad to try to answer, but a better source is the Camp itself. U.S. folks can call them at 800-633-7280 toll free, the address is Space Camp/Academy The Space and Rocket Center Tranquility Base Huntsville, AL 35807 +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+ | Rich Kolker The work goes on... A|W|A | | 8519 White Pine Drive The cause endures... H|T|H | | Manassas Park, VA 22111 The hope still lives... /|||\ | | (703)361-1290 (h) And the dream shall never die. /_|T|_\ | | (703)749-2315 (w) (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker) " W " | +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+ ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 87 21:22:54 GMT From: puff!williams@rsch.wisc.edu (Karen Williams) Subject: Re: Adult Space Academy Information (last time I promise) (long) My father is an engineer who has lived in Huntsville for many, many years. Every summer when I visited him I made sure to visit the Space Museum. Even without the space camps, it's a great place to visit. They have many *real* spacecraft (some of which you can get inside), a mockup of the shuttle in which you can take a "trip" via of the magic of videotape, an outdoor park with a ride for experiencing weightlessness, real astronaut food for sale, and many other exhibits. (Able and Baker lived out the rest of their lives there. Miss Baker died shortly after my last visit there.) Should you visit Huntsville, I recommend the museum even without the space camps. (An advantage of having a father who lives there is that I got to see the Enterprise when it was on the Arsenal for repairs.) -- Karen Williams ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 87 20:20:07 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: High G and playing with life In article <12313116013.39.SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU> SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU (John Sotos) writes: > >There are several points to be made about high G forces, blackouts, >neurological damage, and so forth. ... >The issue of "posture" is not a detail, it is critically important. >People blackout from G-forces when the acceleration is in the +Gz >direction (ie, blood is drawn out of the head toward the feet). >Pilots of high performance aircraft can usually tolerate about +9 Gz >with use of G-suits, straining maneuvers, etc.... > >Acceleration from front to back (+Gx) can be tolerated to a much >higher degree. Ham the chimp took +17 Gx during the launch of his >Mercury-Redstone flight and -14 Gx during re-entry. (The description >in The Right Stuff is a joy!) Apollo re-entries gave the astronauts >-7 Gx ("eyeballs out") or so. There is also a strong time dependence. I have in front of me a plot from Webb, Paul M. D. "Bioastronautics Data Book,", NASA SP-3006, 1964 titled "G Tolerance in 4 vectors". It is unfortunately not clear if "tolerance" means before blackout, or before some other limit; also, it is not clear if this includes the use of G-suits, etc. Since the plot is included in a design study for a high-acceleration vehicle, I think it is safe to assume these are roughly what NASA considers safe for manned vehicles: Time (min) +Gx -Gx +Gz -Gz .01 (<1 sec) 35 28 18 8 .03 (2 sec) 28 22 14 7 .1 20 17 11 5 .3 15 12 9 4.5 1 11 9 7 3.3 3 9 8 6 2.5 10 6 5 4.5 2 30 4.5 4 3.5 1.8 All the curves are straight lines on log-log paper with slopes of around 1/4. Note that the -Gz curve goes below 1 at something like 200 minutes -- this is therefore the maximum time that NASA recommends for standing on your head :-) :-). There is also a plot on "Acceleration Onset Tolerances" (from USAAVLABS Tech Rept. 67-22, "Crash Survival Design Guide") which indicates that up to 30 G's of acceleration, the rate of change of acceleration should be limited to 600 G/sec. At 1370 G/sec, the plot indicates "Definite signs of shock", and at 3400 G/sec, "Cardiovascular Shock -- heart function and blood circulation have stopped". > >I would be willing to be blacked out by acceleration stress, but only >for a second or two. Brain cells do not appreciate being without >oxygen for very much longer than that. > > John Sotos > Stanford U. Seems to me the limit for beginning of organic damage is more like 3-4 minutes, but I wouldn't volunteer to test that.... Jordin Kare ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 87 15:22:59 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Who to talk to at Space Camp Andy Sheppard (thanks andy) just told me the person to talk to if you want to make phone reservations for the 10 day Adult Space Academy session is named Cynthia (no last name, just like FM disc jockeys :-)). She's the only one who's likely to have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. ++rich +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+ | Rich Kolker The work goes on... A|W|A | | 8519 White Pine Drive The cause endures... H|T|H | | Manassas Park, VA 22111 The hope still lives... /|||\ | | (703)361-1290 (h) And the dream shall never die. /_|T|_\ | | (703)749-2315 (w) (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker) " W " | +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+ ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 87 16:25:01 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Subject: SuperNova and Fermi Paradox *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** The Star Betelgeuse is large enough to explode as a Supernova and being only 300 Light Years away will produce enough Xrays to blow off the Ozone layer and fry us. ( Reference Science News June 20, 1987, page 391) Great maybe this explains the Fermi Paradox... All intelligent life gets blasted away with SuperNova radiation before they can start moving out into the stars. I don't think there is even a way to set up an early warning detector. The Xrays would arrive as fast as any warning signal from a monitoring post. We have got to get off this mudball Fred ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jun 87 01:54:24 GMT From: bloom-beacon!gaserre@eddie.mit.edu (Glenn A. Serre) Subject: SCRAMjet engine tests? Does anyone out there know of any flight tests of SCRAMjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) engines that may have been conducted? If so, I would be interested in the results that were obtained; specific impulse, problems, surprises, etc. Net posting, email of results, or a pointer to an appropriate source would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Glenn Serre gaserre@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #267 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Jun 87 06:18:03 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05777; Sun, 28 Jun 87 03:15:06 PDT id AA05777; Sun, 28 Jun 87 03:15:06 PDT Date: Sun, 28 Jun 87 03:15:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706281015.AA05777@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #268 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 268 Today's Topics: Re: Can we follow [suggestions and goals] Re: max Gs (playing with life) Electrons and X-Rays and UV (oh, my!) Re: Betelguese and Supernova Aircars and Futures of the Past ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 87 09:39:49 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Can we follow [suggestions and goals] Newsgroups: sci.space Don Schimtz wrote: >Given the political inertia of NASA projects, a good idea may be >to think of ways to do the most with what we (will hopefully) have, ie. a >fleet of aprox. 4 shuttles and a small space station with a crew of aprox. 10. > >For example, can we use space station construction technology and spare >shuttle parts to build space launched boosters? > . . . >hardware costs should be low). If capitalism lets us down, we can contract >with the Soviets; they'd probably trade LOX in orbit for SUN workstations >delivered to Moscow, pound for pound :-). This would be interesting. Would like to see the faces of LtC North or Mr. Schulz. >A question I haven't seen addressed here is how to suggest such ideas to the >people who actually make NASA project plans. Maybe if we hash out the >details of promising plans, we can forward them to the right place, and have >a chance for our collective armchair engineering to make a difference, or at >least get people thinking (guess I'm a perpetual optimist). Don-- (and others) What we have here are the confuse of two problems: 1) lots of technology but no goals (like the Persian Gulf, etc.) and 2) "getting people to listen." Let me address 2) first, the easier. The people who read the net don't have a corner on intellectual brilliance. I can tell you 9 out of 10 ideas which have been posted to the net have been proposed before, and submitted in PAPER to public information offices in NASA. This does not mean they can all be tried, I'm certain 9 out of 10 submitted ideas would fail, then only 1 out of 10 unfailed ideas would have "use." Some people get contracts let to study ideas like a firm in Mississippi for using fuel tanks as space telescope observatories. Start a consulting firm..... The idea of "using" fuel tanks for things is over a decade old. But there are other concerns like a) launching satellites (paying customers), b) performing experiments in space (like blue missions [DOD]), c) etc. The only thing is some people expect the PIO to be on the net. They aren't. They are also not prepared to shoot down the infeasibility of idea like like certain Swiss patent offices of the past. My colleagues and I are not PIO people. We are scientists and engineers with jobs to do. Like the one I am ignoring. On the issue of goals. Yes, we can strap tanks together and go to the moon. The question is to what end? We might only succeed in another Apollo mission. We want to go into space. Why? [I know lots of good personal reasons, but few for society, I engage in other fivolous activities, so I've collected a few]. My personal interests are scientific: say planetary science as one example. We have discussed the usual applications and spinoffs; we have discussed planetary migration from a colliding object, etc. We have all this neat technology which can't solve our problems and no where to go. But we also have to get people out of the armchair. If everybody stayed in an armchair (I'm in one now), would anything every get done? I think not. Things will get done to `small' goals by a few people for somewhat personal reasons of research long after most people have lost interest (in reading the net or anything on paper). Some of us will still be plugging away in our own small ways. Too much said. Back to work. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 87 06:19:52 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!6089031@princeton.edu (Shantanu Saha) Subject: Re: max Gs (playing with life) In article <8182@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> >For a space launch system, it's not necessary that the passengers remain >> >conscious, so the blackout point is irrelevant... >> >> Oh contrare: irrelevant? Can you discriminate Henry? > >To clarify so as to preclude further nitpicking: irrelevant except insofar >as it may be a symptom of impending injury, which (as I said) is the real Translation: irrelevant, except for the fact that it is exceedingly relevant. My limited knowledge of anatomy and the followup to which you are responding both tell me that blackout is not a warning of impending injury, it *is* injury. It is dangerous enough for trained fighter pilots in the prime of life and good health, and is regarded even by them as a risk for emergencies. To accept blackout as routine for getting into space would make it unacceptable for anyone other than a military pilot, and needlessly risky even for them. Don't forget that your medical facilities in space will be lacking for a long time. >issue at hand. I agree that things like blackouts, bruises, and nosebleeds >are warnings which should not be disregarded completely, but the risks they >warn of should be *assessed*, not blindly fled from. If they are not large, >they can be accepted. > Assessing a risk entails determining if the risk is necessary. This risk is unnecessary. We accept the possibility that a launch vehicle may blow up, because we have no better way to do it at the moment, and because that risk can be minimized by proper design and construction. The risk of repeated low-level but unavoidable injury, which may turn into a lethal injury without warning, cannot be so easily ameliorated. Your plan can be dismissed on a back-of-the-envelope analysis, which is a lot different from blind flight. The only blind flight would be the experience of the first crew member to have his retinae detach under launch. >This may be unfair, Eugene, but it doesn't surprise me that it was a NASA >employee who raised this. Risk-free spaceflight is strictly a NASA delusion. >Anyone who goes into space, by any means, is taking risks. I, for one, would >be willing to take some chances to get into orbit.... There is a difference between a calculated risk and recklessness. And by the way, Challenger did not occur because of an overcommitment to safety, nor is the re-study an over-reaction. The fact that risk assessments could seriously contemplate four lost missions per hundred from forseeable causes demonstrates that NASA has not been fanatical about safety. The fact that re-using the boosters was done to score the propaganda victory of a re-usable launcher as well as orbiter, although a number of engineers questioned the safety of the arrangement makes a claim that NASA is unwilling to risk lives absurd. Given the choice of risks, I would rather take a ride on a controlled bomb than on your catapult to oblivion. Robert A. West (Q4071@PUCC) US MAIL: 7 Lincoln Place / Suite A / North Brunswick, NJ 08902 VOICE : (201) 821-7055 ...!seismo!princeton!phoenix!pucc!q4071 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 87 14:48:02 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Electrons and X-Rays and UV (oh, my!) Comments on some recent postings: > [...] The solution is to disarm by launching the missiles > into space and detonating them there. On the off chance that this is a serious proposal, let me hasten to mention that it is a real bad idea. ICBMs do not have nearly enough delta-v to put warheads into excape orbits, and detonating nuclear bombs in Earth orbit means putting lots and lots of fission electrons into the Van Allen Belts. There are still significant numbers of fission electrons in the inner belt from the Starfish prime explosion over twenty years ago, and they play hell with electronics (not to mention damaging unshielded people). > The Star Betelgeuse is large enough to explode as a Supernova and > being only 300 Light Years away will produce enough Xrays to blow off > the ozone layer and fry us. ( Ref. Science News 6-20-87) Depends on what you mean by "fry us". If the ozone layer goes away, it means that you dark-skinned people will have to cover up when you go out into the sun the way that us fair-skinned types have had to do all our lives. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 1987 19:48-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova Not only is Betelguese big enough to go supernova, it is thought by some to be in the last gasp of life. It is currently going through intense mass loss by way of a solar wind. Supernova should(?) occur within a few thousand years according to some articles I've read. Seems reasonable to think we'll be spread out a bit by then. I also suspect we'll be able to predict the day of it's doom pretty closely by then. The physics of supernovas are already understood to an approximation. The neutrino burst from Sanduleak proved that. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28-JUN-1987 04:23 CDT From: To: Subject: Aircars and Futures of the Past Peter Nelson (apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu) wrote: "Seriously, I don't know if any of this nanotechnology will come to pass in our lifetimes. Technology has a way of advancing both faster and slower than we expect. A lot of 'futurists' of past decades thought we'd all be flying around in air cars by now..." As it happens, I've become intrigued by discarded visions of the future; as a kid I swallowed those *Popular Mechanics* stories hook, line, and sinker, and I feel a bit betrayed that the world didn't turn out much like they predicted. Recently I prepared an hour-long slide lecture on flying cars-- "Doorman, Call Me an Aircar!"-- and I've delivered it at a couple of science fiction conventions. The technology to make cars fly has been in hand for fifty years. Prototypes, both of convertible airplane-automobiles and of personal VTOLs, have been built and flown. But machines that satisfy mass-market needs of price, utility, safety, and convenience never did appear, and probably never will. Where are the undersea cities? Videophones? Nuclear airplanes? Hovercraft? Or (ah, the relevance to the newsgroup emerges!) lunar bases and Mars expeditions? All these things were expected to be standard features of the 1980s when I was growing up. While we *did* get a host of other marvels, some developments which were technically feasible just didn't catch on in the Real World. I think of this whenever I meet a space enthusiast with some exotic scheme for building or financing his favorite Buck Rogers project. Reality is not often kind to such technophilic dreamers. (But the exceptions to this rule become all the more interesting for their success.) Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALC.BITNET ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #268 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Jun 87 06:19:00 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07109; Mon, 29 Jun 87 03:16:06 PDT id AA07109; Mon, 29 Jun 87 03:16:06 PDT Date: Mon, 29 Jun 87 03:16:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8706291016.AA07109@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #269 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 269 Today's Topics: Wait... I've written that somewhere before! Government in space? Space and the Democratice Future ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Jun 87 15:00 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Wait... I've written that somewhere before! I received a rude shock while reading the July 1987 Omni. Grant Fjermedal, in his article on arpanet bboards, included an anonymous quotation from myself about the astrometric telescope facility. Fortunately, that quote was followed by a real silly quote about how environmentalists should support space development because it will allow polluting industries to be moved off-planet. By the way, the current incarnation of the space station has no place to put telescopes or earth observation instruments. I suggest we scuttle the whole thing and spend the money on free flying telescopes, unmanned earth observation platforms, long duration shuttle missions and Spacelab flights (most have which have been cancelled after Challenger). We could have Spacelab flying almost immediately, instead of waiting until the turn of the century. If any civilian missions need a space station, let's put 'em on Mir (or watch as the europeans do so); if any military missons need a station, let DOD build and launch their own. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jun 87 17:39:59 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Government in space? To: PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: RON PICARD >> Chief financial officer of American Rocket Co. observes that there will >> be opposition to private launchers because of loss of government jobs. >> Says that in government programs, for every producer "there are four >> guys carrying clipboards". > Has anyone ever read "Atlas shrugged" by Ayn Rand? I am afraid we objectivists are outnumbered by those who still see big government as the fast route to space. You would think that the expense and futility of Apollo, the reentry of Skylab, and the 2.5+ year Shuttle grounding would have convinced people otherwise. Space colonization may be decades away, or even centuries (I hope not) but when it is done, it will be done at a profit. Nothing but short- lived small scale projects such as Apollo and Skylab can be done at a financial loss. And those are of no possible benefit to man's future permanent presense in space. ...Keith ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@seismo.css.gov Date: Sat, 27 Jun 87 12:02:31 PDT From: scubed!pnet01!jim@seismo.css.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Space and the Democratice Future Space and the Democratic Future Andrew Hall Cutler San Diego L5 (A chapter of the National Space Society) (619) 284-2779 or 455-4688 President Reagan has done his best to make space policy a 1988 campaign issue. The Challenger accident and its aftermath have focussed public attention on NASA and space activities. The space station continues to grow in cost, shrink in size and slip farther into the future. The National Commission on Space has abdicated its responsibility to propose policy and tell us how to acheive it. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) has generated tremendous controversy about what America should be doing in space. Few presidential candidates will have sensible positions on space policy, yet such a position could be a powerful tool in the 1988 campaign and a sturdy plank in the party platform. There is tremendous public interest in space, and our space program is portrayed as the exemplar of American science and technology. No politician has yet exploited the public's love of space. A well thought out position on space policy could gather broad public support across the political spectrum. Space is popular with the american public, yet NASA is high on the list of budgets to cut when the public discusses deficit reduction. This is because the public perceives space as a new frontier, someplace they want to go. NASA is an elitist organization which sends a few select, highly trained astronauts into space using incredibly expensive technology no individual could afford. The public want access to the space frontier for themselves and their children, and they do not see NASA giving it to them. Hence space remains popular while NASA's budget is subject to continual attack. There are several problems with current federal support of space research and development. Most of these are widely acknowledged within the technical community, but can only be solved with the help and interest of congress and the administration. Some major problems are that research funding and directions are inordinately influenced by people in privileged positions; that funds are readily obtained by established people and organizations to work on well understood problems, while new investigators find it extremely difficult to obtain funding at all and established investigators have a difficult time pursuing new ideas; that it is extremely difficult for young scientists and engineers to find positions where they may pursue an appropriate technical career; that university research activities have become a detriment to education rather than a boon to it; that major projects and directions are chosen more on the basis of political support than on the basis of true merit, due to the lack of an appropriate cooperative relationship between the technical community, congress and the administration; and that research too often leads to costly government sponsored development. These problems represent a weakness in the foundation of our technological society, which must be repaired by appropriate policy measures. James Fletcher is Reagan's choice of a NASA administrator to reinvigorate our space program. When Challenger exploded and we could no longer ignore the fact that NASA had become rotten through and through, word went out "who would be a good administrator?" Back came an answer from the NASA bureaucracy: "James Fletcher! He's a Good Ol' Boy - we get along with him fine! He'll fix what needs fixin'!" Only Ronald Reagan could consider that a recommendation. Fletcher brings a history with him - he was also NASA administrator under Richard Nixon. Under Fletcher's guidance, NASA stopped producing Saturn rockets, cancelled several apollo flights for which the hardware had already been delivered (there are Saturn V's rotting in the sun at Johnson Space Center, Marshall Spaceflight Center and Kennedy Space Center. They are there because Richard M. Nixon and James Fletcher decided not to send them to the moon. Speak of government waste!), and proposed the Space Shuttle, which would be incredibly cheap to develop, and would be flying for $5,000,000 per flight by 1978. It actually flew in 1981. Each flight costs about $500,000,000. Launch costs have not fallen for over 20 years! NASA is now proposing the National Aerospace Plane (NASP), which will be incredibly cheap to develop and cost $5,000,000 per flight. Some of the same slides used 16 years ago to describe shuttle economics are being used again to describe NASP. We shouldn't complain - at least NASA is recycling something. What we need is the kind of space program John F. Kennedy tried to give us - progressive, bold, and focussed; with peace and human progress the ultimate goal. Apollo built on previous accomplishments and provided the hardware to perform a multitude of useful tasks in space. Unfortunately, Richard M. Nixon did not build on the fine foundation he was provided with - he did not provide NASA with appropriate policies, he did not make any use of the engineering and organizational framework built around apollo, and he ultimately threw away the hardware and technology that was apollo's true legacy to the space program and the American people. We need a prioritized set of goals in space. These goals are: we must acquire low cost access to earth orbit; build a properly conceived space station (instead of NASA's current amazing shrinking space station) with which we can learn to live and work in space; return to the moon to stay; and explore and ultimately inhabit Mars; in that order. This must be directed towards our ultimate goal - establishing a spacefaring civilization with settlements beyond earth. We should use the resources availabe in space to make this easier, cheaper, and to provide economic benefit to Earth as soon as this is feasible. None of these goals are spectacular events. Reaching them takes a long time and a lot of hard work, but in pursuing them we will reap unimagined rewards. Each of these goals involves about ten years of preparatory work, another ten years of heavy, sustained effort, and then adequate support to continue indefinitely after things get in gear. There is no question that NASA as it currently exists cannot reach these goals for any sum of money. There is no question that these goals can be reached for a reasonable sum of money. There is no question that a strong and sensible American president can start this process, like JFK started apollo, and that this president would enjoy unsurpassed support for such an act. The space program we need bears little resemblance to what we have gotten over the last 15 years. Skylab, Viking and Voyager were great accomplishments - and were done for about 3% of the total money spent. We need a program that gets results with 100% of its funding, not 3%. We need a program that explores the solar system, learns about space, the earth, and our place in the universe, and that lets us change our plans every few years to take advantage of our new knowledge. We have a program where our vehicles, missions and technologies are planned out until the year 2000 with no slack to take advantage of new results, and no real effort devoted to finding them. The most basic space activity is launching things to orbit. NASA has done very poorly with this. Like many other aspects of American society, it is time to go back to the basics. Every other country with a space program is developing large moderately priced rockets using straightforward, simple technology and an evolutionary approach. NASA insists on trying complex new technologies which do not build on prior experience. First we had the space shuttle, now the aerospace plane. NASA threw away the Saturn rocket technology in order to pursue the space shuttle, which has far less capability. This spring, we learned the Soviets have finally launched a rocket with about the capacity of the Saturn V we threw away, and that NASA does not expect to launch the space shuttle until 1990 (trapping several flight ready payloads on the ground and delaying many already long overdue programs). Until NASA is willing to use simple and inexpensive rockets we are not going to have an effective space program. We have been discussing a civilian space program. The military space program is currently twice the size of NASA, and SDI hopes to dwarf both soon. The only American president in living memory who truly understood the military, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, decided that our space program should be civilian. The events of the 28 years which have passed since he made that decision have proven him right. SDI is not technically feasible. Over half of the university physics faculty at the top 20 research universities in the country have signed a letter pledging not to accept SDI money. This sounds impressive. We must remember that these are extremely independent people who typically accept any money they are offered. Their solidarity in criticising SDI is not impressive, it is incredible. The usual "technical" argument for SDI is as follows: "We did a lot of classified work on this technology, and it was very promising. Very promising. It's classified though, so you'll just have to take my word for it." This would be a lot more convincing if it weren't applied to every technology that appears unworkable when analyzed in light of basic principles and the open literature. Since SDI cannot win support on its merits in the marketplace of ideas, the Reagan adminitration has tried to close the market down. Donald Hicks, Undersecretary of Defense, stated publicly last year that he did not see why DoD should give money for any kind of research to anyone who criticised SDI. He made it clear that there would be no formal action - closed discussions in the back room would take care of the problem. Critics would find their proposals receiving poor reviews and would not be funded. Under pressure, Hicks stated that his views did not represent the official policy of DoD. Yet the public threat that the "good old boys network" would take care of any SDI critics had a chilling effect on debate - and only time will tell if it is being carried out. Despite its lack of technical justification, SDI has an able spokesman in its director, Lt. Gen. James Abramson. He assures us SDI will be inexpensive, reliable and will let through less than 1 in 100,000 warheads. This is the same James Abramson who ran the shuttle program for several years and assured us that the shuttle would be inexpensive, reliable and would blow up less than 1 time in 100,000. His basic story hasn't changed, but events have made it rather hard to believe of the shuttle, or of SDI. We need a democratic president with the bold vision to give us John F. Kennedy's space program again. This program would not be one dramatic large program, nor an attempt to dazzle the world with advanced technology. It would be a program based on the 30 years of technical maturity we now have in space operations, directed at understanding and occupying our place in the universe. The republicans don't seem to have this vision - they are too concerned with militarizing space and corrupting the NASA bureaucracy. A candidate who understands the role of science and technology in the modern world, and America's need to be first in it can lead us to a bold future in space. This leadership will win him vibrant public support across the political spectrum. America and the democratic party need this leadership. We must demand it of our candidates. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #269 ******************* Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11934; Wed, 1 Jul 87 03:02:59 PDT id AA11934; Wed, 1 Jul 87 03:02:59 PDT Date: Wed, 1 Jul 87 03:02:59 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707011002.AA11934@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #270 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 270 Today's Topics: "Challenger Shrugged"... private space companies Cost of Shuttle vs. Disposables space news from May 11 AW&ST, and short editorial ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 87 07:40 CDT From: Subject: "Challenger Shrugged"... RE: From: "Keith F. Lynch" I am afraid we objectivists are outnumbered by those who still see big government as the fast route to space. You would think that the expense and futility of Apollo, the reentry of Skylab, and the 2.5+ year Shuttle grounding would have convinced people otherwise. Space colonization may be decades away, or even centuries (I hope not) but when it is done, it will be done at a profit. Nothing but short-lived small scale projects such as Apollo and Skylab can be done at a financial loss. And those are of no possible benefit to man's future permanent presense in space. ...Keith The above article was quite interesting given its "objectivist" credentials. But I'm curious though, Keith, why wouldn't one taking an "objective" perspective (i.e. free of Ayn Rand's ideology) come to a rather different conclusion, namely that relying on private industry to supply equipment for the space program brings in an unnecessary element of risk, that of production-for-private-profit? Was not the Challenger explosion which resulted in great loss of human lives, not to mention material losses, a prime example of this? And criticizing "big government" unqualified is one-sided; what must be taken into consideration is "big government within a capitalist economy." ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 87 18:35:01 GMT From: unc!skinner@mcnc.org (Andrew Skinner) Subject: private space companies This is my second posting concerning private space companies--more power to 'em. Thanks to Eugene Miya for suggesting that i ask Dale Amon, and thanks to Dale for sending me this list. There were other responses showing interest, but this was the only one informative on the particular subject. All the following, down to his signature, is quoted from Dale Amon's list: Private Launch vehicles: Space Services Inc of America (SSIA) Based in Houston Texas CEO is Deke Slayton Wallops Island launches expected within year. Booked: Celestis group (ashes in space) A private geopositioning sat. company (can't remember name off hand, but NOT Geostar) Responsible for test launch of Conestoga from Matagordo Island a few years ago. Texas oil money. AMROC based in SF area. CEO is George Koopman other principles include James Bennet Heir to technology developed by defunct Starstruck aka Arc Engineering. Solid fuel, liquid oxidizer. Have tested engine at Vandenberg. Estimated 20-30 K lbs thrust on testbed. Marketing Industrial Launch Vehicle One (ILV-1) Will launch from Vandenberg. Bank financing. Pacific American Launch Services based in Mountainview area CEO Gary Hudsen searching for major financing design of Percheron rocket that blew up on pad at Matagordo. design of Phoenix E concept pushed by Society Expeditions (Seattle) Also working on a Heavy Lift vehicle concept Hardworking, some backing but ??? Martin Marietta, General Dynamics and MacDonnel Douglas are commercializing the rockets they build (Titan, Atlas, Delta) and each has around 9 firm bookings. Launches will be from Cape and Vandenberg. Talk of refurbishing another Delta pad to deal with increased load. They have little if any planning aimed at increasing their market or of dealing with the world after the current backlog of comsat and government requirements is handled. Geostar based in DC (formerly in Princeton) owned by Dr. O'Neill and Space Studies Institute Expected to be Fortune 500 in th 90's Private location satellite network. Have all necessary licenses, hardware is designed, customer base development begun. First pair of transponders failed. Piggy back on a comsat launched on Ariane. MacDonnel Douglas continuing with electrophoresis development, awaiting shuttle to come back online. Charles Walker is the principle investigator. Currently working out of office in DC, his regular office is in St. Louis. He will be flying again, and will have more shuttle flights than anyone else. Spacehab Seattle based Expansion to pressurized space for shuttle, extension to valuable mid deck locker space. Firm bookings and fly now pay afterwards deal with NASA. Flights firmly booked. Space Industries Houston based Max Faget Industrial Space Facility. Pressurized shirt sleeve man tended modules for rental to industry. Joint Venture with Westinghouse Space (Pittsburgh) Two flights firmly booked with NASA. They have high priority when shuttle flies. >I'd recommend you subscribe to Spaceworld (NSS montly magazine) and >Space Calendar a weekly events newsletter if you want to keep up with >who is doing what. > > Dale Amon I suppose that someday when i really want a job i will somehow come up with time to check this out more thoroughly. Hope it is useful. andy ------------------------------ From: gatech!mdc14!wbm@seismo.css.gov Subject: Cost of Shuttle vs. Disposables Date: Mon Jun 29 15:25:44 1987 Does anyone know what the cost for each additional shuttle flight was costing before the Challenger? How did it relate to non- reusable rockets? -------- William B. McCormick uucp: !{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!mdc14!wbm ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 87 01:47:32 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from May 11 AW&ST, and short editorial NASA payload projections for mid-1990s show routine need for a booster capable of 60-100 klbs of payload. 100-200 klbs after year 2000. Italy is interested in doing a logistics transport canister for the space station, over and above its participation in the ESA side of the station. Discussions may begin this summer. Soviet Proton marketeers will be in Washington this week to brief possible customers. Some fuss when they were accidentally booked into a congressional hearing room in the Rayburn House Office Building; local Soviet reps say the site will be changed. Arianespace chairman d'Allest says that US and Europe should settle their disputes about what constitutes a fair price for a commercial launch, since the US-Europe price differences pale compared to China's 50%-lower prices. Canadian space-station negotiating team formally asked NASA "just who is calling the shots in the US, NASA or DoD?". NASA says the answer was "NASA". Growing support for a lunar base as the next major US space goal. Various NASA internal studies are underway on the matter. The Moon base is cited as being worthwhile in its own right, useful as a stepping stone (both directly and technologically) to Mars, and attainable sooner and at lower cost than Mars. Plans would call for a Lunar Polar Orbiter in 1994, an unmanned sample return/rover mission in 1996, more complex unmanned missions in the late 90s, two manned missions per year starting in 2000 as preliminaries, a lunar oxygen plant in 2005, and then about four manned missions per year until 2010 when the base would be complete. The manned missions would be launched from the space station using a pair of orbital transfer vehicles each. [See editorial below. -- HS] Mars sample return/rover missions would probably be mounted in the late 90s regardless. Use of lunar oxygen could greatly ease a manned Mars mission; in particular, it would reduce weight requirements enough to launch such a mission using reusable orbital transfer vehicles rather than a custom-built boost stage. Canada is busily getting its act together for space station utilization. In general the international partners appear to be much better prepared for early use of the station than the US. Various details on what is being done about this. Space scientists complain to Senate panel that space science does not need the station, and that heavy emphasis on materials processing etc. has resulted in a station design that is ill-suited to missions like planetary exploration support. CNES (French National Space Agency) opens discussions with Soviets about compatibility between Mir and the Hermes spaceplane. Hermes will have higher payload than the current Progress freighters. Starfind, Inc., a small navsat company, signs with Space Services Inc. for five satellite launches starting late next year. Starfind claims high accuracy, relatively small and cheap satellites, and operational capability with only one satellite. The last two of those are specifically cited as advantages over Geostar, Starfind's major commercial competitor. USAF issues formal announcement of Advanced Launch System (heavylift booster) program. Sort of an RFP, but giving potential suppliers more flexibility in that they propose. Goal is fully operational system in ten years with limited operational capability earlier, and an ultimate cost reduction of a factor of ten over current systems. Various other motherhoods. NASA and Orbital Sciences disagree about cost of TOS upper stage for Mars Observer. NASA says $63M, compared to original commercial projection of $20M. OSC says $63M is the result of "strange bookkeeping" which "probably has a lot of [NASA] internal costs charged to it", and the actual price to NASA will be $30M under existing contracts. Original proposals said $20M, but NASA wanted a lot of changes. DoT asks administration to get its act in gear on commercial use of USAF launch facilities, claims this is urgent if US expendable companies are to remain competitive. Three issues seem to be sticking points: 1. Expendable companies want government to share responsibility for damage caused by launch accidents, and set insurance liability limits. 2. They want assurance that commercial launches will not be preempted by government missions except in genuine emergencies. 3. Costs and details on range-safety supervision need to be clarified. NASA plans modest improvements to its tracking network to receive signals from the Soviet Mars/Phobos mission. US will provide Soviets with the data in return for access to it and participation in interpretation. US Geological Survey's Eros Data Center, the main US outlet for civilian space imagery, signs contract with Spot Image. Eros will serve as broker for US government use of Spot images, simplifying paperwork for users. France studying synthetic-aperture radar satellite for military and other uses as followon/supplement to Spot/Helios. Los Alamos is thinking about restarting work on nuclear space propulsion, notably a nuclear orbital transfer vehicle. USAF Astronautics Lab stacking Titan 34D SRB for test firing, after repeated delays due to weather. Glavkosmos officially denies that the April 24 Proton failure was really a failure. Space Commerce Corp of Houston, the US Proton marketing agent, learned of the failure from AW&ST, asked Glavkosmos about it, and was told that it was a successful launch into high elliptical orbit (!). SCC replied that they didn't believe this, and requested acknowledgement of the failure and details of its circumstances. No response yet. Two Mir EVAs, intended to add a new solar array to Mir to provide extra power for Kvant, delayed without explanation. Widow of Challenger pilot Michael J. Smith files $1.5G lawsuit against Morton Thiokol, the US government, and Lawrence Mulloy (ex-head of the NASA SRB program). She also asks that M-T be barred from further shuttle work. [As regular readers know, I have a low opinion of such lawsuits... but that last part sounds like a fine idea. -- HS] AIAA describes current state of civilian space program as "crisis", calls for 40% NASA budget hike, a clear national space policy providing specific long-term objectives and commitment to do them, and a dedicated decision- making body free of inter-agency squabbles. "The budget policy of the past two decades will ensure that the US becomes and remains a second-class power in space." Cosmonauts from Syria, Bulgaria, and France are training for Mir missions. The French cosmonaut in particular will be aboard Mir for a month and will do an EVA, probably in late 1988. The Soviets hope to have a second major module added to Mir by then; it is not clear which docking port it will use. Jean-Loup Chretien, one of the French cosmonauts now in the USSR, says the Soviet training procedures are long and tedious but the results are better than European and US approaches. Current Mir crew expected to return to Earth in December. Pictures of German test stand for Ariane 5 engines. USAF growing concerned about the increasing number of offshore oil platforms near Vandenberg launch site. A particular worry is that Delta strap-on boosters splash down in a fairly wide pattern only a few miles offshore. Second launch of Japanese H-1 booster, this August, will carry experimental navsat which will be tested by boats and airliners. [We interrupt the sequence of Doing It Right editorials for a brief one on... The Moon Vs. Mars My personal prediction is that if any concrete and specific long-term goal for NASA is really set any time soon, it will be a return to the Moon. This will play much better in Peoria than obscure Earth-orbit science, and Mars would take rather longer and cost rather more. The Moon will look like a good compromise between the bean-counters and the ambitious explorers: an exciting objective on a more modest scale than Mars. I hope I'm right, because it's the right decision. The Mars enthusiasts make a big thing out of how their project is *not* going to be an Apollo-style one-shot. They are going to do exploration the way it should be done, establishing infrastructure for an ongoing program. They do seem to have forgotten that Apollo wasn't originally *supposed* to be a one-shot either, but they have also missed something more subtle. If this is the right way to explore Mars, and doing so is desirable, then surely the same arguments apply to the Moon. By their standards, we clearly have not explored the Moon properly. I agree. So why are we talking about starting with Mars? Even if the rightness of exploring our own backyard first isn't obvious, look at it from the bean-counter viewpoint. The Mars people are implicitly saying that Apollo was good enough for lunar exploration, and it's time to go on to Mars and leave the Moon behind. These are the same people who claim they want something more than a one-shot mission for Mars! The bean counters will assuredly ask: if a one-shot was good enough for the Moon, what's wrong with it for Mars? Pushing on to Mars without going back to the Moon first only strengthens the one-shot mentality that the Mars people claim to be against. One might wonder about their motives: do they *really* care more about the ongoing program than about the first mission? Finally... DAMMIT, WE HAVE UNFINISHED BUSINESS ON THE MOON, WHICH HAS WAITED TOO LONG ALREADY! NASA's Moon-base idea puts the next manned Moon mission nearly 30 years after Apollo 17, which is bad enough (and should and could be improved on! The Lunar Polar Orbiter is the only really necessary unmanned precursor. One Apollo-style mission would net more useful results than all the other proposed unmanned junk put together.). Mars can, should, and must wait. It's time -- high time, long past time -- to go back to the Moon. To stay. -- HS] Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #270 ******************* From ota Thu Jul 2 03:03:17 1987 Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14164; Thu, 2 Jul 87 03:03:17 PDT id AA14164; Thu, 2 Jul 87 03:03:17 PDT Date: Thu, 2 Jul 87 03:03:17 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707021003.AA14164@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #271 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 271 Today's Topics: Re: Challenger shrugged Only for profit, not survival?? I disagree! Re: Comrade Atlas shrugged private vs public debate NASA vs. NOAA budget Re: Space and the Democratic Future Opinions wanted ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 87 08:32 EST From: RON PICARD Subject: Re: Challenger shrugged writes: > The above article was quite interesting given its "objectivist" > credentials. But I'm curious though, Keith, why wouldn't one taking an > "objective" perspective (i.e. free of Ayn Rand's ideology) come to a > rather different conclusion, namely that relying on private industry to > supply equipment for the space program brings in an unnecessary element > of risk, that of production-for-private-profit? Was not the Challenger > explosion which resulted in great loss of human lives, not to mention > material losses, a prime example of this? On the contrary, if a privately owned company with no governmental restrictions had lost 51L, do you think they would still be giving MT their business? The CEO would be lynched at the first public stock meeting. It isn't capitalism that failed, it's the companies that live off of government supplied coercive monopolies. > And criticizing "big > government" unqualified is one-sided; what must be taken into > consideration is "big government within a capitalist economy." Sorry. Big government cannot exist within a TRUE capitalist economy (NOT the mixed economy we now have). Ron Picard (Anti-trust laws should be General Motors Research Labs approached with exactly that Warren, Mich. 48090 attitude) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 87 11:57:38 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 July 01 11:57:38 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 July 01 12:45:31 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu Cc: "PICARD%gmr.com"@relay.cs.net, Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Only for profit, not survival?? I disagree! Date: Sun, 28 Jun 87 17:39:59 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Government in space? To: PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov Space colonization may be decades away, or even centuries (I hope not) but when it is done, it will be done at a profit. I *must* rebut this!! Survival is more important than profit. In the long run, space colonization is primarily for survival, and must be done regardless of profit. Nothing but short-lived small scale projects such as Apollo and Skylab can be done at a financial loss. If that is true, it is sad, and *must* be changed. Arms control is counter to profit, yet we need arms control, and must find a way to counter whose who just want to make a buck even if it dooms the human race in the end. In the long run, space colonization is in the same class, we must find a way to do it, profit or not. And those are of no possible benefit to man's future permanent presense in space. Mostly agreed, the aborted version of Apollo where we didn't fly the last few missions and didn't have a follow-up, and Skylab where we didn't put enough fuel on board to keep it up there permanently and couldn't get enough money to go back up to boost it up higher, were of some value but not much directly toward permanent manned presence in space. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 87 16:36:43 GMT From: voder!blia!heather@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Heather Mackinnon) Subject: Re: Comrade Atlas shrugged In article <35c837d0.44e6@apollo.uucp>, nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes: > > I am afraid we objectivists are outnumbered by those who > > still see big government as the fast route to space. > > > > Space colonization may be decades away, or even centuries (I > > hope not) but when it is done, it will be done at a profit. > > All of which, of course, explains why the Soviet space program is > going nowhere while we sail through the cosmos on the wings of > our glorious capitalistic space program. I'm going to catch flames for this, but I'll go ahead anyway. America is no longer a free market capitalist society. The US has adopted all the planks of Marx's communist manifesto (public schooling, progressive income taxes, regulated enterprise, etc). Our government has appropriated a monopoly on space just as it has appropriated and granted monopolies on public utilities and banking. The Constitution is being eroded; the government is increasingly seizing powers that were not granted to it in the Constitution. Private space firms could not now survive because the government would regulate and tax them out of existence. With space becoming increasingly militarized, the government will need tight control of spacefaring civilians. You can't develop a frontier unless there is a high return on investment and a lot of freedom in the development of the frontier. If you want to compare a capitalistic society to a communistic one, then I suggest you find one first. In case you can't guess, I lean towards objectivism myself. I would love to see the government back its nose out of commerce and let the free market have a chance at space. We have the resources and the brains to do truly magnificent things in space. What we need is a few daring individuals and entrepreneurs to commit themselves to space development and for the government to, if not help, at least not hinder them. We fought a war two centuries ago for freedom: freedom to trade with whom we choose, freedom to explore the frontiers of our land, freedom from inequitable and exhorbitant taxation. We have a new frontier now, a very exciting one, and we need to re-claim our freedoms. Time to get off my soap-box, Heather Mackinnon Status: free and natural person ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 87 09:15 MDT From: Subject: private vs public debate I'm surprised to see the question of whether private industry or government should at be the core of our space program playing such a large role in the space digest. The capitalism versus socialism debate is now a century old and, given the resources devoted to weapons of destruction between the superpowers flying the two flags, it doesn't seem to have served us well. Observing the revolving doors between top brass at the Pentagon and officers of DoD contractors, the private/public distinction is being applied to a grey area where it doesn't have a clear empirical counterpart. An alternative and, I think, more interesting question, is what can the US do alone and in competition with the Soviet Union versus what could be done in a joint effort. Surely we must first envision a cooperative effort before it can become a reality. What better place for that vision to evolve than on the Space digest. ------------------------------ Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA Cc: cb@mitre-bedford.arpa Subject: NASA vs. NOAA budget Date: Mon, 29 Jun 87 13:20:56 EDT From: Christopher Byrnes I was wondering what the NASA budget was in respect to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget. I assume that NOAA is (among other things) directly or indirectly responsible for deep-sea exploration such as those submarine trips to deep sea "vents" which discovered unusual life forms several years ago. It would be interesting to compare what NOAA spends on exciting and pioneering exploration versus the more mundane (but still necessary) stuff such as running the National Weather Service. Is it fair to draw comparisons between NASA and NOAA? Both agencies are charged with maintaining vital national services (launching important payloads and predicting the weather). Both agencies are responsible for exploring major unknown areas which may contain resources which are vital to the future inhabitants (and taxpayers) of Earth. Both exploration programs have to work with international partners on major explorations (Spacelab, the "Titanic" discovery, etc.). Both programs have major military implications (how much does the Navy spend on its own deep-sea research program)? Both explore areas that the general public (occasionally) finds interesting. Both have had major programs scaled back (remember those deep habitats that were built to see if people could live and work on continental shelfs, that idea seems to have been dropped). The reason I ask is to see if we can draw any lessons from NOAA's experiences over the past few years. Does their exploration budget suffer from the same funding swings as NASA's? Do their major (and headline grabbing) scientific discoveries lead to any funding increases? How long does it take them to get big ticket items funded through Congress? Is NOAA's low public profile the result of planning or poor public relations? I wonder if their approach is better or worse in the long run. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 87 18:29:14 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Space and the Democratic Future In article <8706271916.AA13557@crash.CTS.COM>, jim@pnet01.UUCP (Jim Bowery) writes: > Space and the Democratic Future > > Andrew Hall Cutler > San Diego L5 > (A chapter of the National Space Society) > (619) 284-2779 or 455-4688 > We need a prioritized set of goals in space. These goals are: > we must acquire low cost access to earth orbit; build a properly > conceived space station (instead of NASA's current amazing shrinking > space station) with which we can learn to live and work in space; > return to the moon to stay; and explore and ultimately inhabit Mars; > in that order. This must be directed towards our ultimate goal - > establishing a spacefaring civilization with settlements beyond Earth. > We should use the resources available in space to make this easier, > cheaper, and to provide economic benefit to Earth as soon as this is > feasible. Before picking a few nits in the rest of the posting, let me say that the paragraph above is the best capsule statement I've seen of what our goals in space should be. I trust I have permission to send it to my Congressman. > Some major problems are ... that funds are readily obtained by > established people and organizations to work on well understood > problems, while new investigators find it extremely difficult to > obtain funding at all and established investigators have a difficult > time pursuing new ideas; This is at best confusing, but I don't know anyone who finds "funds are readily obtained." I work for a pretty well established organization, and the fields of X-ray and infrared astronomy are universally recognized as important research areas needing space observations. The Uhuru, Einstein, and IRAS satellites have all been extremely successful. Yet the followup missions, AXAF and SIRTF, won't fly until the mid to late 90's at best. For SIRTF, where I have personal knowledge and interest, formal study of the mission concept began in 1977 or 78; informal discussions had been held for several years before that. Our instrument proposal was submitted in 1983 and selected in 1984. The best schedule anyone has been willing to predict is for a new start in FY 1992, and if you wanted to sell insurance against a later start, you would have plenty of buyers. The FY'92 start means a launch in 1996, or almost 20 years after the initial studies. No other scientific missions are doing any better. The Explorer program is stuck, in spite of having received about 40 (!) proposals in response to the latest Announcement of Opportunity. The last I heard, NASA was considering returning all proposals without evaluation on the grounds that there is no money for any of them, regardless of merit. (This information is a few months old and may be out of date.) On the other hand, I don't know anyone from Morton Thiokol. If they and their ilk are the ones you had in mind, you should make that clear. > extremely difficult for young scientists and engineers to find > positions where they may pursue an appropriate technical career; My understanding was that unemployment is down and salaries are greatly up compared to 10 years ago. Perhaps you are using a very restrictive definition of "appropriate?" Or have I been misled? > that university research activities have become a detriment to > education rather than a boon to it; This is at best controversial. Derek Bok, the President of Harvard University, has just released his annual report in which he cites the presence of research activities on campus as the greatest single educational strength of US universities as compared to universities in other countries. My own experience is in agreement with Mr. Bok's conclusions: I found contact with researchers (many of whom did not hold teaching appointments) to be the most valuable part of my education. > that major projects and directions are chosen more on the basis of > political support than on the basis of true merit, This is meaningless unless you can give an objective definition of "true merit." And it is likely to be offensive to anyone in political life, to whom "political support" is the measure of value of any program. Perhaps what you meant to say was something like "Political decisions as to major projects and directions often depend more on who will profit financially than on the whether the projects will help achieve our national goals..." and one could add, as you say: > due to the lack of an appropriate cooperative relationship between > the technical community, Congress and the administration; > that research too often leads to costly government sponsored > development. You're getting at a real problem, but in a very indirect and confusing way. From an ideal economic point of view, research that would not lead to development wouldn't be funded. In the real world, one cannot accomplish that, because we don't know in advance which research will lead to developable results. (Also, some of us think that there is a place for "pure" research, even if it will never show a profit.) There are really two problems: One is that lack of accountability may lead to inappropriate technologies being selected for development, especially if a decision to develop is made before the research results are in. The other problem is that development may be less efficiently carried out by government than by private organizations. There is no perfect solution; simply making all development and the decisions thereon private would not be useful unless business could anticipate profit on a relatively short time scale. On the other hand, informed and competent management could do a lot to alleviate these problems. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ Sender: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com Date: 29 Jun 87 13:23:15 PDT (Monday) Subject: Opinions wanted From: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com Cc: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com Reply-To: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com I have been reading Space Digest with much interest. While not understanding all of it, still, I have learned a lot. I am submitting a "tidbit" which none of you may feel is interesting enough to reply to, but if anyone DOES want to reply here it is. Just remember that I am a novice, not like some of your great brains, so while it may seem simple to you (the answer I mean) It's not obvious to me. This is a dream I had 11 years ago and was so vivid and fascinating that I have never forgotten it. What I am asking is - does anything that I dreamed seem to have a solution based on scientific principles. This is the first place that I have run into where I could even ask this question of some knowledgable minds. Dream Segment I I was taken to outer space and saw a very strange craft or ship with sails. (actually the discussion on sails must have triggered my memory of this strange dream. I didn't understand the discussion much but found it facinating - maybe your proposed "sails" would be using solar winds?) I was told that the "fuel" of future would be "clean and cheap". That sails would be used and powered by the solar winds. Question: Is there such a thing as solar winds? If there are, could a vehicle be powered by sails catching the solar winds? Dream Segment 2 Quick shift: I was taken to observe a tornado. I was told that the way to "diffuse" this terrible and destructive storm was the "run the energy around in reverse" down the center. Then I was shown this and it did. Question: Would such a thing be possible, if so, how? Dream Segment 3 Quick shift: I was walking through a strange forest. The trees were somewhat shaped like celery bunches, that is broad wide "branches" if that is the correct word here, growing up like celery does, instead of out like most tree branches (more like - is it cedars that grow close and straight up?) On the "branches", like bark maybe, the trees or the bark was fur. Leopard, bear, sable, you name it. I was told that instead of the animals having to die to give us their beautiful fur that we would "grow" the different types of animal fur on trees and then "harvest/ skin/peel" the fur off and then the tree would grow a new "crop" of fur. Thus the trees would not die either but repenish themselves. Question: Would such a thing, scientifically, be possible (someday)? Hoping for some replies in your DL, Leeanna Dibrell: OSBU South:Xerox ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #271 ******************* From ota Fri Jul 3 03:03:39 1987 Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17599; Fri, 3 Jul 87 03:03:39 PDT id AA17599; Fri, 3 Jul 87 03:03:39 PDT Date: Fri, 3 Jul 87 03:03:39 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707031003.AA17599@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #272 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 272 Today's Topics: Reply to Opinions Wanted on Dream Re: The rocky road to the stars The rocky road to the stars Re: Wait... I've written that (max G&selection) Space Telescopes Betelguese and Supernova Re: Betelguese and Supernova Stupid (?) question Re: Government in space? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sender: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com Date: 30 Jun 87 10:11:11 PDT (Tuesday) Subject: Reply to Opinions Wanted on Dream From: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com Cc: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com Reply-To: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com Please pass this on to: Hugh Daniel hugh@hoptoad.uucp hugh@score.stanford.edu hugh@lll-crg.arpa Re>"You seem very good at remembering your dreams. I often wonder what it would have been like to get 'Remembering Dreams 101' in say second grade!" I keep a dream journal as have always had vivid technicolor dreams from a very eary age. Although I did remember this dream, did check back to my journal to validate my memory was correct. You might be interested to know that there is an entire culture (native Polynisians) that teach their children from the earliest to share their dreams and to MASTER/CHANGE them. A book was written which includes this culture (forget the name at the moment) in CREATIVE DREAMING by Patricia Garfield. It does work for I have used her techniques (to change my dreams and to master my nightmares. Don't have them anymore). Dreams are, in a lot of cases, used as a safety valve from the daily stresses. I have found that take more I master my daily life and take action the less anxiety type dreams I have. (nightmares are extreme fear and stress). One of the things I do is teach dream interpretation and have found I have gained a lot from "listening" to my dreams and learning from them (my students do too so I have a lot of case histories besides my own experience to prove this is of benefit and works). This dream has another interpretation (I gained from that too) but, as time went on, I couldn't help but wonder if there might not be some scientific meaning also. Hence, my query. Thanks for your resonse. A lot of scientific study and research has and is being done on dreams. Did you see the movie "Dreamscape"? Fascinating. Taking some known facts about dreams (and that you can control/change them ala Garfield's book) and putting it in a story form. I believe it an be rented at some video stores. If you are interested in following up dreams, I highy recommend this movie. Entertaining for the non dream-interested person too. Leeanna Dibrell:OSBU South:Xerox ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jun 87 10:03:41 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: The rocky road to the stars Newsgroups: sci.space I just tossed out a NASA Activities which had an article on the people at JSC and MSFC studying the problem of impacts. There are three solutions of which I can remember 2 off the top: 1) is the equivalent of armor plate. This is what is used to shield craft like Galileo's computers: battleship armor. 2) the second is to use a thin layer of aluminum to dissipate energy (of small particles), the problem being after some of the Al is vaporized some spauling (sp?) takes place. Which is the same principle as certain types of tank armor and anti-armor work. Sorry, I forgot the third. The article did mention the consideration of sweeper satellites to collect stuff (Note I think it would make cleaning the CFCs from the atmosphere look trivial.) and the problems of space suit penetration [astronaut must hurry back to the airlock, etc.] From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 87 13:32:02 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: The rocky road to the stars I have the impression that collisions with largish "dust grains" may be a serious obstacle to interstellar travel. At the speeds usually considered necessary for interstellar trips, such collisions seem unavoidable and too energetic to be shielded effectively. Has anyone analyzed this problem before? For definiteness, consider a spaceship traveling at 10^7 m/s. That is real slug speed, only 1/30 of the speed of light. At that speed it would take 120 years to get to the (next-)nearest star. Still, since kinetic energy is proportional to mass time velocity squared, hitting a 1g pebble at that speed should be as bad as hitting a 1 ton boulder at 10^4 m/s (low Earth orbit speed) or a 10,000 ton asteroid at 360 km/h. Conversely, a 1g hit at 10^4 m/s, which would probably blow a hole straight through the Shuttle, is energeticaly equivalent to a 0.000001g hit at 10^7 m/s. (Here I am ignoring relativistic effects, which would only make the picture worse anyway.) How likely are such collisions? A spaceship with 10 m^2 cross section (about 4 m diameter) will sweep 10^17 m^3 of space per light year of travel. If the average density d(M) of particles with mass >M in interstellar space is a bit more than 10^-17 per cubic meter, the probability of colliding with one or more such particles will be practically 1. I dont have any idea of what is d(M) for "large" M (say, 1 mg), but I expect 10^-17 particles/m^3 to be far below the detection threshold. From some back-of-the envelope calculations it seems that no practical amount of shielding would resist multiple hits by pebble-sized particles. Destroying those particles before they hit the ship also seems unfeasible. For example, if we try to vaporize each pebble with a laser beam, we must do that while the pebble is VERY far away, so that the gas cloud has enough time to dissipate completely before the spaceship gets there. I hope to give more details in a future message. Meanwhile, any comments? Jorge Stolfi --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then Nicholl, using his own calculations, demonstrated that it was absolutely impossible to give any object at all the velocity of 12,000 yards per second. And, algebra in hand, he maintained that even if such a velocity could be attained, such a heavy projectile could never be lifted beyond the limits of the Earth's atmosphere! It would never reach even an altitude of twenty miles. And furthermore! Even if such a speed could be attained, even if it would suffice, the shell could not withstand the pressure of the gases produced by igniting 1,600,000 pounds of powder. And even if it could resist the pressure, it could not withstand the temperature, it would melt as it left the Columbiad, and a red-hot rain would fall on the heads of the foolish spectators. Barbicane did not even wince at these attacks; he simply got on with his work. -- Jules Verne, From the Earth to the Moon (1865) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jul 87 10:13:43 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Wait... I've written that (max G&selection) Newsgroups: sci.space Henry writes >> telescopes > >This is probably as it should be. Such devices *want* to be free-flying, >to get away from vibration and other complications of a manned facility. >The space station should be reserved for things that really want people in >continuous attendance, which such instruments generally don't. The current >focus on microgravity work is also dubious. Things like satellite assembly >and servicing are much more convincing reasons for the station. I would rather improve the reliability of satellites rather than service them in space. Murphy's law holds: the part you will need will doubtless be on the ground ;-). There would be more money for electronics and computer science. >We could have a space station flying almost immediately, if NASA would get >off its behind and start using existing hardware, instead of frittering away >another decade and another ten billion dollars by reinventing everything. We can launch cans, with O2 cylinders, batteries, and extension cords. Needless to say, Mr. Spencer over simplifies. I can see from the Max G posting that all Henry wants to do is go into space. No, pilots blackout are frequently washout of military programs. Training? For what? I think I see the problem because Henry's viewpoint is not uncommon. I think the perspective to take can't be a correct one for many years to come. The question is not `why not send XXX into space' the question should be `why send XXX' in to space. The question is from the viewpoint of a selection board. It's not that I don't want to go into space, but I think only the most qualified people should go. Consider: if you want a discussion try this for a while. On what basis would you select people to go into space? From the biyearly Congressional report, Dr. Robert Voas in the section on Medical and Psychological is quoted: . . . intelligence without genius, knowledge without inflexibility, bravery without foolhardiness, self-confidence without egotism, physical fitness without being muscle-bound, a preference for participatory over spectator sports, frankness without blabbermouthing, enjoyment of life without excess, humor without disproportion, fast reflexes without panic in crises. Consider other criteria: weight, eyesight, etc. There are over 20 sets of tests given. Can I send more life support or scientific instrumentation? [If you ever visit the Goddard Space Center near Washington DC there was a mock up the last time I was at the Visitor Center of a Mercury capsule which you could crawl into (very small) the original 7 must have all been short and light weight]. Would each reader consider whether they would warp the criteria such that they would fit for their own personal gain? The purpose isn't just to send people into space, but to get something out of it. This isn't quite the same thing as adventure. I want us to go out there for knowledge, not personal gain. On a personal note: I was offered a desk job yesterday at the new Space Station office in Reston, VA. I can see it now, yet another Unix battle (versus PCs running PC/DOS or OS/2). I said no for now. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 87 14:12:51 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Space Telescopes > [...] > By the way, the current incarnation of the space station has no place to > put telescopes or earth observation instruments. There was no desire in the astronomical community for telescopes on the space station. Local contamination, interference in pointing, etc., were too much. NASA wanted another justification for the SS, but the objectives are incompatible. > I suggest we scuttle the whole thing and spend the money on free > flying telescopes, unmanned earth observation platforms, long duration > shuttle missions and Spacelab flights (most have which have been > cancelled after Challenger). We could have Spacelab flying almost > immediately, instead of waiting until the turn of the century. If any > civilian missions need a space station, let's put 'em on Mir (or watch > as the europeans do so); if any military missons need a station, let > DOD build and launch their own. Hear, hear! Bill UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jun 87 09:37:03 PDT From: ota@galileo.s1.gov To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Betelguese and Supernova It may indeed be that checking out nearby supernova candidates will be the first application that requires an interstellar trip. Remote probes at the nearest half dozen likely supernovas could relay early warning of an impending explosion. This might be the highest leverage scientific program ever undertaken, at least in terms of lives saved. At the very least is would be a colossally interesting project. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 87 21:30:53 GMT From: nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova In article <8706291637.AA03371@galileo.s1.gov> ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes: >It may indeed be that checking out nearby supernova candidates will be >the first application that requires an interstellar trip. Remote probes >at the nearest half dozen likely supernovas could relay early warning of >an impending explosion. This might be the highest leverage scientific >program ever undertaken, at least in terms of lives saved. At the very >least is would be a colossally interesting project. > Ted Anderson Now excuse me for nit picking, but would this give us any early warning? It seems to me that by the time indications of an impending SN got to the probe, and the warning message from the probe got back to earth, the same conditions that triggered the warning in the probe would be detectable here. Am I missing something, or was this an oversight? -Chris Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs * * * * * weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / REX QUANDUM. REXQUE FUTURUS. ----------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 87 10:11:05 GMT From: mcvax!enea!liuida!yngla@seismo.css.gov (Yngve Larsson) Subject: Stupid (?) question Please forgive this ignorant amateur for asking this question: What is a Clarke Orbit? BTW, how many Europeans (or rather, non-US or -SU citizens) have entered space to this date? -- Yngve Larsson UUCP: {seismo, mcvax}!enea!liuida!yla Dept of CIS Arpa: YLA%IDA.LIU.SE@SEISMO.CSS.GOV Linkoping University, Sweden Phone: +46-13-281949 ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 87 13:05:39 GMT From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Government in space? In article <220834.870628.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: > > From: RON PICARD > > >> Chief financial officer of American Rocket Co. observes that there will > >> be opposition to private launchers because of loss of government jobs. > >> Says that in government programs, for every producer "there are four > >> guys carrying clipboards". > > > Has anyone ever read "Atlas shrugged" by Ayn Rand? > > I am afraid we objectivists are outnumbered by those who still see big > government as the fast route to space. You would think that the expense > and futility of Apollo, the reentry of Skylab, and the 2.5+ year Shuttle > grounding would have convinced people otherwise. > > Space colonization may be decades away, or even centuries (I hope not) > but when it is done, it will be done at a profit. Nothing but short- > lived small scale projects such as Apollo and Skylab can be done at > a financial loss. And those are of no possible benefit to man's future > permanent presense in space. > ...Keith Sure there will be space colonization, and it probably will not be done at a profit. Too get a hint of how & by who, see this mornings paper. U.S. business is contracting to U.S.S.R. for the launch of communications satellites. As someone else's signature says, "There is only one country on earth with a space program, comrade." -- "Beware the babble problem!" || James W. Meritt -Gilbertus Abans || Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory of Septimian || ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #272 ******************* From ota Sat Jul 4 03:02:55 1987 Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19875; Sat, 4 Jul 87 03:02:55 PDT id AA19875; Sat, 4 Jul 87 03:02:55 PDT Date: Sat, 4 Jul 87 03:02:55 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707041002.AA19875@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #273 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 273 Today's Topics: Re: Cost of Shuttle vs. Disposables Re: The rocky road to the stars Metric vs. English units Re: Government in space? Re: Cost of Shuttle vs. Disposables Re: Opinions wanted: Dream of solar windsailer Re: The rocky road to the stars The End of Apollo FTL free enterprise space Re: Stupid (?) question How many non-standard spacenauts? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Jul 87 23:28:46 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Cost of Shuttle vs. Disposables > Does anyone know what the cost for each additional shuttle > flight was costing before the Challenger? How did it relate to non- > reusable rockets? It is difficult to assess this sort of thing because there are so many variables. For example, shuttle flights are cheaper to the government (effectively a subsidy for government flights), while expendables appear to be significantly cheaper to commercial customers (less paperwork). Which prices do you count? A rough rule of thumb is that unsubsidized costs to low orbit are around $5000/lb for all existing launchers. The NRC report on achievable post-Challenger-recovery shuttle launch frequency said that overall launch costs were sensitive to the overall poundage per year but almost completely insensitive to what mix of launchers were used, implying that real costs are pretty similar. The NRC was presumably thinking mostly of government or government-funded payloads on government-funded launchers, which might mean a modest cost advantage for expendables for straight commercial use. -- Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 87 23:49:05 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: The rocky road to the stars > I have the impression that collisions with largish "dust grains" > may be a serious obstacle to interstellar travel. At the speeds > usually considered necessary for interstellar trips, such collisions > seem unavoidable and too energetic to be shielded effectively. > Has anyone analyzed this problem before? In a word, yes. Check out the Project Daedalus report from the British Interplanetary Society, for example. Results are sensitive to estimates of the density of interstellar debris of size X, but in general the problem does not seem intractable. The Daedalus report studied a large unmanned probe at about 15% of the speed of light, and concluded that some simple precautions would suffice. Basically all that was necessary in interstellar space at those speeds was a bit of armor on the leading face. That cut the probability of real trouble down to 0.1% or so. > From some back-of-the envelope calculations it seems that no practical > amount of shielding would resist multiple hits by pebble-sized particles. This is true, especially at the higher speeds -- the energies get up into the nuclear-weapon range before long -- but such particles appear to be very rare. We don't have a lot of direct data on this, but some upper bounds can be set by indirect evidence. > Destroying those particles before they hit the ship also seems unfeasible. > For example, if we try to vaporize each pebble with a laser beam, we must > do that while the pebble is VERY far away, so that the gas cloud has enough > time to dissipate completely before the spaceship gets there. Actually, there are ways. Daedalus was intended as the simplest sort of interstellar mission, an undecelerated flyby a la Voyager, so it would pass through its target solar system at full speed. *That* required more serious protective measures, since solar systems are dusty places. The solution was to maintain a fine dust cloud some thousands of kilometers ahead of the probe; incoming particles would hit the cloud and vaporize. The distance between cloud and probe was calculated so that the resulting fireballs would expand to a safe density by the time they reached the probe. While it looked possible to maintain the cloud from the probe itself, a simpler method was to use a secondary probe, a "dust bug", flying in the cloud itself. Occasionally the dust bug itself would be destroyed, so the main probe would have to carry several. -- Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 87 04:22:23 GMT From: phri!roy@nyu.arpa (Roy Smith) Subject: Metric vs. English units In article <8211@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: -> NASA payload projections for mid-1990s show routine need for a booster -> capable of 60-100 klbs of payload. 100-200 klbs after year 2000. Does anybody else find it a bit sad that in this supposed age of metricization, NASA still quotes payload capacity in pounds? -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 87 07:06:14 GMT From: khayo@locus.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Government in space? In article <686@aplvax.UUCP> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes: (...) >Sure there will be space colonization, and it probably will not be done >at a profit. Too get a hint of how & by who, see this mornings paper. >U.S. business is contracting to U.S.S.R. for the launch of communications >satellites. Don't cry "wolf" until there's a reason: I understand that the Soviet delegation left the US with no bounty; most of the potential customers gave them a cold shoulder, one of the reasons being that it would take a lot of effort for them to persuade the US Customs Service that the satellites are not high-technology items covered by the embargo (there is an alternative of sending them to Baikonur via hyperspace - alas, not yet). > "Beware the babble problem!" || James W. Meritt So true! > -Gilbertus Abans || Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory > of Septimian || >>>>== .sicknature =======> khayo@math.ucla.edu [Eric Behr] ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 87 17:46:41 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Cost of Shuttle vs. Disposables In article <8232@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > For example, shuttle flights are cheaper to the government > (effectively a subsidy for government flights), while expendables appear > to be significantly cheaper to commercial customers (less paperwork). It's even more complicated than that. For government payloads, NASA does not charge the launch cost in any direct way. Instead, the launch just comes out of the budget of the Shuttle Office or the Vehicles Office (Sorry, I can't find the formal names just now.), while the payload comes out of the Office of Space Science and Applications , for example. The effect of this is to thoroughly hide the actual cost of a launch. A recent, unfortunate exception has been the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE). Originally it was to have been launched on the shuttle, but after Challenger, COBE has been redesigned for launch on a Delta. The normal procedure would have required OSSA to pay for the redesign, while the Vehicles Office picked up the cost of the Delta. Instead, the whole cost is coming out of OSSA, which has not received an increased budget to compensate. This has contributed to the backlog of Explorer missions I mentioned in an earlier posting. A seemingly more sensible system would be to budget the launch cost as part of each project, and let the project management decide what launcher to use. That would allow sensible tradeoffs between, say, spending money to reduce payload weight versus spending money on a bigger launch vehicle. Don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 87 07:58:17 GMT From: imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!Charlie_Alan_Bounds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Opinions wanted: Dream of solar windsailer About that dream of solar wind. Yes it is real. There are lots of science fiction stories about solar sail spacecraft. Basically, they are capsule shaped devices hooked to a circular sail much like a parachute, but the chute is several km in diameter and in the milli-micron thickness range. Such a thing won't be easy to steer (but parachutes are steerable), but it could be used to launch a vehicle. What it is: don't ask me about physics but the solar wind is basically caused by two things. One is a real pressure caused by light. Thus a ground based laser can be used to enhance a solar sail launch. The other aspect of the wind is actual sub-atomic particles blasted out of the sun travelling hell-bent-for-leather out of the solar system. The problem with this stuff is that it will stick to the sail, increasing its mass. I can't give you a physics reference but some science fiction stuff is: The Legend of Miaree by Zach Hughes The Mote in Gods Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle Assorted other tales by Larry Niven. Since both Nivin and Pournelle do their physics homework before they start to write I would take what they say with only a small grain of salt in their work, even the fiction stuff Charlie (I am gatewayed to USENET on Portal and have no idea how to get mail to me from other systems) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 87 20:04:28 GMT From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) Subject: Re: The rocky road to the stars <*munch*> An interesting fact and example in this context is that an object moving at 87 percent of the speed of light (actually, the fraction is one-half the square root of three) has kinetic energy equal to its rest mass energy. That is, to liberate as much energy as one of the nuclear weapons dropped in World War II, you may (a) detonate a small to medium tactical atomic bomb, (b) blow up a long freight train (several hundred cars) full of TNT, or (c) throw a DIME at the target area at 0.87 c ... The point also holds for elementary particles: At that speed, those aren't mere hydrogen atoms you are colliding with, they are 1 GeV protons (each accompanied by an 0.5 MeV electron in close formation). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jul 87 19:45:21 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: The End of Apollo While listening to a lecture about geology from Apollo a while back, the speaker made an interesting point--he said that it was pointed out to Nixon that if Apollo missions continued, sooner or later astronauts would be killed when a solar flare occurred during a mission. Nixon, wanting to be remembered as the president during whose tenure men first landed on the moon, not the one in whose tenure men first died in space, then let the last missions die due to lack of funding support. Quite a different view as to why Apollo stopped.... --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 87 19:34:00 GMT From: m2c!ulowell!apollo!nelson_p@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: FTL > There is obviously a lot more about the physics of our universe that we have >yet to learn. At least some of this new knowledge will rewrite our current ^^^^ >physical laws and most likely provide us with a means to travel FTL with little ^^^^^^^^^^^ >more diffuculty than it takes us travel faster than sound now. In this case, Unless you have some hitherto unrevealed basis for speaking with such confidence, I suggest you consider rec.arts.sf-lovers as a more appropriate forum for this kind of opinion. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 87 18:49:00 GMT From: m2c!ulowell!apollo!nelson_p@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: free enterprise space Heather Mackinnon says: >Private space firms could not now survive because the government would >regulate and tax them out of existence. With space becoming increasingly >militarized, the government will need tight control of spacefaring >civilians. You can't develop a frontier unless there is a high return >on investment and a lot of freedom in the development of the frontier. 1. We may not be a perfect model of a free-enterprise system but we are a hell of a lot closer to that then the Soviets. Despite that, they are doing a lot more in space than we are. 2. There are plenty of industries which are doing very well despite government taxation and regulation. I work in one of them (the computer workstation industry). Entrepeneurs are starting new businesses in almost every industry all the time and making good money at it. I just read that Microsoft's founder just became the country's youngest billionaire. The automobile industry is one of the most regulated industries in history and yet Ford recently announced record earnings. The airline industry is also heavily taxed and regulated but Frank Lorenzo seems to be doing OK. I think this is all a smokescreen. I don't see private industry clamoring to get into space. Free enterprise entails a willingness to take risks. I don't see such a willingness out there. The bottom line is that private enterprise has not shown any interest. Oh sure, certain individuals have, but their proposals were never good enough to attract the sort of investment and backing it would take to pull it off. This isn't the government's fault; it's the fault of the private sector itself. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 87 16:22:09 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Stupid (?) question > What is a Clarke Orbit? "Clarke orbit" is the term some people prefer for what is otherwise known as "geostationary orbit" or (ambiguously and sloppily) as "geosynchronous orbit": the 24-hour equatorial orbit that makes a satellite appear to sit motionless in the sky. Arthur C. Clarke, in his paper "Extraterrestrial Relays" (I think that's the correct title), was the first to observe that this orbit was a natural place for communications satellites, since antennas then would not need sophisticated tracking systems to follow the motion of a satellite. It should be noted, in fairness, that Clarke himself says that ideas along these lines were in general circulation at the time, and he was merely the first to *publish* this one. There is room for debate about whether he's being excessively modest, though. (He *has* noted that if he'd known that practical application of the idea was so close, he would have thought harder about trying to patent it!) -- Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 87 22:56:10 GMT From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Wanna C. DeSupernova) Subject: How many non-standard spacenauts? Yngve Larsson asks about how many non-US/SU have entered space so far? According to my personal logbook of orbital flights, I find that the number is 19, updated 1987 July 2nd. This follows by adding 6 "non-standad" spacenauts to the 13 already summed by myself before (Sky and Telescope, May 1985, Letter). Most probably, the next non-US/SU person to go up will be a Syrian cosmonaut to participate in the next Soyuz TM launch later this month. Yaron Sheffer Astronomy At Austin ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #273 ******************* From ota Sun Jul 5 03:02:51 1987 Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01006; Sun, 5 Jul 87 03:02:51 PDT id AA01006; Sun, 5 Jul 87 03:02:51 PDT Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 03:02:51 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707051002.AA01006@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #274 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 274 Today's Topics: Re: Opinions wanted Re: Opinions wanted Re: I want to GO!!! Re: Comrade Atlas shrugged Re: Wait... I've written that (max G&selection) Re: Launch Vehicle Size (was Re: Breaking out of the Cradle) Profit & Space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jul 87 21:50:03 GMT From: sundc!hqda-ai!cos!smith@seismo.css.gov (Steve Smith) Subject: Re: Opinions wanted In article <870629-144954-3045@Xerox> "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com writes: > >Question: Is there such a thing as solar winds? If there are, could a >vehicle be powered by sails catching the solar winds? > There are, indeed "solar winds". They are composed of assorted atoms spewed out by the sun and pushed around by the magnetic fields that fill the solar system. I don't know what kind of pressure they would generate; I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the solar wind generates about the same pressure as sunlight. A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that "light sails" would be a very practical means of interplanetary transport. While the acceleration that they would generate would be miniscule, it is constant. A millionth of a G acting over several weeks builds up a _very_ respectable velocity. All of the technology needed to build light sails is available _now_. I seem to remember seeing somewhere a few years back a suggestion that the US mission to Halley's Comet be done with a light sail. The probe would renzevous with the comet far outside the Earth's orbit, and come in with it. This was doable with the sail, but not with "conventional" means of propulsion. NASA rejected the idea out of hand with an arguement that boiled down to "we didn't invent it, so we won't do it" (the "not invented here", or NIH, arguement). NASA went with a "conventional" design, which got killed. The thrust on a sail would come both from sunlight, coming straight from the sun and reflecting off of the sail, and from the solar wind, which is bent by magnetic fields. The "sailors" would have to have a fair ammount of "spacemenship" to handle their craft. Light sails have been described in a number of science fiction stories. I believe that the first ones were "Sunjammer" by Poul Anderson and "The Wind from the Sun" by Arthur C. Clarke. > > ... the way >to "diffuse" this terrible and destructive storm was the "run the energy >around in reverse" down the center. ... > >Question: Would such a thing be possible, if so, how? This is another one of these things that is "theoretically possible". Unfortunately, the ammounts of power that you're talking about approach the atomic bomb range. There is no way that we can control that kind of power so that the cure won't be worse than the disease. The (again theoretical) way to control any kind of destructive storm is to catch it while it is forming, and use techniques that use its own energy against it. This has been tried with cloud seeding in both tornados and hurricanes, with questionable results. > >Dream Segment 3 > > ... we would "grow" the different types of animal fur on trees and then >"harvest/ skin/peel" the fur off and then the tree would grow a new >"crop" of fur. ... > >Question: Would such a thing, scientifically, be possible (someday)? > My knowledge of gene splicing is (to be polite) limited. I would suspect that it would be much easier to use animal tissue cultures than to try to graft the appropriate genes into a plant. The tree is, of course, much more elegant. Unfortunately, having fur grow on trees would probably accomplish nothing. The people who wear expensive furs love them for the fact that they are expensive, or came from a rare animal, or a dangerous animal. The fact that something that came off of a tree was genetically "the same thing" would mean nothing. (Footnote - I know a few people like this) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Steve smith@cos.com "Can I ask you some stupid questions?" "They won't be stupid, if I'm any judge. Elementary, perhaps, but not stupid." -- E. E. Smith ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 87 03:55:41 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Opinions wanted In article <347@cos.COM> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes: >There are, indeed "solar winds". They are composed of assorted atoms >spewed out by the sun and pushed around by the magnetic fields that fill >the solar system. I don't know what kind of pressure they would >generate; I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the solar wind >generates about the same pressure as sunlight. -8 Solar wind pressure is ~2*10 dynes/cm^2 at 1 AU from the Sun; velocity varies but is in the range of several hundred km/sec. The ionized particles are so hot they can't be held back by solar gravity or the pressure of the interstellar medium. >A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that "light sails" would >be a very practical means of interplanetary transport. If I remember old books correctly, one of the Mariner Mars missions used light pressure on adjustable vanes on its solar panels for attitude control during the cruise phase (NOT for propulsion). -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ``There is only one spacefaring nation today. And it's not the United States, comrade!'' ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 1987 15:54-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: I want to GO!!! In the short run we can hardly argue with the facts that the best qualified need to lead the way. You don't pilot experimental craft without years of experience. But I am not interested in the short run needs except as building blocks towards long term goals. My long term goal is to make it possible for every man, woman and child on earth who has the desire to either visit space or to leave permanently to do so. This is obviously not next year I am talking about. But if we don't think in those terms, we will build a space program that will make space the preserve of a very small elite for many, many decades. That is the current direction of our program, and that is what I disagree with. In 1995 the space station will have the best tested people that can be found. This is proper. In 2005 it had damn well better have anyone who wants to go. This too is proper. A lot comes down to the question of why people support space. There are many reasons, and I will admit that there are other reasons than mine. But mine are very deeply ingrained. Since I am not unique, I will give you a pocket sketch of "where I'm coming from". I watched Sputnik go overhead as a child, watched Vanguard blow up on the news, watched Von Braun's Jupiter C and other launches and decided: I want to GO. I spent my child hood studying math and science. I watched EVERY SINGLE manned launch and recovery live on TV (early recoveries were voice over still pictures), through the Apollo's, even to having to ask my French teacher in french to let me out of class to go to the library. Because I KNEW that I was going to GO. I went to one of the most difficult engineering schools and took the hardest classes and teachers. I suffered through 4 years of it. Because I wanted to GO. And then congress decided space was not important, effectively discarding the entirety of my youthful life. I was angry, but I was practical, and figured things would change, but I still wanted to GO. About a year after our 'space station' fell, I got fed up and decided to do something about it. Having also been a crazed anti-Vietnam activist at one time (I left the anti-war movement over the space program by the way. Someone called it facist and I.. well I won't tell you what I told him to do...) I figured my skills of that time would be of use to bringing about a dream I had nurtured since almost before I was old enough to HAVE memories. I discovered L5 (now NSS) and found that I was not the only one with this life experience and this deep a commitment. We intend to GO. We have individually fought this battle for most of our lives and we have dedicated our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honors to continuing it. We ain't gonna go away. We're just going to grow older and wiser and collect more influence. We really ARE going if we have to walk. Dale Amon ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 87 17:13:45 GMT From: hp-pcd!uoregon!omepd!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@hplabs.hp.com (Howard A. Landman) Subject: Re: Comrade Atlas shrugged In article <2900@blia.BLI.COM> heather@blia.BLI.COM (Heather Mackinnon) writes: >America is no longer a free market capitalist society. The US has >adopted all the planks of Marx's communist manifesto (public schooling, >progressive income taxes, regulated enterprise, etc). Hmm. And Russia and China are not pure communist/socialist countries. >If you want to compare a capitalistic society to a communistic one, >then I suggest you find one first. One of which? Both? Either? >We fought a war two centuries ago for freedom: freedom to trade with >whom we choose, freedom to explore the frontiers of our land, freedom >from inequitable and exhorbitant taxation. We have a new frontier >now, a very exciting one, and we need to re-claim our freedoms. Yes, and this time we don't even have to cheat and kill the native inhabitants to get our way, because there aren't any. Out of curiosity, Heather: It sounds like you would support the right of any space civilization to be free from fealty to the earth societies that gave it birth, and favor even violent revolution to achieve that end. If so, why do you think people on earth should be asked to pay for founding a nation of space-borne ingrates who won't give them anything in return? (I have my own answer, but I'd like to hear yours.) -- Howard A. Landman ...!{oliveb,...}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard howard%cpocd2%sc.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET "We gotta get out of this place, if it's the last thing we ever do" ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 87 19:26:06 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Wait... I've written that (max G&selection) > I would rather improve the reliability of satellites rather than service > them in space. Murphy's law holds: the part you will need will > doubtless be on the ground ;-). Satellites are already extremely expensive because of the massive investment in ultra-high-reliability systems. Improving their reliability will probably make this worse. Even with current launch systems, the cost-effectiveness of this approach is not massively obvious for things that can be in space- station-like orbits. > There would be more money for electronics and computer science. I'm told there are people who justify SDI the same way. > >We could have a space station flying almost immediately... > > We can launch cans, with O2 cylinders, batteries, and extension cords. > Needless to say, Mr. Spencer over simplifies. While I *was* oversimplifying somewhat, since NASA doesn't have the exact hardware in stock right now, I think my point remains valid. I will have more (much more) to say about this in another of my editorials. > ... The question is not `why not send XXX > into space' the question should be `why send XXX' in to space. The > question is from the viewpoint of a selection board. It's not that I > don't want to go into space, but I think only the most qualified people > should go. I think you should not be making such decisions, and neither should I, or a government selection board. Not in a free society. I agree that only the most qualified people should go into space with their trips paid for by tax money -- NASA's batting average is not 100% on this, by the way -- but tax money should not be the only way, or even the main way, to get into space. > ... On what basis would you select people to go into space? The same way we select people to go into the air: by ability to pay for the ticket, and absence of a few obvious disqualifications like concealed weapons. > ... Would each reader consider whether they would warp the > criteria such that they would fit for their own personal gain? We shouldn't have to. > The purpose isn't just to send people into space, but to get something > out of it. This isn't quite the same thing as adventure. I want us to > go out there for knowledge, not personal gain. I want us to go out there for both, and more, without requiring government approval of one's own particular reasons. I want the West to become a spacefaring society, in which access to space is readily available even if one's motives are not deemed "worthy" by some faceless bureaucrat. -- Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 87 16:53:46 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Launch Vehicle Size (was Re: Breaking out of the Cradle) In article <448@telesoft.UUCP> roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: >and launch daily. But if you hang all your plans on decisions that >never materialize, you're left with only paper studies, and sad tales >of "what might have been". > >- Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger Ah yes, the British Interplanetary Society's plans for landing a man on the moon. The plans for the first British shuttle. I would include Black Knight and Blue streak here too, even although they flew before being scrapped. (anyone else remember them?) The minister responsible swore blind that space flight was only for national prestige, would never be commercially succesful, and that we could always pay someone else to launch the few weather and communication satallites which might ever be needed. Someone should play his words back to him and show him the backlog of payloads waiting to be launched. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Jul 87 10:59 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Profit & Space Ron Picard said: > On the contrary, if a privately owned company with no governmental > restrictions had lost 51L, do you think they would still be giving MT > their business? The CEO would be lynched at the first public stock > meeting. It isn't capitalism that failed, it's the companies that live > off of government supplied coercive monopolies. Actually, the CEO of a private company that had tried to build the shuttle would have been lynched years earlier, when it became clear what a turkey the vehicle was. NASA can propagate its mistakes much longer, since its managers don't have a bottom line to keep them honest. Can you imagine a corporation bringing back a CEO that had made such a malinvestment as the shuttle? No rational organization would do that... Peter Nelson said: > I think this is all a smokescreen. I don't see private industry > clamoring to get into space. Free enterprise entails a willingness > to take risks. I don't see such a willingness out there. The > bottom line is that private enterprise has not shown any interest. > Oh sure, certain individuals have, but their proposals were never > good enough to attract the sort of investment and backing it would > take to pull it off. This isn't the government's fault; it's the > fault of the private sector itself. This is nonsense. Willingness to take risks doesn't mean foolhardy disregard for simple economic calculations. Private enterprise is not investing all that much in space because, frankly, such investments would be economically unsound. Governments are ``investing'' in space not because politicians are farsighted decision makers but because it scores political points with the aerospace community and, at a low level, with the general population. Paul Dietz dietz@slb-doll.csnet ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #274 ******************* From ota Mon Jul 6 03:03:34 1987 Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02622; Mon, 6 Jul 87 03:03:34 PDT id AA02622; Mon, 6 Jul 87 03:03:34 PDT Date: Mon, 6 Jul 87 03:03:34 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707061003.AA02622@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #275 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 275 Today's Topics: Re: The rocky road to the stars Government in space? Re: Wait... (I'm with Henry) Re: Profit & Space Perfect man in space Non-profit commie colonies? Old business [flame warning] Re: Non-profit commie colonies? Address of Space Studies Institute Re: private space companies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 4 Jul 87 15:46 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: The rocky road to the stars To: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com, space@angband.s1.gov Jorge Stolfi asked about the presence of large dust grains in interstellar space. He said: > If the average density d(M) of particles with mass >M in > interstellar space is a bit more than 10^-17 per cubic meter, the > probability of colliding with one or more such particles will be > practically 1. I dont have any idea of what is d(M) for "large" M (say, > 1 mg), but I expect 10^-17 particles/m^3 to be far below the detection > threshold. Is 10^17/m^3 too low to detect? The way to detect large (gram sized) particles from interstellar space is to look for meteors with high velocity. This has been done in the midwest with multiple cameras (equiped with rotating disks to chop the trails to measure velocity). Interstellar grains should have velocities in excess of solar escape velocity. I don't believe any such grains have been detected. Assuming extrasolar meteors are moving in parabolic orbits, a 10x10 km patch of sky will sample about 7x10^12 m^3/second, or 10^17 m^3 in about four hours. This detection method will fail for very heat sensitive grains. But grains can't be made of solid hydrogen, which would evaporate even in interstellar space, and organic blobs would get polymerized by cosmic rays. Paul Dietz dietz@slb-doll.csnet ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Jul 87 17:39:28 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Government in space? To: m2c!ulowell!apollo!nelson_p@bu-cs.bu.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: m2c!ulowell!apollo!nelson_p@bu-cs.bu.edu > We may not be a perfect model of a free-enterprise system but we are > a hell of a lot closer to that then the Soviets. Despite that, they > are doing a lot more in space than we are. Yes, but at the expense of what percent of their GNP? Such stations are only for propaganda - they CANNOT lead to true colonies, because they are not profitable. Just because the USSR officially denigrates profit and loss doesn't mean they don't still apply. They always apply. If enough voters were willing, we could have a similar or larger space program. But it would require either higher taxes or a higher national debt. It wouldn't really accomplish anything. Sure, we could learn new facts about the universe, but at what price? The main thing we need to learn about space is how to get there inexpensively. Knowledge is not a value in itself. It is a value in that it furthers human life. Knowledge about space is of great value of space colonists, but is of little value if space colonies are not affordable. What difference does it make what the surface of Mars is made of if we cannot construct a profitable mine or farm there? And with the cost of space travel what it is, mining would not be profitable even if Mars is solid gold or platinum. What we need now is a Henry Ford of space. Someone who can reduce the cost of a launch system with whatever mixture of new technology, new materials, and new manufacturing techniques, until the average family can afford one. That is the only way we are going to get to the point where people can opt out of the current political systems and go seek their fortune, and like minded people, elsewhere in the vastness of the solar system. > I think this is all a smokescreen. I don't see private industry > clamoring to get into space. There are four explanations for this: 1) In the current politcal climate, profitable systems are likely to be taken over by the government. In a Republican administration, for "national security" or fear of "technology transfer", in a Democratic administration, for "antitrust" or "windfall profits tax". Or the goverent may simply "borrow" the technology, and run subsidized launches which no company can hope to compete with. How can one balance high risk with potential high payoff when government ensures that there will be no high payoffs? Neither major politcal party has any respect for private property or for individual rights, whatever lip service they may pay. 2) The main "fact" discovered by our space program, as far as most of the public are concerned, is the "fact" that space is extremely expensive, very hazardous, and utterly worthless. Of course the same conclusion would be drawn about any other technology if it was run by the government. Someone who was only aware of farming in the Soviet Union might conclude that farming is not practicable and starvation is the natural fate of man. 3) Taxation and regulation generate a constant drag on all financial activity. The fact that people do make big profits, as you point out, does not disprove this any more than a race car moving slowly disproves the hypothesis that someone has his foot partway on the brake. 4) Perhaps it really is too early for massive space industries and colonization. Perhaps these will be practical only in fifty years or a hundred, after the general state of technology has advanced considerably. > This isn't the government's fault; it's the fault of the private > sector itself. You seem to see space as primary, and the means as secondary. This isn't reasonable. We can continue to have a few carefully chosen men in silvery suits orbit the Earth each year, if we don't mind higher taxes. With even higher taxes we can have more missions to the Moon, or even to Mars. But this won't accomplish anything except the imprisonment of those not willing to pay the higher taxes, and an increased drag on the economy and on the development of advanced technology that could get us to space at a profit. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 87 11:26:52 GMT From: hp-pcd!uoregon!omepd!littlei!ogcvax!pase@hplabs.hp.com (Douglas M. Pase) Subject: Re: Wait... (I'm with Henry) In article eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > >I can see from the Max G posting that all Henry wants to do is go into >space. No, pilots blackout are frequently washout of military programs. Enough! I'm not about to go into the medical reasons for which a pilot may be grounded, but this drivel (which has been repeated many times (Ojala que fuera el primero!) by many people) is an oversimplification of a complex issue! There is no question but blackouts require care and attention. Any major simptom (such as this) could reasonably be caused by a major malfunction. This does not suggest that it is ALWAYS accompanied by a major malfunction. About pilots... Pilots are not always grounded because they blackout. (Yes, I understand that this is not what eugene said.) We'd be in awful trouble if they were, because everybody needs sleep! Now, people can blackout for a lot of reasons other than exaustion. Oxygen starvation is one common cause, trauma to the head is another. People are not washed out of military flight training because they stopped breathing, unless they forgot to start again, or just plain took too long about it. Trauma to the head is another matter. Pilots and prospective pilots can be washed out for that. If someone uses a crowbar to put a dent in your head and it takes you a few weeks to wake up, you'd better start looking for a new job once you do because no-one is going to let you fly their plane. Trauma to the head severe enough to put you out, even for a few moments can do damage to the brain tissue which usually takes a *long* time to heal. Now you may not notice that your head is damaged right off, but start reducing your cabin pressure to what you find at > 20,000 ft and you will. More importantly, take a high-G turn and you may never get out of it. Even moderate forces encountered in turns can put you out of commission if the trauma was severe enough. And the healing time is on the order of years. So, as long as the guys with the heavy cork pop guns don't over do it, I'm with Hen3ry, even if I miss the first part of the trip. -- Doug Pase -- ...ucbvax!tektronix!ogcvax!pase or pase@Oregon-Grad (CSNet) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jul 87 21:40:29 GMT From: gatech!udel!farber@rutgers.edu (Dave Farber) Subject: Re: Profit & Space Dont be too sure about a executive being sent packing when he makes such a big error . Historically in American business that just does not work that way. Look at Xerox and SDS. Did the Xerox President get fired no sir!!. He stayed on till retirement. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Jul 87 23:26:55 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Perfect man in space To: eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: Eugene Miya N. > . . . intelligence without genius, knowledge without inflexibility, > bravery without foolhardiness, self-confidence without egotism, physical > fitness without being muscle-bound, a preference for participatory over > spectator sports, frankness without blabbermouthing, enjoyment of life > without excess, humor without disproportion, fast reflexes without panic > in crises. > Consider other criteria: weight, eyesight, etc. There are over 20 sets > of tests given. Nearly 20 years after Mercury, we are still in _The Right Stuff_. The space age will not REALLY begin until space is available to the fat, the tall, the nearsighted, the egotists. How many remember when computers were avaliable only to the elite, to the futuristic white-frocked New American Man? > I want us to go out there for knowledge, not personal gain. Knowledge IS personal gain. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Jul 87 23:34:07 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Non-profit commie colonies? To: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) > Sure there will be space colonization, and it probably will not be done > at a profit. ... As someone else's signature says, "There is only one > country on earth with a space program, comrade." Their space program runs at an enormous loss. It is conceivable that they might someday have a semi-permanent manned base on Mars - by some standards, they already have one in Earth orbit - but these exist only by being supplied from the ground at enormous expense. They have propaganda value and military value, but they aren't colonies by any stretch of the imagination, nor could they ever be. If space colonies are ever established, it will be done by free men. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Jul 87 23:49:16 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Old business [flame warning] To: ROPER%COLORADO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: > The capitalism versus socialism debate is now a century old In a slightly different form, it goes back 23 centuries to Aristotle versus Plato. Are you suggesting that it is taking too long and the forces of reason and progress should give up, leaving the future of man to the mystics and the collectivists? > and, given the resources devoted to weapons of destruction between > the superpowers flying the two flags, it doesn't seem to have served > us well. I am willing to go on to other things as soon as they renounce coercion. Don't hold your breath. What would YOU suggest in lieu of this debate? > An alternative and, I think, more interesting question, is what can the > US do alone and in competition with the Soviet Union versus what could > be done in a joint effort. ... What better place for that vision to > evolve than on the Space digest. Ho-hum. We had Apollo-Soyuz at a cost of millions. See what wonders it got us. If the Nazis were still around, would you advocate cooperation with them? Perhaps we could send a Jew into space, and they could send a gas chamber. A marriage made in heaven? Happy Fourth of July, if it means anything to you. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 87 05:28:06 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Non-profit commie colonies? In article <223536.870704.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: >Their space program runs at an enormous loss. It is conceivable that >they might someday have a semi-permanent manned base on Mars - by some >standards, they already have one in Earth orbit - but these exist only >by being supplied from the ground at enormous expense. They have >propaganda value and military value, but they aren't colonies by any >stretch of the imagination, nor could they ever be. If space colonies >are ever established, it will be done by free men. I don't buy this. The Soviet space program provides the same services to their economy that ours does to the free world (albeit they are doing a much better job of it right now). For example, there is a Warsaw Pact comsat consortium analogous to the Western equivalent. They have been doing the groundwork in materials processing, closed life support systems, and many other areas that will enable a permanent manned presence, to engage in more activities of direct benefit to their economy and military. Where is the ``enormous loss''? Further, the Soviet philosophy of space utilization would appear to result in much lower launch and operational costs than we have had, at least in the shuttle era. It's not as though they are firing Proton rockets full of rubles into the heavens. As I read your articles, you appear to present two ideological beliefs as fact: i) Soviet space activities are a dead end because they are not free-market driven. ii) Space colonies will be both profitable and independent of Earth (by definition). These are at best questionable, and accepting either as gospel could have disastrous effects on our future space activities, whether government or ``free enterprise'' is responsible. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ SUSHIDO - The Way of the Tuna ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 87 05:18:16 GMT From: jade!tart17.berkeley.edu!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Adam J. Richter) Subject: Address of Space Studies Institute Does anyone out there in net land have the address of the Space Studies Institue. I want to join a *real* space organization. (As opposed to NASA's cheerleaders, L5.) Please POST IT TO THE NET so everyone can see it. --Adam J. Richter ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 87 00:42:01 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: private space companies > Pacific American Launch Services > based in Mountainview area > CEO Gary Hudsen > searching for major financing > design of Percheron rocket that blew up on pad at > Matagordo. > design of Phoenix E concept pushed by Society > Expeditions (Seattle) > Also working on a Heavy Lift vehicle concept > Hardworking, some backing but ??? Space Research Associates Seattle area CEO Paul DuBose Looking for venture financing Did 'Solar Power Satellite built of Lunar Materials; study for Space Studies Institute Developing gas gun/rocket/tether launch system for cargo delivery to orbit. Long range objective of building a tether 'spaceport' analogous to an airport, making it easier for all types of launchers to reach orbit. about 50% Boeing engineers, plus assorted other folk Boeing Company Seattle, Wichita, Philadelphia, and Huntsville CEO Frank Shrontz Has 4.3 billion in cash and short term investments Builds Inertial Upper Stage, some spacecraft participating in NASP, Space Station, and Advanced Launch vehicle early development stages. Hardware contracts subject to competitions now underway. Has stated goal of someday being in space what it is in commercial airplanes. Almost committed one billion dollars to develop Jarvis launch vehicle privately (failed through lack of customers, principally US Gov't.) Has 100,000 employees, is hiring Rocket Research CEO ? Redmond, WA Builds small rocket engines, including for satellites Made the RCS and vernier thrusters for the Shuttle has high performance resistojet and arcjet engines under development Hughes Aircraft Now owned by General Motors Los Angeles Free world's largest builder of commercial satellites ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #275 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Jul 87 06:20:55 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05082; Tue, 7 Jul 87 03:17:52 PDT id AA05082; Tue, 7 Jul 87 03:17:52 PDT Date: Tue, 7 Jul 87 03:17:52 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707071017.AA05082@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #276 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 276 Today's Topics: Free colonies Profit vs. survival? Last blackout FTL and egocentricity FTL implies time travel Interstellar Medium SN1987A: Further Developments? Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle? No more space barfing? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 17:08:04 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Free colonies To: hp-pcd!uoregon!omepd!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@hplabs.hp.com Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: hp-pcd!uoregon!omepd!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@hplabs.hp.com (Howard A. Landman) > Out of curiosity, Heather: It sounds like you would support the right > of any space civilization to be free from fealty to the earth societies > that gave it birth, and favor even violent revolution to achieve that > end. If so, why do you think people on earth should be asked to pay for > founding a nation of space-borne ingrates who won't give them anything > in return? (I have my own answer, but I'd like to hear yours.) I can't speak for her, but I started this, so let me give my own answer. For one thing, I do not think anyone on Earth should be asked to pay for anything in space. Anyone who wants to invest in space industries or to found a space colony should be free to do so, unhampered by government regulations. Do not confuse a political change with an economic change. The American revolution did not repudiate any private debts individuals in the United States had to anyone. But most of the owners of the wealth in the US were in the US. Similarly, I expect that most of the owners of the wealth in space will live in space. So long as people in space (or on Earth) are free to run their own lives as they see fit, it doesn't much matter what country they are officially part of. Unfortunately, the philsophical and political poisons of the Old World have mostly overtaken the New, so a fresh start will probably be necessary. I hope to live to see a free nation established in the asteroid belt, to which nearly any family on Earth can afford to escape. Individuals and corporations on Earth would be free to invest in, and freely trade with, the colony even though there is no political connection. As such, people who remain on the ground would reap considerable benefit, just as Americans benefit from trade with people in other countries and vice versa. Perhaps people in the new country could pay the way of immigrants in return for some period of service, as was once done in America. If the service is worth $30,000 a year, and the period of service is seven years, and the average immigrant weighs 100 pounds (half would be women and many would be children), then the cost of space transportation must fall from the current $5000 per pound to about $2000 per pound for this to be practical. Perhaps I WILL live to see it. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 17:59:15 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Profit vs. survival? To: REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: Robert Elton Maas > I *must* rebut this!! Survival is more important than profit. In the > long run, space colonization is primarily for survival, and must be > done regardless of profit. *SIGH* I thought we had already been through all this, to the tune of several hundred kilobytes. I don't think you understand what profit means. An activity is profitable if it is of net benefit, if it produces that which is necessary for human life, or something which can be freely traded for that which is necessasy for human life. The very existance of mankind is based on the fact that human labor on Earth is profitable. If it was not, we would all be dead. Can human labor in space be profitable? If not, then human life in space is not possible except as brief excursions from Earth. I believe that human labor in space CAN be profitable. I don't believe it is quite yet. To say that un-profitable space colonization is necessary for survival is a contradiction. Any un-profitable space colony would DIE without continuous expensive support from Earth, or from a profitable space colony. > Arms control is counter to profit, This is true IF we cannot verify arms control treaties with the Soviets. If we simply trust them to keep their word, and we disarm, that will indeed be a net loss - a massive loss of life and liberty. > yet we need arms control, You contradict yourself. > and must find a way to counter whose who just want to make a buck even > if it dooms the human race in the end. In the long run, space > colonization is in the same class, we must find a way to do it, profit > or not. I'm sorry, but I find this incoherent. It doesn't seem to mean anything. Could you rephrase it? ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 87 12:32:50 PDT From: John Sotos Subject: Last blackout At the risk of beating a dead horse on this blackout business, I only note that: (1) We have not specified exactly how the word is being used. All episodes of loss of consciousness are not created equal (eg, coma is different from fainting is different from G-induced loss of consciousness). (2) Through 1977, the Air Force had granted hundreds of pilot waivers for episodes of loss of consciousness. In particular, 255 for fainting, and 147 for head injury associated with loss of consciousness. (3) Pilots are subjected to G-induced loss of consciousness in centrifuges for the purposes of (a) teaching them to recognize early signs of dimished cerebral perfusion, and (b) teaching them how to shorten the period of functional incapacitation that follows the recovery of consciousness. Anyone interested in this topic will find several relevant articles in the journal "Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine," which should be in your local medical school's library. John Sotos ------------------------------ From: graham@drcvax.arpa Date: 6 Jul 87 13:57:00 EDT Subject: FTL and egocentricity To: "space" Reply-To: > Unless you have some hitherto unrevealed basis for speaking with such > confidence, I suggest you consider rec.arts.sf-lovers as a more > appropriate forum for this kind of opinion. Pray tell, how much confidence does it take to assure ourselves that we DON'T have a handle on all physical law. In the enormous length of time we humans have been studying the physical sciences our galaxy has rotated the wonderful distance of one second of arc! It is true that we cannot operate on knowledge we don't have. It is equally true that we dare not assume that we have anywhere near all of the knowledge on any subject. Belief in the vastness of the universe and it's laws is not fiction. It is the motive force behind most attempts at far-reaching discovery. At the present, FTL is against the physical law we know. If however, we take the parochial attitude that it cannot exist at all, we might blind ourselves to a quirk of physical law that allows it. Let's not be so arrogant or terran-chauvinistic that we try to tell the universe how to operate. Instead, let's discovering how it operates. Dan Graham ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 87 16:16:56 GMT From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org (Wayne A. Throop) Subject: FTL implies time travel >,>>>> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (John Unekis) >> robert@uop.UUCP (Robert McCaul) >>>> any curious forms of life posessing FTL drive ships.... >>.....who would arrive before the explosions, (!) :-) > Wrong! - FTL means faster than light, not faster than TIME - Indeed it does. But if special relativity is correct, then any object moving FTL will appear to some possible observer to be traveling pastward. That is, this observer will observe the FTL traveler's departure to be after the traveler's arrival. And this does *not* have to do with when any lightspeed notification of the events reaches the observer; I mean that the observer *after* *correcting* for any lightspeed delays will place the arrival prior to the departure. > Assume that the alien planet is 4 light years away, and that the > alien FTL drive achieves 48 times the speed of light. The time of > arrival of aliens would be = > Time for flash from explosion to reach alien planet (4 years) > + Time for aliens to travel to earth ( 1 month) > = 4 years and 1 month > This would be long after the explosions had occured. True, true. Although if the alien planet is moving away from the earth at some large STL speed, the time would be ((4yr+1mo)*sqrt(1-v^2)), that is, arbitrarily soon after the explosion. (From our point of view, they traveled pastward to get here that soon. From their point of view, time on earth was simply Lorentz-contracted so that the time it took them to respond were an instant in the passage of time on earth. (Actually a little more complicated than that, but that gives the flavor of the thing.)) Further, if there were an ansible relay station with an appropriate velocity, or a stopover and a large delta-v on the trip, the aliens *could* easily arrange to arrive before the explosion. Trust me. Under the assumption that special relativity is correct, FTL implies time travel. Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 87 09:29 EDT From: (Marc W. Pound) Subject: Interstellar Medium I tried sending this directly to Mr. Stolfi for use in his calculations, but it bounced back. Thus, I am posting it here............. The average density of the ISM is about 2x10^-24 gm/cc (H,He,dust). Dust grains represent about .002 solar masses/cubic parsec. Since they are rather effective absorbers of visible light, typical sizes are on the order of said wavelengths---about 10^-5 cm. Marc Pound Boston U. Astr. Dept. (pound@buasta.bitnet) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 17:56:20 EDT From: nutto%UMASS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Andy Steinberg) Subject: SN1987A: Further Developments? I found this in PHYSICS@SRI-UNIX.ARPA and thought I'd pass it along Date: 21 Jun 87 06:14:42 GMT From: grandi@noao.arpa (Steve Grandi) Article-I.D.: <627@noao.UUCP> In-Reply-To: Article(s) <4314@ihlpa.ATT.COM> In article <4314@ihlpa.ATT.COM> amra@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Aldrich) writes: >17 87Jun18 11:40 From zepp >Steve, this will cause you to lean forward towards your monitor: There >is a large brilliant object that is on a collision course with the >SuperNova. Impact between it and the SN1987 is expected to occur >between 6 and 22 months from now. While nobody has any idea what it >is, the current guess is that it is a large, abnormally dense hydrogen >cloud--perhaps a proto-star. It is currently a full 10% brilliant of >the nova itself, which makes it the second brightest object in that >area. The pending collision between it and the wave front is expected >to tell us a lot about it's composition, from the subsequent radiation >release... A group at CFA (Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) has been observing the SN with speckle interferometric techniques and has reported the discovery of a "companion" close to the position of the SN. Relevant quotes from IAU circulars 4382 and 4391: ----------- M. Karovska, P. Nisenson, R. Noyes, and C. Papaliolios, Center for Astrophysics, write: "High-angular-resolution speckle observa- tions of SN 1987A on Mar. 25 and Apr. 2 using the Cerro Tololo In- teramerican Observatory 4-m telescope (with the CfA PAPA photon- counting detector) show a bright feature with a separation of 0".057 +/- 0".014 at p.a. 194 deg +/- 5 deg relative to the SN. This feature appears to be 2.7 +/- 0.2 mag fainter than the SN in a 10-nm bandpass cen- tered on 656.3 nm (H-alpha). A corresponding feature was detected in a 10-nm bandpass centered at 533 nm, though it appears to be somewhat fainter than in H-alpha. Preliminary analysis of data recorded in a 10- nm bandpass centered at 450 nm shows no evidence of an object with- in a 4-mag difference from the SN. Data from nearby comparison stars, recorded close in time using the same filters, produced clean, point-like images with no structure above the noise at the separation and position angle of the observed feature." S. J. Marcher, W. P. S. Meikle, and B. L. Morgan, Imperial College, London, telex: "We report further observations (cf. IAUC 4369) of SN 1987A at the Anglo-Australian Telescope on Apr. 14.42- 14.45 UT using the Imperial College speckle interferometer. Filter passbands were 1.0 nm, centered on 587.6 nm and 658 nm. At 658.5 nm, a source was detected at p.a. 196 deg +/- 2 deg. Preliminary examina- tion of the data suggests that the source is about 3 mag fainter than the SN at this wavelength. At 587.6 nm, there is marginal evidence for the presence of a source at the same position but of fainter magnitude. To within the quoted errors, the position of the source is the same as that reported on IAUC 4382. Observations of a near- by reference star (BS 2015), made immediately before and after the SN observations, yielded autocorrelation functions corresponding to an unresolved source." There was much speculation concerning this "object" at the recent meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Vancouver. The CFA group has a good set of unreduced data (the data is recorded on video tape for further processing; and their tape drive was broken...) so further details (such as the object's color) should be forthcoming. Whatever the companion is, it is much brighter now than before the SN went off (we would have noticed a 6th magnitude object!). Every one wonders what will happen when the blast wave of the SN hits it. Steve Grandi, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-325-9228 UUCP: {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4,seismo}!noao!grandi Internet: grandi@noao.arpa SPAN/HEPNET: 5356::GRANDI or DRACO::GRANDI ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Jul 87 08:22:26 MEZ From: ES54%DFVLRGO1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle? I have read in a german newspaper ('Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung') that an escape capsule will be installed in the 'second' generation space shuttle. In the article it was written that it will be based on rockets which will be externally attached to the pressure vessel. Can anyone confirm or deny this story? Jens-Thomas Meyer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 87 13:12:36 PDT From: John Sotos Subject: No more space barfing? The July 1 issue of the Stanford Campus Report contains an article entitled "Better medication may be found for motion sickness." This would, of course, be of extreme interest to certain people in Houston. Excerpts: "Scopolamine, the current treatment of choice, reduces space sickness by interfering with the brain's processing of sensory information. But the drug also produces disturbances in memory, sleep, and vision.... "Scopolamine acts in the brain by binding to a chemical called the 'muscarinic receptor,' found on the surface of many brain cells. Scopolamine binds equally well to muscarinic receptors in the brainstem, where gravity and acceleration are perceived, and to muscarinic receptors in the [cerebral] cortex, where higher mental functions like memory and vision are controlled. "What [Steve Peroutka & Bruce McCarthy] found is that the muscarinic receptors in the brainstem are unique, and that a more specific experimental drug could selectively block them. "'Drugs targeted to this subpopulation of muscarinic receptors may prove to be effective anti-motion sickness agents with fewer side effects than scopolamine,' Peroutka said." The article goes on to say that an experimental drug, not suitable for human use, has been tested in brain tissue obtained at autopsy, and that the methods used in the study of this drug provide a rapid and sensitive technique to screen for selective agents. Needless to say, a "magic bullet" against motion sickness would be a boon to the shuttle program, given the short duration of shuttle flights and the propensity for the symptoms to occur during the first couple days of flight. In a way, it is too bad that the space sickness problem didn't arise in the Mercury program, because then we would have been privileged to have Tom Wolfe's decription of microgravity barfing. The whole theme of the book could have been different: "Ours always *throw* up." John Sotos ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #276 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Jul 87 06:19:43 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07634; Wed, 8 Jul 87 03:16:40 PDT id AA07634; Wed, 8 Jul 87 03:16:40 PDT Date: Wed, 8 Jul 87 03:16:40 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707081016.AA07634@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #277 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 277 Today's Topics: Grumman wins a space station contract space news from May 25 AW&ST RE: free enterprise You Were Born Too Soon Really, what should summary of our space-goals say? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Jul 87 13:21:59 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Grumman wins a space station contract GRUMMAN WINS NASA CONTRACT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT SPACE STATION Bethpage, NY (Reuters) - Grumman Corp. has won a key contract to help put together a manned space station for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which could grow into the defence company's largest contract. NASA said Grumman's contract to support the design and development of the space station could be worth up to $1.2 billion. NASA said the support contract awarded to Grumman Thursday has an estimated value of $840 million and an option for more work worth $406 million. It said the final terms were still being negotiated. Grumman's stock jumped $1.62 to $27.50 at Thursday's close on the news. (copied from The Chicago Tribune, 7/6/87) Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 87 23:25:25 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from May 25 AW&ST Lead editorial on the Soviet space program, notably the Energia launch. "The Soviet space program has proceeded at a deliberate, some would say plodding, pace while the US program has progressed in leaps and bounds. But in the process, the US has thrown away valuable hardware and capabilities it could be putting to good use today. Soviet space designers have shown no hesitancy in exploiting proven systems even if they happen to be based on technology that is more than 20 years old." CNES (French space agency) sends qualification model of Sigma gamma-ray telescope to the Soviet Union for tests; flight model to fly next year. Aerospatiale completing Hermes cockpit simulator. Pictures [poor ones, this week] of the Soviet Energia heavylift booster before launch. Looks much like the earlier artists' conceptions: large core, looking a bit like a stretched shuttle tank, flanked by four big boosters. The core burns LH/LOX, the boosters LOX/kerosene [Flight International says the booster exhaust plume suggests LOX/UDMH instead]. The test payload malfunctioned and went into the Pacific, but the booster seems to have functioned fine. Energia maximum payload is 220 klbs, over three times the shuttle's, a bit heavier than that of the partial Saturn V that launched Skylab. The May 15 launch was televised. Pictures of the Proton, being transported and on the pad. Proton marketing team visiting the US finds mild commercial interest and rabid government opposition. Soviet rep says US government position lacks solid reasons; some potential customers agree. Hughes, in particular, is concerned that European satellite builders might offer package deals including Proton launches at cut-rate prices. Current US position is that all satellites, regardless of type, are on the "not to be exported to USSR" list. The Soviets have refused to disclose where Proton is made or agree to permit inspection of the plant, although they will make documentation available to customers. They are not familiar with the US custom of doing X-ray inspections of solid-rocket upper stages at the launch site, but will let customers provide equipment for such tests. Visits to the launch site will be allowed "as soon as we see the client has serious intentions". Some potential customers observe that the Chinese are doing better on such things: they are setting up an X-ray inspection facility at the Xichang launch site, and have opened that site to all visitors wishing to inspect. Top Soviet scientists present tentative Mars-exploration plans. In 1992 or 1994, an orbiter with either two balloons or a balloon and a small rover would be launched. At the next opportunity, a large rover would go up. After that, a sample-return mission would go as two separate launches: lander/ascent vehicle plus minirover, and rendezvous/return vehicle. The large rover would be aimed at delivering samples to the sample-return mission, with the mission's own minirover as a backup. Each of these launches would be on a Proton -- actually two Protons, because *all* of these missions would fly in pairs for redundancy. [Are you listening, NASA?] The sample-return mission pair, requiring four separate launches, might be spread over two successive launch windows. Sample-return missions would terminate at the Soviet space station, for preliminary tests prior to landing on Earth. A model of the [small?] rover is being tested now on the Kamchatka peninsula. [Micro-editorial: Why should the Soviets bother with an international partnership on these missions, especially with an unreliable partner like the US? They are perfectly capable of going it alone, and appear to be ready to do so sooner than the US could possibly be ready for a joint mission. Oh, undoubtedly they will be interested in US participation in things like data analysis, but they would be fools to rely on the US for critical elements of the mission hardware itself. -- HS] Last Atlas H launches unspecified military payload from Vandenberg. Arianespace sets August as target for next Ariane launch, with two more launches to follow this year. Second Hughes comsat for Japan Com. Sat. Co. to fly mid-89 on Titan 3. NASA formally moves STS-26 launch date to no earlier than June 1988. NASA finally announces plan for using expendables for its own operations. NASA will buy launch services commercially except for a "transition phase" running through 1991. Requirements foreseen for 3-5 Delta class, 1-2 Atlas-Centaur/Titan-3 class, and maybe 1-2 Titan 4. First launches are probable in 1990, probably CRRES and Rosat. [Wanna bet that the "transition phase" stretches out a few more years? Especially if a less pro-private-enterprise administration is in power by then? NASA doesn't want to give up control. -- HS] NASA DepAdmin Dale Myers suggests that if the USAF is so hot on space station operations, it should build its own in polar orbit. The Canadian Mobile Servicing Center will be the primary system used to dock the shuttle to the space station, meaning it will fly early. The shuttle's Canadarm would do for the first couple of missions, but then its load limit will be reached. Canada is not entirely happy yet about station-management and military-use issues, but agreement is closer than with Europe and Japan. The MSC arm will be essentially the Canadarm with one more joint and more strength and power. Canada is concerned about meeting the weight limits while still being able to handle a 200-klb shuttle. Canada hopes to get one 90-day duty tour per year for Canadian astronauts. Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 87 14:13:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Subject: RE: free enterprise { I received the following from Email. Since I can't seem to replay via Email to return addresses of the form token!token!token..., (as opposed to token!token@token.UUCP) I must post the reply to the newsgroup. However, since I have no way of asking the sender's permission, I will keep him/her anonymous. } > I don't understand how the computer workstation market is government >regulated ? Maybe you could explain. Safety standards and such like >are questionable as 'regulation' I think, since regulation implies >limiting the actions of the firm or inductry, rather than setting >performance or safety standards for products. Look it up in the dictionary. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Note, '...safety and efficiency', though most of the rest of of the 39 line definition applies as well. What's the basis of YOUR definition? Anyway, regulations may or may not be statutory regulations, i.e., laws passed by Congress. Most federal agencies (e.g., FCC, SEC, etc., have some broad leeway to make up their own rules. There are no government regulations that specify 'performance' standards for our workstations but there are, of course, safety regulations (there's that word again). And they ARE limitations on our 'actions' as are FCC rules about RF emissions, IRS rules on 401K plans, profit reporting, income reporting and sale and disposition of assets. So are SEC regulations on anything affecting sale of our stock and obligations to stockholders. And both agencies plus state agencies regulate our accounting practices. There are also regulations concerning fair and unfair business practices, anti- trust regulations and so forth. Our hiring practices are regulated by state and federal anti-discrimination agencies. There are also labor laws that we have to abide by which specify hours, working conditions, workman's comp., maternity leave, etc. There are plenty of regulations concerning product liability, false advertising, and implied warranties that we have to be concerned with. There are local, state, and federal agencies that specify our handling and disposal of toxic materials that we use in manufacturing.... One could go on and on but the important point is that government regulations are a factor in all industries. Executives always have to keep government rules in mind in the daily conduct of their business. >Your understanding of the airline industry seems a bit off, since you >claim that it is an example of a regulated industry that is doing >well just because one man (Lorenzo) and one firm (Texas Air Corp) >are doing well. The industry is in the middle of DE-regulation, >and Texas Air is one of the few that is doing relativly well at >the moment. The rest of the industry is having massive problems due >to the decline in prices, and thus the decline in service quality. > >I would suggest that you research it before you use it as an example. The main thing that was 'de-regulated' about the airline industry was domestic fares. International fares are still set by (usually the foreign) government. All other reporting, accounting, labor, advertising, tax, employee training and certification, and safety regulations are still in effect (as they should be). Actually, there are several airlines that are doing well. No doubt, once the shakeout is finished and the survivors get used to a more competitive environment, the industry will be stronger. What does all this have to do with free-enterprise space efforts? --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 10:29 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: You Were Born Too Soon Dale Amon said: > In 1995 the space station will have the best tested people that can be > found. This is proper. > > In 2005 it had damn well better have anyone who wants to go. This too > is proper. Proper, perhaps, but very unrealistic. Ask yourself: how much will it cost to put a person in orbit in 2005? Add in the cost of lifting food, air and water, plus amortization of on-orbit infrastructure. Are *you* willing to spend several hundred thousand dollars (an overly optimistic estimate) to spend several weeks in a space station? I don't want to flame, but I get very exasperated reading about people who want to personally move out into space. You're living in fantasyland! The cost is going to be outrageous until well into the next century, by which time you'll be too old, or dead. I also am exasperated by people who sneer at the annual US pizza (or beer, or bubble gum, or whatever) consumption, then blithely propose to blow several years or decades of income on frivolous orbital sightseeing. A bit of a double standard, no? Paul Dietz dietz@slb-doll.csnet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 19:28:39 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 July 05 19:28:39 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 July 05 20:13:31 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Really, what should summary of our space-goals say? Date: 29 Jun 87 18:29:14 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Space and the Democratic Future jim@pnet01.UUCP (Jim Bowery) writes: > We need a prioritized set of goals in space. These goals are: > we must acquire low cost access to earth orbit; build a properly > conceived space station (instead of NASA's current amazing shrinking > space station) with which we can learn to live and work in space; > return to the moon to stay; and explore and ultimately inhabit Mars; > in that order. This must be directed towards our ultimate goal - > establishing a spacefaring civilization with settlements beyond Earth. > We should use the resources available in space to make this easier, > cheaper, and to provide economic benefit to Earth as soon as this is > feasible. Before picking a few nits in the rest of the posting, let me say that the paragraph above is the best capsule statement I've seen of what our goals in space should be. I trust I have permission to send it to my Congressman. I see problems with sending that to our congresscritters. It seems to say we must get low-cost access, *then* do the other things. It will take ten years before the next generation of spacecraft is operational, and it may cost five times as much as estimated just like STS did, so at that time taking the above paragraph literally may cause us to wait another ten years for yet another generation of spacecraft. This develop&wait cycle can last indefinitely if we are unlucky. I think we need to "bite the bullet", to realize access to space is going to be medium expensive for longer than we can wait, so we just have to pay up now whatever it costs until and unless low-cost access becomes available. Also, the phrase "properly conceived space station (instead of NASA's current amazing shrinking ..." may be mis-interpreted to mean we want a yet bigger one that will take longer to get up there and we are willing to wait ten or twenty years for that really big one we really want. I would rather see us get something that is just right for some purposes *now* and which is expandable for other purposes. (At the present, Mir and Kvant would be nice if we could contract to get copies of them.) I hope you reword that summary somewhat before sending it! The Uhuru, Einstein, and IRAS satellites have all been extremely successful. Yet the followup missions, AXAF and SIRTF, won't fly until the mid to late 90's at best. For SIRTF, ... The FY'92 start means a launch in 1996, or almost 20 years after the initial studies. ... The last I heard, NASA was considering returning all proposals without evaluation on the grounds that there is no money for any of them, regardless of merit. (This information is a few months old and may be out of date.) This is sad. Somehow we must find the money for continuing these worthwhile (and in my opinion, wonderful, based on many many scattered results published in Sky&Telescope) programs. (P.s. what is happening with successors to the wonderful IRAS?) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #277 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Jul 87 09:36:34 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12019; Thu, 9 Jul 87 03:18:36 PDT id AA12019; Thu, 9 Jul 87 03:18:36 PDT Date: Thu, 9 Jul 87 03:18:36 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707091018.AA12019@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #278 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 278 Today's Topics: Newspaper report: State Department to block lauch of satellites Re: Government vs. private space funding Re: Address of Space Studies Institute re: Address of Space Studies Institute Re: Launch Vehicle Size ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Jul 87 23:40:00 GMT From: spdcc!m2c!frog!john@harvard.harvard.edu (John Woods, Software) Subject: Newspaper report: State Department to block lauch of satellites >From July 7 Boston Globe: State Department to block lauch of satellites (United Press International) WASHINGTON--The State Department said yesterday that it would block any attempt by a US company to have its communications satellites put into orbit by a Soviet launcher. The Soviets offered to use their Proton rocket to put commericial US satellites into orbit on a contract basis after the Challenger disaster and the suspension of the space shuttle missions. The Soviets were reported to be in a contact with Ford Aerospace and Hughes Aircraft to launch their communications satellites, which have been grounded due to lack of a suitable launch vehicle. The State Department issued a statement saying, "US arms control laws, and specifically the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, prohibit the transfer to the Soviet Union of US-origin technology which is used in US and other western nations' communications satellites." John Woods jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 87 07:02 EST From: RON PICARD Subject: Re: Government vs. private space funding Robert Maas writes: Space colonization may be decades away, or even centuries (I hope not) but when it is done, it will be done at a profit. > I *must* rebut this!! Survival is more important than profit. In the long > run, space colonization is primarily for survival, and must be done > regardless of profit. Why do you assume one excludes the other? It was said that colonization would be done at a profit, not only for profit. Look at socialized medicine. Survival is its only goal and they are far behind our system which also makes a profit. Nothing but short-lived small scale projects such as Apollo and Skylab can be done at a financial loss. > If that is true, it is sad, and *must* be changed. Arms control is > counter to profit, yet we need arms control, and must find a way to > counter whose who just want to make a buck even if it dooms the human > race in the end. In the long run, space colonization is in the same > class, we must find a way to do it, profit or not. Space colonization is NOT in this class. Arms control serves one of the legitimate purposes of government i.e. protection of its citizens. For the government to say they are going to assure survival of a few at the expense of many would drive one more nail in capitalism's coffin. In a separate artical Heather Mackinnon writes: > I'm going to catch flames for this, but I'll go ahead anyway. Not from me...just a chear! > America is no longer a free market capitalist society. The US has > adopted all the planks of Marx's communist manifesto (public > schooling, progressive income taxes, regulated enterprise, etc). Our > government has appropriated a monopoly on space just as it has > appropriated and granted monopolies on public utilities and banking. > The Constitution is being eroded; the government is increasingly > seizing powers that were not granted to it in the Constitution. Not quite. We have never been a completely free market capitalist society. However, we were MUCH closer 150 years ago. > Private space firms could not now survive because the government would > regulate and tax them out of existence. With space becoming > increasingly militarized, the government will need tight control of > spacefaring civilians. You can't develop a frontier unless there is a > high return on investment and a lot of freedom in the development of > the frontier. I agree. This is one reason I believe space colonization can and should be done by private enterprise. However, some major restructuring will be needed before our government will give up the power it has seized. > Time to get off my soap-box, > Heather Mackinnon > Status: free and natural person Our government has taken far too much of our freedom already. I don't want them deciding who and by what means our civilization will survive. Sorry Heather, if you think you are free then next time the IRS calls, tell your auditor you are innocent and it is up to him to prove otherwise. Lastly, Peter Nelson writes: > Heather Mackinnon says: >> Private space firms could not now survive because the government would >> regulate and tax them out of existence. With space becoming increasingly >> militarized, the government will need tight control of spacefaring >> civilians. You can't develop a frontier unless there is a high return >> on investment and a lot of freedom in the development of the frontier. > 1. We may not be a perfect model of a free-enterprise system but we are > a hell of a lot closer to that then the Soviets. Despite that, they > are doing a lot more in space than we are. The reason the Soviets are doing more is *because* we are not a perfect free-enterprose system. > 2. There are plenty of industries which are doing very well despite > government taxation and regulation. I work in one of them (the > computer workstation industry). Entrepeneurs are starting new > businesses in almost every industry all the time and making good > money at it. I just read that Microsoft's founder just became > the country's youngest billionaire. The automobile industry > is one of the most regulated industries in history and yet Ford > recently announced record earnings. The airline industry is also > heavily taxed and regulated but Frank Lorenzo seems to be doing OK. The arguement that since some people are prospering under the current system proves the system is good just doesn't hold water. There are people in communist countries that prosper, the question you have to ask is at whose expense are they prospering. The automobile industry may be doing well (a statement I disagree with), but how would it be doing if they didn't get the tax abatements and other government favors? Where does the money come from to support these abatements? Why am I required to subsidize these companies? Why are entrepeneurs? > I think this is all a smokescreen. I don't see private industry > clamoring to get into space. Free enterprise entails a willingness > to take risks. I don't see such a willingness out there. The > bottom line is that private enterprise has not shown any interest. > Oh sure, certain individuals have, but their proposals were never > good enough to attract the sort of investment and backing it would > take to pull it off. This isn't the government's fault; it's the > fault of the private sector itself. > --Peter Nelson The government has made its dominance known. I would not want to spend the money necessary to establish a space company knowing the government can pull the plug at any time for any reason. The private sector cannot take the blame when the government restricts its potential payoffs. Ron Picard ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 87 10:18:17 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Address of Space Studies Institute In article <4260@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> adamj@lime.berkeley.edu (Adam J. Richter) writes: >Does anyone out there in net land have the address of the Space >Studies Institue. I want to join a *real* space organization. >(As opposed to NASA's cheerleaders, L5.) > > Please POST IT TO THE NET so everyone can see it. Space Studies Institute PO Box 82 Princeton, NJ 08540 Membership $25/year (to receive the bimonthly SSI Update). Senior Associates $100/year or more (see below) A brief description of the Space Studies Institute: SSI is not a mass-membership organization such as the National Space Society or the Planetary Society. It does not have chapters or try to influence government space policy. Excerpt from an SSI publication: ``Financial support for Dr. O'Neill's research by NASA was maintained [by NASA], however, until 1979. In 1977 it seemed wise to build an entity, alternative to the Federal government, which could maintain support for the essential research no matter what political winds might blow through Washington. Dr. O'Neill therefore sought private support for a new non-profit corporation... devoted to research and education with the goal of realizing the benefits of the High Frontier.'' SSI is conducting basic research in mass drivers, chemical processing of lunar materials, lunar composite building materials, external tank use, lunar polar orbiters, and many other areas which are important to establishing industry off the Earth. SSI is a place where a little money can make a BIG difference. Funding is largely through the Senior Associate Program - people who pledge reasonably large amounts ($100-$500/year) for 5 years. This provides a fairly stable source of income without having to worry about on again/off again gov't funds. IF YOU CAN POSSIBLY AFFORD IT, become a Senior Associate of SSI. It is one of the highest potential payoffs you can buy - not in direct financial return to you, but in conducting the R&D required for the human Breakout into space. SSI owns substantial stock in Geostar corporation, which provides space-based location services, and it is expected that the SSI program will be funded more through this channel when Geostar begins making money. But right now, the Senior Associate program is the lifeblood of SSI. I will be delighted to provide more information to anyone who inquires via email. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ SUSHIDO - The Way of the Tuna ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@seismo.css.gov Date: Mon, 6 Jul 87 13:46:55 PDT From: scubed!pnet01!jim@seismo.css.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: re: Address of Space Studies Institute Adam J. Richter asks for the address of Space Studies Institute to be posted on the network -- here it is: Space Studies Institute P.O. Box 82 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 Mr. Richter makes a side comment that L5 is cheerleading for NASA. First, L5 is no longer in existence -- it has merged with National Space Institute to form the National Space Society. Second, the first formal award of the National Space Society was given to the four Morton Thiokol engineers who bucked NASA and their own management to try and stop the Challenger launch. This special Presidential Award for ethics was presented on March 22 by Ben Bova, President of the National Space Society to Allan McDonald, Roger Boisjoly, Robert Ebeling and Arnie Thompson -- individuals who laid their careers on the line to do the right thing despite the directions chosen by the NASA bureaucracy. Currently, there is an open debate within the Society on whether NASA should be disbanded or not. Being a long time member of both SSI and L5/NSS, I can recommend both of these organizations to any individuals who want to influence our future in space. The address of the National Space Society is: National Space Society West Wing Suite 203 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20024 Phone: 202/484-1111 ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 87 00:07:09 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Launch Vehicle Size In article <452@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: > > A typical value today is 2500 lbs total for this set of hardware. > > Typical? I'll take your word for it. But hardly representative of > what ought to be feasible. Otherwise, your own plans for a small > demonstration model catapult fired launch system are infeasible. That is correct. Perhaps I should restate that more clearly: A typical value for a rocket that flies today, with 1 year old electrical systems, is 2500 lb. For example, the computer on the IUS built by Boeing is smart enough to control a Titan launch vehicle. The computer is an 8-bit processor with 48k of ram (= about an Apple II). It weighs 40 lb, not counting batteries. There are two of them on the IUS. Of course, the IUS was designed in 1973. For a new rocket, we can do much better with today's electrical equipment. But, at any given time, there will still be a constant weight component to a rocket design. > excludes fiber based composites. There is no optimal shape for a > tank made from a fiber based composite, so long as the fibers are > laid up in a manner that places them all under equal stress in the > loaded, pressurized tank. But there is a minimum gage. Let us take the case of very good carbon fiber/epoxy with a tensile stength of 400 ksi. We design to 300 ksi to allow some factor of safety. Available materials are 7/1000 inch thick per ply of fibers. Assume the internal tank pressure is 10 psi. Since stress=pD/2t for a cylindrical thin shell, we can calculate the D that corresponds to 1 ply of composite. It is (stress/p)*2t=d=(300,000/10)*2*0.007=420 inches. Thus, any tank smaller than this would waste some of the strength inherent in 1 ply of composite. In a realisitic design there would be at least 2 plies oriented,say at +-20 degrees from horizontal, to give longitudinal strength, so this is even worse. In response to the engine inlet pressure issue, the trade is usually tank weight vs engine pump weight, the lower the inlet pressure, the bigger the low pressure pump inlet has to be to avoid sucking vacuum (cavitation). Cavitation is death to rocket engines, because they are not normally designed for (1) the vibrations on the pump blades (2) the vibrations caused inside the combustion chamber when you burp gas rather than fluid and (3) the loss in wall cooling of bubbles in the coolant lin. All of these have caused engines to fail in the past. Solving these types of problems keeps propulsion engineers employed. Of course, you could design your engine to survive these problems, but then it weighs twice as much. > For a given chamber pressure, the nozzle > area required is directly proportional to the mass being lifted. A > certain nozzle area can only supply lift for a certain mass, which > translates to a certain height of rocket. You can't make a rocket > arbitrarily tall; to make it bigger, you have to make it wider. This is incorrect. The nozzle area = throat area x expansion ratio of the nozzle. Most of the thrust in a rocket arises from the thrust imbalance between the throat and a corresponding area on the top of the engine. In a converging-diverging nozzle, the flow becomes supersonic, and thus is effectively zero pressure as seen from inside the combustion chamber. For example, in the SSME, the chamber pressure is 3000 psi. The liftoff mass is 4,500,000 lb. Hence, only 1500 square inches, or 10.42 square feet of throat area is required for liftoff. The actual SSME nozzles have an expansion ratio of 77:1. This expansion against the nozzle walls has an upward component, which provides thrust in addition to the throat component. I belive in this case it adds 40% more thrust. The solid rocket boosters, on the other hand, have an expansion ratio of only 10-15:1 (I'm at home and don't have my refernce books handy). This is because they work at 700 psi pressure. In both cases the expansion is limited by when the gas reaches 15 psi in the nozzle (= sea level pressure). The sea-level back pressure in the SSME nozzle causes it to lose 23% of vacuum thrust. > But there is one area that you didn't mention where skinny tanks > (and small vehicles) eat it: tank insulation efficiency. I don't > know how much of a problem that really turns out to be. It is non-trivial. A typical value is 0.2 inches of cork insulation required on the forward part of a rocket to protect it from aerodynamic heating. Propellant boiloff is generally not a problem, since you are using it very quickly. The main reason to insulate a cryogenic tank is to prevent ice (water, CO2, even air) buildup on the ground. > For the sake of argument, let's accept your implication that a system > sized for 10,000 lb. of payload would be only 55% as efficient, in > terms of fuel consumed per pound of payload, as one sized for 100,000 > pounds. That represents a cost penalty of something like $2.00 to > $3.00 per pound. If the high launch rate, the steady production of > vehicles, and the confidence attained from an extensive track record > enabled the small system to achieve operational costs as low as 10 > times its fuel costs, then it would be more than twice as economical > as a larger system whose operational costs were 50 times its fuel > costs. (For comparison, I think that operation costs for airlines run > about 3 times their fuel costs, while for the Shuttle, they're on the > order of 500 times, or more, depending on how one does the accounting). In the aerospace industry, we experience a production 'learning curve' as the quantity of production goes up. Typically the reduction is 15% in unit cost per doubling of cumulative production. So if we have 10 times as many units made, we would expect the unit cost to be 58.3% as much. Since 1.82 times as much vehicle dry weight would be required, the total cost would be 1.06 higher for the small rocket IF costs were proportional to dry weight. In practice, much of the cost of a rocket is in the fixed weight items, rather than in the tanks and other structure, so the cost/lb of dry weight goes up for small rockets. Another way of looking at this, is that, roughly, we use up the same number of pounds of engines and tanks in 10 10,000 lb launches as we do in 1 100,000 lb launch, but in the former case we use up 10 times as many sets of electrical equipment. The key measure in determining space launch cost is the number of pounds of hardware thrown away per pound of payload delivered to orbit. In an expendable rocket it is about 2 lb hardware/lb payload. In the shuttle, it was not much lower. We threw away 1 lb of external tank per pound of payload. Allowing for reuseable element comsumption at weight/life, we use up 15,000 lb of SRBs and 3000 lb of orbiter per flight, giving a total of 84,000 lb/50,000 lb payload= 1.68 lb/lb. For the advanced launch system we are about to start work on, the figure will be 0.56 lb hardware/lb payload. I agree that propellant is cheap. My dream is a launch system where I have to worry about propellant cost. Even on the ALS, it only is 1% of the total costs. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #278 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Jul 87 06:19:21 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14563; Fri, 10 Jul 87 03:15:19 PDT id AA14563; Fri, 10 Jul 87 03:15:19 PDT Date: Fri, 10 Jul 87 03:15:19 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707101015.AA14563@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #279 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 279 Today's Topics: Cosmos 1507 coming down space news from June 1 AW&ST space news from June 8 AW&ST Light pressure for attitude control Re: Light pressure for attitude control ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Jul 87 21:40:17 GMT From: nbires!ico!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Cosmos 1507 coming down I have been receiving orbital elements for Cosmos 1507 norad number 14455. The revolution rate has been making big jumps for some time. I don't have a good satellite lifetime routine to calculate when this object will enter the atmnsphere. If anyone does here are my latest elements: ep= 87 173.17156130 dr=0.00105267 in=65.0442 raan=22.8368 ec=.0020365 ap=264.1234 p0=95.7736 mm=15.86070513 Thanks in advance. Bruce Watson ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 87 22:21:26 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from June 1 AW&ST Cover photo is an Amroc test firing in a test stand at Edwards. Probable payload of the secret Atlas H launch from Vandenberg on the 15th was a USN White Cloud ocean-surveillance satellite cluster. Soviets add some more miscellaneous boosters to their commercial marketing efforts. Nothing notable; Energia is not on the list. Rocketdyne and NASA doing SSME test firings at a rapid pace. The turbine blades now are cleared for 10 missions (used to be 3-5). Fletcher has unofficially discussed the possibility of cancelling Galileo. This is unlikely, but the latest shuttle schedule slip means Galileo once again has to fight for a launch slot early in the manifest. NASA to form new office devoted to advance planning for manned Mars or Moon missions. Big deal. NASA insiders increasingly feel that nothing will happen on such objectives, given Fletcher's ineffectual efforts and White House disinterest, until both Fletcher and Reagan are replaced. White House and DoD tried to prevent NASA DepAdmin Dale Myers' call last week for DoD to develop its own space station, but spoke up too late. DoD says it has no interest in building its own. Progress 30 docks to Mir. Mir is increasingly short of power, due to postponement of the EVAs to add another solar array and to unfavorable sun angles of late. Soviets say Energia will be used to launch heavy comsats, large planetary missions, large new space-station pieces, and experimental solar power satellites. "[Energia] is capable of placing at least 220,000 lbs into orbit, a capability the US will not regain until about 1993 -- 20 years after the US abandoned Saturn V operations. ... The US will be unable to undertake manned space station operations until at least 1994-95 -- 20 years after abandoning Skylab operations." New DoD space policy formally orders a change of policy towards simple low-cost spacecraft in larger numbers. DoD is still dickering with private industry about launch facilities. One new idea has been added: DoD will consider long-term leases on the older, deteriorating pads at the Cape, on condition that they be refurbished to DoD specs and be available to the military in a crisis. Eutelsat books two Atlas-Centaur launches in 1990 for large comsats. First full-scale SRB firing since 51L. This one mostly used old-style hardware and was aimed at gathering data rather than testing improvements, although a few new things were included. Next test, to include the full new design, slips to mid-August (from late July). Choice of O-ring material switches back to Viton. Materials with better low-temperature properties, originally attractive, have problems with the grease used in installation and are permeable enough to make leak testing difficult. First Titan SRB test set for June 3. Rockwell engineer criticizes NASA space-station design for having too many non-standard elements and not allowing for future growth. He proposes an alternate modular design that could provide Skylab-level capabilities after four launches. Also criticizes industry for rubber-stamping NASA's ideas rather than coming up with its own: "Why are the artist's conceptions of eight major corporations so nearly identical? In a real competition seeking real answers there would be a different version for each of them... Any one of these competitors should be able, unfettered, to accomplish more in six months than has been done in the past two years." Airlines criticize FCC proposal to share aviation comsat frequencies with other mobile users. Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 87 00:14:51 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from June 8 AW&ST [Finally! I'm CAUGHT UP! Note that I "normally" run about a month behind on these summaries: AW&ST takes a little while to reach my post office box, sits there for a few days until I pick it up, and then has to get read and summarized. I could tighten things up a bit more, but not a lot, so I'm content to declare a month's lag to be normal. -- HS] Mitsubishi and McDonnell-Douglas continue to discuss the possibility of creating a super-Delta by using the upper stage of the Japanese H-1 with the Delta 2. DoD is "putting into operation" a new spysat system, "Vortex", using imaging radar for tracking armored units (and, presumably, warships). USAF will increase expendable purchases, and is looking at moving more payloads off the shuttle in view of the shuttle schedule slip. GAO nearing end of investigation of Fletcher's relationship with Morton Thiokol, especially in regard to the 1973 SRB contract award. Fletcher says he's confident it will clear him, and denies widespread rumors that he will leave NASA soon. NASA sets up confidential safety-reporting system to permit employees to speak up anonymously. Detailed picture of Energia on the pad, albeit from the belly side with the payload invisible. One oddity is moderately large boxes on the sides of the boosters, perhaps for electronics or recovery systems. [The Soviets have mumbled about recovering the boosters.] Comsat orders very low, thanks to the lack of launch capacity. The bigger satellite builders are busy with old business, but there may be a lean period coming up. A surge of orders is expected a couple of years down the road, because many of the satellites now in service will be in need of replacement early in the next decade. FCC criticized for its policy of approving satellites in blocks, producing an artificial boom-bust cycle. NASA starting tests on emergency ground-arresting system to stop a shuttle orbiter from overrunning the runway. Tests to be run at Dulles, using the ex-orbiter Enterprise. The system is similar to military systems already in use. The nose and fuselage of the orbiter penetrate the net, which wraps itself around the wings and main landing gear and then separates from its supports; four nylon tapes attached to the net connect to water- turbine drag devices designed to stop a 100-knot orbiter within 1000 ft. Enterprise will be winched into the net at very low speeds to verify how the net behaves and examine the loads it places on the orbiter. British Satellite Broadcasting orders two direct-broadcast comsats from Hughes, including launch vehicles (Deltas) and insurance, with delivery to the customer in orbit rather than on the ground. Office of Technology Assessment reports on media use of satellite imaging. Spot and Landsat both have disadvantages that prevent wide media use: resolution isn't quite good enough, delivery time is far too long, and news media aren't used to interpreting such images. An actual "mediasat" is unlikely to arrive soon, because it's too costly for the current market. It would create a number of problems, not least the conflict between the First Amendment and the 1984 Landsat Act (which requires DoC licensing of remote-sensing satellites and subjects them to national-security rules). NASA forms Office of Exploration to study manned Moon and Mars missions, and to provide a bureaucratic compartment for such work (which doesn't fit any of the existing compartments well). Discussion of some results from last year's SDI Delta test. Predictions about debris behavior were verified. Interestingly, there were two distinct debris clouds, centered on the original orbits of the two satellites. The hypersonic shock wave from the initial contact pulverized the two satellites before they could make complete contact, and the debris clouds just passed through each other. McDonnell-Douglas gets $0.5G SDI contract for an orbital test of a large neutral-beam particle accelerator in 1991, probably aboard the shuttle. NASA asks for industry proposals to study advanced SRBs. Anik C-1 comsat, in storage orbit since launch two years ago, will be used by Pan Am Pacific Satellite starting late this year. Color photographs of Energia on the pad, including some showing (fuzzily) the slightly-mysterious payload pod. The payload is a black cylinder, relatively long and thin with some white markings. A closer look at the boxes on the sides of the boosters still gives no indication of what they are for. The Energia pad structure does not include a large orbiter servicing room like the one used by the US, suggesting that shuttle servicing will mostly be off-pad. This fits with previous Soviet practice. However, there are at least two Energia pads at Baikonur, and the other(s) might differ. Letter of the month: "...As Soviet work on their space foundation goes relentlessly forward, all talk in America is of prestige and Mars. What this discussion misses is something the Russians seem to have known for years. The ultimate result of all the triumphs and tragedies through which we are now living will be the emergence of human civilization in space. "This does not merely mean stations and bases and travel between them but settlements that grow into cities and whole cultures... "...Basic exploration of the Moon and cislunar space essentially has been accomplished, so it would seem logical now to proceed with the settlement of those places. "Instead, the talk is of Mars. If civilization in space is our ultimate purpose, why are we talking of opening new territories such as Mars when territories on the Moon and in cislunar space have not been used? Just as we undermined our long-term future in space by side-stepping consolidation in Earth orbit to go to the Moon, we are now in danger of doing the same by side-stepping consolidation on the Moon to go to Mars... "Will the public support another program of exploration in which they have no role other than to pay the bill and watch on television? Or will they support a program that offers to some of them and more of their children the freedom of the frontier?" "Timothy Morgan, Iowa" Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 09:49 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Light pressure for attitude control To: jon@csvax.caltech.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Jon Leech said: > If I remember old books correctly, one of the Mariner Mars > missions used light pressure on adjustable vanes on its solar panels > for attitude control during the cruise phase (NOT for propulsion). I believe that was the Mariner probe to Mercury, not Mars. Light pressure is much higher near Mercury. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 87 19:51:44 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Light pressure for attitude control > > If I remember old books correctly, one of the Mariner Mars > > missions used light pressure on adjustable vanes on its solar panels > > for attitude control during the cruise phase... > > I believe that was the Mariner probe to Mercury, not Mars. Light pressure > is much higher near Mercury. No, he's right, Mars. There were light-pressure vanes on the ends of the solar panels on Mariner 4 (and presumably on its stillborn twin, Mariner 3). As I recall they haven't been seen since, which would suggest that they didn't really work very well. -- Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #279 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Jul 87 06:20:38 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01216; Sat, 11 Jul 87 03:17:13 PDT id AA01216; Sat, 11 Jul 87 03:17:13 PDT Date: Sat, 11 Jul 87 03:17:13 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707111017.AA01216@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #280 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 280 Today's Topics: Re: Opinions Wanted & Solar Sails basic rocketry Re: basic rocketry Colonies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 08 Jul 87 13:54:30 EDT From: Steve Abrams Subject: Re: Opinions Wanted & Solar Sails On 2 Jul 87 07:58:17 GMT, (Charlie ???) posts, in reference to 'Subject: Re: Opinions wanted: Dream of solar windsailer,' The idea of using solar radiation pressure as a motive force is not a new one. Robert Forward (creator of the "Starwisp" design) credited the original idea to Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (editorial note: SEE! The Soviets were ahead of us in space ... well, future vision anyway ... even then). Much mathematical development came around 1960, when the magnitude of solar radiation pressure was first measured by the balloon-borne satellite ECHO I. This measurement was prompted when the erratic orbit of Vanguard I was attributed to solar radiation pressure (if I remember correctly, the on-off eclipses by the Earth caused it). In the mid-seventies, much more development occurred when sails were suggested to launch a Halley probe. The bean-counters and bookkeepers blocked it, though. The lack of maneuverability of most solar sail designs is one of the greatest problems with the use of solar sails. Many designs have been suggested, aside from the circular one mentioned, including hexagonal, square, kite-shaped, and heliogyro (in which the sail is long, thin strips of material radiating from a payload/control section like the spokes of a bicycle wheel). Most sail materials, because of the inherent thinness of the sail material, have problems with wrinkling (it can greatly reduce the effectiveness of a sail). The usual suggestion is to spin the sail, thereby allowing centrifugal force to keep the sail material flat. Unfortunately, conservation of angular momentum makes it difficult to change the orientation of the sipn axis. It's like a gyroscope ... unbalanced forces must be applied to cause the system to precess. Opposite forces must be applied after the spin axis has been altered by the desired amount to halt the precession. As for the physics of solar sails, I include the following from a posting I once made in the Physics SIG (because most articles about solar sails are woefully inept at providing a mathematically-explicit physical picture -- if nothing else it gives good references): "We begin by considering a circular piece of solar sail material of radius R, reflection coefficient R1, transmission coefficient T, and mass density RHO. All units, for convenience here, are MKSA. We put this piece in space (assumed to be a vacuum) 1 AU from the Sun where the solar irradiance, or Poynting vector of solar radiation , is 1353 W/m**2 (CRC Handbook, 55th Ed., 1974-5, p. F-189). We want to calculate the total force exerted on the sail material by solar radiation pressure...I'm sure this is old hat to many of you, but bear with me. From "Electromagnetic Fields" (Wangsness, Roald K.; 1979, John Wiley & Sons, p. 482, Eq. 25-97), we are shown that the pressure due to radiation, P1, is P1 = [(1+R1)()/c]*(cos theta(inc1))**2 where c is the speed of light in vacuum; and theta(inc1) is the angle of incidence of the solar radiation (from the normal to the sail piece). Since the area of the circular piece is pi*(R**2), we find that the total force, F1, on the piece is F1 = P1 * pi * R**2 = [(1+R1)()/c]*(cos theta(inc1))**2 * pi * R**2 Of course, for other sail shapes, this formula varies." However, Jonathan Scott took exception with my classical use of the Poynting vector (although most graduate-level electromagnetic theory texts use it). In response, "I herewith proceed to describe the application of special relativity to the Poynting 'vector.' The 'sort of vector' alluded to earlier is, as described by Furry in 'Examples of Momentum Distributions in the Electromagnetic Field and in Matter' (Am Jrnl Phys, v37, #6, June 1969, pp. 621-636), more precisely described as a component of the total energy-momentum tensor, T sub (mu nu); mu,nu = 1,2,3,4, S sub mu = -i*c* T sub (4 mu), mu=1,2,3 where T sub (mu nu); mu, nu = 1,2,3 are the components of Maxwell's electromagnetic stress tensor. The scalar term, returning to Furry, we see is the energy density, u, where T sub (4 4) = -u The vector term is the momentum density, g, where T sub (mu 4) = i*c* g The primary problem that arises from the standard EM class description of the Poynting vector comes from an ambiguity in its definition. This definition comes from Poynting's theorem which results in a conservation law PARTIAL-t(u) + div S = - J dot E (note: PARTIAL-t is used to denote partial differentiation with respect to time; dot denotes the scalar product of two vectors). Most texts then proceed to identify S with (c/4pi)*(E x B). Since the *divergence* of this value is used in the conservation law, any vector (a curl of a vector, too) whose divergence is zero can be added to this term without affecting the "conservation." This ambiguous vector has been referred to as "hidden" momentum, angular momentum, etc. in the literature. Mulser ("Radiation Pressure on Macroscopic Bodies," J Opt Sci Am B, v2, #11, Nov 1985, pp. 1814-1829) describes "the correct conservation equation of electromagnetic momentum and momentum transfer to a system of particles (mechanical system) is obtained" as PARTIAL-t(S/c**2) + div T = - KAPPA where KAPPA is defined earlier as KAPPA = (charge density * E + current density x B) and "where S = EPSILON0*c**2 * (E x B), T sub (i j) = -EPSILON0*[(E sub i * E sub j) + (c**2 * B sub i * B sub j) - 1/2 * DELTAFUNCTION sub (i j) * (E**2 + (cB)**2)]." Mulser continues in his development with the following conclusion described in his discussion section (p. 1825: "(4) No conceptual difficulty with the overall radiation force F on a macroscopic body in vacuum arises since in such a case for an arbitrary volume (V) fixed in space and surrounding the body completely with its surface SIGMA holds according to Eq. 1.4 (PARTIAL-t(S/c**2) + div T = - KAPPA): ***EQ. 4.4*** F = [-(1/c**2)*PARTIAL-t(TIMEAVERAGEDVALUE of INTEGRAL(over arbitray volume V) of S dtau)] - [TIMEAVERAGEDVALUE of INTEGRAL(over SIGMA) of T dSIGMA)] However, the radiation field must be known. In an empty region of V, [PARTIAL-t(S) + c**2 * del T] vanishes. For a plane wave normally incident upon a plane surface at x=0 the following equations hold for constant amplitude: E = E sub i + E sub r = Re E sub i(exp(i*phi sub i) + r*exp(i*phi sub r)) B = Re (vector k sub 0)*E sub i(exp(i*phi sub i) - r*exp(i*phi sub r))/OMEGA and because PARTIAL-y(T sub (i j))=PARTIAL-z(T sub (i j))=0 from Eq. 4.4, Eq. 1.1 follows: p sub r = -(1/c**2)*PARIAL-t(TIMEAVERAGEDVALUE of INTEGRAL(from zero to infinity) of S dx)] - [TIMEAVERAGEDVALUE of INTEGRAL(from zero to infinity) of PARTIAL-x(T sub (x x) dx)] = TIMEAVERAGEDVALUE of T sub (x x) (0) = (EPSILON0/2)*TIMEAVERAGEDVALUEof [E dot E + c**2 * B dot B] = (1 + R)*I/c owing to I=MAGNITUDE(TIMEAVERAGEDVALUE ofS) and R=rr* by definition. Thereby it was assumed that the penetrating fraction of I is absorbed. In the same way, for the pressure on a plane surface exposed to a parallel monochromatic beam from vacuum under the angle of incidence THETA relative to the normal N-caret and reflectivity R(THETA) for fixed polarization one obtains p sub (r THETA) = (-2*R(THETA)*I/c)*cos(THETA)**2 N-caret + [1 - R(THETA)]*I/c * (vector k sub 0/k sub0) If the medium is transparent the second term is absent." So, we see that the radiation pressure equation used in the original posting (from Wangsness and using the classical Poynting vector) is only modified by the second term in the last equation. Mulser describes this: "Only for the case of perfect isotropy and reflectivities R=0 and R=1 under all directions does the integration of p sub (r THETA) lead to" the equation used in my original posting (given earlier...Steve)." Well, now that you've waded through all that, you probably think that I've forgotten about the solar wind (describes the particulate matter *only*, not radiation, too). The effect of the particulate matter is about an order of magnitude less than the effects of radiation pressure, but they are *not* negligible (a nuisance, yes!). First, since they are absorbed, *not* reflected, the resultant acceleration is less than half that due to radiation. Planetary magnetic fields tend to warp the trajectories of particles resulting in a wide variation in intensities (as would solar flares). This could lead to "nutation" if the sail is spun. The stresses involved, however, would probably tear the sail apart (It's made as thin as possible, remember). Let's move on to 's (Steve Smith) reply: >A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that "light sails" >would be a very practical means of interplanetary transport. While >the acceleration that they would generate would be miniscule, it is >constant. Steve's "simple" calculation, as he describes it, is based on an oft-overlooked flaw that does somewhat limit the effectiveness of solar sails. Steve says that "the acceleration...is constant." It is not for the very simple reason that the intensity of solar radiation decreases as 1/r**2, where r is the distance from source to sail. Even laser/maser-assisted sail systems suffer from divergence that lessens the intensity of the radiation with distance. >All of the technology needed to build light sails is available now . Again, this isn't entirely correct. The theory is well developed, but the technology is not. The aforementioned "wrinkling" problem isn't; micrometeroid punctures (and the perturbative oscillations they induce) isn't; and vapor-deposition (or similar process) is nowhere near the point at which homogeneous sails of the necessary size can be produced. These problems can probably be overcome (or, at least, lived with) but the "deployment problem" is a little more formidable. However the sail is produced, the minute it starts to present a significant area, all these forces anticipated for propulsion will just be a nuisance. Self-deploying designs have similar problems. As you might guess, I've spent considerable amounts of times studying this topic (since the sci-fi and futurist accounts of this idea left much to be desired). I really like this idea and *believe* that it can be made to work. Unfortunately, that means money, people, time, effort must be devoted to the idea. The only organization I know of that is putting anything into solar sails is the World Space Foundation (they've actually built a prototype -- too heavy for real use, though) in Boulder, Colorado. For those who might be interested in this topic, I include the following bibliography: "Solar Sailing," Eric K. Drexler, Space Colonies (publ. by CoEvolution), pp. 134-9: The first non-science fiction article I ever saw on the subject...it gave me the "sailing" bug. "Ride a Laser to the Stars," Robert L. Forward, New Scientist, 2 Oct 1986: Wonderfully imaginative and visionary article on the possibilities of interstellar exploration via solar sails...a litle too gradiose for the present (sigh). "Heliogyro Solar Sailer Summary Report," MacNeal, Richard H.; Hedgedeth, John M.; and Scheurch, Hans U.; NASA-CR-1329: Avaiable at any Federal Depository Library (there's one in each state) or any other that carries the documents abstracted in STAR (NASA bi-weekly publication); This report is abstract # N69-28861. "Orbital Perturbations and Control by Solar Radiation Forces," Van der Ha, J.C.; Modi, V.J.; Journal of Spacecraft, 1977, pp. 180-7: Very good technical article. Mathematical and physical description of processes by which sail-powered craft can alter their orbits significantly (i.e. raise their perigees...remember, an escape orbit is just one that has an "infinitely" high perigee.) just by utilizing solar radiation forces. "Examples of Momentum Distributions in the Electromagnetic Field and in Matter," Furry, Am Jrnl Phys, v37, #6, June 1969, pp. 621-636 and, "Radiation Pressure on Macroscopic Bodies," Mulser, J Opt Sci Am B, v2, #11, Nov 1985, pp. 1814-1829: These two articles give a much more precise description than most graduate level texts. "Electromagnetic Fields," Wangsness, Roald K.; 1979, John Wiley & Sons, Chapter 25: good undergraduate-level text "Classical Electrodynamics," J.D. Jackson, 1975, John Wiley & Sons, Chapters 6,7,11,12: good graduate-level text Sorry for the length... Steve Abrams ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 87 17:02:17 GMT From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: basic rocketry What causes pogo? --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 87 19:36:09 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: basic rocketry >What causes pogo? > >--JoSH Walt Kelly, as I recall :-) Jordin Kare ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 87 23:45:09 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Colonies To: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) > Where is the [Soviet's] ``enormous loss''? Nobody in the west knows what percent of their GNP goes into their space program, but it is clearly more than in the US. This could have gone to produce food or consumer goods or industrial infrastructure. That is the loss. > ... will enable a permanent manned presence, to engage in more > activities of direct benefit to their economy and military. Their military? Could be. Thus it could be profitable in the same sense that a robber's gun is profitable. He can rob people of many times the value of the gun. I hope we are able to prevent this. > As I read your articles, you appear to present two ideological > beliefs as fact: > i) Soviet space activities are a dead end because they are > not free-market driven. See Von Mises' _The Anti-Capitalist Mentality_ for a proof that a socialist economy wall always grind to a halt unless it has a free market economy to track. It is conceivable that they could imitate us if we have a space colony, but it is not possible that they can do it first, except at a loss, which is not a real colony. > ii) Space colonies will be both profitable and independent > of Earth (by definition). They may or may not be independent of Earth in practice, but they are not true colonies if they couldn't survive prolonged lack of all contact with Earth if they needed to. And if the value of what they produce is less than the value of what they consume, they will be called home or will die out as soon as the Earthbound investors, whether government or industry, tire of the financial loss. As for political independence - I don't think that is a major issue. Once you are beyond low Earth orbit, it is pretty trivial to go anywhere in the solar system. If enough of the colonists don't like it where they are, they can go elsewhere, and never be found. By that method if no other, political independence is always possible to any self sufficient dissatisfied minority. And no colony need have political ties with another or with any Earth nation to trade with them. ...Keith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #280 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Jul 87 20:35:40 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03790; Sun, 12 Jul 87 03:29:36 PDT id AA03790; Sun, 12 Jul 87 03:29:36 PDT Date: Sun, 12 Jul 87 03:29:36 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707121029.AA03790@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #281 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 281 Today's Topics: Re: Colonies SSC in California? starfish? Nielsen Ratings just one question Re: private space companies not a engineering problem (much) Re: not a engineering problem (much) Overpopulation? Starships will be slow Re: Starships will be slow satellite repairs in batches Re: satellite repairs in batches ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Jul 87 05:38:48 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Colonies In article <224288.870706.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: >> From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) > >> Where is the [Soviet's] ``enormous loss''? > >Nobody in the west knows what percent of their GNP goes into their space >program, but it is clearly more than in the US. This could have gone to >produce food or consumer goods or industrial infrastructure. That is >the loss. Righto. Clearly, then, we should scrap all public and private space activities and put the labor and capital into 'food or consumer goods or industrial infrastructure' instead. There is no difference between capitalist space activities and socialist space activities in terms of what services are returned. Communications, weather, earth observation, etc. satellites provide services which are of net economic benefit no matter what ideology the recipients are. The same will hold true for space manufacturing (another area where the Soviets are building the groundwork to outclass us), powersats, and other activities which return more tangible products than information, if and when such activities take place. If space activities are a net drain on a socialist economy, they are a net drain on a capitalist economy also. I don't believe either. The Soviet space program gives every sign of being more pragmatically oriented and much cheaper to run than anything we've accomplished. Perhaps Soviet space spending is military dominated, you say? What of it? So is ours. >See Von Mises' _The Anti-Capitalist Mentality_ for a proof that a >socialist economy wall always grind to a halt unless it has a free >market economy to track. I will have to look this up just to see his conception of ``proof'' in the wonderful quantitative predictive science of economics. I believe that if we ever get NASA out of the way, or if NASA is given the same level of support that Soviet space activities have, we will catch up in not more than a decade or so; the semi-free market we have does seem to work more efficiently than the more centralized Soviet economy. But operating less efficiently still leaves room for profit. Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jul 87 23:44:02 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: SSC in California? To: gwyn@BRL-SMOKE.ARPA Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov I had already talked about the funding of the SSC on this list. It is clear from context that the gubernator was not objecting to the SSC on objectivist grounds, but on no-growth grounds. That, and his speaking for others without their consent, was what I was criticizing. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 08 July 87 15:53 EDT From: GPWJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu Subject: starfish? In SPACE Digest V7 #268, ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu writes: > ....There are still significant numbers of > fission electrons in the inner belt from the Starfish prime > explosion over twenty years ago, and they play hell with > electronics (not to mention damaging unshielded people). Could someone post a quick note about what was the Starfish prime explosion? Thanx! Art Samplaski BITNET: UUAJ@CORNELLA Internet: UUAJ%CORNELLA.BITNET @ CU-ARPA.CS.CORNELL.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 87 00:06:21 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Nielsen Ratings From the July 8th LA Times listing of weekly Nielsen ratings: Place Program Rating 1 The Cosby Show 20.0 2 Family Ties 19.5 ... >>> 61 "Space", Part 1 4.1 62 West 57th 4.1 Conclusions, if any, I leave to the fertile imaginations of netlanders. Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 87 14:58:29 EDT From: nutto%UMASS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Andy Steinberg) Subject: just one question Does anyone know how I could find copies of/subscribe to the journal of the British Interplanetary Society? -andy- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 87 19:12:47 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: private space companies > Boeing Company > ... > Has 4.3 billion in cash and short term investments > ... > Has stated goal of someday being in space what it is > in commercial airplanes. Sigh. Dani, on the whole I have a great deal of respect for Boeing, but you forgot to add: Has had this stated goal for twenty years; visible progress toward it has been minimal. -- Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 87 13:50:24 GMT From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: not a engineering problem (much) Interstellar travel isn't a physics problem, isn't much an engineering problem, is just a bit of a political problem. What it is is a biological problem. All these other "problems" are caused by not being able to solve the biology. To wit: People don't live very long, and insist on things like breathing, eating, maintaining surrounding pressure,.... Solve these, and the rest become trivial. Why FTL? Ans: People have to go places in a hurry or die. Solution: Keep people from stopping so easy. Check "Between the Wings of Night" James W. Meritt ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 87 01:22:31 GMT From: pt!speech2.cs.cmu.edu!yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Re: not a engineering problem (much) In article <692@aplvax.UUCP>, jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes: > Interstellar travel isn't a physics problem, isn't much an engineering > problem, is just a bit of a political problem. > What it is is a biological problem. All these other "problems" are > caused by not being able to solve the biology. > Why FTL? Ans: People have to go places in a hurry or die. Actually, this is not the problem. According to special relativity, subjective time slows down as your speed approaches the speed of light. So, even if you don't have FTL, you can travel an arbitrarily large distance in an arbitrarily small amount of (subjective) time -- given a ship that can travel close enough to c. Brian Yamauchi ARPANET: yamauchi@speech2.cs.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jul 87 01:09:24 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Overpopulation? To: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andre Guirard) > Realistically, unless interstellar travel is much easier than scientists > now think it is, shipping your excess population off to nearby stars is > impractical. We don't have to worry about the stars for a while. The solar system can support a population of about ten to the twentieth, billions of times the current world population. Most people will live in self contained colonies in hollow asteroids. Eventually, some such colonies will travel to the stars. What a way to travel - take your home, family, and friends with you. The only things they will be leaving beind are sunlight - so they use fusion - a source of spare matter - so they bring plenty along - and trade with the rest of mankind - so they will be self sufficient. And there is no reason why they can't remain in communication with the rest of mankind during their journey. Since it will be much slower than light, enormous amounts of energy, reaction mass, and sheilding will not be needed. Nobody will be shipping their "excess population" anywhere. People will ship themselves where they want to go. If any place is generally considered too crowded, people will tend to leave it. But most people tend to seek out crowded places (cities) rather than distributing themselves evenly over the countryside. I expect it will be the same in space. Overpopulation is a myth, anyway. Unless people are rewarded for having children (as in a welfare state) or punished for not, people will have no more children than they can support, and population will not continue to increase exponentially, or at all, once it reaches the highest comfortable level. > I can think of three cheaper alternatives: > (1) Warfare. This method has been successfully used on Terra > many times. Let's don't. I hope you aren't serious. > (2) Restrict breeding. Why assume population growth _has_ to > be exponential? Let's don't. Who has a right to, anyway? And why assume population growth is exponential in the absense of coercion? It isn't, in any industrialized western country. > (3) Build space habitats rather than ships. Much less expensive > because no motors, no fuel, no structural requirement to > withstand acceleration, ... That's more like it. But there is no reason a hollow astesoid can't be propelled at perhaps 1/1000 G. You can get anywhere at that acceleration if you are patient enough. And you don't need much structural support, reaction mass, energy, or sheilding. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 87 04:53:29 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Starships will be slow In article <1046@speech2.cs.cmu.edu> yamauchi@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >In article <692@aplvax.UUCP>, jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes: >> Why FTL? Ans: People have to go places in a hurry or die. > >Actually, this is not the problem. According to special relativity, >subjective time slows down as your speed approaches the speed of light. >So, even if you don't have FTL, you can travel an arbitrarily large >distance in an arbitrarily small amount of (subjective) time -- given a >ship that can travel close enough to c. Travel time is not arbitrarily small - you must factor in time to accelerate up near c and back down again, which is several years subjective at 1 G. The problem then becomes getting enough energy to boost a starship to high relativistic velocities, and carrying enough shielding to survive. The only way to do this is obtain fuel & energy source externally, as in the Bussard ramjet - which is probably impractical due to low density of the interstellar medium and the difficulty of getting net energy out of hydrogen through which you are traveling at such high velocity. Life extension or suspended animation are likely to come along a lot sooner than fast (.99c gets you only 7:1 dilation) starships. None of which addresses the complementary problem of coming back to Earth and finding decades (centuries...) have passed since you left. Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 87 18:20:53 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: Starships will be slow In article <3161@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jon@oddhack.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes: > Life extension or suspended animation are likely to come along a lot > sooner than fast (.99c gets you only 7:1 dilation) starships. None of > which addresses the complementary problem of coming back to Earth and > finding decades (centuries...) have passed since you left. Either of these biological breakthroughs will solve the problem: Life extension will allow the people who said goodbye when you left to say hello when you return, assuming that you lived long enough to complete the trip. Trip might get boring, though. Suspended animation will allow the same thing as long as the folks back home suspend for the same period. Maybe, if we ever get the technology to do it and a sufficiently compelling desire to have an interstellar society, we will simply have everyone on the planets sleep 99 out of every 100 years, and all wake up for the same one year, when all the starships arrive (yes, I know there will be synchronization problems). While either of these biological solutions is still closer to science fiction that reality, I think they're both closer to reality than FTL. We at least can see objects in the observable universe with offer examples of very long lifespans (trees over 1000 years old) and the ability to suspend life processes for long periods without detrimental effect (primarily microorganisms). I see no objects in the observable universe which seem to act like they're traveling faster than light. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 19:58:48 From: Robert Elton Maas To: eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA Subject: satellite repairs in batches Date: Wed, 1 Jul 87 10:13:43 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Wait... I've written that (max G&selection) I would rather improve the reliability of satellites rather than service them in space. Murphy's law holds: the part you will need will doubtless be on the ground ;-). There would be more money for electronics and computer science. Murphy's law also says no matter how perfect you try to make them, something will still go wrong (and you'll then need to fix it). Sure the part you want is on the ground. So you have a robot craft with ion rocket dock with the satellite, tug it to LEO, attach it to the space station (which needn't be manned, just a standard place to attach things to, with lots and lots of docking frobs, like a hitching post for horses) to wait until the next launch of the repair crew. After several satellites have been docked and all the needed parts have been assembled on the ground, the launch occurs, and most of the sattelites are repaired. A few need additional parts, and must wait until the next repair mission. Robot tugs then return the satellites to proper orbits, or if they were refueled during repair they can return themselves. What's wrong with that? (Other than political questions of gettin funding) >We could have a space station flying almost immediately, if NASA would get >off its behind and start using existing hardware, instead of frittering away >another decade and another ten billion dollars by reinventing everything. We can launch cans, with O2 cylinders, batteries, and extension cords. Needless to say, Mr. Spencer over simplifies. Not into orbit! I challenge you to launch a can into stable Earth-orbit with those methods. (I.e. why are you giving him a flip reply?) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 87 16:52:03 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: satellite repairs in batches > >We could have a space station flying almost immediately, if NASA would get > >off its behind and start using existing hardware... > > We can launch cans, with O2 cylinders, batteries, and extension cords. Speak up, all those potential space-station users who would prefer a gleaming technological showpiece available in 1995 (1996? 1998? 2000?) over an oxygenated tin can in orbit today. Quiet, isn't it? Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #281 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Jul 87 19:42:01 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05347; Mon, 13 Jul 87 04:07:06 PDT id AA05347; Mon, 13 Jul 87 04:07:06 PDT Date: Mon, 13 Jul 87 04:07:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707131107.AA05347@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #282 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 282 Today's Topics: Re: Betelguese and Supernova Betelguese and Supernova, very-distant early warning Supernovas New Orbiter from Enterprise??? Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle? Re: New Orbiter from Enterprise??? Mercury splashdown sites Re: Mercury splashdown sites Re: High G and playing with life Re: Stock Missile Footage Re: Stock Missile Footage ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Jul 87 19:57:12 GMT From: amdcad!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (MacLeod) Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova In article <551836099.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Not only is Betelguese big enough to go supernova, it is thought by >some to be in the last gasp of life. It is currently going through >intense mass loss by way of a solar wind. Supernova should(?) occur >within a few thousand years according to some articles I've read. Oh, no, Mr. Humanity! *Frying sounds* Seriously, I had no idea that they could pinpoint it that closely. And on a cosmic time scale, a few thousand years is miniscule; the variation could go either way by far more than that. It's more like "within the next half hour", cosmically. Looks like real estate values are going down, folks. Time to boogie. And we don't need a hyperdrive? We're going to have to beat the wavefront... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jul 87 12:58:15 From: Robert Elton Maas To: "ota%galileo.s1.gov"@mordor.s1.gov, nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu Subject: Betelguese and Supernova, very-distant early warning Date: Mon, 29 Jun 87 09:37:03 PDT From: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Betelguese and Supernova It may indeed be that checking out nearby supernova candidates will be the first application that requires an interstellar trip. Remote probes at the nearest half dozen likely supernovas could relay early warning of an impending explosion. This might be the highest leverage scientific program ever undertaken, at least in terms of lives saved. At the very least is would be a colossally interesting project. You have a point there. I propose we put this on our list of long-term objectives. It sure beats setting up a random colony on Mars, since it is directly related to our survival beyond mere number of baskets or eggs are in. We should certainly spread our eggs around, but specific very-distant early warning stations are important too, so we can build shields against radiation blast, predict exact timing to avoid having to stay shielded for long periods, etc. By the way, SN1978A was a blue giant, not yet a red supergiant, so we have to watch Rigel and Deneb too. (Sirius is probably too small to go supernova, can somebody confirm?) One question: It's easy to know what stars to watch out for that might suffer supernova by core-collapse, i.e. supermassive stars. But it's not so easy to know what stars to watch out for that might suffer supernova by thermonuclear detonation of hydrogen sucked from a small main sequence or red giant star to collect on surface of tiny neutron star, since some of those are really dim until they go supernova, and the supernova is much brighter than a core-collapse type so we have to watch for them over a larger region of space. Can somebody assure me we know about *all* the dwarf pairs that might go supernova close enough to cause major ecological damage on Earth? Also, regarding extinction of dinosaurs, could the Iridium have come from a supernova directly, i.e. the radiation blast kills off life, then a few thousand years later the shell of thermonuclear byproducts including iridium arrives over a period of a few hundred years so we get a sediment layer of it, and in the fossil record the two proximate events look coincident? Date: 29 Jun 87 21:30:53 GMT From: nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova In article <8706291637.AA03371@galileo.s1.gov> ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes: >It may indeed be that checking out nearby supernova candidates will be >the first application that requires an interstellar trip. ... Now excuse me for nit picking, but would this give us any early warning? It seems to me that by the time indications of an impending SN got to the probe, and the warning message from the probe got back to earth, the same conditions that triggered the warning in the probe would be detectable here. Am I missing something, or was this an oversight? You're missing the fact that many orders of magnitude better Signal/Noise ratio and resolution can be achieved by on-site inspection compared to distant telescopy. Witness Pioneer 10&11 and Voyager 1&2 images of Jupiter et al, which were "infinitely" better than ground-based info. Subtle instabilities that are totally undetectable at interstellar distance would be "obvious" to a nearby device, which could then report warning back to Earth before the instabilities become severe enough to be detected directly from Earth. It's analagous to having seisometers and stress-measuring devices on Mt. St. Helens compared to in Berkeley or Denver. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jul 87 00:27:00 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Supernovas To: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) > The Star Betelgeuse is large enough to explode as a Supernova and > being only 300 Light Years away will produce enough Xrays to blow off > the Ozone layer and fry us. Very unlikely. Supernovas are very rare. The recent one in the SMG was 160,000 light years away. It was the closest one since the one in the 1880s in the Andromeda Galaxy, 2,200,000 light years away. There hasn't been one in this galaxy of ten to the eleventh stars since 1604. One might expect a supernova within 300 light years only once or twice in each billion years. The references I can find say that Betelgeuse is 520 or 650 light years away, not 300. > Great maybe this explains the Fermi Paradox... All intelligent life > gets blasted away with SuperNova radiation before they can start > moving out into the stars. If we lost our ozone layer, things could get unpleasant, but it wouldn't cause mankind to go extinct or anything like that. We really don't know what is out there. Supernovas are noticable because they give off so much light, but the important things, and perhaps the really deadly things, are likely to be more subtle. ...Keith ------------------------------ Cc: bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa From: bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Date: 6 Jul 87 15:29:00 EST Subject: New Orbiter from Enterprise??? Reply-To: I just saw a rerun of SPACE on PBS, and it reminded me how wonderful I thought the Shuttle was, when it was flying. There has been a lot of talk about replacing Challenger with a new orbiter to get our "fleet" back up to where it was. Coincidentally, I just flew into Dulles airport and saw a SHUTTLE parked out near there. This is the Enterprise, which is parked in the branch of the Air & Space Museum where they keep things that are too big to fit in the bldg. downtown. Has anyone considered that the Enterprise could be outfitted to fly for a cost that is very small compared to construction of a new orbiter from scratch? I hate to deprive the A&S musuem of such an exhibit, but hey, we NEED another orbiter. Anyone (Eugene Miya?) out there in a position to comment on this in a more informed way than I can?????? [This has been discussed before and the answer always seems to be that there is so much that would need to be added to Enterprise that saving the cost of the airframe is no help. -Ed] ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 87 17:04:02 GMT From: rlgvax!russ@seismo.css.gov (Russ Olsen) Subject: Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle? In article <557@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>, dleigh@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Darren Leigh) writes: > A friend and I were wondering the other day: NASA has a destruct > mechanism built into their unmanned launches in case they go out of > control. What about manned launches, particularly the space shuttle? If I remember properly from the Rogers(?) Commission Report, there are charges in the solid rocket boosters which can be fired from the ground. There may also be charges in the external tank, but I couldnt swear to that one. In any case, the charges were originally ment to be used in a situation where the booster (or perhaps the external tank) was flying out of control and endangering life or property. The report goes on to say that no one wants to think about what would happen if the shuttle, boosters and tank still attached were to go out of control and become a danger. I guess some poor soul would have to push the button on the shuttle crew. Russ Olsen, CCI Reston, VA russ@rlgvax ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 87 05:38:37 GMT From: ucsdhub!jack!man!sdiris1!res@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Robert Sanders) Subject: Re: New Orbiter from Enterprise??? In article <558@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>, dleigh@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Darren Leigh) writes: > In article <8707070046.AA07245@galileo.s1.gov>, bouldin@CEEE-SED.ARPA writes: > > Has anyone considered that the Enterprise could be outfitted to fly > > for a cost that is very small compared to construction of a new > > orbiter from > heard something on the news about the Enterprise never being able to > make it into space. If I remember right, the problem was not just the > refit, but the fact that the Enterprise was no longer structurally > sound due to extensive testing (vibration testing?). That is correct... Enterprise was used to test metal fatigue from vibration TO FAILURE... it is not in usable shape, would be necessary to completely rebuild, and it is not the new, lighter design anyway. (Also was never the same design as any of the flying orbiters, never being intended to go into space... purely an aerodynamic test bed.) Skip Sanders : sdcsvax!ucsdhub!jack!man!sdiris1!res Phone : 619-273-8725 (evenings) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jul 87 17:31:39 PDT From: John Sotos Subject: Mercury splashdown sites Does anyone have handy the location of where each of the manned Mercury flights splashed down? All I need is the ocean. Shepard, Grissom, and Glenn all came down in the Atlantic. What about "the other four"? John ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 87 16:22:57 GMT From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu (Doug Mink) Subject: Re: Mercury splashdown sites > Does anyone have handy the location of where each > of the manned Mercury flights splashed down? All > I need is the ocean. Shepard, Grissom, and Glenn > all came down in the Atlantic. What about "the > other four"? Scott Carpenter came down in the Atlantic 250 miles from the planned impact site--he wasn't located for 18 minutes after landing or sited for 40 minutes. I remember watching this cliffhanger ending to a successful flight during a band lesson in elementary school. The landing error was due to a yaw error during retrofire. Wally Schirra landed 5 miles from his planned impact site 275 miles northeast of Midway Island in the Pacific Ocean. Gordo Cooper landed near Midway only 7000 yards from the recovery carrier Kearsage, 2000 yards closer than Schirra, flying through re-entry manually due to a failure of manual systems 30 minutes before retrofire. The sources of this information were the TRW Space Logs for December 1962 and June 1963. By the way, I just got the 1986 edition which has articles on Voyager, the Chinese space program and Comet Halley with great bibliographies on each subject, as well as a table of every satellite launched last year and comparison with the last 29 years. It is available to "professional personnel in the aerospace industry, the military and other government agencies" by writing on letterhead to: Editor, TRW Space Log, TRW Space & Technology Group, One Space Park, Mail Station 135/1477, Redondo Beach, CA 90278. Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer and space buff mink@cfa.harvard.edu {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jun 87 10:02 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: Re: High G and playing with life To: John Sotos , Space@angband.s1.gov Date: Wed, 24 Jun 87 12:26:23 PDT From: John Sotos A shuttle re-entry inflicts about +1.7 Gz over a period of ?20 minutes, which ain't no problem at all - unless you've been weightless for a week. Acceleration from front to back (+Gx) can be tolerated to a much higher degree. Ham the chimp took +17 Gx during the launch of his Mercury-Redstone flight and -14 Gx during re-entry. (The description in The Right Stuff is a joy!) Apollo re-entries gave the astronauts -7 Gx ("eyeballs out") or so. None of Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo inflicted "eyeballs out" G forces on their occupants. Recall, when accelerating they were facing forward, and while decelerating they were facing backward. Think of what happens in a car when you are in these postures--in both cases you are pushed into your seat. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 87 15:17:21 GMT From: ncsuvx!ncspm!jay@mcnc.org (Jay Smith) Subject: Re: Stock Missile Footage I'm cross-posting this to sci.space, since someone reading that might be able to help. In article <7347@mimsy.UUCP> mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >Mark McDermott writes: > >>By the same token, most shows involving space travel by rocket have >>used an apparently limited supply of Saturn V footage. How many times >>have you seen a second stage detach and fall to Earth? >What's interesting is that the whole cut is quite a bit longer, and >most of the time the only part you get to see is the interstage falling >away. One "Spaceflight" (the PBS series whose name I may be >misremembering) they showed the whole cut, which starts before the >previous stage (which is the first and not the second stage, I believe) >separates at all, and ends at some point after engine ignition. >Trivia question: does anyone know which flight it was? I believe it was Apollo 9, which was the earth orbit test of the lunar module (with the command/service module, too, of course). The film was recovered during a spacewalk, which I think was the only earth orbit spacewalk during the Apollo program. I think that the stage we see separating in the clip is the second stage, since the second stage does fall away from the Saturn V and burn up, making recovery of film from it a bit difficult. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Saturn IB (you can't fit a LM in there, can you?). I just remembered that this clip was in the Star Trek episode "Assignment: Earth", which was the final show of the second season (right?). Would this have pre-dated Apollo 9? Oops...... Jay Smith ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 87 16:54:28 GMT From: bloom-beacon!gatech!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay@think.com (Jay Smith) Subject: Re: Stock Missile Footage In article <333@ncspm.ncsu.edu> I wrote: >I believe it was Apollo 9, which was the earth orbit test of the lunar module >(with the command/service module, too, of course). The film was recovered >during a spacewalk, which I think was the only earth orbit spacewalk during >the Apollo program. > >I just remembered that this clip was in the Star Trek episode "Assignment: >Earth", which was the final show of the second season (right?). Would this >have pre-dated Apollo 9? Oops...... Through my own research I have discovered that Apollo 9 was launched in March 1969, while the Star Trek episode was aired March 1968, which predates Apollo 7, so this footage must have been from an unmanned Saturn launch. How was this film recovered? Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.movies,sci.space Subject: Re: Stock Missile Footage Summary: Expires: References: <459@home.CSNET> <1181@bgsuvax.UUCP> <7347@mimsy.UUCP> <333@ncspm.ncsu.edu> Sender: Reply-To: jay@ncspm.UUCP (Jay Smith) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Crop Science Dept., North Carolina State University Keywords: -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #282 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Jul 87 08:00:41 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07692; Tue, 14 Jul 87 03:17:30 PDT id AA07692; Tue, 14 Jul 87 03:17:30 PDT Date: Tue, 14 Jul 87 03:17:30 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707141017.AA07692@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #283 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 283 Today's Topics: Re: Stock Missile Footage NASA Queries (mailer problems) Re: Stock Missile Footage Re: POGO Re: You Were Born Too Soon Living in Space Re: Living in Space Re: Colonies Re: Colonies Re: space news from May 11 AW&ST, and short editorial ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Jul 87 17:24:43 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: Stock Missile Footage The footage you discuss, with the interstage ring falling away, is clearly shot from the second stage. There is no separable ring between the second and third stage to fall away and tumble so gracefully; besides, there are two engine nozzles clearly visible in the foreground of the picture. The S-IVB third stage had only a single nozzle. My guess about which flight (and this is conjecture) is that this footage was shot on one of the two unmanned test flights to see whether the staging process worked as planned (remember, S-IC/S-II separation was a pretty tricky business with rather tight tolerances). As for how the film was recovered, it probably was ejected in a re-entry capsule similar to that used for spysat film (the technology for recovering film from orbit has existed since about '59--when did the "Discoverer" satellites start flying?). The footage at the beginning of the "Spaceflight" show depicts an S-IVB stage separation and ignition as seen from either an S-II or S-IB stage; because of fish-eye lens distortion (and the presence of a large DuPont logo) I can't tell. Another interesting bit of stage-separation footage shown in that series is staging on a Titan II as viewed from the second stage. The first stage drops back about 50 feet or so, then the second stage engine ignites and literally blows the top of the first stage apart, with shrapnel flying in all directions. Quite a show! While the Saturn V footage is used a lot, my nominee for the single most over-used piece of stock rocket footage is that hapless Juno II that went straight up for about 100 feet, did a right-angle turn and was actually nose-down by the time it was blown up. This unfortunate piece of film seems to have become the industry-standard "rocket explosion" shot. (Trivia question: In what movie was the Hollywood missile depicted as a Saturn V at liftoff and as that Juno II at the end of its flight?) (And what did that movie have in common with Star Wars?) Dan Starr ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jul 87 12:36:16 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: NASA Queries (mailer problems) I have received quite a few pieces of mail which I am unable to reply to. No domain is free from guilt: UUCP, BITNET, even the ARPAnet and others. If you expect me to reply to the queries you send me, please include a return address as part of the signature (regardless of domain). >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 87 16:55:58 GMT From: terra!brent@sun.com (Brent Callaghan) Subject: Re: Stock Missile Footage > This sounds plausible, until you realize that there are two engines > visible on the stage containing the camera. Additionally, the stage > falling away is of the same diameter as the stage with the camera, and > the interstage is not tapered. This is clearly a sequence of the 1st > stage falling away as seen from the 2nd stage. Consequently, the film > was not retrieved in a spacewalk. At any rate, the Apollo 9 SIVB was > cast off before the spacewalk. > David Smith The NASA publication "Stages to Saturn" (excellent reading) makes reference to these movie sequences. During the testing of unmanned Staurn V's a host of instrumentation and cameras was carried. The SIVB (3rd stage) had TV cameras looking through windows into the tanks to observe the LOX and LH2 sloshing around the baffles. Some 16mm color cameras were fitted in detachable pods to the lower end of the SII second stage to record the stage separation. When out of film the camera pods blew off the side of the SII and splashed down into the ocean under their own parachutes. They were fitted with beacons for easy recovery. There's the story of a pod on one of the tests that had its beacon fail. The recovery crew couldn't locate it and gave up. Some months later the pod was found washed up on a beach. The film was OK and successfully processed. Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan @ Sun Microsystems uucp: sun!bcallaghan phone: (415) 691 6188 ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 87 17:07:04 GMT From: terra!brent@sun.com (Brent Callaghan) Subject: Re: POGO > The Saturn V pogo was caused by a resonance in the oxygen system, > which coincided with that of the larger structure. The oxygen > oscillation caused thrust oscillation, which fed the structure > oscillation, which fed the oxygen oscillation. The problem was fixed > by making some lines flexible, and by introducing helium to damp (and > I presume change the frequency of) the oxygen system. > > I don't know what caused pogo in the Titan. > David Smith I've read accounts of the POGO being so bad that on one flight a panel on the Spacecraft/LM adapter fairing became detached and fell away from the launch vehicle. This caused some consternation to some Grumman engineers who were observing telemetry from a mockup of the lunar module. They were watching the atmospheric pressure around the mockup DEcreasing as the vehicle gained altitude. They were suprised to note that the pressure drop turned around and began INcreasing! The NASA publication "Stages to Saturn" concluded that the LM mockup had fallen out the hole and was in freefall - although I find it hard to believe that it would fit through a hole the size of a single panel. Perhaps the adapter environment telemetry unit was attached to the panel itself. Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan @ Sun Microsystems uucp: sun!bcallaghan phone: (415) 691 6188 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jul 87 13:42 PDT From: Frank Mayhar Really-To: space Subject: Re: You Were Born Too Soon >Dale Amon said: >> In 1995 the space station will have the best tested people that can be >> found. This is proper. >> In 2005 it had damn well better have anyone who wants to go. This too >> is proper. Hear hear!! >Proper, perhaps, but very unrealistic. [...] >I don't want to flame, but I get very exasperated reading about people >who want to personally move out into space. You're living in >fantasyland! The cost is going to be outrageous until well into the >next century, by which time you'll be too old, or dead. >I also am exasperated by people who sneer at the annual US pizza (or >beer, or bubble gum, or whatever) consumption, then blithely propose to >blow several years or decades of income on frivolous orbital >sightseeing. A bit of a double standard, no? >Paul Dietz >dietz@slb-doll.csnet No! What exasperates me is listening to those people who want to take my dream away. Since I was in the second grade, I've dreamed about going into space. Like most of the readers of this newsgroup, I remember watching Neil Armstrong make that last little hop to the Moon, and wishing it was me. By all signs, we could have been there now, if the original plans hadn't been scrapped by self-serving politicians and bureaucrats. Instead, here we all are, watching the Soviets pass us, realizing that the only chance we had of getting there in our lifetimes was thrown away by self-serving fools whose only desire is for more personal power, regardless of the consequences. Or by those other fools, who only care about the next paycheck, and whether their wife has found out about their mistress or not. If I sound disillusioned, I am. But at least let me keep my "unrealistic" dreams! They are all I have left, and maybe, just maybe, they aren't so unrealistic after all. Frank Mayhar Frank-Mayhar%ladc@HI-Multics.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jul 87 17:47:22 GMT From: Michael J. Hammel Subject: Living in Space Paul Dietz : you state that living in space for the common man in the early part of the next century is a fantasyland dream (not your exact words, but the message is the same). It shouldn't be. Since the the great push to reach the moon, what have we as a country been pushing for as far as achievements in space are concerned? The shuttle program obviously was a major concern, but I think the general populace felt, after visiting the moon umpteen times, that it was time to sit back and relax. That kind of attitude is exactly the reason we cannot now live in space in the beginning of the next century. If we had felt that going to the moon was only a stepping stone into what we were capable of, then we would be living in space, possibly even before the end of this century. Ok, I admit I don't know all the details of costs, which are one the biggest concerns we have now, but had we kept pushing, we could have, as a country, found the means necessary to achieve such a goal. In my eyes the fault lies with management. The management of resources, both human and material. We should've made it. But we didn't. I hope my kids will. Michael J. Hammel SNHAM @ TTUVM1 EAMIK @ TTUVM1 RELAY Nick: Sarek ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 87 09:31:35 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Living in Space Newsgroups: sci.space >Paul Dietz : >the message is the same). It shouldn't be. Since the the great push to >reach the moon, what have we as a country been pushing for as far as >achievements in space are concerned? Michael J. Hammel This Country has mostly been concern with pushing military space: surveilence (electronic and optical), weather (military), communication (military), SDI, and so on. Anyone care to do a survey of military space? Some might be surprised by their budget. P.S. the same goes for the Soviets, their military program is much larger than their civilian program (but their tend to blurr their boundaries a little more). I tend to agree with Paul on this one (geez, what's the world coming to?). I agree with this poster sentiments (i.e., I.*e.), but the rest of the world does not see things our way. --eugene miya eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 87 22:31:17 GMT From: jplgodo!wlbr!etn-rad!jru@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (John Unekis) Subject: Re: Colonies In article <224288.870706.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: >> From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) > >> Where is the [Soviet's] ``enormous loss''? > >Nobody in the west knows what percent of their GNP goes into their >space program, but it is clearly more than in the US. This could have >gone to produce food or consumer goods or industrial infrastructure. >That is the loss. An observation: The U.S. has been engaged in a renewed arms race with the Soviet Union lately. Both sides have been amassing enormous numbers of megatons in Nuclear warheads, Plus vast arrays of sophisticated conventional weapons. What use is any of this stuff? In a world at peace, none what so ever. The whole thing is more or less a game of chicken, except that if one side falls behind, it may suffer more than embarassment, it may find itself hit with a preemptive strike that would cripple it and then find itself conquered by the other side. We have been playing this game with varying levels of fervor for decades now, and no one has 'pulled ahead' to win yet. Why then do we keep it up? I think because here in the U.S. we beleive that our more efficient Capitalistic economy will support a bigger military buildup for a longer period of time, and in the long run we will emerge on top by spending the Russians into economic collapse. Question: If this is the case, could we not do the same thing in space exploration? It can be easily demonstrated that a Lunar Colony would give either side an overwhelming advantage in any shooting war. I realize that this would involve the military in space exploration, but we seem to take the military along in any human endeavor where we take along our gonads(excuse the profanity). At least if we spent all that money on military Space exploration the human race would have something to show for all the money and time it spent, aside from mothballed warships and obsolete aircraft. seismo!cbosgd!ihnp4!wlbr!etn-rad!jru ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 87 07:10:08 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Colonies In article <215@etn-rad.UUCP> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis) writes: > we keep it up? I think because here in the U.S. we beleive that > our more efficient Capitalistic economy will support a bigger > military buildup for a longer period of time, and in the > long run we will emerge on top by spending the Russians into > economic collapse. The real beneficiaries of the US/USSR military spending race are the Japanese, who are applying the money and human talent they save from our defense subsidy to building better, cheaper commercial products. > If this is the case, could we not do the same thing in space > exploration? It can be easily demonstrated that a Lunar Colony > would give either side an overwhelming advantage in any shooting > war. I doubt this. It makes little difference whether one is killed by nuclear weapons shot from Siberia or Lunar orbit; further, the delay of (at best) several hours to send weapons from lunar orbit to Earth surface means that war would be long over before they arived. > I realize that this would involve the military in space > exploration, but we seem to take the military along in any human > endeavor where we take along our gonads(excuse the profanity). At > least if we spent all that money on military Space exploration > the human race would have something to show for all the money and > time it spent, aside from mothballed warships and obsolete > aircraft. An aircraft carrier is a marvelous technical achievment that does nothing to serve our economy. The same would hold true of active military space systems. What we would have to show for all the money and time is useless hardware that would make space just as dangerous as Earth. I would just as soon this didn't happen as I hope to run away and leave the madmen and their weaponry behind on Earth. The asteroid belt might be far enough, for a few decades... Although many people do not realize it, military spending on space in fact far exceeds (by at least x2) NASA spending. This appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon (oddly coinciding with the tenure of Mr. Reagan...) For example, the Air Force has a stranglehold on new launcher development in the US (Delta II, Titan 4, ALV, Aerospace Plane, and no doubt several black programs). This is understandable given the failure of NASA to meet DOD launch requirements but the trend needs to be reversed; if we are to regain a competitive position in potentially profitable space activities, we cannot let military requirements drive the entire industry. Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 87 16:31:37 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: space news from May 11 AW&ST, and short editorial In article <8211@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Growing support for a lunar base as the next major US space goal. >[...] Mars. Plans would call for a Lunar Polar Orbiter in 1994, an >unmanned sample return/rover mission in 1996, more complex unmanned >missions in the late 90s, two manned missions per year starting in 2000 >as preliminaries, a lunar oxygen plant in 2005, and then about four >manned missions per year until 2010 when the base would be complete. >The manned missions would be launched from the space station using a >pair of orbital transfer vehicles each. On this sort of time scale NASA would find it much cheaper to buy tickets on the soviet (or Japanese, chinese or possibly even European flights there.) The Russians are planning to go there as a stepping stone to mars in the early 1990s. The Chinese are planning a manned flight on one of their own long march launchers. The Japanese have just trippled their space research budget and are investigating building their own design of HOTOL. HERMES will be flying in the 1990s and there are already mutterings about what the next major European goal should be. If the research report on HOTOL is favourable (it is due in August) and we can wake up the Goverment ( They still haven't replied to the British space agency's proposals after 18 months), then there will be a much greater British involvement in space. The US is not the only country thinking about going to the moon these days. >Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry Bob. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #283 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Jul 87 06:21:00 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09653; Wed, 15 Jul 87 03:18:10 PDT id AA09653; Wed, 15 Jul 87 03:18:10 PDT Date: Wed, 15 Jul 87 03:18:10 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707151018.AA09653@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #284 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 284 Today's Topics: space news from June 15 AW&ST Mariner Venus Used Light Pressure for Attitude control SPOT Re: SPOT Re: SPOT SPOT and other things Re: SPOT Re: SPOT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jul 87 00:30:54 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from June 15 AW&ST [This is a big fat issue on the Paris Air Show, lots of ads.] Ad Of The Year: On the first full-page spread of the issue is a United Technologies ad which consists simply of an Apollo photograph -- astronaut, US flag, and lunar module on the Moon -- and the caption "It's time we raised our sights again." Hughes is putting together Magellan's radar. Rockwell tells NASA that moving orbiter construction from Rockwell Palmdale to Vandenberg AFB would add $158M to costs. USAF Astronautics Lab testing proof-of-concept prototype solar-powered rocket aimed at cheaper transfer between low orbit and Clarke orbit, hauling about 37000 lbs up over 15-20 days. Space station negotiations convene in Paris, with a convenient five-day recess for the Paris air show. Pictures of Hotol model on show at Paris. Notable features are that the intake is bigger and projects further forward than before, and the nozzle array at the rear is curious: four big ones (probably rockets) set high, a couple of small ones (probably orbital-maneuvering rockets) tucked into corners, and, down where the air-breathing nozzles would be expected to be, two round nozzles flanking two *square* ones. [Weird. Two different kinds of air-breathing engines?? -- HS] Also on show at Paris: full-size mockup of Soyuz/Mir/Kvant/Progress, full-scale model of Soviet Mars/Phobos probe, full-scale model of Hermes, and model (full-scale?) of ESA's Columbus man-tended space station. China announces completion of third space-launch site, believed located south of Beijing for launch to polar orbit. China is again studying a manned space program, including a small space station. New Japanese space-policy recommendation pushes early work on a Japanese spaceplane and an all-Japanese space station. Three small NASA rockets -- an Orion sounding rocket and a pair of radar test rockets -- fire inadvertently after lightning strike at Wallops Island. Freak accident. Pad had been clear and launches postponed due to nearby thunderstorm activity. Investigation underway; the losses are unimportant in themselves but NASA wants to understand just how it happened. Picture of Enterprise with its wings swathed in netting during Dulles tests of the new emergency arresting system for the shuttle. Tests successful. Solar System Exploration Committee says US will be a second-class power in planetary exploration for at least fifteen years unless it gets moving. SSEC specifically urges start for CRAF (Comet Rendezvous / Asteroid Flyby) in FY1989. SSEC says planetary exploration is in worse shape now than when SSEC was formed in 1980, with budgets less than 25% of what they were in the early 70s and the last US planetary launch nearly a decade past (1978, Pioneer Venus). David Morrison, SSEC chairman: "NASA no longer leads the world in planetary exploration. Worse, we even run the risk of not being viewed as a reliable international partner in joint ventures." [*"Risk"?* NASA is *not* viewed as a reliable partner, period! -- HS] Planetary exploration funding actually *drops* next year, one of the few NASA areas that got no increase. NASA names 15 new astronaut candidates, including the first black female. NASA preparing to shift much responsibility for commercial microgravity work to space science program. Long-term intent appears to be to convert the Commercial Programs division to a coordination-only office. Tentative Ariane manifest for next 3.5 years, assuming next launch in August (Australian and European comsats) as scheduled. US predicts it will have launch rate of 25-30 per year within five years, over half of it military. Prediction is that only one of the current big US expendable companies will be in commercial launch business by 1995, due to limited market. Soviet launch rate in the near future will probably stabilize at about 95 flights per year. Hughes and Great Wall Industries are discussing selling a package deal of a Hughes HS-393 comsat plus a launch on a Long March 2-4L, total cost to be lower than all competitors. McDonnell-Douglas and Mitsubishi are talking about using the Japanese LE-5 oxyhydrogen upper stage from the H-1 on the Delta. This could boost Delta payload 25% or more, significant because of forecast demand for larger payloads than Delta can now handle. [Interesting rumor about Hermes from other sources: ESA has apparently talked to the Soviet Union about launching Hermes on Proton, just in case Ariane 5 is not ready. -- HS] Considerable detail on current criticism of the US space station from the space-science community, notably lack of long-term planning and planning for user needs. Some thought that NASA has not really got its act together on running such a complex long-term multi-participant project. NASA space-station operations task force recommends that operational control be split among four NASA centers: Johnson for manned base, Marshall for user operations in labs, Kennedy for logistics and engineering support, and Goddard for US unmanned platforms, with overall supervision from NASA HQ. Europeans and Japanese expected to protest that they prefer to run their own lab operations. Possible DoD operations are an uncertain area, current plans give them the same level of support as commercial customers. One major change from shuttle operations: experiment integration into payload racks to be done in experimenters' labs rather than at the launch site. Task force recommends training of a dedicated group of space-station astronauts, sharing only some basic training with shuttle astronauts. [Split among *four* centers, eh? Plus HQ, of course. Why do I smell the pork barrel here? This is a stupid idea. NASA should pick one, Johnson being the obvious choice. -- HS] Interesting ad for "Orbital Express": $1M buys 2 cubic feet and 50 lbs of payload in LEO, Amroc providing launch and Globesat Inc. providing a small dedicated satellite bus. Letter from Robin J. Miller: "...objections to space-manufacturing aboard the space station [by Sagan and Murray among others] are merely new variants of the tired, zero-sum-game arguments of the `let's-make-space-safe-for-robots' crowd. Rather than fighting for a bigger pie, these individuals resort to complaining about the size of their slice, and engage in actions that are detrimental to a vigorous national space effort. They hope their pet projects will be restored by derailing or delaying other space projects, rather than arguing the merits of their proposals. One result of this divisive behavior is congressional unwillingness to fund anything significant, or halfway measures, as illustrated by post-Apollo budgets... "...It is in the interest of all Americans to diversify space activities from `things done for their own sake' and limited budgets to services, manufacturing, and primary resource extraction. There will be a greater economic imperative to support basic space science as it supports further economic expansion into, and benefits from, the space frontier." A distinctly disturbing letter from Louis Friedman of the Planetary Society, advocating wholehearted focus on a manned Mars mission: "Much more knowledge needs to be gained from further lunar activities, but the simple initial exploration of the planet is behind us. Humans have been to the Moon six times... It is not a place crying out for further exploration..." [There is no indication that he's joking. I think he's serious. Lordy. See my latest signature. I'll have more to say about this. -- HS] Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jul 87 10:52:50 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Mariner Venus Used Light Pressure for Attitude control To: PFD@BROWNVM I don't know about Mariner Mars, but Mariner Venus/Mercury definitely *did* use light pressure on the vanes for attitude control, and it worked very well. As you all recall, this is the mission where after the launch, somebody (wish I could remember the name!) said, why not go for Mercury after the Venus encounter, and pointed out that a gravity slingshot would easily make Mercury, and that furthermore, once at Mercury, a resonant orbit could be established which repeated encounters with Mercury (I think in 3:2 synch, which would be every ca. 160 days) This was, by the way, the first probe in which such a gravity slingshot maneuver was used. Since the probe was not designed with attitude control fuel for much past the original Venus encounter, light pressure was used to supplement the attitude thrusters. After about three Mercury encounters, the fuel gave out for good. As an experiment, they tried holding attitude on light pressure alone, but this turned out to be too hard. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 87 19:58:29 GMT From: lll-winken!uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@lll-lcc.arpa (Mike Trout) Subject: SPOT The evening of 7 July, ABC News broadcast a news special about the Persian Gulf. Included were photographic images of the gulf, which ABC claims were supplied under contract from the French SPOT satellite. The images displayed were absolutely ASTONISHING. I've never seen anything like them outside of the most extravagant special effects in high-budget sci-fi movies. They appeared as sharp as a 35mm print, as brilliantly colored as VG-R film, and more useable than any satellite photos I've ever seen before. It even seemed like the images (the satellite?) could be panned, rotated, and zoomed, while maintaining their eye-popping quality. I've read a little about this satellite, but not much. Sci.space sometimes has references. I understand that it's very easy and cheap to contract with SPOT for photos of any location on earth, with delivery within a very short time. Would someone (Harry?) please post some details on SPOT? Is it really as advanced as it seems? Is the USA incapable of producing such a satellite, or do ours only work for our military megamachine? Does NASA give a flying hoot about how incompetent this makes them look? Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 87 08:01:26 GMT From: khayo@locus.ucla.edu Subject: Re: SPOT In article <1372@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: >The evening of 7 July, ABC News broadcast a news special about the >Persian Gulf. Included were photographic images of the gulf, which ABC >claims were supplied under contract from the French SPOT satellite. > >The images displayed were absolutely ASTONISHING. I've never seen >anything like them outside of the most extravagant special effects in >high-budget sci-fi movies. They appeared as sharp as a 35mm print, as >brilliantly colored as VG-R film, and more useable than any satellite >photos I've ever seen before. It even seemed like the images (the >satellite?) could be panned, rotated, and It's funny how different impressions can be; I thought that those pictures were second-rate, especially after seeing some photographs taken with a Hasselblad from the Skylab. I'm sure that SPOT is able to produce images much more detailed than those shown, which were almost certainly digitized photographs of n-th generation (rotation & scaling - come on, even an IBM PC can do it :-)). I'm not trying to sound ironic or anything like that, it's just that I've seen the same program on a Sony monitor on a day when our cable operator seemed to be very sober, for a change, and I really have a totally different memory of these pictures. I'd be curious to hear other opinions. >Would someone (Harry?) please post some details on SPOT? Is it really >as advanced as it seems? Is the USA incapable of producing such a >satellite, or do ours only work for our military megamachine? Does >NASA give a flying hoot about how incompetent this makes them look? As far as I know, there's a big issue made of this by DoD & Co.; the folks down there would like to claim their exclusive rights on high quality space pictures, and I can (to some degree) understand this position. But I also seem to recall reading that US military (or "spy") satellites of the current generation (Keyhole ?) have resolution higher by an order of magnitude than the commercial ones, like SPOT. This, coupled with tricky image processing that even JPL may not have heard about, would give pictures that Koppel and Jennings could give their tongues for. Let's hear from the experts! Eric ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 87 15:41:03 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: SPOT The SPOT satellite is not wildly different from Landsat. The things which were impressing you were all added by computer, given the original SPOT image. There is a great JPL film which gives a tour of L.A. as seen from the air at low altitude which is derived from data from an imaging radar satellite. Radar has the advantage for that purpose that you can tell the elevations of objects. SPOT photos don't have that capability (unless they use stereo pairs) but elevations may be entered by hand. I am not sure, but it looked to me as if the ABC animation just ignored elevations and simply applied perspective. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 87 17:17:41 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: SPOT and other things SPOT: description on News, etc. You can learn more about SPOT by contacting the French Space Agency. (Exercise for the reader). I was in grad school during the planning phase and the US military was very upset on the decisions of resolution. Dave Palmer mentioned the radar images of LA, this was a project I worked on, and we were asked by the Navy to decrease the resolution (Landsat is about 75 m per side pixels and SEATSAT was 25 m, and SPOT is less). Everybody has heard of military satellites with "fantastic" resolution. There is a book entitled Deep Black regarding the accidental de-classification of a 1 ft resolution image in AW&ST. 1 ft resolution is not impressive, but there are certain things in the image which to a trained photointerpreter are very impressive. Note: all of this is in black and white, SPOT and Landsat are it regarding color resolution. You can take classes all over the country in satellite image processing, intepretation, (also for aerial photos, etc.). You learn there are tradeoffs (better resolution does not necessarily mean better images, especially with very long wavelength phenomena [which is why the oceanographic satellite was launched]). It would take too long to discuss these tradeoffs. There are some impressive photo interpreters out there. You can show them an image, and they know where it is on earth based on various cues. There are also many political problems like the non-violation of "airspace." Geez, this seems like de jevu to me.... On another note: I have just received an 18 MB tape from Ted Anderson, and I will scan it for the composition of the proposed "network memory" project I had in mind. (I have to read all that? ;-) Thank god for grep! --eugene miya NASA Ames (Maybe we should discuss the advantages of dissolving NASA in favor of military space [which I was just reading a book about another suggestion like this]) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 87 18:10:15 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: SPOT Newsgroups: sci.space > Radar has the advantage for that purpose that you can tell the > elevations of objects. SPOT photos don't have that capability (unless > they use stereo pairs)... I forgot about this. Oh, really? How ambiguity resolving techniques are you refering to? Can you get all azimuth AND range ambiguities? Let's get some of that classified military info out into the open! Henry mentions stereo pairs. Landsat can do a degree of this too, but in neither case are the systems optimized to do stereo. They are both kludges. There is a proposed Stereo-Sat on the boards. It depends on what you wish to use stereo for. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 87 18:40:33 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SPOT > Radar has the advantage for that purpose that you can tell the elevations > of objects. SPOT photos don't have that capability (unless they use stereo > pairs)... Spot can and does do stereo pairs. -- Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #284 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Jul 87 06:21:11 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01611; Thu, 16 Jul 87 03:18:23 PDT id AA01611; Thu, 16 Jul 87 03:18:23 PDT Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 03:18:23 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707161018.AA01611@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #285 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 285 Today's Topics: Re: SPOT Re: Opinions wanted Re: SPOT getting places Re: Profit & Space Re: Overpopulation? Re: Overpopulation? Interstellar Dust Escape modules for shuttle? Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle? Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jul 87 18:50:22 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SPOT > ... seemed like the images (the satellite?) could be panned, rotated, > and zoomed, while maintaining their eye-popping quality. This will be just postprocessing. Spot images, like Landsat images, are effectively photographs, not real-time video. > Would someone (Harry?) please post some details on SPOT? Is it really > as advanced as it seems? ... Spot is basically just Landsat done better, with somewhat higher resolution and some other useful flourishes like being able to "tilt the camera" a bit to look at things that aren't directly under the satellite (this also lets you view the same scene from different angles, for 3-D imaging). Spot's technology is a bit better than Landsat's, but not sensationally so. The US could have done the same thing if there had been money and bureaucratic approval. The latter is not to be taken for granted -- the US government and the US military in particular have had such capabilities for quite a while, and would very much prefer to retain a monopoly on them. From the the viewpoint of some Spot users, much the most useful thing about Spot is that it is not under US government control. > ... Does NASA give a flying hoot about how incompetent this makes them > look? NASA is pretty much out of the remote-sensing business except for experimental work on new technologies. This is as it should be, but the US has really been botching the handling of operational use of the old technologies. Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 87 17:43:53 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Opinions wanted In article <870629-144954-3045@Xerox>, "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@XEROX.COM writes: > Dream Segment 2 > Quick shift: I was taken to observe a tornado. I was told that the way > to "diffuse" this terrible and destructive storm was the "run the energy > around in reverse" down the center. Then I was shown this and it did. > Question: Would such a thing be possible, if so, how? Back in my undergrad days, I was involved in some tornado research studies, and at that time (1973-74) assembled the most complete listing of all tornado incidents in Oklahoma history. The tornado is one of nature's greatest mysteries. What causes tornadoes, or even what they are, are issues hotly debated by the world's leading meteorological scientists. Most agree, however, that tornadoes are a result of extreme instability in the atmosphere associated with abnormally violent thunderstorms. When you see a tornado you are seeing only a tiny fraction of the mammoth forces that are driving it. It would seem that in order to do something about a tornado, you would need to deal with the energy of a thunderstorm. Most mega-thunderstorms have energy levels that exceed even that of a nuclear blast; the idea of somehow coping with that amount of energy sounds rather difficult to me. Please note that my information is dated. Although I've subscribed to NOAA's _Storm_Data_ since then, I haven't been keeping up with the latest research. It's possible that some major conclusions have been reached. I know that Dr. Theodore Fujita of the University of Chicago (probably the world's leading tornado expert and the inventor of the Fujita Scale for measuring tornado intensity) has been working tirelessly on the subject for many years. Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 87 22:40:17 GMT From: jplgodo!ted@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Ted Sweetser x44989 301/167) Subject: Re: SPOT In article <3192@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes: > There is a great JPL film which gives a tour of L.A. as seen from the > air at low altitude which is derived from data from an imaging radar > satellite. Radar has the advantage for that purpose that you can tell > the elevations of objects. SPOT photos don't have that capability > (unless they use stereo pairs) but elevations may be entered by hand. > I am not sure, but it looked to me as if the ABC animation just > ignored elevations and simply applied perspective. A relatively minor correction: the film actually used a color Landsat photo combined in the computer with high resolution Air Force elevation data for the L.A. basin. It took five and a half days of computer processing (Sun 2) to generate the two-minute videotape, recorded a frame at a time. It's a remarkable film. SPOT photos have considerably better resolution than Landsat. - Ted Sweetser (jplgodo!ted) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 87 13:53:05 GMT From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: getting places In article <224323.870707.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> you write: >> (3) Build space habitats rather than ships. Much less expensive >> because no motors, no fuel, no structural requirement to >> withstand acceleration, ... > >That's more like it. But there is no reason a hollow astesoid can't >be propelled at perhaps 1/1000 G. You can get anywhere at that >acceleration if you are patient enough. And you don't need much >structural support, reaction mass, energy, or sheilding. perhaps, given that "anywhere" is changed to "anywhere you want" Next question: Why go anywhere? At 1/1000G, most people involved will not see anything they can't here, and generations will see nothing. To put in the effort to physically stabilize the fragile shell, & to provide the effort of propulsion, you better come up with a reason to leave, not a reason to get somewhere, since the folks concerned will _NOT_ get somewhere. (You will need structural support. Rock may be strong, but you are talking megatons mass, and kilotons weight (at 1/1000G. You will need lots of reaction mass & energy. At any instant, no. But just a little of a few thousand years mounts up. Shielding, however, should be no problem at all....) ...unless they live a LLLOOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG time :^) James W. Meritt ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 87 18:10:44 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Profit & Space In article <317@louie.udel.EDU>, farber@udel.EDU (Dave Farber) writes: > Dont be too sure about a executive being sent packing when he makes such > a big error . Historically in American business that just does not > work that way. Look at Xerox and SDS. Did the Xerox President get > fired no sir!!. He stayed on till retirement. And don't forget that even when idiot managers do get the ax, the ax is made of marshmallow. Severance packages containing more money than you and I will ever see in a lifetime, stock ownership deals, recommendation letters that have no mention of the manager's incompetence, etc., etc... For nearly ten years I worked for a company that started out brillantly but mismanaged itself into near-bankruptcy. The last few years I was there, the company was operated by a group of morons that defied description. I wish I was joking, but I'm not when I say that a batallion of baboons would have done a better job. And not one of the microcephalous slime molds that wrecked the company ever suffered for his idiodicies. They would each work for about a year before being fired and replaced by the next fool, but each firing was accompanied by a gigantic severance check that could have saved the company if it had been spent on capital improvements, more employees, better procedures, etc. The only people that ever suffered were the poor workers who were laid off in hundreds or who had to work under unbearable conditions if they survived the massive layoffs. One of the managers took his severance check and started a software house in California, but was found floating in San Francisco Bay with a bullet in his head after he started fooling around with his married secretary. Hey, what's this doing in sci.space? Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 87 12:20:37 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Overpopulation? To: LOCAL.arpa!jwm@aplvax.arpa Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: ucbcad!ames!gatech!oddjob!mimsy!aplcen!aplvax!LOCAL.arpa!jwm@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Meritt) > > Next question: Why go anywhere? At 1/1000G, most people involved > will not see anything they can't here, and generations will see nothing. 1) If the solar system becomes overcrowded, they may wish to go to another one. 2) Curiosity, adventure, fame. 3) Habitats may trade valuable information with eachother. Even today, much that is paid for is information rather than goods or services. Going to another solar system, or even to the far outer portions of this one, will allow them to collect very valuable information that is useful for trading. And there should be no major problem in communicating over interstellar distances. Existing radio telescopes can communicate with a similar device thousands of light years away. 4) If they have everything they need with them - family, friends, energy, matter - moving to another solar system should be less of a disruption than moving across the country. So why not? ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 87 15:01:31 GMT From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Overpopulation? Sorry about posting an answer here, but my mailer is fubbed duck: From: ucbcad!ames!gatech!oddjob!mimsy!aplcen!aplvax!LOCAL.arpa!jwm@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Meritt) > Next question: Why go anywhere? At 1/1000G, most people involved will > not see anything they can't here, and generations will see nothing. >1) If the solar system becomes overcrowded, they may wish to go to > another one. >2) Curiosity, adventure, fame. >3) Habitats may trade valuable information with eachother. Even today, > much that is paid for is information rather than goods or services. > Going to another solar system, or even to the far outer portions of > this one, will allow them to collect very valuable information that > is useful for trading. And there should be no major problem in > communicating over interstellar distances. Existing radio telescopes > can communicate with a similar device thousands of light years away. >4) If they have everything they need with them - family, friends, energy, > matter - moving to another solar system should be less of a disruption > than moving across the country. So why not? > ...Keith Answers: 1) "If overcrowded" Given that they live in a habitat, you are talking about the volume of the solar system ... too much room available for "overcrowding" 2) "curiosity, adventure, fame" in "generation ships" most of the people will see nothing but empty space, or anyone but their own neighbors. Fame to who? 3) "information trade" This one isn't bad, but will take some real long-range planners, of which we have a shortage. 4) "why not?" It would take a lot of work & energy to modify one of these monsters for travel and go with it. Paid by people who will not see any return at all. I think that 5), which you missed, would be a better reason. It is, after all, the primary reason that the current colonies were made: To get away from something (generally political) you don't like. Not crowding, just don't get along with your neighbors. Stuff like wrong religion, prejudice, hate, and poor environmental conditions (nuclear missles). ...Jim ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 87 18:22:06 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Interstellar Dust Some time ago there was a discussion of the possible limits to fast interstellar travel set by collisions with solid particles. This posting is a summary of our current knowledge of such particles. Present data on interstellar particles come from three sources: 1) Observations of dimming, reddening, and polarization of light of distant stars. These observations are primarily in visible light but include ultraviolet and some infrared data. Dust has its strongest effect on light with a wavelength equal to the circumference of the dust particle, so these observations tell us directly about dust grains with radii of order 0.1 micron or or mass ~1E-14 grams. 2) Knowledge of "heavy element" abundances from a wide variety of spectroscopic observations. (Astronomers call everything but hydrogen and helium a "heavy element" or sometimes a "metal", as in "metal abundance.") Heavy elements make up about 3% of the mass of most stars in our region of the Milky Way and about the same fraction of the parts of the interstellar medium we can examine. Hydrogen and helium don't form solid particles (at least in interstellar space), so 3% is an upper limit on the fraction of dust. A completely naive first guess might be that half of the heavy elements are in the form of dust. Astonishingly enough, this guess appears to be pretty good in most parts of the interstellar medium. 3) Depletion of heavy elements from the gas phase. One can measure the abundance of many gas-phase elements along the line of sight to a few bright stars. (Many of the best measurements were made by the now-defunct Copernicus satellite.) One finds that certain elements are consistently below the abundance expected, and the amounts of depletion correlate with the amount of absorption of starlight by dust. The natural conclusion is that the missing elements have been incorporated into the dust grains. In spite of the varieties of information, almost nothing is directly known about dust grains larger than a couple of microns (~1E-10 g) or so. The best that can be done is to combine the limit from item 2 above with estimates of gas density. These estimates come from radio observations of neutral and ionized hydrogen, radio observations of carbon monoxide and other molecules, and optical and ultraviolet observations of many elements and some molecules mentioned in 3) above. The results are that the interstellar medium is very clumpy, ranging from densities of 1E-2 H atoms per cm^3 inside the shell of supernova remnants to 1E5 in the densest molecular clouds. However, a typical density in regions near the Sun is about 1 atom per cm^3. Thus a typical density of solid particles is 2E-26 g cm^-3. How might this affect interstellar travel? Consider a journey of 1 parsec (=~3.3 light years or 3E18 cm; alpha Centauri is about 1.3 pc away). Assume a ship with a cross section area of 100 m^2 = 1E6 cm^2. The volume swept out will be 3E24 cm^3, and about 0.1 g of material will be encountered. Most of the hits will be by very small particles, but one could expect a few particles in the milligram range. Hits by gram-size particles appear unlikely, but depending on the (currently unknown) particle size distribution, but they may be sufficiently probable to warrant design consideration. Note that the estimate of particle density above is an average; values for flights to specific stars might differ by an order of magnitude. And no doubt much better data will be available by the time we are ready to consider an interstellar flight seriously. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 87 00:34:08 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA (MacLeod) Subject: Escape modules for shuttle? A friend of mine who has worked with NASA says that the problem with escape devices is the very, very hot plume of aluminum oxide particles from the solid-stage boosters. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 87 01:18:27 GMT From: nysernic!itsgw!cieunix!philhowr@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Bob Philhower) Subject: Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle? In article <557@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>, dleigh@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Darren Leigh) writes: > A friend and I were wondering the other day: NASA has a destruct > mechanism built into their unmanned launches in case they go out of > control. What about manned launches, particularly the space shuttle? I remember reading that all manned launches also had the destruct mechanism with the exception of the LEM. Because the LEM only launched from the lunar surface, the destruct mechanism would be of questionable value and could have resulted in disaster. bob ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 87 04:45:02 GMT From: imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!Charlie_Alan_Bounds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttl Darren Leigh writes: > A friend and I were wondering the other day: NASA has a destruct > mechanism built into their unmanned launches in case they go out of > control. What about manned launches, particularly the space shuttle? You bet!! When the Challenger blew, her boosters survived and took off on their own. When one of them threatened to come inland mission control destroyed it. I don't know about the main vehicle but blowing an attached booster is bound to finish the entire shuttle launch system. If I was in mission control I'd hate to have that button on my console. Charlie Bounds Charlie@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #285 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Jul 87 06:19:25 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03590; Fri, 17 Jul 87 03:16:44 PDT id AA03590; Fri, 17 Jul 87 03:16:44 PDT Date: Fri, 17 Jul 87 03:16:44 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707171016.AA03590@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #286 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 286 Today's Topics: Official press release (really corrected one) Atlas Centaur shuttle destruct systems Re: New Orbiter from Enterprise??? Re: New Orbiter from Enterprise??? Re: free enterprise space Mobile receivers for audio satellite signals free enterprise space bandwidth Re: free enterprise Space Economics What is going on here???? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 87 17:58:04 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Official press release (really corrected one) Atlas Centaur Four dead? This was what was officially released by Hugh Harris at KSC to the NASA internal network. (Actually the second of two due to a typo.) Some of you might recognize the name as the voice you hear during most launches. --eugene ===================================================================== Subject: Re: AC-68 UPDATE CORRECTIONS THIS IS A CORRECTION TO THIS REPORT: THE HYDROGEN TANK PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL ALLUDED TO IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH IS 5 PSI, NOT 12 PSI. IT IS THE OXYGEN TANK IN WHICH THERE IS A 12 PSI DIFFERENTIAL. ___________________________ THIS IS A FOLLOW-ON TO THE PRESS ADVISORY ISSUED EARLIER TODAY ON AN INCIDENT AT ATLAS CENTAUR LAUNCH COMPLEX 36. At 11 a.m. EDT today, while removing a service platform in preparation for lifting the Centaur stage to troubleshoot a liquid oxygen leak, a workstand contacted the surface of the stage and caused a rupture of the hydrogen tank of the centaur. The tank is a very thin-walled structure (.014 of an inch thick stainless steel) that is maintained at 12 pounds per square inches above ambient pressure to provide structural strength. Extensive hydrogen tank damage resulted from pressure release of the tank. The remainder of the stage appears undamaged at this time. There were minor injuries to four General Dynamics Space Division technicians as they made a quick departure of the area. # # # # # Note: All four GD techs were treated at the area and released. There were no propellants aboard the Centaur stage. THE UNDERLINE SHOULD READ KSC PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE 1P.M. EDT MONDAY, JULY 13, 1987. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 87 18:48:24 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: shuttle destruct systems > A friend and I were wondering the other day: NASA has a destruct > mechanism built into their unmanned launches in case they go out of > control. What about manned launches, particularly the space shuttle? There are destruct systems on *every* substantial rocket launched in the US -- range-safety rules demand it. This includes all manned flights. The shuttle has destruct systems in the SRBs and the tank; there is none in the orbiter (I believe NASA had to argue with the USAF range-safety people about this). Each SRB has a linear shaped charge in its fore-and-aft wiring duct, which operates by splitting the SRB casing open. I forget just where the External Tank charges are, but they are designed to rupture the tanks. The Rogers commission expressed some doubts that the ET charges are really necessary, as I recall, although I don't think NASA plans any immediate changes. The above is from memory; I might have a detail or two wrong. Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 87 01:22:01 GMT From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@eddie.mit.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: New Orbiter from Enterprise??? > That is correct... Enterprise was used to test metal fatigue from > vibration TO FAILURE... References please, I don't remember Enterprise being used for anything like that. > (Also was never the same design as any of the flying orbiters, never > being intended to go into space... purely an aerodynamic test bed.) Sorry, WRONG, unless NASA was lying to the public at the time. It was stated, openly and repeatedly, that Enterprise would be rebuilt into a functional orbiter that would fly into space. This was supposed to happen a year or two after Columbia first flew. Eventually, people realized that Enterprise was too far overweight and below spec for this to work. The response was to ease up on the structural tests so that the test airframe would be in flyable condition afterwards, and use it as the basis for Challenger. References on request. Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 87 13:26:33 GMT From: cca!mirror!hpwalf!boba@husc6.harvard.edu (Bob Alexander) Subject: Re: New Orbiter from Enterprise??? In article <8287@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Sorry, WRONG, unless NASA was lying to the public at the time. It was >stated, openly and repeatedly, that Enterprise would be rebuilt into a >functional orbiter that would fly into space. This was supposed to >happen a year or two after Columbia first flew. I still have newspaper clippings stating that the Enterprise would be the first shuttle launched into space. NASA has done a great PR job in getting everyone to forget that. In my book, NASA has a very poor record of telling the truth ever since they predicted the shuttle would be an inexpensive launcher. Bob Alexander Hewlett-Packard Waltham, MA ...hplabs!hpwala!boba ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 87 22:57:52 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@lll-lcc.arpa (Peter DaSilva) Subject: Re: free enterprise space > 2. There are plenty of industries which are doing very well despite > government taxation and regulation. I just read that Microsoft's > founder just became the country's youngest billionaire. The > automobile industry is one of the most regulated industries in history > and yet Ford recently announced record earnings. The airline industry > is also heavily taxed and regulated but Frank Lorenzo seems to be > doing OK. > > I think this is all a smokescreen. Damn right it's a smokescreen... none of these industries are as heavily regulated as the private launch vehicle industry (such as it is). The common dictum is that when the weight of the paperwork reaches the weight of the vehicle, it's time to launch. The airline and auto industries were started at a time of minimal regulation, and the startup costs of a computer house are minimal compared to those of StarStruck. Or are you saying that the capital required to start a space company is of the same magnitude as that required to start Apple, Microsoft, or even Apollo? Finally, which of these industries is forced to compete with a heavily subsidised monopoly like NASA? Peter da Silva ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 87 21:18 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Mobile receivers for audio satellite signals Thinking about space and profit, I asked myself if radio broadcasts from space to cheap mobile receivers would be feasible. Audio signals would need a lot less bandwidth than TV signals, so the receivers could have smaller antennas. Geostar terminals are pretty small, I recall, and nondirectional, too. What is the bandwidth of that system? Since mobile receivers would have to be nondirectional or be able to track the beam, stationkeeping would not be as vital as with current comsats. It might make sense to place the satellites below geostationary orbit, to get a smaller beam spotsize, and save on kick motor mass. Paul F. Dietz dietz@slb-doll.csnet ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 87 13:52:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Subject: free enterprise space > Or are you saying that the capital required to start a space company > is of the same magnitude as that required to start Apple, Microsoft, > or even Apollo? Just an aside... Apple is quite a bit bigger than Apollo. > Finally, which of these industries is forced to compete with a heavily > subsidised monopoly like NASA? In the package delivery service there are plenty of companies competing with the U.S. Postal Service and doing well at it. Also, everyone keeps telling us how bureaucratized NASA is, so a private enterprise space delivery service ought to be able to operate much more efficiently, making up for the subsidies. Also Boeing and McDonnel Douglas compete with the heavily subsidized Airbus Industries and Boeing, at least, looks like it will do all right. Of course, some people consider both companies to be 'subsidized' in the sense that they get other business from the government. So what? Space companies could do the same. Finally, bottom line: since Challenger, NASA hasn't been able to offer much service at *any* price. If a commercial launch service existed now they could be cleaning up. My point is that the 'private enterprise in space' advocates are a lot of talk but most of that talk is excuses. There are a lot of self-styled capitalists and free enterprise advocates and Libertarians here and elsewhere on the net who talk about how great things would be if we had a true free market economy. But they always have a ready list of excuses when anyone asks why their theories don't become practice. They want the government to just abdicate its role in various matters without their having to provide an alternative until *after* the fact. I'm saying that if you are so sure you are right then show me a working free-enterprise alternative to government *first*, then we know we can dismantle the government program. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 87 15:42:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Subject: bandwidth >Thinking about space and profit, I asked myself if radio broadcasts >from space to cheap mobile receivers would be feasible. Audio signals >would need a lot less bandwidth than TV signals, so the receivers could >have smaller antennas. Geostar terminals are pretty small, I recall, >and nondirectional, too. What is the bandwidth of that system? The size of an antenna is a function of the wavelength (inversely related to the frequency) of the signal under consideration. It has nothing to do with the bandwidth. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 87 14:42:30 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: free enterprise In article <35e61d1d.44e6@apollo.uucp>, nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes: > >Your understanding of the airline industry seems a bit off, since you > >claim that it is an example of a regulated industry that is doing > >well just because one man (Lorenzo) and one firm (Texas Air Corp) are > >doing well. The industry is in the middle of DE-regulation, and Texas > >Air is one of the few that is doing relativly well at the moment. The > >rest of the industry is having massive problems due to the decline in > >prices, and thus the decline in service quality. I would suggest > >that you research it before you use it as an example. > The main thing that was 'de-regulated' about the airline industry > was domestic fares. International fares are still set by (usually > the foreign) government. All other reporting, accounting, labor, > advertising, tax, employee training and certification, and safety > regulations are still in effect (as they should be). Actually, > there are several airlines that are doing well. No doubt, once the > shakeout is finished and the survivors get used to a more > competitive environment, the industry will be stronger. I don't buy this AT ALL. Route structures and scheduling were also de-regulated, and this is one of the primary reasons for the chaotic conditions at major airports (along with explosive industry growth and air traffic controller shortages). The "hub-and-spoke" scheduling system, while helping airline equipment utilization, leads to incredible traffic jams at hub airports and was one of the contributing factors in the Delta Tristar crash at DFW. The whole airline industry is a tottering house of cards. The only airlines that are making money are 1) ultra-low-cost (Continental, Southwest) and 2) normal-cost lines that are keeping afloat by subsidizing their losses through extremely high fares for business travel (American). The two-tier wage idea is dead; there are too many new employees for it to be acceptable anymore. The ultra-low-cost lines are facing disaster within the next few years because their employees have had enough of ridiculous wages and horrendous working conditions. Strong, militant unions are inevitable. And it won't be long before US corporations begin waking up to the fact that they are paying way too much for airfares. How many times will Mr. Executive put up with paying $690 for a seat while the guy sitting next to him paid $69? After all the layoffs and mergers, the next cost-cutting step for US corporations will be their ridiculous travel expenses. If you count total dollar amount paid for tickets, airfares have gone UP, not down. This trend will continue as airlines scramble to do something about their staggering debts and employee wage increase demands. But at some point, the irresistible force will meet the immovable object. Everything is being cut to the bone. Safety is rapidly approaching a borderline area. Newly hired pilots have only 10% of the experience that new hires had ten years ago. Pilots are now allowed to wear corrective lenses. Most airlines are adopting the "explosive growth" strategy, putting themselves into massive debt by purchasing mammoth fleets of aircraft with which to bury the competition, not to mention buying up every other airline in sight. This is causing a pilot shortage of incredible proportions that will hit with full force in a few years. Already some flights on United have been cancelled when fully loaded and fueled planes sat for hours while United scrambled to find crews. The pilot shortage will destroy the ultra-low-cost airlines and demolish United and other lines' attempts to keep aircrew wages down. You all know that service has gone to hell. Employees don't care anymore. The old ones don't have pride anymore since 1) their airlines have been gobbled up by mergers or 2) their airlines are so massive they feel like nothing more than a number. Enormous numbers of new employees, most in their teens or early twenties, are keeping their jobs for a year or two and then going into better lines of work. It's like McDonald's of the air and it's getting worse. Any federal regulations that still exist are not being adequately enforced. Uncle Ronnie laid off two-thirds of FAA inspectors and politicized the rest. The NTSB is on the verge of open revolt due to their parent agency's politics. De-regulation is a good idea, but it was done too rapidly. It should have been phased in slowly, step by step, with careful monitoring of all events. If current trends continue, by the year 2000 there will be two airlines in the United States--United and American. Fares will be monopolized, service and safety will be terrible, and the government will step in with some heavy-handed tactics that will start the whole ridiculous cycle all over again. Hey, what's this doing in sci.space? Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 87 14:55:19 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Subject: Space Economics Just read an excellent article, "Economics on The Space Frontier: Can We Afford it?" by Gordon R. Woodcock. This article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, but I'm reading it in the May/June issue of "The High Frontier Newsletter", the publication of the Space Studies Institute. I highly recommend it as essential reading for anyone interested in the subject. Fred Mendenhall ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 87 21:19:26 GMT From: uwmcsd1!leah!itsgw!nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@unix.macc.wisc.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: What is going on here???? Look, something is really wrong here. We've been saying all along that NASA has grown fat in many areas and has all but lost its effectiveness in most, but can this really be the cause of all these accidents??? I just heard this morning that another Atlas (I'm pretty sure it was an Atlas) blew up on the pad, killing 4 people (I think). I'm not the kind of person to yell scandal but this is really getting ridiculous, and I'm just about ready to believe anything, including sabotage. I'm telling myself that I just pay more attention now and that the failure rate has always been this high but I just never noticed it... Is this true? has the failure rate for NASA really gone way up recently??? Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #286 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jul 87 06:19:48 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05237; Sat, 18 Jul 87 03:17:09 PDT id AA05237; Sat, 18 Jul 87 03:17:09 PDT Date: Sat, 18 Jul 87 03:17:09 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707181017.AA05237@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #287 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 287 Today's Topics: Long-awaited Chicago NCOS symposium Re: You Were Born Too Soon Brainstorm - Commitment Re: May 11 short editorial Re: Aircars and Futures of the Past Re: You Were Born Too Soon solar sail race Re: You Were Born Too Soon Manned vs. Unmanned space a letter from J. Pierce, Science Re: solar sail race Idea... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14-JUL-1987 16:49 CDT From: To: Subject: Long-awaited Chicago NCOS symposium Chicago is at last holding a public symposium on the National Commission on Space report. The National Space Society organized a series of symposia last fall in various cities, with grants provided by various aerospace companies. Despite the fact that Chicago is the third most populous city in the nation, it wasn't included because no big aerospace company is based here. So we've had to finance it from the local NSS chapter budget, and charge a small admission. But it's coming together at last; I proudly present the press release below. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET =========================================================================== Chicago Space Frontier Society and Chicago Society for Space Studies present: PIONEERING THE SPACE FRONTIER Chicagoans will get a chance to hear nationally recognized space experts discuss the prospects for a vigorous American space program on Saturday, July 25, 1987. The symposium "Pioneering the Space Frontier" will be held from 10 A.M. to 1 P.M. in the Simpson Auditorium at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and will highlight the recent recommendations of the National Commission on Space. Admission is $4 per person. The presentation will feature Dr. David Webb, Chairman of Space Studies at the University of North Dakota and a member of the National Commission on Space. Dr. Webb will discuss the Commission's report regarding a bold program of civilian space efforts through the year 2035, which could include space stations, aerospace planes, outposts on the Moon, and exploration of Mars, the asteroids, and other planets. The report, PIONEERING THE SPACE FRONTIER, has been published by Bantam Books. Also on the panel is John Soldner, Deputy Project Manager for Advanced Studies at Science Applications International in Schaumburg, Illinois. Mr. Soldner will present studies his company has made on missions to Mars. Other featured speakers are Dr. Mel Ulmer, an X-ray astronomer at Northwestern University in Evanston, and Frederik Pohl, an award-winning science fiction novelist, editor, and futurist. Speakers will answer questions from the audience. Tickets for the symposium may be purchased at the door. The Simpson Auditorium's doors are on the west side of the Museum. This event is part of a nationwide celebration of Spaceweek, July 19th through 25th-- the 18th anniversary of the first Apollo landing on the Moon. The symposium is co-sponsored by Chicago Space Frontier and the Chicago Society for Space Studies, two local groups which have for many years promoted interest in space development. For more information, write Chicago Space Frontier, Box 64397, Chicago, IL 60602-0397, or call (312)373-0349. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 87 16:59:29 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!myers@csvax.caltech.edu (Bob Myers) Subject: Re: You Were Born Too Soon In article <870708.13490113.014343@L66B.CP6> Frank-Mayhar%LADC@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (Frank Mayhar) writes: >What exasperates me is listening to those people who want to take my >dream away. Since I was in the second grade, I've dreamed about going >into space. Like most of the readers of this newsgroup, I remember >watching Neil Armstrong make that last little hop to the Moon, and >wishing it was me. By all signs, we could have been there now, if the >original plans hadn't been scrapped by self-serving politicians and >bureaucrats. Instead, here we all are, watching the Soviets pass us, >realizing that the only chance we had of getting there in our lifetimes >was thrown away by self-serving fools whose only desire is for more >personal power, regardless of the consequences. You want the taxpayers to pay for the development of space just so you can go out there, and you call the bureaucrats self-serving? Try not to be so hypocritical. Listen, I'm highly sympathetic to your dream. I didn't know anybody more into space then I was when I was growing up. It goes back as far as I can remember, before second grade. I'm not asking you to give up your dreams. But I hardly think you have the moral authority to criticize someone else's actions as self-serving. Bob Myers myers@tybalt.caltech.edu ...seismo!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 87 14:33:03 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Subject: Brainstorm - Commitment There is a lot of debate going on in the space community about where we should go from here, back to the Moon or to Mars. (My personal preference would be to concentrate on LOW COST to LEO and worry about heading out later.) The debate is healthy. It is all right for intelligent people of integrity to have differing views. What is important, however, is that a commitment to a program that expands our ability to live, work, grow, and develop in space is made. It is very likely that we will be going nowhere (perhaps a more accurate statement would be that we will continue building up a military presents in space no real civilian program) unless that commitment is made. I have read hundreds of ideas on this net from dozens of people on what we should be doing. Lets get a brainstorming session on HOW DO WE GET THE COMMITMENT? RULES FOR BRAINSTORMING. 1. No idea is too stupid. 2. No one is premitted to criticize any idea. (I know this is hard on the net, but if anybody flames you and you had the the word Brainstorm in your subject line just flush them to /dev/null) 3. No negatives. ( I don't want to hear, "It can't be done because ..... What I want to hear is how it might be done.) Fred Mendenhall ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 87 18:39:38 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: May 11 short editorial > ... We don't have time to build an > infrastructure first, not if we're going to get beyond a Clarke orbit in > the next 25 years... We must build an infrastructure first, if we are going to *stay* beyond Clarke orbit once we go. The cutbacks after the Mars expedition will be bigger and nastier than the ones after Apollo. Mars must wait -- we have un- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology finished business on the Moon. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 87 17:08:20 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Aircars and Futures of the Past In article <8706280928.AA05597@angband.s1.gov>, HIGGINS@FNALC.BITNET writes: > predicted. Recently I prepared an hour-long slide lecture on flying > cars-- "Doorman, Call Me an Aircar!"-- and I've delivered it at a > couple of science fiction conventions. Hey, Bill, sounds like fun! How about posting a schedule of where/when you may be giving this lecture in the future? Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 87 14:58:40 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: You Were Born Too Soon in article <870708.13490113.014343@L66B.CP6>, Frank-Mayhar%LADC@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (Frank Mayhar) says: -- If I sound disillusioned, I am. But at least let me keep my "unrealistic" The nicest thing you can do for your dream is to make it come true. What are you personally doing to make your dream reality? Who do you vote for? What organizations do you actively support? To misquote without Reference "If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem." I admit that I don't do that much, but I do consider the attitude toward space people I vote for, I am actively involved in space related activities through the AIAA, I have taken vacation time to help high school students with space related educational projects. I do what I can and feel guilty that I don't do more. Having a dream is easy, making sure the dream out lives the dreamer, that takes work. Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 87 13:15:07 GMT From: rlgvax!golds@seismo.css.gov (Rich Goldschmidt) Subject: solar sail race One way to capture public attention and enthusiasm for space might be a sports event in space. A solar sail race to the moon might be just the thing. The cost to support an entry would be about the same order of magnitude as an entry in the America's Cup race. The sails would be visible from earth (and individually identifiable with binoculars - see that Rockwell logo). There would be a large educational component to the commentary, since the sport is relatively new and is a bit trickier than a day on the bay. The sails would be operated by remote control from the ground. I can imagine quite a few companies getting lots of PR and product recognition through supporting an entry. One of the big questions is whether the America's Cup elimination formula is the right form of preliminary. I would like to see some good competition, including competitors from different nations, and I would expect at least a few government sponsored teams. I think it will take a few years and a bit more excess launch capacity. And I think it has a real potential to get ordinary people involved, providing entertainment, education, and advertising, as well as technical experience in one method of space travel. This is not a novel suggestion either. I first read a similar suggestion quite a few years ago in an IEEE newsletter. The recent comments on solar sails reminded me of this idea, and getting average people enthusiastic about space is important. Rich Goldschmidt seismo!rlgvax!golds ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 87 16:04:10 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!itsgw!nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@seismo.css.gov (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: You Were Born Too Soon In article <395@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: > >Having a dream is easy, making sure the dream out lives the dreamer, >that takes work. This is so true. I certainly hope that all the people in this group who beleive that the space program needs help is doign all they can. This means writing your congrescritters, joining some space group. Get heard. I know I sat idle for a while unitl Dale Amon pointed out that I could get involved by starting a local chapter of the NSS. This I am doing. Everyone should do something like this. Join the local chapter of some space group in your area. If there isn't one, START ONE! You'd be surprised how mnany people you can get interested just by pushing them a little. A lot of people think the space program is important. If you share the dream then you should be doing something!!!!!!! Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 87 09:56:31 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Manned vs. Unmanned space a letter from J. Pierce, Science By way of background John Pierce is the Director of the Center for Computer Research in Music at Stanford. He is acknowledged by some as the father of computer generated music. Prior to that he was a Professor of Electrical Engineering at the California Institute of Technology and was the Chief Engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech. He was one of the Directors at Bell Laboratories. He holds over 20 patents including satellite communications and the travelling wave tube. He has written numerous books on acoustics and electronics. The quote which stands in my mind [not that I agree with it] "Funding artificial intelligence is stupidity" got me working on the use of computing in aerospace. --eugene miya NASA Ames Reproduced with permission Science, v236, n4806, 5 June 1987, pp. 1161 Letter by John Pierce Man's Role in Space Peter M. Banks and David C. Black (Perspective, 17 Apr., p 244) write optimistically and philosophically about what might be gained through manned research facilities in space. James A. Van Allen has already written factually (1) about what has been gained through unmanned spacecraft and what further surely could be gained. One might add that that work (in which I participated some three decades ago)(2) led to new and largely unforeseen technological applications of unmanned spacecraft as communications satellites. Since then earth observation satellites of various sorts and navigation satellites have assumed great importance. Our present humiliating position is that exaggerated emphasis on man-in-space has left us, temporarily, we hope, without any domestic means for launching either scientific or technological spacecraft. Man-in-space is an old dream which I exploited in science fiction (3) at a time when no one had thought of the new capabilities we have seen in unmanned spacecraft. The old dream of man-in-space, magnificently realized in Apollo, has been extended in the Shuttle, with an emphasis that has had disasterous consequences for our exploration and exploitation of space. Surely, the exploration of man's role in space is worthy of continued and intense investigation. The survivability of man-in-space, to which Banks and Black give no emphasis, calls for continued and intense investigation, but not at the cost of scientific and technological benefits which we could attain through unmanned spacecraft -- if we had the resouces to construct and launch them. John R. Pierce Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics and Dept. of Music Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 References (1) J. A. Van Allen, Science, 232, 1075 (1986). (2) J. R. Pierce, The Beginnings of Satellite Communiations (San Francisco Press, San Francisco, CA 1968). (3) _______. "Relics of the earth," Sci. Wonderstories, March 1930, p. 894. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 87 13:27:05 GMT From: ihnp4!ho95e!slr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Shelley.L.Rosenbaum) Subject: Re: solar sail race In article <550@rlgvax.UUCP>, golds@rlgvax.UUCP (Rich Goldschmidt) writes: > > One way to capture public attention and enthusiasm for space might be a > sports event in space. A solar sail race to the moon might be just the > thing. Many years ago, Arthur C. Clarke wrote a story on this premise, called, "The Wind From the Sun." > [...] The sails would be operated by remote control from > the ground. This is the only difference from the story--in it, the sails were personned. (Hey, I'm not about to say, "manned.") -- Shelley Rosenbaum; AT&T Bell Labs; (201) 949-3615 {ihnp4, allegra, cbosgd}!ho95c!slr "Don't use your hands, son! Use your entrenching tool." ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 87 17:22:25 GMT From: uwmcsd1!leah!itsgw!nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@unix.macc.wisc.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Idea... I had an interesting idea of one way to possibly nudge our government into realizing what truly bad shape we're in space-wise. I think if they keep hearing from enough places eventually they'll get the message. They're not all as stupid as we color them, although some are. Put together a newsletter of space activities around the world. Put it out, say, once a week. The point of this would be that the soviets would probably dominate the newlestter, maybe a few pages on what they've done each month, and maybe a paragraph on what we've done, the amount of coverage being proportional to the amount being done. This newsletter would of course be prefaceds with something to indicate that the purpose of it is not Soviet cheerleading or propaganda but to stress the point that we are in trouble, especially with respect to the Soviets. This is bnased on the belief that national prestige and a sort of natural fear (? for lack of a better phrase) of the Soviet "machine" is a prime motivator of these elected officials... Well, anyone have any comments on this? Good/bad/maybe some additions? Anyone think it will work? Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #287 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Jul 87 06:20:00 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06504; Sun, 19 Jul 87 03:16:42 PDT id AA06504; Sun, 19 Jul 87 03:16:42 PDT Date: Sun, 19 Jul 87 03:16:42 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707191016.AA06504@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #288 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 288 Today's Topics: Bargain rates for SDC; Case for Mars coming up Mariner Venus Used Light Pressure for Attitude control Re: basic rocketry Re: Opinions wanted SPOT Re: SPOT Re: Metric vs. English units Re: Metric vs. English units Arms race Several things UK in space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14-JUL-1987 17:23 CDT From: To: Subject: Bargain rates for SDC; Case for Mars coming up The special combined rate for joining the 1988 *and* 1989 Space Development Conferences has been extended to 1 September 1987: $80 for members of sponsoring organizations, including the National Space Society, the Space Studies Institute, American Space Foundation, and many others $110 for nonmembers Memberships WILL get higher after that! This is a saving of at least $15 below current membership rates and a small fortune below the expensive at-the-door rates. Make checks payable to 1988 INT'L SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE. The 1988 SDC will be held in Denver on Memorial Day weekend, 27-30 May, 1988. The theme is "SPACE: The Next Renaissance," and the conference will include tracks of technical, space education, activist, and "socioeconomic" programming. There will also be a professional Space Business Symposium, a design contest for using the External Tank, and an art show. Send checks or requests for information to: 1988 International Space Development Conference P.O. Box 300572 Denver, Colorado 80218 (303)692-6788 The Chicago SDC will be held 26-29 May, 1989-- the twentieth summer since Apollo 11-- at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare. We will be looking back at the past and forward to new developments (think the Shuttle will be flying by then?). For more information: 1989 Space Development Conference P.O. Box 64397 Chicago, Illinois 60664-0397 (312)446-8343 evenings Or send e-mail to HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET. ############################################################################## I will be attending the Case for Mars conference in Boulder next week, and I'd like to meet fellow netlanders. Leave a message for me on the conference's message board. Please don't send e-mail; I'll have left for Colorado by the time you read this. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 87 09:14 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: Mariner Venus Used Light Pressure for Attitude control To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov Date: Fri, 10 Jul 87 10:52:50 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu I don't know about Mariner Mars, but Mariner Venus/Mercury definitely *did* use light pressure on the vanes for attitude control, and it worked very well. True. As you all recall, this is the mission where after the launch, somebody (wish I could remember the name!) said, why not go for Mercury after the Venus encounter, and pointed out that a gravity slingshot would easily make Mercury, and that furthermore, once at Mercury, a resonant orbit could be established which repeated encounters with Mercury (I think in 3:2 synch, which would be every ca. 160 days) No, they knew before launch what they were doing. The probe was designed from the beginning to go to Mercury. The serendipitous part was the realization that it would be possible to put the Mariner (10, by the way) into an orbit with a period of 176 days, or 2 Mercury years, so when Mariner reached perhelion again, Mercury would be there too. In this way, 3 fly-bys were achieved. The last orbit was accomplished with (I think) something like 3 oz. of fuel for manuevering, and solar pressure was used extensively for attitude control. This was possible because the solar panels on Mariner were able to be twisted quite a bit, such flexibility was useful since they had to provide power at distances from the sun ranging from Earth's orbit to Mercury's orbit. One unfortunate aspect of the 2-1 ratio in Mercury orbits to Mariner orbits is that Mercury has the curious property that 3 Mercury days are 2 Mercury years, so when Mariner showed up, it always got to see the same half of the planet in sunlight. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 87 23:31:00 GMT From: wsmith@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: basic rocketry >What causes pogo? > >--JoSH A more basic question: What is pogo? Bill Smith ihnp4!uiucdcs!wsmith wsmith@a.cs.uiuc.edu (please email your reply too, I don't read sci.space often enough to not miss it. Thanks.) ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 87 06:26:16 GMT From: hobbes!root@unix.macc.wisc.edu (John Plocher) Subject: Re: Opinions wanted +---- Mike Trout writes the following in article <1388@brspyr1.BRS.Com> ---- | Leeanna Dibrell writes about her Dream: | > Quick shift: I was taken to observe a tornado. | | Please note that my information is dated. +---- The June 1987 National Geographic (Vol 171 No.6) has a very interesting article on tornadoes (p. 690ff). The pictures are worth the effort of finding this issue! They feature the NSSL in Norman, OK, the TOTO observatory, intercept teams, etc. Much more exciting than Clint Eastwood reruns! :-) John Plocher uwvax!geowhiz!uwspan!plocher plocher%uwspan.UUCP@uwvax.CS.WISC.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15-JUL-1987 16:52 EDT From: MICHAEL R. WADE ( GIPSY MANAGER ) To: Subject: SPOT I deal with SPOT image's on a daily basis at the Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory at Virginia Tech. Here's a little information on the resolution obtained by the SPOT satellite. For PANCHROMATIC mode : Resolution : 6000 scanlines for 60 Km At a 0 degree of incidence angle 10 meter resolution At extreme off-nadir about 13.6 meter resolution. ( For those who may not know, this is primarily due to the curvature of the earth, although the changing speed of the mirror sweeping back and forth causes some differences as well ). For Multispectral mode : Resolution : 3000 scanlines for 60 Km. 20 meter resolution at 0 degree of incidence angle 27.2 at extreme off-nadir. The images in both modes are resampled to provide even resolution across the image. I have been working with a picture of New York that is phenomenal. All of the bridges are clearly visible as well as the Statue of Liberty ( No details of course, but you can tell where it is ). You can request that certain area's be photographed at certain off-nadir angles. This is a big help for doing stereo work. I also believe the images are always at 9 am in the morning so that shadows should always be consistent. If you want more information about SPOT, there address and number is as follows : SPOT Image Corporation 1897 Preston White Drive Reston, Virginia 22091-4326 ( 703 ) 620 - 2200 Michael Wade Spatial Data Analysis Lab. Virginia Polytechnical Institute & State University ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 87 20:20:00 GMT From: m2c!frog!john@bu-cs.bu.edu (John Woods, Software) Subject: Re: SPOT In article <8295@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Spot is basically just Landsat done better, with somewhat higher >resolution The US could have done the same thing if there [were] money >and bureaucratic approval. The latter is not to be taken for granted >-- the US government and the US military in particular have had such >capabilities for quite a while, and would very much prefer to retain a >monopoly on them. There was an article in this week's Science News on the topic of news media use of satellite images, which had some interesting points: o The possibility exists for the news media to cause international incidents -- the favorite example was roughly, "What would have happened if Kennedy had not been able to mull the Cuban Missile Crisis over for 6 days because it had appeared on the Nightly News?" Also, it is difficult to interpret satellite photos, especially if beating the Other News Organization is more important than being right. o The cost of maintaining a news media only satellite is probably going to remain prohibitive for some time (high maintenance cost and rare use). o The US DOD would really prefer that there were no imaging satellites not under their control, although more and more countries are getting to the point where they can launch their own; they could easily rent time to the media. I can just see it -- the first operational test of SDI will not be against the Soviets but against UPI... John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA Doktor of the Forbidden Sciences ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 87 01:55:17 GMT From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units In article <1397@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: >In article <722@trwcsed.trwrb.UUCP>, kraml@trwrb.UUCP (Robert P. Kraml) writes: >> Also, whatever happened to the big push for metric that we were >> hearing back in the 70's?. >As I recall, there is a law on the books, passed by Congress sometime >in the mid-70s, committing the US to adopting the Metric System. The >law, however, contains no timetable nor enforcement provisions. The US has been a metric country since the late 1800's. The metric system is the sole legal means of measurement in the US. The English units we all know and love are defined in terms of metric units and serve as a convienent abbreviations. (Just thought you ought to know that the 10 yard line was just an abbreviation for the 9.144 meter line!) (Oops, for our European friends, the 9,144 meter line. Or should that be 9,144 metre line. These things are never consistent!) Lawrence Crowl 716-275-8479 University of Rochester crowl@cs.rochester.arpa Computer Science Department ...!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!crowl Rochester, New York, 14627 ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 87 15:30:40 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units In article <722@trwcsed.trwrb.UUCP>, kraml@trwrb.UUCP (Robert P. Kraml) writes: > Also, whatever happened to the big push for metric that we were > hearing back in the 70's?. As I recall, there is a law on the books, passed by Congress sometime in the mid-70s, committing the US to adopting the Metric System. The law, however, contains no timetable nor enforcement provisions. Carter set up a Metrification Board to begin the task of conversion. A few highway signs and such were changed, but the public opposition was severe. The board backed off, stating they would just do things like issue press releases and give lectures, waiting until the public was more receptive to the idea (no one knew when that might be). I would imagine that Uncle Ronnie has disbanded the board. Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 00:22:16 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Arms race Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu Sorry to send this to the whole list, but once again someone writes with a bad address. To:jplgodo!wlbr!etn-rad!jru@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov If you can think of a way to end the arms race, I would like to hear it. So would a lot of other people. The way has to be agreed to by the Soviet government, and has to NOT involve trusting the Soviets to keep their word. It doesn't make any sense to suggest we compete in space exploration instead of arms buildup. Space exploration may gain us prestige, but that is not the point in arms buildup. In fact arms give us negative prestige. Prestige is nice, but not if it means sacrificing our freedom. There are no pacifist countries on Earth. If there ever were any, they have long since been overrun by less scrupulous neigbors. I don't see any military use for a base on the moon. It's too far from the action. Low Earth orbit has plenty of military uses, all of which are denounced by most space advocates for reasons that aren't clear to me. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 09:17:16 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Several things Gee, I'm getting sucked back into the net. Antenna: do you want the formula for the radar equation? It's in Sloknick, Introduction to Radar, 2nd. ed. (still old). Do you need me to mail to you? I won't post it. SPOT: Ralph Bernstein at IBM Palo Alto Scientific Center has a good old story (which other friends will neither confirm nor deny). During the 1960s down in Arizona where they ax up old bombers. A sign with some big lettering was pointed facing up into the sky with: IF YOU CAN READ THIS (I wish I could embed a page break for all systems) YOU ARE WHERE WE WERE TEN YEARS AGO. Sail Races: Sounds neat, I'll crew. We could do some simulation here and at LLNL before hand (both used during Americas cup). On other issues: No comment. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 87 14:28:31 GMT From: eagle!icdoc!aw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andrew Weeks) Subject: UK in space >From Michael Trout: >> I would include Black Knight and Blue streak here too, >> even although they flew before being scrapped. (anyone >> else remember them?) > >No, I don't. Please post details. Black Knight became Black Arrow. It launched a single satellite, "Prospero", in 1971 from Woomera (?) in Australia. After that the program was scrapped. Blue Streak was used on the first stage of Europa 1, the first European launch attempt, also from Woomera. Blue Streak worked flawlessly, but a later stage failed. After this the British Government pulled out of ELDO, leaving it all to the French, consistently the most enthusiastic European space nation. Since this Britain's main space interest has been the Skynet series of military communications satellites, launched by US boosters, and some ESA scientific programs like Giotto. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #288 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Jul 87 06:21:23 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07886; Mon, 20 Jul 87 03:17:53 PDT id AA07886; Mon, 20 Jul 87 03:17:53 PDT Date: Mon, 20 Jul 87 03:17:53 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707201017.AA07886@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #289 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 289 Today's Topics: Re: Metric vs. English units ... *seem* to travel FTL ... Subjective FTL & Conservation of Mass Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ... re:not an engineering problem. Re: Starships will be slow Why leave the solar system? Re: Colonies satellite sighting dilemma ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 87 09:23:31 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units >In article <2766@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: >> Does anybody else find it a bit sad that in this supposed age of >>metricization, NASA still quotes payload capacity in pounds? Regretable, but true as noted in IEEE Spectrum and one of the weekly mags like Newsweek or Time. If you want to effect change put pressure on those forces like Steward Brand and others who want to keep the English system. Their arguments `make sense' to a large number of people out there: "based on human proportions," "tradition," "distinction" from the rest of the world ;-). It is also more than sad its economic. When I moved to the Bay Area, I rented a (Ryder) truck and noticed I was going slowly compared to the traffic when starting on the freeway. The speedometer on the truck (A Ford) was in KM/H, so I was driving (say) 60 KM. So the 400 miles from LA to SF was about 700 KM on the odometer which they were reading as miles and duly charged me as such. It took two months to get a refund, now that truck is still out there in Ryderland. This move was reimbursed by NASA, so that makes it a space story....... Let's move on. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 87 13:19:01 EDT From: Steve Abrams Subject: ... *seem* to travel FTL ... On 8 Jul 87 18:20:53 GMT, (D.Starr) posts: > While either of these biological solutions (note: longevity & > suspended animation) is still closer to science fiction that reality, > i think they're both closer to reality than FTL. We at least can see > objects in the observable universe with offer examples of very long > lifespans (trees over 1000 years old) and the ability to suspend life > processes for long periods without detrimental effect (primarily > microorganisms). I see no objects in the observable universe which > seem to act like they're traveling faster than light. Go "look" (facetiously said) at a "superluminal" quasar for an object that "*seem(s)* to act like (it's) traveling faster than light." From the October 18, 1986 issue of "Science News," p. 245: "Quasars have repeatedly provided surprises ... detailed inspection, using ... radio interferometry, shows that quasars tend to consist of a number of blobs, lobes, and jets of matter apparently shot out of some central source. In a few cases, some of the blobs seem to be moving faster than light." ... "now, a single series of observations doubles their (note: the "superluminals") number from seven to 14 and may soon triple it." ... " '(s)uperluminals' can no longer be regarded as rarities. They become a class of astrophysical objects that needs a consistent and believable theoretical explanation." Now, before everyone rushes to explain away these phenomena as relativistic optical illusions (read the aforementioned article; see also "Science," 10 Oct 86, p. 157 -- subsection entitled "Relativistic Beaming ..."), please note that the original posting said, "*seem* to act like they're traveling faster than light." Just because they can be explained away doesn't mean that they don't *seem* to be traveling FTL and, as is usual in many physical explanations, there could be an unexplained problem. Extrapolation of the explanation (depending on the eventual number of these superluminals), which depends on the superluminal blobs moving directly towards us, leads to the conclusion that the earth occupies a preferred position in the Universe (an un-aesthetic idea that has been in disfavour since Copernicus' theories became widely accepted). As the Science News article says, should the number of observed superluminals continue to increase, "(i)t will be more and more difficult to believe that so many of the most energetic and violent objects in the universe point themselves right at us." --> "Live Long Steve Abrams --> and Perspire" ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 87 23:03:25 GMT From: pt!speech2.cs.cmu.edu!yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Subjective FTL & Conservation of Mass I have two questions for the physics experts on the net: 1) Through time dilation, it is theoretically possible to travel X light years in less than X years of subjective time. How does the energy required travel to do this compare to the energy that would be required if the universe was not subject to relativity (and the lightspeed limit). For example: Suppose you want to travel to Alpha Centauri (about 4 light years) in 2 years, under constant acceleration to the midpoint and constant deceleration from the midpoint to the end. Then, if I remember correctly from Physics I, if the journey were non-relativistic: ---------------- For each half of the journey: s = 1/2at^2 --> a = 2s/t^2 s = 2 light years t = 1 year a = 4 light years/year/year F = ma = mass of starship * 4 light years/year/year So for the entire journey, the amount of force required would be twice this value. How does this compare to the amount of force required to travel the same distance at relativistic speeds in 1 year of subjective time? 2) How does relativistic mass increase conform to conservation of mass/energy in the universe? Is the energy expended for acceleration being converted directly into the additional mass? If energy is being converted to matter then consider the following situation: suppose you accelerate to .9999c relative to Earth and then stop accelerating. Then, from your point of view, the mass of the Earth will have increased while your (subjective) mass has remained the same. Does this mean that the energy you have expended has been converted to mass on the Earth? This seems *wrong* but I can't think of a better explanation. Brian Yamauchi ARPANET: yamauchi@speech2.cs.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 87 16:39:10 GMT From: aplcen!osiris!jdia@mimsy.umd.edu (Josh Diamond) Subject: Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ... In article <8707150210.AA08860@angband.s1.gov>, EXT768@UKCC.BITNET (Steve Abrams) writes: [deleted talk about speed of superluminal quasars] > that the original posting said, "*seem* to act like they're traveling faster > than light." Just because they can be explained away doesn't mean that they > don't *seem* to be traveling FTL ... There is some work being done at University of Rochester's Physics Department (by Emil Wolf - one of my ex-professors) that indicates the existance of a NON-ASTRONOMICAL red shift, which could explain the "appears to be moving faster that light" problems. I'm not sure whether this has been published yet, and I know very little about it, as I am no longer a physics major ( I switched to CS :-). If you want more info, try getting in touch with someone in the Physics Department there. Steve Abrams ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 87 10:06:56 GMT From: "Michael J. Hammel" Subject: re:not an engineering problem. James W. Merrit writes: >>Interstellar travel isn't a physics problem, isn't much an engineering >>problem, is just a bit of a political probem. >>What it is is a biological problem. Possibly. But wait, theres more, from Brian Yamauchi: >Actually, that is not the problem. According to special relativity, >subjective time slows down as your speed approaches the speed of light. Well then, its not a question of how long it takes to get there. In fact, traveling at FTL speeds or even close to them would allow any traveller to reach his/her destination in his/her own lifetime. But, there is the problem of the travellers mass expanding as the reach ever increasing speeds, if Einstein was right, that is. It wouldn't do the traveller much good to get there in 20 minutes if his mass covered most the known galaxy. The solution? If Columbus cant go to America, bring America to Columbus. Bent space. Warped space. Whatever its called. Move space, which is relatively empty (isn't it?) at high speeds to the traveller. Or simply displace it enough so the traveller wouldn't have to go so far. So, at least to this amatuers eyes (and extremely amateur he is, too) it really is a physics problem. Michael J. Hammel SNHAM @ TTUVM1 ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 87 02:20:03 GMT From: decvax!ima!haddock!karl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Karl Heuer) Subject: Re: Starships will be slow In article <3161@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@oddhack.Caltech.EDU (Jon Leech) writes: >Travel time is not arbitrarily small - you must factor in time to accelerate >up near c and back down again, which is several years subjective at 1 G. It is arbitrarily small if the acceleration is arbitrarily high. This is feasible if (a) whatever force causes the acceleration acts on all of the particles in question, including the crew; (b) a counterforce leaves the crew at a comfortable 1G (the McAndrew drive); or (c) you have teleportation (lightspeed, not instantaneous) instead of actual "motion". By the time we send humans to another star, we will probably not be using rockets to do so. >Life extension or suspended animation are likely to come along a lot sooner >than fast (.99c gets you only 7:1 dilation) starships. None of which >addresses the complementary problem of coming back to Earth and finding >decades (centuries...) have passed since you left. Why is that a problem? Given life extension and sufficient patience, the loved ones will still be there. You can catch up on local history during the trip. Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 22:42:15 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Why leave the solar system? To: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) > Sorry about posting an answer here, but my mailer is fubbed duck: Just as well. You were replying to the wrong person. The message you quote is mine. > 1) "If overcrowded" Given that they live in a habitat, you are talking > about the volume of the solar system ... too much room available for > "overcrowding" Sorry, what I meant was, exhaustion of available energy and material resources. This will happen long before the volume of the solar system is fully occupied. I estimate this will happen when the solar system population reaches about ten to the twentieth, billions of times the Earth's present population. If population grows at 2% anually, this will take about 1200 years. > 2) "curiosity, adventure, fame" in "generation ships" most of the > people will see nothing but empty space, or anyone but their own > neighbors. Fame to who? Fame to the first group to leave the solar system. And it wouldn't necessarily be a generation ship, unless you assume that life spans will never get much longer than today. As for seeing nothing but empty space or one's own neighbors, isn't the same thing true on Earth? Granted, Earth is a big neighborhood. But a ten kilometer asteroid, hollowed out, can support a far greater population than Earth's, given fusion or some other ample source of energy. The main constraint, as far as I can see, is air conditioning! Yes, they will be stuck with their neighbors for centuries. But at the end of their trip, they either get a whole new solar system to explore and colonize, or an alien race to befriend and trade with. The Earth's only trip is around the Sun, and it's getting boring. > 3) "information trade" This one isn't bad, but will take some real > long-range planners, of which we have a shortage. Long range planners? The Wright brothers didn't plan for hundreds of major airports and thousands of flights daily. Alan Turing didn't plan for millions of desktop computers. Gutenberg didn't plan for billions of paperback books. Benjamin Franklin didn't plan for the electric power grid. Marconi didn't plan for thousands of radio broadcasting stations, communications satellites, or signals from probes in the outer solar system. But these things happened anyway. Perhaps nobody will ever set out to leave the solar system, but will start by visiting the Oort (cometary) cloud, and gradually work their way outwards over the millenia. > 4) "why not?" It would take a lot of work & energy to modify one of > these monsters for travel and go with it. Paid by people who will not > see any return at all. I hope that there will be much more wealth. That one can simply have a troop of fusion powered robots make the necessary modifications. And I don't agree that there is no gain. Perhaps it will be done as an advertising stunt? Insurance companies would probably pay for the privilege of insuring them. More likely the inhabitants will be the ones to pay. > I think that 5), which you missed, would be a better reason. It is, > after all, the primary reason that the current colonies were made: To > get away from something (generally political) you don't like. Not > crowding, just don't get along with your neighbors. Stuff like wrong > religion, prejudice, hate, and poor environmental conditions (nuclear > missles). I hope that that will no longer be a motive. That nobody will flee persecution because there will be no persecution. In a society ruled by tyrants with no respect for private property and individual rights, I strongly doubt we could ever get to the stage where we would be able to travel to other solar systems. If I was religious I would suggest that this might be some sort of cosmic quarantine, to keep failed races from interfering with others. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 87 15:11:29 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Colonies In article <224288.870706.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: > It is conceivable that they [the Soviets] could imitate > us if we have a space colony, but it is not possible that they can > do it first, except at a loss, which is not a real colony. I guess when we visit Zhukov Station III on vacation in 2013 we'll have to tell our hosts that they're not running a real colony. Maybe they'll send us home and not let us rent their Weightless Honeymoon Suite, and we'll have to spend our vacation watching NASA's annual satellite launch. > They may or may not be independent of Earth in practice, but they are > not true colonies if they couldn't survive prolonged lack of all contact > with Earth if they needed to. Most European colonies of the seventeenth through twentieth centuries don't meet your definition of "true colonies" either. Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: 17 July 87 14:34 EDT From: UUAJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu Subject: satellite sighting dilemma Here's an odd phenomenon I can't figure out; perhaps someone out there can explain it for me: on a number of occasions I have observed what appear to be satellites in polar orbit: unblinking lights moving from south to north, becoming invisible below elevations of ca. 40 degrees above the horizon, brightness maybe 3d? magnitude (dimmer but not by much than the stars in the Big Dipper). The problem is that I've observed these things within one half-hour of midnight local time. Assuming that these are objects in LEO, then from where I am (I don't have exact latitude figures, Ithaca is around 40+-2 deg. N), then these things should be in the earth's shadow as far as I can figure out. Any suggestions on what might be involved here? I have no info on what the phase of the moon was at the time, hadn't thought about it until much later; I have not been watching lately, both due to having other things to do and poor viewing conditions the past month. I do know that I've seen these objects during the winter as well as summer. Send replies directly and I'll post a summary. Thanx! Artie Samplaski Cornell Lab of Nuc. Studies BITNET: UUAJ@CORNELLA Internet: UUAJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@CU-ARPA.CS.CORNELL.EDU ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #289 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Jul 87 06:21:46 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15121; Tue, 21 Jul 87 03:19:03 PDT id AA15121; Tue, 21 Jul 87 03:19:03 PDT Date: Tue, 21 Jul 87 03:19:03 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707211019.AA15121@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #290 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 290 Today's Topics: anniversary Re: Non-profit commie colonies? ``Colony'' Betelguese and Supernova Betelguese and Supernova Re: Betelguese and Supernova Bandwidth Re: Carl Sagan Re: The Space Shuttle Operators Manual Shuttle distruct mechanism Re: free enterprise space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Jul 87 18:46:15 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: anniversary Just to remind everyone that this Monday is July 20th. Any true space cadet who doesn't know why July 20th is special should quietly go shoot himself. For those who want greater precision, touchdown was at 1617 EDT and "one small step..." was at 2256 EDT. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 87 10:47:29 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arpa (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Non-profit commie colonies? And now a defense: > ii) Space colonies will be both profitable and independent > of Earth (by definition). > > These are at best questionable, and accepting either as gospel could If it's not independent of Earth, it's not a colony... it's a base. If it is independent, then it's going to be profitable. Maybe not very much at first, but it will be. Colonies that shrink don't tend to last very long. Peter da Silva ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 87 02:13:57 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: ``Colony'' In article <401@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >Summary: Look up the definition of "colony". >And now a defense: > >> ii) Space colonies will be both profitable and independent >> of Earth (by definition). >> >> These are at best questionable, and accepting either as gospel could > >If it's not independent of Earth, it's not a colony... it's a base. If >it is independent, then it's going to be profitable. Maybe not very much >at first, but it will be. Colonies that shrink don't tend to last very long. |$ def base | ... |5 c) n, the locality or the installations on which a military force | relies for supplies or from which it initiates operations This was the only definition even vaguely related to your usage of the word. The `base' of a space settlement may be on the moon or in the asteroid belt eventually - but initially it's going to be right on Earth. |$ def colony | ... |1) a) n, a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties | with the parent state | b) n, the territory inhabited by such a body |... |4) a) n, a group of individuals with common characteristics or | interests situated in close association | b) n, the section occupied by such a group You will note no mention of profit or independence in the definition (from Webster's 7th); somewhat the opposite, in fact. As for independence -> profitable, there are numerous small nations today which are dependent on outside foreign aid - many of the former US Pacific trust territories, for example (not analogy, so don't respond to it as such). Rather than digress into the REAL meaning of the words `profit' and `independent', I propose we drop the subject. Playing word games is tiresome (quick everyone - what's an `infrastructure'? :-) Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 23:51:28 From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Betelguese and Supernova Date: 7 Jul 87 19:57:12 GMT From: amdcad!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (MacLeod) Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova In article <551836099.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Not only is Betelguese big enough to go supernova, ... intense mass >loss by way of a solar wind. Supernova should(?) occur within a few >thousand years ... Seriously, I had no idea that they could pinpoint it that closely. And on a cosmic time scale, a few thousand years is miniscule; the variation could go either way by far more than that. It's more like "within the next half hour", cosmically. You misunderstand. They aren't estimating how long it has been burning from the start (a few million years), subtracting that from the expected lifetime for a star of that mass (a few million years), and coming up with "any minute now, plus or minus a few million years". They are observing that not only has it finished burning its hydrogen so that now it is a red supergiant instead of merely a main-sequence blue giant, but it is also pulsating and throwing off mass like mad, things that we think happen "just before death". Basically we say "it is dying *now*, plus or minus a couple thousand years, obviously it hasn't gone supernova yet, so it's now plus up to a couple thousand years. But then a blue giant star in the Magenellic clouds went supernova without ever going red super-giant first, which is really surprizing, so maybe this red super-giant Betelguese will surprise us too by *not* going supernova at all, just throwing off 90% of its mass via stellar wind, then quietly collapsing into a nice peaceful white dwarf, no neutron star or anything fancy. (I just noticed a typo in an earlier message of mine on this topic: By the way, SN1978A was a blue giant, not yet a red supergiant, so we have to watch Rigel and Deneb too. That should read SN1987A. Sorry if anyone was confused.) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 87 00:27:00 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Supernovas > From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) > The Star Betelgeuse is large enough to explode as a Supernova and > being only 300 Light Years away will produce enough Xrays to blow off > the Ozone layer and fry us. Very unlikely. Supernovas are very rare. The recent one in the SMG was 160,000 light years away. It was the closest one since the one in the 1880s in the Andromeda Galaxy, 2,200,000 light years away. There hasn't been one in this galaxy of ten to the eleventh stars since 1604. One might expect a supernova within 300 light years only once or twice in each billion years. Given average distribution, no special knowledge, you are correct. But we have special knowledge that Betelguese is dying and is likely to go supernova soon, so we must add the probability of Betelguese going supernova to the normal probability of all the other stars on the average going supernova. As we learn more about supernovas we may decide Betelguese is really about to go, so the probability increases to emergency values, or we may decide Betelguese is indeed dying but still has 10,000 years to go, making its probability of going supernova near zero in the short term. Until then, I'll go with the current estimates that it has only a few thousand years at most, and perhaps only a few hundred or even less. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 87 16:15:28 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Betelguese and Supernova To: REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, amdcad!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: Robert Elton Maas >> One might expect a supernova within 300 light years only once or twice >> in each billion years. > Given average distribution, no special knowledge, you are correct. But > we have special knowledge that Betelguese is dying and is likely to > go supernova soon, ... Your reasoning is faulty. To show this, I will replace stars with people, years with seconds, and lightyears with meters. About once a year, somewhere in the state, someone goes crazy and kills his neigbors. This happened in another state very recently, and the person who did it was not the personality type who is believed to do it, though this was the first time that we knew who did it, so who knows what personality type is really most likely? You have been observing your next door neighbor for the last two minutes. He is of the (very common) personality type who is believed to sometimes go crazy and kill his neighbors. He appears to be acting strangely, not that you have ever observed him, or anyone else, for more than a few minutes. Do you conclude that he is going to go crazy and kill his neighbors within the next ten minutes? ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 87 02:31:09 GMT From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Wanna C. DeSupernova) Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova > Your reasoning is faulty. To show this, I will replace stars with > people, years with seconds, and lightyears with meters. And this, of course, is the faultiest reasoning of them all. You can't replace stars with people!!! For one thing, stars do not murder each other. Secondly, none is known to have AIDS. Stars are much easier to model *successfully* than people. This does not rule out the reverse option, however: Some people do become stars...:-) Yaron Sheffer ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 87 12:26:11 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Bandwidth To: DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net, apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu > The size of an antenna is a function of the wavelength (inversely > related to the frequency) of the signal under consideration. It has > nothing to do with the bandwidth. Not quite true. Antenna size buys you signal strength and rejection of signals from a different direction. There is no lower limit on the size of an antenna if your signal to noise ratio is high enough. One reason why antennas that point at geostationary satellites are so large is that the same frequencies are usually shared by other geostationary satellites. Also, noise on the same frequencies from natural sources comes from many parts of the sky. If the bandwidth was low enough, you could dedicate that tiny slice of frequencies to each one user. The same frequencies would not be used on any other satellite. Of course you would need a lot of power on board the satellite to send reasonable amounts of power in every frequency slice. Also, the satellite WOULD have to be geostationary, otherwise you run into severe problems with doppler shift, not to mention the satellite being below the horizon half the time. I have often wondered if the aliens are transmitting an extremely narrow bandwidth signal to us. Such a signal would stand out above the background noise of space, but only if we look for such a narrow bandwidth. And it would require relatively little power to send. The amount of information transmitted ber hour would be small. But perhaps they are very patient. Or perhaps it tells us where to look for a high bandwidth signal. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 87 19:58:31 GMT From: nysernic!nic.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan In article <418@uop.UUCP> robert@uop.UUCP (Robert McCaul) writes: >i believe i should also note that the east coasters have been >favorable toward Carl, and the west coasters don't seem to like him. > >this infers perhaps the continuation of the long standing differences >between the east and the west coast on many issues. I would agree that there are a lot of things that east-coasters disagree with west-coasters on, for various reasons, but as someone from the east coast I should point out that I know very few people who like CS (my mother does...) and many who don't (all of these being scientists/engineers). In fact, I have quite a few friends at Cornell, where Carl lives and works, and from what they tell me he is not well liked in general there, either. Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 1987 15:52-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: enea!sics.sics.se!pd@uunet.uu.net (Per Danielsson) Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Operators Manual I'm posting this reply to Per Danielsson because the return address does not look hopeful and I haven't got time to track it down right now: The Space Shuttle Operators Manual is published by Berkely books. Possibly available in B. Dalton and such. I picked up my copy in the National Air and Space Museum. It is also available through the National Space Society mail order 'Space Shop'. ------------------------------ Return-Path: Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 09:08:42 pdt From: ucdavis!iris!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum) Subject: Shuttle distruct mechanism The propellant tank of the shuttle has a destruct charge in addition to the ones on the SRBs. Early on in the investigation of the Challenger accident, there was some question as to whether or not that charge had gone off - it had not. As I recall, the charge is about 30 feet long, going from the top of the tank and down one side. I believe that it can be seen in photographs as a "pipe" going down the side of the tank. Apparently, it is designed to rip open the tank, the contents will presumably do the rest... Eric ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 87 16:54:24 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: free enterprise space In article <373@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) writes: > > [discussion about government regulation of private space industries; includes claim that heavily regulated airlines are doing well] > [claim that private space industries can't really get started due to govenment regulations and NASA subsidies] > The airline and auto industries were started at a time of minimal regulation, WRONG. I'm not an expert on space (see my naive posting about SPOT) but I DO know something about the airline business and its history. The startup of the airline industry was quite unusual for American history. In the early days, all airlines were totally dependent upon government subsidy. The only way that money could be made was by carrying mail, and the government set the mail rates and routes. Various payment methods were tried (by the pound, by the letter, etc.) and the government pretty much decided which airlines would live and which airlines would die. When the airmail route system was formalized by the Postmaster General, only one airline was allowed to carry mail between any two cities. Any other airlines on the route went bankrupt. And when long-distance transcon routes were set up, the government decreed that there would be only three routes and only three airlines operating them (UAT [became United] in the north, Transcontinental & Western [became TWA] in the center, and AVCO [became American] in the south). During all these manueverings, over a span of a couple of decades, the federal government basically created airlines by forcing mergers between smaller operators. Anybody the government favored would be awarded a mail contract or a route; anybody else was expected to merge with the others or die quietly. As you might expect, politics played a heavy role. For many years, the Postmaster General molded and shaped our airline system as he saw fit, ignoring roars of protest from ignored airlines that ended up bankrupt. The slightest burp in the federal mail subsidy program would cause dozens of airlines to fold. The federal government also paid the bill to establish the airline infrastructure, paying for airports, terminal buildings, land acquisition, weather services, radio nets, beacons, navigational aids, lighting, maps, etc. Even with the subsidies, none of the airlines was able to afford much more than a handful of rickety biplanes. It was not ususual for even the better airlines to show a net loss year after year after year. In return for government subsidies and protection, airlines had to operate under government-dictated operating procedures and could not compete with each other on the routes they had been awarded. There was not a single airline, either then or a survivor today, that would have made it without heavy government subsidies and direction. This is as it should have been; before the government stepped in the airline industry in the US was in total chaos and your chance of being killed every time you stepped into an airliner was over 10%. [micro-editorial -- the way our airline system will be again in the year 2000?] It wasn't until C.R. Smith of American Airlines (and some others) began to get the idea that an airline might be able to survive without government mail subsidies that things changed. Smith persuaded a reluctant Donald Douglas to develop the DC-3--the first plane that could make money without carrying mail. Smith mortgaged his company's future on the plane, taking an all-or-nothing risk that would have bankrupted American if the DC-3 failed (as United predicted). Smith was right, and the rest is history. And even after the DC-3 changed the face of the airline business, the government still was there. During the late 30s and 40s, Juan Trippe and his Pan American Airways was little more than an independent federal agency, conducting world diplomacy with the full consent and assistance of the State Department. FDR was able to use Trippe as an ersatz Secretary of State and mold US diplomacy through Pan Am's desires (which seemed compatible with FDR's). Trippe became so knowledgeable and powerful that he essentially dictated US foreign relations worldwide. Again, this is as it should have been; without Pan Am isolationism would have reduced the United States to an impotent third-rate country on the eve of World War II. Now, what's THIS doing in sci.space? Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #290 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Jul 87 06:22:11 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17578; Wed, 22 Jul 87 03:19:21 PDT id AA17578; Wed, 22 Jul 87 03:19:21 PDT Date: Wed, 22 Jul 87 03:19:21 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707221019.AA17578@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #291 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 291 Today's Topics: Brief window of opportunity space news from June 22 AW&ST, and (sort of) guest editorial Re: bandwidth Re: bandwidth Re: bandwidth Re: Profit & Space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 87 15:55:55 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Brief window of opportunity Here I sit egrep-ping, sed-ding, awk'ing, and other editing of 18.1 Macho Bytes of past hot air (truly impressive). I have already used over 2 hours of VAX time to acquire some information and have come close to crashing this machine once while filling /tmp. Fortunately, I can justify this survey as part of work. I have collected a few interesting statistics: most frequent subjects (would you believe the Fermi paradox), most frequent authors (probably REM), vocabulary of people, etc. There were about 10,800 subject lines (in about 12,500 messages), the average message was not quite 40 lines long. I had to remove certain lines which offered no information about message contents, so these are lower bounds. The reality of the length in that it's almost close to a bimodal distribution in length. While I have SPACE data sitting on my machine, I would be open to any and all interesting questions which I can obtain by simple searching, counting, etc. You have a 24 hour window to ask questions. I wish I had more time, but SIGGRAPH goes near, and I also have a book chapter due for work. If you have an interesting question, and I receive it by 3 PM Tuesday July 21 (is that right?), I'll see what I can do. Sorry USENET readers. Perhaps, some of this will go to NASA HQ. (Oh, NASA was the subject only about 250 times). Other topics of interest to me were how many messages were SDI or near SDI related (a few), or fuel tank related, and how many were a little bit innane (like zillions and zillions of does of Pu) [Don't start these again....]. It will all be summarized shortly. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. I'll summarize." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ can you read? {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 87 23:30:18 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from June 22 AW&ST, and (sort of) guest editorial Space Industries Inc. suspects that its Industrial Space Facility will get a lot of military business, a particular strong point being the ability to attach payloads to the outside. Commerce Dept's attempt to buy launch services commercially for the next generation of GOES Clarke-orbit metsats is in trouble. Senator Hollings is trying to transfer management of the buy to NASA on the grounds that DoC has no authority to do this. Hollings aide says lack of technical expertise in DoC and the Landsat-privatization mess are also factors. NASA and OMB jointly inform Hollings that NASA does not want the job. NRC team reviewing NASA space station says that NASA internal estimates of space-station price tag were more like $20G than $14G. Picture of full-scale Mir mockup at Paris airshow. Soviet Union is now offering commercial space processing and experiment capacity on Mir, at a basic price of $15k/kg. Certain restrictions, negotiable. Existing Soviet hardware aboard Mir is available for third-party use, at a price. Picture of full-scale mockup of Soviet Phobos probe, also at Paris. General Dynamics announces plans to use internal funds to begin construction of 18 Atlas-Centaurs for commercial launch services; GD has a few deposits but no firm contracts. Price, under $60M, will include guaranteed reflight in event of launch failure. Mir cosmonauts perform two EVAs to install third solar array on Mir. The hardware came up aboard Kvant. House subcommittee cuts space-station facilities funding slightly, adds money for user development. Congressional fight to keep Mars Observer on track for 1990 launch will probably be abandoned: NASA has struck a deal, which will probably be accepted by Congress as a whole, to confirm the two-year slip in MO in return for stronger NASA commitment to continuing the Observer series. House subcommittee adds $15M to MO budget for spares that could be used for a Lunar Observer mission later. [Micro-editorial: This is a travesty. There should be no bargaining; NASA should be required to launch MO in 1990 *and* pursue further Observer missions. -- HS] NASA decides to build the replacement orbiter at Rockwell Palmdale, rejecting USAF idea of building it at Vandenberg, on grounds of cost and time. [Another micro-editorial: The right decision. The Vandenberg idea was dumb from the beginning; NASA has enough funding problems without being required to provide welfare for under-used USAF facilities. -- HS] Launch of eighth and final FltSatCom (military comsat) delayed due to worries about payload shroud and possible oxygen leak in Atlas. USAF Astronautics lab test-fires Titan SRB, finally. Martin Marietta looking over European bids for a dual-satellite adapter for commercial Titan. Contraves (Switzerland) is already supplying Ariane payload fairings for Titan, and both Aerospatiale (Ariane 1-3 dual adapters) and British Aerospace (Ariane 4 dual adapter) are bidding for the adapter. Hercules (Utah), Dornier (West Germany), and an MM internal design are also on the list. MM says that despite some initial doubts, buying the Contraves fairing rather than developing a new one was a fine idea. MM is also talking to MBB/Erno (West Germany) about its Ariane 4 strap-on boosters, with an eye on the next-generation Titan. Arianespace says that so long as its competitors are paying the same prices it is, it has no objections. Italy takes 14% share in France's Helios military spysat program, and will get more involved in Helios successors. The 14% will be in the ground side of Helios because the deal was struck too late for much involvement in the spacecraft; Italy hopes to change this for later spacecraft. Drawings of the various proposed Soviet unmanned-Mars-mission spacecraft. Soviets say their space exploration will focus on Mars and small bodies. Apart from the various Mars projects, they also plan a double mission in 1994 to the asteroid belt. NASA says a US Mars launch in 1996 would require immediate approval, while 1998 would be more realistic. The Soviets plan to have samples back by around that time. US scientists trying to plan a Mars rover are annoyed by the Mars Observer schedule slip, which will make MO data return too late to influence rover design. Baseline rover design is about a ton and a half. Picture of proposed three-segment design, each segment with two wheels. The front segment has the science (including arms and drill), the second has electronics (including a stereo camera system on a mast), and the third is the isotope generator. French/US research team, studying Viking Orbiter photos, finds crater and debris left by Viking Lander 1's jettisoned heatshield, about 3/4 km from the lander itself. NASA and contractors prepare shopping list of new instrumentation desired on shuttle during tanking test, readiness firing, and future flights. Total is 592 new measurements. Yet to be sorted out is how much of this will actually be done. "Forum" article, essentially a guest editorial, from Raymond J. Erikson (formerly designer of Harris's solar-dynamic collector for the space station, until funds were cut), says Mars is premature. "The mission profiles currently proposed for Mars missions threaten to leave NASA even more overextended than that organization was following the 'crash- and-dash' missions to the Moon." Favors more attention to the Moon now, Mars later, preferably after nuclear propulsion is available. "Six short visits by a total of 12 men to isolated locales of Africa would hardly have been considered an exhaustive exploration of the continent. The Moon has as much surface area as Africa, is at least as interesting, and has tremendous potential as a source of materials for [space activity]..." Details of the Starfind single-satellite navsat concept (patent pending). Thusly. A stripe beam from a large inflatable antenna turns over the Earth's surface, with the timing of reception from emitters determining their angle from the beam's center of rotation. The center itself moves in a large circle more slowly, so it can triangulate the position of an emitter based on successive "hits". At 1.6 GHz with a 160-ft antenna, the stripe would be 120 miles wide. A number of precisely-positioned base emitters will be used to continuously measure the precise position of the satellite and the effective beam center, and the parabolic antenna dish will actually have 36 stripes rather than just one, supposedly giving frequent updates and precision of circa 12 feet. Starfind is trying to sell the US Army on the system. The Army has doubts about the claimed accuracy, but thinks the idea worthy of further investigation. Starfind wants FCC permission to launch a prototype on the first Conestoga booster, and says it has a contract with Space Services for five launches. Space Services Inc. is negotiating with NASA for a Conestoga launch pad at Wallops Island, and hopes to begin construction soon. Letter criticising Weinberger's claim that Mir is "almost totally dedicated to military purposes", noting Soviet openness about Mir equipment and operations, addition of clearly scientific modules, and next year's major visit of a French astronaut. Letter grumbling about a previous pro-space letter lumping accountants in with lawyers and politicians as the cause of the space program's woes. "...accountants are real people with real feelings, and should not be associated with the actions of lawyers." [Still no "Doing It Right, part 2" editorial; it takes time to write those things, and time is scarce nowadays. However, today we have some comments of note from a Space World interview with Georg von Tiesenhausen, recently retired, one of the last of Wernher von Braun's rocket team. von Tiesenhausen did, among other things, the first design sketches for the lunar rover, the first "spent stage" space-station design, the mechanical design of the Saturn launch complexes, the (patented) design for the Saturn V hold-down system, and a long-term planning effort on the uses of long tethers in space. The excerpts here seem particularly appropriate to the anniversary of Apollo 11, given the major role that von Braun's team played in that success and the conspicuous shortage of similar successes since. -- HS] SW: Why do you think most of the team was broken up when it was? [in the mid-1970s] What was the effect of forced retirement on individual members? GvT: ...The productivity of course dropped way down... there was a complete lack of explanation. The main reason given was that we didn't have any veteran preference. We didn't believe that. We were at the peak of our productivity. Things that we did always worked. The characteristics of that team were truly unique and nobody was given time to pass on all that. The sudden departure of the German team had the effect that people afterwards, in many areas started from scratch... the ten years or so that most of these people would have had left of productive work could have been used to pass on all the tricks of the trade, all the intangibles, the experience that was never really passed on. I think today we suffer from that lack. SW: ...There were many others who lost their jobs. GvT: Yes. The main other loss that occurred at that time is our whole mechanical capabilities -- the shop capabilities -- that went out the window. As a result, we were not capable -- and still are not -- of doing the simplest mechanical design and manufacturing. SW: But weren't there other forces at work also? GvT: There was the other great influence... a general trend to turn everything over to industry... The old arsenal concept was under attack. SW: Especially from the Air Force, its contractors, and the aerospace press. But the arsenal concept allowed you to accomplish many important feats, didn't it? GvT: Which enabled us to build the first Saturn vehicle in-house, and this capability had to be discontinued... The team was in the leading position. It was the top layer of the organization. Its removal had a much more drastic effect on the change of an organization than even the loss of our mechanical and manufacturing capability. The whole atmosphere changed... what was unique at Marshall was the stripping of the total upper management layer of the Center. SW: Did any of you ever go back and discuss this... with Wernher von Braun? GvT: No. See, he was already out in 1970... if he would have been at Marshall at the time, I would have... since he was the only Center director who always had an open door. I could give his secretary a call and say I'd like to have five or ten minutes with him and I always got it. No problem. So all of that changed [when] a new leadership took its place. ...Accessibility was reduced... Communication was reduced. We became very bureaucratic and structured. [Formerly] without many words and memoranda and meetings we knew [what we needed to know], because we talked to each other... SW: ...I suspect that the events leading to the Challenger tragedy would have been less likely to have occurred under the old leadership at Marshall. What is your view? GvT: It was unthinkable that a major package of information would not have been brought to the attention of top management. You probably know the famous case where a Jupiter exploded and somebody went to von Braun admitting that he had slipped with his screwdriver. He got a bottle of champagne. So that was the management style: rewarding honesty and openness, you see... The subsequent management... was very inaccessible, very rigid. In general communication was hardly existing. ... GvT: ...to accomplish something I would say you need a leader. We had a leader. The leader has to have a goal and he has to have a team. And we had those three things. [Eighteen years ago today: 1617 EDT, "The Eagle has landed." 2256 EDT, "One small step...". For two years, men walked on another world. And then no more. There are children, nearly adults now, who have never seen "Live From The Moon" pictures, because they were born after man abandoned the Moon. Eight years after the first commitment, we got "one giant leap". Eighteen years later, the next is still nowhere to be seen. -- HS] Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 87 03:55:17 GMT From: kodak!ornitz@cs.rochester.edu (barry ornitz) Subject: Re: bandwidth In article <360e469a.44e6@apollo.uucp> nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes: >>Thinking about space and profit, I asked myself if radio broadcasts >>from space to cheap mobile receivers would be feasible. Audio signals >>would need a lot less bandwidth than TV signals, so the receivers >>could have smaller antennas. Geostar terminals are pretty small, I >>recall, and nondirectional, too. What is the bandwidth of that >>system? > > The size of an antenna is a function of the wavelength (inversely > related to the frequency) of the signal under consideration. It > has nothing to do with the bandwidth. Yes, but for a given transmitter power, the signal having the least bandwidth will provide the highest signal plus noise to noise ratio. All receivers have a minimum signal level below which an incoming signal is lost in the noise. At the microwave frequencies usually used with satellite reception, size correlates with antenna gain. A narrower bandwidth will allow a receiver to detect the weaker signal provided by a smaller antenna. I think the Europeans were experimenting with direct satellite broadcast radio at 12 GHz. As for the benefits of narrow bandwidths, I can hear several satellites using a hand-held walkie-talkie with only its eight inch "rubber duck" antenna. Dr. Barry L. Ornitz UUCP:...!rochester!kodak!ornitz ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 87 21:16:22 GMT From: ulysses!faline!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: bandwidth > The size of an antenna is a function of the wavelength (inversely > related to the frequency) of the signal under consideration. It > has nothing to do with the bandwidth. Wrong. Antenna area must grow proportionally to signal bandwidth in order to maintain a constant signal-to-noise ratio, since the received noise power is proportional to bandwidth. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 87 23:38:59 GMT From: ubc-vision!fornax!jl@beaver.cs.washington.edu (JL) Subject: Re: bandwidth If the size of an antenna is a fuction of ONLY the wavelength, then why do you think they design radio telescopes with such large areas. The larger the better, in fact. Ditto for microwave recieving dishes for satellite reception! (The wavelength of a microwave is MUCH smaller than the physical dimensions of the receiving dish.) Jay-El ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 87 20:09:00 GMT From: m2c!frog!john@bu-cs.bu.edu (John Woods, Software) Subject: Re: Profit & Space In article <1390@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: > In article <317@louie.udel.EDU>, farber@udel.EDU (Dave Farber) writes: > > Dont be too sure about a executive being sent packing when he makes such > > a big error . Historically in American business that just does not > > work that way. >And don't forget that even when idiot managers do get the ax, the ax is made >of marshmallow. ...no mention of the manager's incompetence, etc., etc... >[semi-specific anecdotal evidence omitted]... the microcephalous slime molds > ...each firing was accompanied by a gigantic severance check that could have > saved the company if it had been spent on capital improvements... > > Hey, what's this doing in sci.space? > Because these are the "captains of industry" who, it is claimed, would be involved in space if and only if it were profitable. You can't get to Mars in one fiscal quarter, though, so I guess that it will never happen... -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA Doktor of the Forbidden Sciences ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #291 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Jul 87 06:22:20 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19827; Thu, 23 Jul 87 03:19:26 PDT id AA19827; Thu, 23 Jul 87 03:19:26 PDT Date: Thu, 23 Jul 87 03:19:26 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707231019.AA19827@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #292 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 292 Today's Topics: Re:what's this doing in sci.space? RE: antennas antennas, again Government in space Re: Non-profit commie colonies? Re: You Were Born Too Soon Re: Reply to REM Re: What is going on here???? Re: What is going on here???? Re: Living in Space Apollo Command Module ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Jul 1987 16:07-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re:what's this doing in sci.space? I'm sure others will have responded at length by now, and I will say no after this editorial as this is not terribly relevant to SpaceDigest. Airline safety has not gone to hell. There was one statistically bad year, but other than that it has not gotten more dangerous since deregulation. Much of the quoted information on the 'increase' in near collisions is due to changes in the way they are reported and due to the ill concieved ARSA's. Only two airlines by 2000? I seriously doubt it. USAir has been profitable nearly every year of it's existance and has very good morale. United has bad morale because no one wants to work for the over paid senior pilots who have been trying to buy it out. The hub and spoke arrangement would not be a problem if the FAA hadn't done such a pathetic job on planning and implimenting the NASP (National Air Space Plan). Congress has finally told them to allow continued use of the ILS because they have not gotten MLS fielded as planned. You want to talk about safety? They have failed to replace the closed FSS's with automated stations which were promised, even though many of the services they are supposedly developing are available from on line data services. They failed to include such powerful methods as positioning satellite technology and Loran-C as part of their planning, and in fact have discouraged them. Instead they are trying to ram their Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) down everyone's throat. But the towers are already overloaded and will just filter transponders from the VFR traffic off of their displays anyway (they do already). Besides which, General Aviation aircraft won't be able to AFFORD the damn thing anyway, so the altimeter info will not be there. Thus most of the planes in the sky will not be included in the FAA system in a useful way. Geostar is probably the only good bet for a useful CAS because it doesn't rely on a handful of overworked controllers. It is instead an electronic extension to the prime dictum for the Pilot in Command: SEE AND AVOID. The FAA has created ARSA's and caused no end of danger by funneling heavy volumes of VFR traffic into limited channels. They are now considering doing even worse things to airspace. Many of the hub problems could be solved by selling landing slots in a free market, and General Aviation users could be kept happy by reserving a few slots per hour for them. High rents would make it profitable to build more airports. We are instead losing small airports all over the country at a frightening rate and subsidizing the big ones outrageously. I will not say too much about safety except that the regulations are stringent and there is a shortage of qualifed inspectors, but most airlines go by even MORE stringent rules where safety really matters because ACCIDENTS ARE VERY BAD FOR BUSINESS. FAA fines are nothing compared to the losses in traffic that occur when an airline has a major accident. The engine loss over O'hare some years back was estimated have cost revenue losses in excess of $100M to the carrier. Do that a few times and you are history. The fact that there is vicious competition among airlines is a good thing to see. When the dust settles I expect to see a lean competitive air travel system, not the bloated companies full of overpaid jerks that are running sobbing to congress and who are stirring up phoney media hype. They won't be around tomorrow. Tough. And if the airlines aren't lean by then, I suspect Maglev will sound their death knell. It probably will anyway. Anyone who claims aviation is not still regulated into the ground in this country has never laid hands on a throttle. Sad thing is, it's even worse in Europe. I recommend reading "The New Technology Edge" by Dr. Gerard O'Neill. For general information on THE (sad) state of american aviation, read "AOPA Pilot" magazine. I've said my piece on the subject. Let's get back to space. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 87 20:26:00 GMT From: m2c!ulowell!apollo!nelson_p@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: RE: antennas >> The size of an antenna is a function of the wavelength (inversely >> related to the frequency) of the signal under consideration. It >> has nothing to do with the bandwidth. > >Wrong. Antenna area must grow proportionally to signal bandwidth in >order to maintain a constant signal-to-noise ratio, since the received >noise power is proportional to bandwidth. Wrong again; antenna *gain* must grow if you want to improve the ratio of signal to the noise generated in your receiving system. Most antenna designs are tuned to a specific wavelength (or function of a wavelength, i.e., 1/4 wave, 1/2 wave, etc). This determines the frequency where the antenna will exhibit maximum gain. Increasing the size past this point would only *degrade* performance although, depending on the design if you increased it by some integer multiple of the wavelength you might hit another gain 'peak'. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 87 20:44:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: antennas, again > If the size of an antenna is a fuction of ONLY the wavelength, >then why do you think they design radio telescopes with such large >areas. The larger the better, in fact. > Ditto for microwave recieving dishes for satellite reception! >(The wavelength of a microwave is MUCH smaller than the physical >dimensions of the receiving dish.) I didn't say 'only'. I said bandwidth wasn't what determined size. Obviously GAIN is an important aspect of an antenna. One thing a dish antenna buys you is very high gain in a very specific direction, with lots of rejection of signals that don't come from that direction. Even so, It's dimensions are very much a function of the wavelength of the desired signal. Nobody said it has to be the *size* of the wavelength any more than the a telescope mirror has to be the *size* of a wavelength of light. But the curvature of the reflector element, the distance to the driven element and the driven element itself are all optimized for a specific wavelength. *MY POINT* is that in designing the dimensions of an antenna, one does not generally sit down and ask himself what is the bandwidth of the signal he desires to receive. Instead, he asks himself what center frequency he wants to optimize for and decides what tradeoffs of gain, directivity, SWR, size, etc. he wants to make. If bandwidth is a factor because he needs a better S/N ratio for, say, data than voice, or TV than audio then this expresses itself as GAIN. It is certainly true that some antenna designs have wider bandwidth than others but... 1). this is a function of many aspects of the antenna design, not just how big it is... and 2) It would not normally be a factor except in applications where *extremely* wide bandwidth is required. such as home TV antennas. And you'll notice that these antennas, for all their supposed bandwidth, are not exactly huge. My 2M Cushcraft, which is optimized for 144-145 MHz (I only use it for SSB) is probably a lot bigger than any TV antenna you've ever seen, even though a TV antenna has to cover 10's of MHz. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 87 13:23:45 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Government in space To: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu > Finally, bottom line: since Challenger, NASA hasn't been able to offer > much service at *any* price. If a commercial launch service existed > now they could be cleaning up. Probably true. But is it really surprising that a multi-billion dollar industry hasn't come into existance in the past 1.5 years? Government launches are subsidized. For every dollar the user pays to lanuch something, the taxpayer pays between two and ten. It is difficult for any company to compete with this. If one existed, they would probably be doing pretty well now. But what guarantee is there that government subsidized launches won't resume in a year or two? This is the same reason you don't see many privately owned city bus systems. > [Free market advocates] want the government to just abdicate its role in > various matters without their having to provide an alternative until > *after* the fact. How can anyone, when large corporations are severely taxed, regulated, and, if they are large enough, broken up? And when government provides the same service at a financial loss? We WILL see, and ARE seeing, private non-subsidized companies begin to market launch systems. But not in this country, it seems. In Japan, France, and (ironically) the USSR (in this context, the USSR acts like a corporation, albeit one whose employees are not allowed to resign - it is not selling launch services at a loss). Would you have said lets not abolish slavery until some plantation shows how to make a profit without the use of slaves? How could they have, with slaves working for their competition? And the prime question wasn't whether the Southern economy could run without slaves, but whether slavery was moral. It wasn't. And the situation today is exactly parallel. Those stately antebellum mansions were quite beautiful. So are the pictures from Apollo and Voyager. But that doesn't justify either slavery or taxation. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 87 10:43:25 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@AMES.ARPA (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Non-profit commie colonies? > propaganda value and military value, but they aren't colonies by any > stretch of the imagination, nor could they ever be. If space colonies ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > are ever established, it will be done by free men. > ...Keith A pretty extreme statement. Never is an awfully long time. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter (I said, NO PHOTOS!) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 87 11:01:11 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arpa (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: You Were Born Too Soon > Proper, perhaps, but very unrealistic. Ask yourself: how much will it > cost to put a person in orbit in 2005? Add in the cost of lifting > food, air and water, plus amortization of on-orbit infrastructure. > Are *you* willing to spend several hundred thousand dollars (an overly > optimistic estimate) to spend several weeks in a space station? Only overly optimistic if you accept the governments R&D agenda. Once upon a time you could go from conceptual design to finished product in a matter of 5 years... even on such a complex machine as the SR-71. Bureacratisation has hit the government/aerospace industry badly since then... but that doesn't mean you're completely justified in ruling out results like these from private industry. Peter da Silva ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 87 00:29:01 GMT From: pyramid!bigbang!telesoft!roger@decwrl.dec.com (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: Reply to REM > [..] > Please stop these meta-meta-meta discussions in this group. If > you want a political debate there are plenty of other groups, so > get out of this one. > [..] > Steve@ukc "Professor zoomhead" While I can appreciate the frustration felt by those who find a favorite newsgroup being "polluted" by inappropriate discussions, I think this particular flame is out of order. Certainly discretion is called for, but I don't think you can divorce discussion of politics from discussion of issues relevant to the space newsgroup. A central fact of the space program is that, like it or not, it is intimately bound up in politics. In the 60's, things were relatively simple (or seemed to be): support for the space program meant support for NASA, and only a few free enterprise purists had any problem with that. Lobby your senators and representatives to appropriate more money to NASA, and you could feel confident that you were doing the Right Thing for the Cause. Now the space program is a shambles, and it seems that we have made essentially no progress at all in the last 20 years toward the goals that most of us in the space movement thought we were working toward. In fact, if you compare the time and cost that NASA now estimates for various projects to what comparable projects required in the 60's, it is evident that we're far worse off. Whether you agree with the view or not, there is at least an arguable case that government control of the space program and the incompetence of NASA's senior management are the greatest obstacles toward human advancement in space. If that's not a political issue, then I'm Margaret Thatcher. By all means, let's try to keep the political side of discussions here limited to what is directly relevant to space. There are other, more appropriate places to discuss the abstract merits of free enterprise vs. socialism, or whatever. But I would welcome thoughtful debate on, say, the consequences to the space movement of continuing its traditional cheerleading role for NASA, vs. lobbing to get NASA out of the launch business altogether. Or discussion of other options. Any takers? - Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 87 14:58:12 GMT From: anne@cvl.umd.edu (Anne Becker) Subject: Re: What is going on here???? In article <273@nysernic>, weltyc@b.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes: > > accidents??? I just heard this morning that another Atlas (I'm > pretty sure it was an Atlas) blew up on the pad, killing 4 people (I > think). I'm not the kind of person to yell scandal but this is > really getting ridiculous, and I'm just aboutready to believe > anything, including sabotage. I'm telling myself that I just pay more > Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs > weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc According to the Washington Post, a piece of scaffolding fell onto suposedly the very last hydrogen tank for an Atlas/Centaur that NASA has, puncturing the tank beyond any hope of repair. Nothing else was reported to be damaged, and the people working in the area were safely evacuated. A spokesman was quoted as saying something to the effect that if NASA can't find another Hydrogen tank, they'll have to build another which will naturally postpone any launch...... Yay.(<-screaming sarcasm) I don't recall any explanation as to why the scaffolding fell. It just sort of struck me as par for the course. I don't have the article with me for reference, but I'm pretty sure it was from Tuesday July 14th's paper. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 87 15:06:31 GMT From: smeagol!jplgodo!ted@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Ted Sweetser x44989 301/167) Subject: Re: What is going on here???? In article <273@nysernic>, weltyc@b.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes: > > I just heard this morning that another Atlas (I'm > pretty sure it was an Atlas) blew up on the pad, killing 4 people (I > think). I'm not the kind of person to yell scandal [...] but I guess you are the kind who doesn't always check his "facts". The accident occurred when a pressurized but otherwise empty fuel tank was punctured -- they are made of very thin steel. Scratch one $4M Centaur fuel tank. Four workers received such minor injuries that their names were not even released. Ted Sweetser (jplgodo!ted) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 87 18:17:21 GMT From: unc!symon@mcnc.org (James Symon) Subject: Re: Living in Space In article <8707091631.AA21481@ames-pioneer.arpa>, eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > . . . Anyone care to do a survey of military space? > Some might be surprised by their budget. I've seen stuff before about how the military space budget is so much bigger than NASA's. If they've got so much program of their own, why do they have to mess around with the civilian program, jeopardizing the space station (how great so you think it's going to be if we have to do it on our own?) and driving many potential NASA engineers away? Jim Symon UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon Internet:symon@cs.unc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 87 17:44:22 GMT From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!hyper!harley@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Harley Grantham) Subject: Apollo Command Module I have a model of the Apollo Command module that I would like to paint in the correct color(s). Unfortuantely the painting instructions with the model are wrong. I have examined several photos of the old Apollo spacecraft in orbit, and it seems to change color depending on which mission it was. Does someone out there have the complete story on this? Thank you in advance for your assistance. -- Harley H. Grantham, ihnp4!umn-cs!hyper!harley, Network Systems Corporation ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #292 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jul 87 06:22:38 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22227; Fri, 24 Jul 87 03:17:53 PDT id AA22227; Fri, 24 Jul 87 03:17:53 PDT Date: Fri, 24 Jul 87 03:17:53 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707241017.AA22227@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #293 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 293 Today's Topics: Re: What is going on here???? Front page story on US vs USSR Space Programs: Washington Post 20 July Re: anniversary Re: anniversary Re: Arms race Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING Help for a friend of mine. My grouse with L5 Re: My grouse with L5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jul 87 19:04:14 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: What is going on here???? > i have noticed that the averages seem to be running VERY high against > NASA... I would call it a combination of creeping incompetence and statistical artifact. Without diminishing the importance of the former, the latter is significant: if you only launch a few payloads a year, a few random problems become a crippled space program, while if you launch a hundred a year, a couple of Proton failures are a bothersome nuisance at most. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Subject: Front page story on US vs USSR Space Programs: Washington Post 20 July Date: Mon, 20 Jul 87 11:27:18 EDT From: LT Sheri Smith USN Smack in the middle of the top half of the front page of today's Washington Post is a photo of the two Soviet cosmonauts currently onboard Mir. The article occupies part of the front page, and ALL of page A6. An artists conception-type drawing of Mir and one of the Soviet space shuttle are also on page 6. The article does a pretty good treatment of the huge gap between the Soviet space program and "ours" (if you want to call what we have a space program, which I hesitate to do). It quotes nifty figures like: in 1986 there were, worldwide, 103 space missions. 91 of them were Soviet, and that was a 6 year low for them. The article is much too long to go in here, but if anyone wants it and hasn't access to a copy of the W P, email me and I can post or fax you a copy. This is exactly the kind of educational thing we have been needing. Hiding it away in the Science column of section C means far less readers notice it. However, since so darn few folks read the papers, I'd like to see a lot more of this on TV, hear it on the radio, see it in kids science classes, cripes! even on the cover of the National Enquirer!! (the largest readership of any newspaper in the country, or some such appalling figure..) Anyone got any bright ideas on starting a grass-roots educate-the-Americans back to caring program?? Where can I contribute time and $$?! Sheri (frustrated: _I_ want to see Earth--from orbit!!) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 87 05:14:16 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad@seismo.css.gov Subject: Re: anniversary In article <8314@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Just to remind everyone that this Monday is July 20th. > >Any true space cadet who doesn't know why July 20th is special should >quietly go shoot himself. >-- >Support sustained spaceflight: fight Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology For those of you still around Universities, such as Henry (why must we fight him to support sustained spaceflight?) many of the incoming first year students will not have been *born* on that day 18 years ago when Armstrong set down his foot on distant dust. Soon we'll have adults whose entire life has consisted of a time when no man walked on another planet. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 87 22:57:02 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60HC) Subject: Re: anniversary Henry Spencer writes: >Just to remind everyone that this Monday is July 20th. > >Any true space cadet who doesn't know why July 20th is special should >quietly go shoot himself. > >For those who want greater precision, touchdown was at 1617 EDT and >"one small step..." was at 2256 EDT. I like to think that what happened exactly 7 years later was almost as special despite the lack of global television coverage. Those of you who don't know what happened then can go look up Unmanned Planetary Exploration: Mars. You don't have to commit suicide, but don't let it happen again. :-) Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com Anyone for the creation of a national space holiday? If other minority groups can have holidays, why not the space cadets? ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 87 19:49:00 GMT From: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Arms race [KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU.UUCP ] >I don't see any military use for a base on the moon. It's too far >from the action. Low Earth orbit has plenty of military uses, all >of which are denounced by most space advocates for reasons that >aren't clear to me. It would seem to me that bases far from the initial action might have their use for a second-strike capability. Assuming some technical advances, an aggressor nation could destroy the subs, the planes, the surface bases, and the low-orbit satellites, all at once. But far-off targets in space could not be reached simultaneously; and if missiles were launched in advance to get them, that would warn the targets closer at hand. In addition to that, bases in deep space could perhaps be hid better than anything on Earth or in low orbit. There is yet another argument in favor of self-contained bases *somewhere*: biological warfare. Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 87 15:29:59 GMT From: fluke!inc@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Gary Benson) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING I generally like the level of discussion in this newsgroup, particularly the synopses of what is going on around the world in the area of space exploration and the latest developments. Carl Sagan claims a miniscule part of my attention. Who likes him - East Coast -vs- West Coast is of very little interest to me. However, since the topic has been brought up and since no one else seems to have a problem discussing how well liked he is, I'll throw this in: I like him. He may not be the world's greatest astrophysicist, or even rank in the top ten. But he serves to popularize the same notions that many people around this newsgroup have been discussing lately. People are asking, "How can we get the US moving again in the space effort?" Why not make use of Mr. Sagan's talents? Ask him to lead a public information campaign or something? While his ideas may be simplistic to "real scientists", he does have the reputation as a communicator and I for one have enjoyed and learned a lot from his books and programs. So much of the scientific community look down their noses at people like me who can't keep up with the math that it is refreshing to have someone like Mr. Sagan explain things in terms I can understand. Sure he says "millions and millions" a lot, but come on, even you great mathematicians have a hard time fathoming how really, really BIG space is, don't you? When Sagan walks across his astral calendar and on the 30th he talks about the emergence of man, I for one get a much better feel for the time spans involved when we speak of the cosmos. Just last week, I performed a rather Saganesque demonstration for a friend of mine. We were on a beach and I found a stone that I called Earth, then another one that was about one-sixth the size. Together we calculated where to put it so it could be the moon, then we figured out how big the sun would be and that it would be about a half mile offshore. We wound up doing most of the solar system - I must confess I couldn't remember the size of most of the outer planets relative to Earth. She was delighted; had never done anything like that, and thanked me because it helped her understanding. That's the value of Carl Sagan. He is a valuable spokesman for science, and discussions about whether someone likes him or not strike me as inappropriate to this newsgroup, and even a little offensive. When *my* starship leaves, I'd much prefer that Carl Sagan be my fellow passenger than some stuck up twit who wouldn't deign to speak with me unless I could prove a passing mark in calculus. Gary Benson John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 87 16:26:52 GMT From: jvnca!rich@rutgers.edu (Seth I. Rich) Subject: Help for a friend of mine. I have a friend who has been unsuccessfully attempting to reach the L5 Society. He is interested in membership, and has asked me to post a note here and ask for E-Mail help. Can anyone help? - Seth I. Rich ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 87 19:50:45 GMT From: jade!tart14.berkeley.edu!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Adam J. Richter) Subject: My grouse with L5 In article <8707062056.AA18674@crash.CTS.COM> pnet01!jim@seismo.css.gov writes: >Mr. Richter makes a side comment that L5 is cheerleading for NASA. >First, L5 is no longer in existence -- it has merged with National >Space Institute to form the National Space Society. Quite right. I don't know what NSI has been up to in the past, so consider my comments restricted to the L5 people. >Second, the first formal award of the National Space Society was given >to the four Morton Thiokol engineers who bucked NASA and their own >management to try and stop the Challenger launch. [...] It is a surprise to hear this, but not the sort of thing I was hoping for. When I was a member, I asked quite a few people if L5 had ever taken a stand against any action, and nobody could recall. Indeed, the person who answered the phone at _L5 News_ said that L5 had never done so. I'll explain in more detail why I left L5, and what I hope for in a real pro-space organization. _L5 News_ is indicative of my reasons for leaving. They live in a fantasy land, publishing articles that show a fundamental lack of understanding of high-school physics (e.g., "Gnome, gnome on the range"), blind optimism about L5's political clout (is Texas L5 really going to build a ring that strattles the earth, rotating very quickly, touching ground in foreign countires?), pseudo-science accepted as law (e.g., "memes"), and infantile treatment of the membership (do I *have* to call myself a "pioneer?") I have a number of other examples in mind, but I'm already off on a tangent. Obviously, I could just ignore ignore the publication, but it is just a symptom of the disease that affects L5. <<< L5 does nothing. >>> Oh, sure, they talk about what great "Space pioneers" they are and how they're all just ready to lay down and die for the cause, and how they're going to get off they're butts and do something very big and sacrifice it all, make a big splash. And they do nothing. They hold meetings, send out press releases, hold conventions where they celebrate the last n years in space. Once in a blue moon they might publish a "paper." (e.g., the NASAese that was posted to the net by NJ [?] L5.) Oh yes, sometimes they give each other awards. This, of course, is a big scoop for L5 News. L5 takes the most dedicated supporters of space and misleads them into thinking that they are doing there part by attending conventions and teaching model rocketry during the summer. Thus, nothing gets done. They are a ground plane labelled "five volts." >Currently, there is an open debate within the Society on whether NASA >should be disbanded or not. Pleasantly surprised. Though, my complaint would more accurately be stated (had I thought about it a bit more) "L5 is _just_ NASA's cheerleaders." (I.e., while the monotonous NASAeze is annonying, it bothers me more that you don't do anything.) Tell me, how do you feel about Dale Amon's saying it would be "appropriate" if everyone could eventually go to the little NASA space station, implying "possible." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Now for some constructive suggestions: 1. Grab the spot-light. March on Washington and BURN SOMETHING. (e.g., an effigy of Fletcher?) 2. Make score-cards. Congressmen, NASA employees, etc. Just what they've done, not whether it's good or bad. Score-cards might not be the right term. Maybe, "histories?" Whaterver, it is useful to know where officials stand on manned/unmanned, capitalist/socialist, pro/anti SDI, etc., also how they stand on Space as a per se objective. 3. I like that suggestion someone made about a *real* space newsletter. If someone puts it on-line, and it is "just the facts" (or at least labels editorials as such), I'll litter Berkeley with it. 4. Sit-ins in sunny Florida could be a lot of fun, and a good way to start preaching to the non-converted, unlike a convention. I would like to see a *real* Space organization do things like this. >Being a long time member of both SSI and L5/NSS, I can recommend both >of these organizations to any individuals who want to influence our >future in space. >The address of the National Space Society is: >National Space Society >West Wing Suite 203 >600 Maryland Avenue, S.W. >Washington, DC 20024 >Phone: 202/484-1111 >Space Studies Institute >P.O. Box 82 >Princeton, New Jersey 08540 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 87 15:43:09 GMT From: rutgers.rutgers.edu!nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@spam.istc.sri.com (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: My grouse with L5 In article <4397@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> adamj@lime.BERKELEY.EDU (Adam J. Richter) writes: > 1. Grab the spot-light. March on Washington and BURN SOMETHING. > (e.g., an effigy of Fletcher?) You are right, we need to do something that can get us some publicity and some national exposure. "The people" need to made aware of the plight of the space program... > 2. Make score-cards. Congressmen, NASA employees, etc. > Just what they've done, not whether it's good or > bad. Score-cards might not be the right term. > Maybe, "histories?" Whaterver, it is useful > to know where officials stand on manned/unmanned, > capitalist/socialist, pro/anti SDI, etc., also > how they stand on Space as a per se objective. AN excellent idea. Really. THis is something NSS should be doing. > 3. I like that suggestion someone made about a *real* > space newsletter. If someone puts it > on-line, and it is "just the facts" (or at least > labels editorials as such), I'll litter Berkeley with it. > I'm working on it, I'll post my progress later. > 4. Sit-ins in sunny Florida could be a lot of fun, and > a good way to start preaching to the non-converted, unlike a > convention. Sure. See, the only problem about all of this, for me, is I don't know how to do it. I've never marched on Washington, I don't know how to find out what is going on in congress, what is being voted on, who voted for/against what, etc. I would tend to rely on NSS or some other space group to get this sort of information. Keep these ideas, i'll post another message with more organization... Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #293 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Jul 87 06:21:13 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23751; Sat, 25 Jul 87 03:18:24 PDT id AA23751; Sat, 25 Jul 87 03:18:24 PDT Date: Sat, 25 Jul 87 03:18:24 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707251018.AA23751@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #294 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 294 Today's Topics: Re: My grouse with L5 Re: Help for a friend of mine. Re: My grouse with L5 Re: Profit & Space Re: Light pressure for attitude control Re: SPOT Re: SPOT Re: SPOT Re: bandwidth ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jul 87 17:15:36 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: My grouse with L5 In article <4397@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> adamj@lime.BERKELEY.EDU (Adam J. Richter) writes: > L5 takes the most dedicated supporters of space and misleads >them into thinking that they are doing there part by attending >conventions and teaching model rocketry during the summer. Thus, >nothing gets done. They are a ground plane labelled "five volts." There's really not much else many ``dedicated supporters of space'' can DO. Some are actively working in aerospace, planetary science, or other fields directly related to their goals. Maybe a few are investing enough cash in the startups to make a difference. The rest of us are not in a position to do anything but cheerlead for whoever is getting SOMETHING done (I will pass on the question of whether NASA is in fact getting something done...) Cheerleading has little significant effect, since NASA has no political constituency save in a few districts in Florida and Texas. Probably the only reason L5 phone tree campaigns have any effect at all is that there is even less organized opposition to space! The real drivers of government space activities are of course the big aerospace companies. I was amused by the ad in AW&ST depicting the station with logos of various contractors replacing modules and beams - it's such an accurate description of the pork-barrel nature of the station. Spread out the contracts widely enough and it may become unkillable. Whether the end product advances our non-existent goals in space is of no relevance. > 1. Grab the spot-light. March on Washington and BURN SOMETHING. > (e.g., an effigy of Fletcher?) I like this idea, but what are we supposed to burn it for? Being a good bureaucrat? It could be worse. NASA might really be in danger of being flushed down the loo if someone like Simon, Jackson, or Schroeder gets elected (please flame my political opinions by private mail, if you must). > 2. Make score-cards. Congressmen, NASA employees, etc. I believe SpacePAC does this for candidates (voting histories and the like). The truth is that space is not important enough to override party affiliation, etc. for most people even if they are members of NSS or whatever. Look at the waffling SpacePAC had to do in the last presidential election! First they support one candidate from each party in the primaries. Then they have the dilemma of Reagan vs. Mondale. Are they going to alienate all the Democrats in L5? I don't recall how this turned out as I voted for the Libertarian candidate. Something similar happened with SDI at the San Francisco L5 Conference - Keith Henson conducted a quick poll during the open Board meeting: "How many of you support SDI?" - 85-90% raise hands. "How many of you think L5 should support SDI?" - <5% raise hands (boy, was he surprised) Since support for space cuts across political lines, L-5 has trouble taking a stand on many issues since they're likely to be linked to one party or the other. > 3. I like that suggestion someone made about a *real* > space newsletter. I think Henry's AW&ST summaries serve this purpose admirably (thanks Henry!) Space Calendar is another useful reference. People who disapprove of L5 have N other organizations to get involved in. Planetary Society. SSI. BIS. WSF. (want some more acronyms?) That is ALL they're going to be able to do unless they spend years getting an education which will let them participate in the real space world, or devote their life to politics. Both are heartbreaking, thankless jobs and we're fortunate there are such people willing to make SERIOUS committments to space. The real heroes of the space age are not astronauts but the engineers, technicians, and managers who are committing their lives to the task. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ SUSHIDO - The Way of the Tuna ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 87 14:46:55 GMT From: jplgodo!ted@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Ted Sweetser x44989 301/167) Subject: Re: Help for a friend of mine. In article <146@jvnca.csc.org>, rich@jvnca.csc.org (Seth I. Rich) writes: > I have a friend who has been unsuccessfully attempting to reach the L5 > Society. The L-5 Society and the National Space Institute recently merged to become the National Space Society. On June 1 this year the new Society moved into new headquarters: National Space Society 922 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. Washington, D. C. 20003 Their phone number (also new) is (202) 543-1900. They also run a recorded space news Hotline at (202) 543-1995. - Ted Sweetser (jplgodo!ted) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 87 03:32:52 GMT From: mtune!mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.edu (Evelyn C. Leeper) Subject: Re: My grouse with L5 In article <4397@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, adamj@tart14.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Adam J. Richter) writes: > They hold meetings, send out press releases, hold conventions > where they celebrate the last n years in space. Once in a blue moon > they might publish a "paper." (e.g., the NASAese that was posted to > the net by NJ [?] L5.) Oh yes, sometiimes they give each other > awards. This, of course, is a big scoop for L5 News. Yes, it was the NJ [North Jersey] L5 who posted the papers. But we did something with them. See below. > Now for some constructive suggestions: > > 1. Grab the spot-light. March on Washington and BURN SOMETHING. > (e.g., an effigy of Fletcher?) Sorry, I don't think "burning something" in Washington is going to get us into space--unless it's the booster of a rocket. But the North Jersey L5 does go to Washington every year to visit the New Jersey congresspersons and let them know that space is important to their constituents. The papers posted here were given to the congresspersons this year as an example of the direction that *we* wanted to see the United States--not NASA, necessarily--take to get us into space. > 2. Make score-cards. Congressmen, NASA employees, etc. > Just what they've done, not whether it's good or bad. We do that. Unfortunately, we can't mail them out, willy-nilly, to everyone in the state. So if you're not in the L5, you won't get them. > 3. I like that suggestion someone made about a *real* > space newsletter. If someone puts it on-line, and it is > "just the facts" (or at least labels editorials as such), > I'll litter Berkeley with it. You want a real space newsletter? Get AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY. It's on-line (at least Henry's summary). > 4. Sit-ins in sunny Florida could be a lot of fun, and > a good way to start preaching to the non-converted, unlike a > convention. I won't even say what I think of this idea. But the media would certainly emphasize the "fun" part over the preaching part: "Today, a bunch of space fans decided to take advantage of the lovely Florida weather and sun themselves at Cape Canaveral...." > I would like to see a *real* Space organization do things like this. So form an NSS/L5 local chapter or anything else you want and do them! If you think that sitting on the sidelines grumping about what we're trying to do is going to help, you're even more deluded than we are. The North Jersey L5 chapter is one of the more active chapters, but we have maybe ten people who do most of the work. Ten people, no matter how hard they work, can't do everything they want done, let alone your agenda too. I have no patience with people who insist that *someone else* should do all the work to get us into space, and even provide a worklist for them. If you want to go into space, and you think these things are what need to be done, then, by God, get out there and do them! Whining to the rest of us about how we're not doing what you want won't accomplish anything. Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 87 01:50:53 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Profit & Space > Because these are the "captains of industry" who, it is claimed, would > be involved in space if and only if it were profitable. You can't get > to Mars in one fiscal quarter, though, so I guess that it will never > happen... > > John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 > ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA Making a profit in three months is not the criterion used at my company, at least. It is maximum rate of return on capital employed. Thus, if the customer for a product (passenger trips to Mars?) supplies advance payments equal to current costs, the company would not be using any of its own capital. Thus, as long as there is a profit at the end, time is not a factor. On the other hand, if the product takes years to bring to market, and even more years to earn enough profit to repay the initial investment (commercial aircraft, for example), the downstream return has to be very large to make the rate of return high enough. On commercial aircraft, the large quantity of airplanes we sell at a profit justifies the billions we invest to develop a new one. If the board of directors thinks it can earn a high enough rate of return, it will invest in space. Otherwise they will be serving their shareholders better by putting the money in a bank certificate of deposit. Dani Eder/Advanced Launch System Program/Boeing (note change of organization)/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 87 17:13:03 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Light pressure for attitude control > No, he's right, Mars. There were light-pressure vanes on the ends of the > solar panels on Mariner 4 (and presumably on its stillborn twin, Mariner 3). > As I recall they haven't been seen since, which would suggest that they > didn't really work very well. Several people commented that Mariner 10 (Venus/Mercury) had used light pressure for attitude control. I didn't remember that. So I did what any good space cadet does in such a situation: I went to my books and looked it up. (Any good space cadet has the books needed to look up something like this. :-)) Turns out we're both right. The light-pressure vanes on the Mariner 4 solar panels indeed have not been seen since, not even on Mariner 10. However, Mariner 10 did use light pressure for attitude control, just not by original intent. Three factors combined: (1) M10 was operating close to the Sun where light pressure is high, (2) M10 had tiltable solar panels for temperature control, and (3) M10 had major problems with its gyros that depleted its attitude-control gas supply badly. The people running it kept it going by making increasingly sophisticated use of light pressure and other improvisations. This wasn't enough to avoid using control gas entirely, but it stretched the supply enough to complete a fairly full mission despite really serious problems. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 87 13:09:23 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!novavax!augusta!bs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Burch Seymour) Subject: Re: SPOT >>advanced as it seems? Is the USA incapable of producing such a >>satellite, or do ours only work for our military megamachine? Does >>NASA give a flying hoot about how incompetent this makes them look? I believe there is a law which restricts the resolution ability of non-government recon satellites, or at least satellites to which the public has ready access. Weather, landsat, that sort of thing. I don't know the details, maybe it's not a law, just a ruling but something of that order does exist. SPOT is (as best I recall) French so that restriction does not apply. As to it's resolution. SPOT's OK, but far from wonderful. The DoD birds are *supposed* to resolve 3 or 4 inches from several hundred miles. For some real interesting reading, find a copy of _Deep_Black_ by Burrows. He presents lots of history on the photo recon business starting from the days when Napoleon's troops went up on big kites, up through the latest KH series. I'm led to believe that his information is spotty in accuracy, some correct, some not, but that's to be expected when dealing with things that are still highly classified. As to photos, there is a positively amazing KH-11 shot of a Russian Shipyard which he claims was taken from about 500 miles. Makes the SPOT stuff look like a pinhole camera. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 87 17:36:03 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: SPOT Newsgroups: sci.space >I believe there is a law which restricts the resolution ability of >non-government recon satellites, or at least satellites to which the >public has ready access. There aren't any laws on the books in the legal sense, but there are a couple of physical and mathematical laws, like increases of resolution increase data by O(n^2) [I. Newton]. This goes with spectral as well as spatial resolution. Consider for a moment that your have 10 cm resolution, hold at a single wavelength. When how big an image do you have, well, it's it 1024 pixels on a side not very big. You also want relief (to judge how big things are). You need to subtract out potential motion blur, and you have to mosaic images if you want something larger than 300 feet on a side (lots of things are larger than 300 feet which are of interest). This is not cheap. The point is that remote sensing involves lots of tradeoffs in sensing geometry. I've also not mentioned anything on sensor technology. A good basic reference are the two volumes of the Manual of Remote Sensing (About $60 the last time I bothered to look, probably more now). --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 87 00:43:50 GMT From: tikal!hplsla!deanp@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dean Payne) Subject: Re: SPOT >>I can just see it -- the first operational test of SDI will not be >>against the Soviets but against UPI... > >Don't laugh. A working scientific satellite lost its routine funding a >few years ago--it ended up being target fodder for an ASAT test. It >was collecting data up to the last moment of its existence. According >to Caspar Weinberger, it was "burned-out". Uh huh. I believe that it was an Air Force satellite that had outlived its military usefulness, but was still providing scientific information. It had discovered several sun-grazing and sun-colliding comets. Unfortunately, an ASAT target balloon failed at or near launch, so DOD picked out a convenient "dead satellite" that they owned. A week later, the news media finally reported that some scientists were complaining about the sudden loss of data from this "dead" satellite. Dean Payne HP Lake Stevens Instrument Division ihnp4!{hplabs|harpo}!hp-pcd!hplsla!deanp ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 87 14:57:04 GMT From: smeagol!jplgodo!ted@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Ted Sweetser x44989 301/167) Subject: Re: bandwidth In article <360e469a.44e6@apollo.uucp>, nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes: > The size of an antenna is a function of the wavelength (inversely > related to the frequency) of the signal under consideration. It > has nothing to do with the bandwidth. Au contraire, as signals get weaker one must either reduce the data rate or increase the antenna size (assuming you've already optimized your amplifiers) because of signal-to-noise problems. This is a problem currently being faced in the Voyager space mission, where I believe both alternatives are being taken. Ted Sweetser (jplgodo!ted) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #294 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Jul 87 06:21:49 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25189; Sun, 26 Jul 87 03:19:04 PDT id AA25189; Sun, 26 Jul 87 03:19:04 PDT Date: Sun, 26 Jul 87 03:19:04 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707261019.AA25189@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #295 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 295 Today's Topics: Keep Space safe for Space? Re: We? Re: Metric vs. English units Re: Metric vs. English units Re: Metric vs. English units Re: metric News of Soviet Space Activities Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ... Why live in interstellar space (moving somewhere or not)? Re: Betelguese and Supernova Re: SPACE Digest V7 #289 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 Jul 87 17:38:28 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Keep Space safe for Space? To: eagle!sph@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: eagle!sph@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (S.P.Holmes) Why don't you lighten up a little. Everyone agrees that 90% of what is posted is junk, but no two people ever agree on WHICH 90%. Everything that I post, and everything I have seen that REM has posted, has had something to do with space. These messages have just as much right to exist as any other. Discussing how to get into space without discussing how to pay for it is an exercise in futility. After all, we can do ANYTHING in space RIGHT NOW if price were no object. But price IS an object, and always will be. There ARE people who post political arguments to the list which have nothing to do with space. Mike Trout did so in yesterday's issue. I replied to his message and did not CC my reply to the list. (I took the liberty of forwarding your message to him.) It would take you far less effort to skip the offending messsages than to write the message you did. Or why not READ the messages.? You might learn something. > AAAAAGGGGHHHHHH !!!!! That looks like fun. Mind if I try? AAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH! > It angers me to see any subject where people are trying to > achieve something new and real fill up with the old political > hacks. ... What is YOUR politicial opinion? Why do you hold it? Don't think that you don't have on. If you think you don't, it is simply subconscious, and your voting behavior is controlled by your glands instead of your mind. > However I don't want your dogmas, ... It's only a dogma if it is not based on reason. Which is exactly what we are arguing about on the net in the first place. > ... go somewhere else where I can unsubscribe. You will have to unsubscribe from life. These debates will continue. And not just on the net. > Making Sci.* safe for scientists. I am a scientist. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 87 07:43:37 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!killer!elg@ames.arpa (Eric Green) Subject: Re: We? in article <227143.870713.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") says: >> From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) >> Clearly, then, we should scrap all public and private space >> activities and put the labor and capital into 'food or consumer goods >> or industrial infrastructure' instead. One of the biggest problems that the U.S. has is a huge OVERSUPPLY of 'food or consumer goods or industrial infrastructure'. For example, the steel industry running at only 60% capacity. Or apartment complexes nationally averaging only 70% occupancy (there's spot shortages in a few big cities that have rent-controls, but nationwide, there's a huge housing surplus). Or the tons of cheese sitting in U.S.D.A. warehouses, occasionally distributed to welfare recipients. Any problems you have with attaining such goods are in distribution (i.e. you're too poor to buy it!), not in a shortage of resources... The space program seems a worthy cause to sink a couple percent of the GNP into. Maybe we can get engineers working on designing spacecraft instead of the next generation of GoBots :-). Eric Green {ihnp4,cbosgd}!killer!elg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 87 14:02:40 PDT From: Christopher Schmidt Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units The City of Palo Alto, in its official description of parking lot standards, specifies the grade of wheelchair access ramps in terms of centimeters of rise per foot of run. A compromise, I imagine... --Christopher ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 87 21:17:01 GMT From: fluke!inc@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Gary Benson) Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units > Does anybody else find it a bit sad that in this supposed age of > metricization, NASA still quotes payload capacity in pounds? >> First, the metric system is the only "official" measurement system >> in the U.S., whatever that means. I think this may go back to the >> very beginning of the country; someone like Jefferson pushed for it; >> it went along with the clever new idea of 100 cents in a dollar. >> (Does anyone know how old the metric system is?) Yes! Nearly 200 years. The SI was commissioned by the French government shortly after the revolution, which as I recall ended in 1789. The original meter was some decaded division (1/millionth I think) of the distance measured by a standard length of chain walked off between Paris and Barcelona, which are both on 2 degrees East longitude. An interesting sidenote: after it was invented, the French passed a series of laws against using traditional units of measure. They actually jailed a number of shopkeepers and such, but the system was firmly in place in France within 4 years of its adoption. A second interesting sidenote: when Britain went metric the US was left as the only advanced nation on earth that does not use SI. We're not alone, though. There are three other countries still holding out with us. Bahrain is one, but I forget the other two. Excluding the US, the total population not using metric is something around 1 million. Now what's *that* doing in sci.space? Gary Benson John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 87 22:44:49 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60HC) Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units Dan Rose writes: > >(Does anyone know how old the metric system is?) I believe the metric system was created in 1797. >However, some progress was made. During this time, soft drink >companies were coerced to change to metric packaging. Out of this was >born the liter and 2-liter bottle of soda, which corresponded to the >change from glass to plastic. There is now a whole generation of >Americans who know what a metric unit is, instead of what the stupid >formula is to convert it to English. That wasn't so hard, was it? Now >if they started selling canned goods by kilos, we'd have the whole >thing licked in a few more years. Ask those people who learned what a liter is from pop bottles, how big is a milliliter. How many know that it's the same as a cc? The same problem also occurs with people who know what a milligram is from vitamins but don't know what a gram is. The point is that Americans are learning the metric system piecemeal instead of as a complete system. The best way to really convert to the metric system is to go cold turkey, i.e. get rid of all references to the English equivalents so that people have to think in metric. >By the way, the "English" system isn't used by the English anymore. >They also got rid of shillings and pence in the last 25 years. I understand that when the English converted to a decimal coinage they found that some people still liked to think in guineas. Guineas are a gold coin last minted in the early 1800's whose value was set at 21 shillings (1 pound + 1 shilling). Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 87 08:47 EST From: RON PICARD Subject: Re: metric In article <1397@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: >In article <722@trwcsed.trwrb.UUCP>, kraml@trwrb.UUCP (Robert P. Kraml) writes: >> Also, whatever happened to the big push for metric that we were >> hearing back in the 70's?. >As I recall, there is a law on the books, passed by Congress sometime >in the mid-70s, committing the US to adopting the Metric System. The >law, however, contains no timetable nor enforcement provisions. This last weekend I was reminded at the pace we are converting to metric. I was on I-75 in Ohio when I saw a sign that said: All signs metric next 20 miles Ron Picard (PICARD@GMR.COM) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 87 11:42:56 MEZ From: ES54%DFVLRGO1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: News of Soviet Space Activities Date: 21 July 1987, 11:41:20 MEZ From: jens-thomas meyer 0551/709-2325 ES54 at DFVLRGO1 To: SPACE at S1-B >From a german newspaper ( refering to TASK) : Progress 30 have entered the lower atmosphere and burned up. The Soviets will launch a manned mission with three cosmonauts on this wednesday. An astronaut from Syria will participate in the mission. It was supposed that they will go to MIR. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 87 16:28:54 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ... > ... should the number of observed superluminals continue to increase, > "(i)t will be more and more difficult to believe that so many of the > most energetic and violent objects in the universe point themselves > right at us." Maybe it's deliberate. :-) :-) -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 87 00:45:32 From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Why live in interstellar space (moving somewhere or not)? Date: 10 Jul 87 13:53:05 GMT From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: getting places ... Next question: Why go anywhere? At 1/1000G, most people involved will not see anything they can't here, and generations will see nothing. To put in the effort to physically stabilize the fragile shell, & to provide the effort of propulsion, you better come up with a reason to leave, not a reason to get somewhere, since the folks concerned will _NOT_ get somewhere. I think I can rebut this on two points: (1) Outside the solar system the travelers will see the Galaxy and the beyond (other galaxies, and perhaps things invisible from Earth or LEO) like never before, unblocked by gas and dust and scattering of sunlight off same, with no artificial objects randomly getting in the field of view and damaging sensitive equipment. (2) Or instead of traveling they can keep station near a bunch of automated deep-space-based obvservatories, tending them. If something breaks down, repair with local staff (physical visit or just telepresence) would be much faster than telepresence from Earth, putting the equipment back in service before it becomes obsolete. Perhaps Earth/Sol society will send supplies and niceties in return for this important work. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 87 12:20:37 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Overpopulation? To: LOCAL.arpa!jwm@aplvax.arpa Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov 3) Habitats may trade valuable information with eachother. Even today, much that is paid for is information rather than goods or services. Going to another solar system, or even to the far outer portions of this one, will allow them to collect very valuable information that is useful for trading. And there should be no major problem in communicating over interstellar distances. Existing radio telescopes can communicate with a similar device thousands of light years away. There's a problem maintaining trading over distances where radio takes a good fraction of a lifetime. Even if trade is desirable, defaulting on the agreement is profitable due to lack of repeated interactions. It is a form of "prisoner's dilemma" game where you win in the short run by defaulting, and lose only if the game has enough cycles for the other party to retaliate enough. See Axelrod's book ("The Evolution of Cooperation" I think is the title) for computer tournament of Prisoner's dilemma simulations and relationship to evolution etc., directly applicable to this distant-radio commerce. The only solution I see, other than genetically programmed people who are slaves to contracts, is to have lots of trade-relay stations spaced (pun, sorry) close enough that each neighboring pair can have frequent interchanges to encourage cooperation and punish defaulting, and so each trade-relay station can have several trading partners so as to have the choice of trading with those who keep their agreements best and offer the best price. The information will still filter across the Galaxy at just under the speed of light, but there will be more of it because everyone is in reliable trading contract with neighbors and thus more willing to give away information (on promise of payback later) than with direct trading aross hops that are many-lightmonths or lightyears long. (It might be fun to try an info-barter system over the net to see how it works, except these mailing lists and digests tend to discourage bartering because any time somebody posts some information a whole lot of freeloaders get it for free, i.e. without any incentive to post some good information of their own. I don't know of any mechanism on this net to make it easy to keep track of info-trading partners to support an info-barter system.) Date: 13 Jul 87 15:01:31 GMT From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Overpopulation? 3) "information trade" This one isn't bad, but will take some real long-range planners, of which we have a shortage. Or it must be directly beneficial to individual trading colonies over a short term. What do you think of my comparing it to Prisoner's dilemma? What do you think of my proposed short-hop frequent-interaction solution? I think that 5), which you missed, would be a better reason. It is, after all, the primary reason that the current colonies were made: To get away from something (generally political) you don't like. Not crowding, just don't get along with your neighbors. Stuff like wrong religion, prejudice, hate, and poor environmental conditions (nuclear missles). I agree, and let me elaborate a little... In deep space, nobody can knock you out with a nuclear missile. The worst they can do is refuse to send you supplies in return for work (you work for several employeers at the same time and keep a good supply of emergency rations to last you a disruption of supplies), or refuse to send you information (you stop trading with them, and trade with others instead), or send you faulty information to ruin your info-trading reputation (you always indicate the route you got the info, which you guarantee to be from the trader just before you, and you rely on that trader's word or on public-key cryptosystems for all the traders earlier in the path, so any faulty information is clearly identified with the creator and public-key signer rather than the trader; and if possible you intelligently reject or comment-on information that really looks fishy). Lack of supplies is a big risk, but if that's less risk than nuclear missiles you take it. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 87 17:37:27 GMT From: terra!brent@sun.com (Brent Callaghan) Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova How do you pronounce Betelguese ? Beetle juice ? Beetle geese ? Bet ell goose ? Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan @ Sun Microsystems uucp: sun!bcallaghan phone: (415) 691 6188 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 1987 17:04-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #289 Steve Abrams: It is difficult to see how we can decide "so many of the most violent objects are pointing themselves at us" when by the nature of the superluminal, we may not be able to see the ones that don't point directly at us. If the number pointing at us climbs, then it just means the universe has that many more violent phenomena that we CAN't see (yet). ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #295 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Jul 87 10:45:42 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01581; Mon, 27 Jul 87 03:23:53 PDT id AA01581; Mon, 27 Jul 87 03:23:53 PDT Date: Mon, 27 Jul 87 03:23:53 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707271023.AA01581@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #296 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 296 Today's Topics: Re: Betelguese and Supernova Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ... Re: Betelguese and Supernova Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING Re: Metric vs. English units Re: My grouse with L5 L5 Rebuttal Re: My grouse with L5 Re: My grouse with L5 Sagan == Death of the Future Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jul 87 23:04:31 GMT From: bloom-beacon!tjpak@husc6.harvard.edu (Tae J Pak) Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova Brent Callaghan writes: >How do you pronounce Betelguese ? It is pronounced "BET-tel-jews" . ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 87 22:19:41 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60HC) Subject: Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ... Josh Diamond writes: >There is some work being done at University of Rochester's Physics >Department (by Emil Wolf - one of my ex-professors) that indicates the >existance of a NON-ASTRONOMICAL red shift, which could explain the >"appears to be moving faster that light" problems. I think you mean NON-DOPPLER red shift. >I'm not sure whether this has been published yet, There was a write-up about this is a recent Science News article. The magazine is at home so I don't know the date (early/middle July). Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 87 03:32:50 GMT From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ames.arpa (Michael McNeil) Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova In article <457@unisoft.UUCP> jef@unisoft.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) writes: >Face it, Weener. We don't *know* jack shit about stars. What we've >got is a lot of guesswork. It's probably very good guesswork, but all >the "Trust me, I'm a Doctor" posturing in the world won't make it >anything else. We won't *know* about stars until we go surfing on >them... Oh sure, the fact that we saw a burst of neutrinos from the supernova approximately in line with theory shows that we're sooo ignorant... Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation Santa Clara, California {hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma} !oliveb!3comvax!michaelm But ... physicists were still far removed from such a way of thinking; space was still, for them, a rigid, homogeneous something, susceptible of no change or conditions. Only the genius of Riemann, solitary and uncomprehended, had already won its way by the middle of the last century to a new conception of space, in which space was deprived of its rigidity, and in which its power to take part in physical events was recognized as possible. Albert Einstein, *Essays in Science*, 1934 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 87 20:33:04 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING In article <1302@sputnik.COM> inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) writes: >people around this newsgroup have been discussing lately. People are asking, >"How can we get the US moving again in the space effort?" > >Why not make use of Mr. Sagan's talents? ... Because the kind of `space effort' Sagan wants is just like Apollo: a laudable goal (going to Mars), but in such a fashion that NOTHING will be left over when the goal is accomplished. He is pushing US-Soviet cooperation on a Mars mission for political reasons first and scientific reasons second, and putting humanity permanently into space is nowhere on his agenda. Many of us are fighting this nonsense. (If Sagan's Mars mission was paid for out of the State Dept. budget, I wouldn't care.) -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ SUSHIDO - The Way of the Tuna ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 87 14:34:14 GMT From: phri!roy@NYU.ARPA (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units > However, some progress was made. During this time, soft drink > companies were coerced to change to metric packaging. Out of this was > born the liter and 2-liter bottle of soda I remember when metric was just starting to get introduced. The big incentive was that since all units were powers of ten, it would be easy to compare prices in the supermarket. Bullshit! Now, instead of 28 oz for $1.49 vs. 45-1/2 oz. for $2.19, we have 750ml for $1.39 vs. 1.75l for $2.29. You think that makes it any easier to calculate the better per-unit price? And while I'm on the subject, what's this facination American marketing has with 9's? I mean, green beans for $0.69 instead of $0.70? And not just in supermarkets; a Sun-3/50 now lists for $4995; why not an even $5k? -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 87 17:08:58 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: My grouse with L5 > People who disapprove of L5 have N other organizations to get > involved in. Planetary Society. SSI. BIS. WSF... SSI, BIS, and WSF are all good (I'll be publishing plugs for them from time to time in my AW&ST summaries). But please, not the Planetary Society! That really is a bunch of cheer- leaders. Worse: cheerleaders for Carl Sagan, not cheerleaders for the space program. If you really believe that since "...humans have been to the Moon six times... it is not a place crying out for further exploration", then join the so-called self-styled "Planetary Society". If you want to get mankind into space, put your dues into SSI or WSF instead. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 87 16:13:20 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Subject: L5 Rebuttal >From: adamj@tart14.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Adam J. Richter) >Subject: My grouse with L5 > It is a surprise to hear this, but not the sort of thing I was >hoping for. When I was a member, I asked quite a few people if L5 >had ever taken a stand against any action, and nobody could recall. >Indeed, the person who answered the phone at _L5 News_ said that L5 >had never done so. > They live in a fantasy land, publishing articles >that show a fundamental lack of understanding of high-school physics > <<< L5 does nothing. >>> First of all, I share a lot of the sentiment that Adam expressed in his article. It is the prime reason I could never become a part of any local chapter for any length of time, seemed to be a lot of effort tied up doing nothing. Going to conventions and preaching to the believers is not very useful. Never-the-less, in the late 1970s there was a treaty that the Carter administration was about to sign called the UN Moon Treaty. Signing this treaty would have made it as binding as US Law. Among other things this treaty declared all extraterrestrial resources to be the common heritage of all mankind and hence no citizen or government had the legal right to exploit any space resource without the approval an UN commission. (So much for free enterprise in space.) Furthermore, the treaty gave any government the right to "inspect" any device, station/facility off Earth. (Personally I don't want the KGB having the "right" to board my solar sailing yacht.) At that time, the L5 Society went to Washington, hired a lawyer, and managed to reach high up enough into the Carter Administration to stop the Moon Treaty dead in its tracks. In doing this the Society incurred a large financial debt that it eventually had to pay off. To say that L5 never did anything is dead wrong. It was L5, and only L5, that prevented this treaty from becoming the law of the land. I remember this pretty vividly, the society was only 3000 members at the time and as a staving graduate student I donated what I could to fight this Treaty. It was a black time, there was less interest in space than today, if you can believe that. We weren't flying much of anything, the shuttle wasn't near ready and no one seemed to understand why anyone would care if we gave away a few rocks in space. Fred Mendenhall ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 87 17:01:10 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: My grouse with L5 > ... When I was a member, I asked quite a few people if L5 > had ever taken a stand against any action, and nobody could recall. Have you never heard of the Moon Treaty? I find this hard to believe. L5's place in history is secure for scuttling that, if for nothing else. (If you want to be pedantic, it was scuttled by persons who Just Happened to also be affiliated with L5 -- L5 per se is/was Strictly Non-Political to conform with IRS regs -- but we all know what that really means.) Past doings of the L5 Phone Tree -- another organization which has No Official Connection with L5 but just happens to involve the same people -- might also be of interest. It did play some part in little unimportant matters like the survival of Galileo and funding for the space station. > ... _L5 News_ is indicative of my reasons for leaving... If you want better stuff in L5 News (or whatever the revised version is called, I forget...), contribute some. Remember that you won't get paid for it. Any newsletter's biggest problem is getting good material. I don't speak for L5/NSI/NSS/etc., but I'm proud to be a life member. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 87 02:14:15 GMT From: nysernic!nic.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: My grouse with L5 In article <8336@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >But please, not the Planetary Society! That really is a bunch of cheer- > ... >Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!he Although I agree entirely with those who dislike the PS and Sagan, this reminds me so much of a scene from "The Life of Brian" (I think Henry already mentioned this point, actually, but the analogy is so clear... and I didn't memorize this so it's just roughly correct, don't send me corrections!) [The scene is in a Roman Coliseum. Brian walks up to a small group of people complaining about Romans and their horrible oppression] Brian: ...I hate the Roman's too! Are you the Judean People's front? Reg: F**k off!!! Brian: [taken aback] What??? Reg: Piss off! Bloody Judean people's front...SPLITTERS! Do we look like the Judean People's front???? WE are the People's front of Judea!!! Brian: Sorry...I didn't mean... Reg: There's only one thing we hate more than Romans, and that's the bloody Judean people's front! ...ANyway, I think you get the idea. Once again, though, I do agree that Carl et al are a bunch of splitter! Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 87 05:42:15 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Sagan == Death of the Future In article <424@uop.UUCP> robert@uop.UUCP (Robert McCaul) writes: >i originally started this as a query of net readers as to the questionaire >sent out by the planetary soceity. I never saw this, only the various Re: Carl Sagan postings. >Saganisms, that is fine, but these newsgroups have better things to >discuss (i hope) True enough. Like how to stop the 'Mars Now' movement that Sagan, Bruce Murray, et al. are heading. For years I have seen people preaching about how the pro-space community has to present an organized front in order to accomplish anything. The problem is that the different groups want fundamentally different things; there is no community of interests. L-5/NSS, SSI, and many other groups want to get people into space, along with the ever-famous `infrastructure'* mentioned in the NCOS report. The details differ. NSI/NSS usually comes off very pro-NASA, while the individual members (at least the L-5 portion) want vastly increased private activities in space, correctly not trusting NASA to do the job. The extremists want NO government activities in space (or anywhere else :-). But the goals are much the same. * One definition of this word is rather hair-raising: `foundation, groundwork; esp: the permanent installations required for military purposes'. Presumably this is not the usage NCOS meant... Sagan & his Planetary Society, on the other hand, are focused on one thing only: planetary exploration. They didn't want manned spaceflight - until they got involved with the US/USSR joint Mars mission concept. They didn't want a space station - until they realized one is required to assemble a Mars mission (and if the cooperative aspect works, why, the Soviets already have this nice space station - no need to sully our hands with something potentially USEFUL!) Planetary exploration is exciting, great science, gets good PR - and it's woefully underfunded. But by making it the prime focus of American space activities, we forfeit the future to nations and indviduals with a broader vision. We abandon hope of PERSONALLY going into space someday. The philosophy Sagan is the major proponent of is an attempt to steal our future - and, by God, we will not let him do it without one HELL of a fight! The man's achievements and personal qualities are utterly irrelevant to why many people oppose him. In every meaningful way, Sagan is the first active opposition (as opposed to being ignored) that space activists have ever encountered. I want to see people go to Mars too - but I want to see a child born in Luna City first. Where's D.D. Harriman when you need him, anyway? -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ SUSHIDO - The Way of the Tuna ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 87 20:16:34 GMT From: mcvax!jack@seismo.css.gov (Jack Jansen) Subject: Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ... In article <8707150210.AA08860@angband.s1.gov> EXT768@UKCC.BITNET (Steve Abrams) writes: > ... As the Science News article says, should the number of > observed superluminals continue to increase, "(i)t will be more and more > difficult to believe that so many of the most energetic and violent objects in > the universe point themselves right at us." Could someone please explain what these superluminal quasars are about? I think I would feel rather upset if I heard that Earth is a preferred target for energetic and violent objects......... -- Jack Jansen, jack@cwi.nl (or jack@mcvax.uucp) The shell is my oyster. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #296 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Jul 87 06:19:32 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02099; Tue, 28 Jul 87 03:18:29 PDT id AA02099; Tue, 28 Jul 87 03:18:29 PDT Date: Tue, 28 Jul 87 03:18:29 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707281018.AA02099@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #297 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 297 Today's Topics: Launch of TM-3 Sick cosmonaut? Re: Sick cosmonaut? Soviet TM-3 mission launched to Mir Bolide or Orbital Debris? size of moon Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle? Challenger Center?? Re: Challenger Center?? Re: antennas space Re Mobile Receivers Airlines in Space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 87 08:49:23 MEZ From: ES54%DFVLRGO1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Launch of TM-3 SOYUS TM-3 was launched on wednesday,22.7.87,2.59(GMT), without any complications. Three cosmonauts are aboard of Soyus TM-3. Two russians and one cosmonaut from Syria. This is the first step into space of syria. The spaceship should fly over Syria three times. Soyus TM-3 should dock to MIR on Friday. The crew of Soyus TM-3 should stay in orbit for seven days. The present crew of MIR has been in orbit since 167 days. In the news it was said that there is a new docking mechanism, and a new propulsion system (?) aboard of Soyus TM-3. Jens-Thomas Meyer ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jul 87 17:46:26 PDT From: John Sotos Subject: Sick cosmonaut? Heard on the radio ("All Things Considered") that one of the Soviet cosmonauts aboard Mir since February has developed "heart trouble" and will be relieved by another cosmonaut in the next few days. Anybody know any more details about this? It was mentioned in what seemed like an incidental fashion, so it seems like it is not especially serious (the main story compared the US & USSR space programs). Speaking of ill cosmonauts, a few months ago one was brought down because of "pneumonia" under what seemed like relatively urgent conditions. There was a staunch refusal by the Soviets to discuss details. Has anyone heard anything about this? John Sotos ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 87 08:32:06 GMT From: nysernic!itsgw!leah!uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!ed@rutgers.edu (Ed Ahrenhoerster) Subject: Re: Sick cosmonaut? Yeah, just like "Gorbachev (sp?) has a cold" :-) Seriously, newscasting methods can not be compared between the two countries; so do not presume that something mentioned "incidentally" is incidental. It might be, but then again it might not. -Ed Ahrenhoerster ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jul 87 10:21:46 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet TM-3 mission launched to Mir The USSR has successfully started it's international TM-3 mission to the Mir/Kvant spacestation. On July 20th they began by undocking the Progress 30 cargo ship from Mir, and sending it into the atmosphere. On July 22 the Soyuz TM-3 was launched from the Baikonour cosmodrome containing 3 men. The crew consists of Alexander Victorenko (mission comander & new cosmonaut), Alexander Alexandrov (flight engineer, with a Soyuz T-9 149 day mission to his credit previously), and Mohamad Farise (Syrian guest cosmonaut). On July 25th the Soyuz TM-3 docked to the Mir station rear port, where they join Yuri Romanenko and Alexander Laveikin who have been up there for 170 days now (nearly 6 months). The crews are currently concentrating on earth observation and biomedical experiments. However, there has been a lot of talk about a large format East German camera they are going to use. It sounds a bit like the Omnimax film system shoot on the early shuttle flights. Also they talk about experiments that will require larges amount of power - possibly welding done in the vacuum section of Kvant. This mission will last till about the end of the month. On report from the BBC (but not from the Russian shortwave) said that there would be a partial crew switchoff. This mission again shows the change in the Soviet program toward openness. This is the third mission in a row where the launch date was announced in advance plus the launch and docking to the station were shown live on television (including Syrian TV in this case). Addmitedly live here means with a 7 second delay loop in case something fails. In this current mission they carried it further, giving the names of the backup crew (which they almost never have done), and following the movement of the cosmonauts from Star City to the launch site weeks before the flight. It almost sounds like the old Apollo days in broadcasting here. Meanwhile we have the President's science advisor Dr. Graham preventing NASA from giving Reagan a report on the Soviet Space Program. Big lie techniques work well - if we keep telling ourselves we are the leaders in space then we will convince ourselves that we are, even when outside the USA people know that we are far behind. Sorry I am late in posting this - family visits prevented my getting on the net sooner. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 87 22:16:12 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A Andrews) Subject: Bolide or Orbital Debris? I witnessed a beautiful green fireball last Saturday night (7/18/87) at 11:47 PM CDT, from Lake Ft. Gibson, Oklahoma. It was traveling south to north, approximately 10 degrees east of north and was visible about 4 to 5 seconds. The object had a white trailing wake about 1 degree long. I estimate the apparent diameter as one-third lunar diameter, or 10 seconds of arc. Two of us saw the fall. Very pretty, very much like the incoming Martian bolides in WAR OF THE WORLDS. (And a bit creepy, considering the conversation we four were having at the time, about aliens and such...) Does anyone have information on decaying polar satellites about that time? Anyone else see it? (There WAS an SF con going on in Tulsa at the time, and who knows what they might have arranged.) --Arlan Andrews ------------------------------ Date: Friday 24 Jul 87 11:43 PM CT From: David A. Lyons To: Subject: size of moon >I found a stone that I called Earth, then another one that was about >one-sixth the size. Together we calculated where to put it so it could >be the moon, then we figured out how big the sun would be and that it >would be about a half mile offshore. We wound up doing most of the >solar system. Note that the Earth is about 3.66 times bigger (radius/diameter) than the moon. Now, the *surface gravity* of the moon is 1/6 of Earth's, but be careful! The *surfaces* are different distances from the center of mass. Probably a lot of people never stop to think that 1/6 surface gravity is not the same as 1/6 mass--I am guilty of this myself. I worked out some moderately long calculations (just for fun) assuming that the moon's mass was 1/6 of the Earth's, and didn't notice my error until weeks later. (The calculation was just "Where is the point between two masses m1 and m2 a distance d apart where the gravitational forces from m1 and m2 balance?" It *does* come down to a very simple expression in the end. It's a fun problem & doesn't even require calculus.) David A Lyons AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS (BITNET) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 87 09:26:50 MEZ From: ES54%DFVLRGO1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle? Date: 22 July 1987, 09:24:58 MEZ From: jens-thomas meyer 0551/709-2325 ES54 at DFVLRGO1 To: SPACE at S1-B In Space-Digest 276 (Tue,7.7.87) I asked: IS THERE AN ESCAPE MODULE ON THE 'SECOND' GENERATION SHUTTLE? I asked this question with regard to an article in a german newspaper. in this article it was written that there will be installed an escape module in the shuttle. This will be based on rockets which will be externally attached to the pressure vessel. In Space-Digest 282 (Mon,13.7.87) I found an article written by Russ Olsen. He refered to an article from Darren Leigh and wrote about a destruction system for the manned space flights. Two more articles in Space-Digest 285 (Bob Philhower,Chalie Bounds) had the same object. I want to know if there are a RESCUE possibility for astronauts in 'second' generation shuttle. Mr. MacLeod wrote about problems with the hot plume from the SRB's which could destroy the escape module. I think this poblem will not exist if the escape module will be seperated from the remaining parts of the shuttle very fast by means of rockets ( like the rescue system of the Saturn V). Jens-Thomas Meyer ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 87 21:31:18 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Challenger Center?? This is a question about a recent solicitation received in the mail. I assume many readers of this newsgroup must have gotten the same one. It was a letter signed by June Scobee, identified as wife of (deceased) astronaut Dick Scobee. The letter is full of the need for dreams, inspiration, and financial support, but lacks description of just what that financial support will be used for. There is also a glossy brochure about a proposed "Challenger Center." Actually there are apparently plans for two centers, one in Washington, DC and one at JSC in Houston. The goals of the centers are worthy (e.g. "to excite our imagination", "to teach"), but there is no mention of how CC proposes to achieve those goals. There is no list of members of a board of directors. (Indeed no names except June Scobee.) The return address is a P.O. Box in Washington, DC. Does anyone know if this organization (Challenger Center) is legitimate? Who are the leaders? Is there a good chance they will actually do what they say they want to do? I'll be glad to summarize any e-mail replies. I'm also going to write to the National Charities Information Bureau, but I don't have much hope of a useful reply from them. (They're a good organization for reviewing established groups, but they are slow to write up reports on new ones.) Thanks for any help. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 87 13:25:40 GMT From: uunet!pyrdc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Re: Challenger Center?? In article <634@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> willner@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Willner) writes: >This is a question about a recent solicitation received in the mail. > >Does anyone know if this organization (Challenger Center) is >legitimate? Who are the leaders? Is there a good chance they will >actually do what they say they want to do? > Well Steve, so long as you asked... The Challenger Center for Space Science Education is a very real organization with offices in Washington DC. June Scobee (who has a PhD in Education) is chairman of the board (made up of members of the families of the Challenger Seven) and James Rosebush is President and in charge of day to day operations. The Center is currently in the midst of a one year (until January 28, 1988) fund-raising drive aimed at raising $50 million from direct mail (what you and I received) industry, government, provate foundations, etc. They'll send you a breakdown of how they plan to raise the money if you'd like. Parallel to the fund-raising, a lot of work is going on in the area of curriculum in cooperation with teachers, major museums and researchers across the U.S. The Challenger Center for Space Science Education will be building (to start) a Space Life Center in Washington DC, and a Satellite Center in Houston Texas. These centers will be used to bring students and their teachers in for hands on learning experiences in simulated space flight and planning. The aim is to aid the students math, science and communications skills. Eventually, additional Space Life Centers will be built in other parts of the country. But these buildings aren't the Challenger Center. The Space Life Centers will be in computer communication with classrooms all over the country (a network...sound familiar) so that other students and teachers will be' able to work with the Space Life Station missions. In addition class plans and teaching materials will be made available for teachers unable to tie into the network (or as a suppliment to it). The whole idea behind the Center was for the families to give back some of what they received from the American people following the disaster, and to continue Christa McAuliffe's mission. How do I know all this stuff? Well, I'm the Center's volunteer (yes, I think the only one). I've been helping out for the past six months or so and part of my job is to keep people on computer networks up to date on progress. Any questions? ++rich +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+ | Rich Kolker The work goes on... A|W|A | | 8519 White Pine Drive The cause endures... H|T|H | | Manassas Park, VA 22111 The hope still lives... /|||\ | | (703)361-1290 (h) And the dream shall never die. /_|T|_\ | | (703)749-2315 (w) (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker) " W " | +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+ ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 87 18:16:29 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: antennas > Wrong again; antenna *gain* must grow if you want to improve the > ratio of signal to the noise generated in your receiving system. Yes, antenna gain is what matters. > Most antenna designs are tuned to a specific wavelength (or function > of a wavelength, i.e., 1/4 wave, 1/2 wave, etc). This determines > the frequency where the antenna will exhibit maximum gain. > Increasing the size past this point would only *degrade* performance > although, depending on the design if you increased it by some > integer multiple of the wavelength you might hit another gain 'peak'. Except that the most popular satellite antenna (the parabolic dish) is *frequency insensitive*, as long as you operate above its cutoff (i.e, on frequencies where a wavelength is "small" with respect to the dish's physical size.) In this region, antenna gain depends directly on antenna area, plus a few assorted things like illumination efficiency (typically 50%). It may also surprise you to know that antenna gain isn't everything. It is just as important to keep a relatively hot object (like the sun or even the earth) from being "seen" by the antenna, lest its blackbody radiation in the microwave region swamp out the desired satellite signal. It is often worthwhile to sacrifice a bit of antenna gain if it will reduce sidelobe responses. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 87 17:30:13 EST From: JBAPTIST%ESTEC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: space Re Mobile Receivers Date: 22 July 1987, 16:57:32 EST From: Jose Pedro V. Poiares Baptista JBAPTIST at ESTEC To: SPACE at S1-B Subject: Re Mobile Receivers INMARSAT is already using geostationary orbits for mobile telecommunications with commercial ships and airplanes. Non geostationary orbits were already used for telecommunication purposes (see Molnya Satellites (USSR)) for fixed satellite service. This type of orbits was also studied for mobile communication for T-Sat (UK). The advantage of this type of orbit (highly elliptical with a period of around 12 hours and with the apogee above the area of coverage) is that the satellite can be seen for around 8 hours with a very high elevation angle (higher than 70 degrees). This particularity allows the implementation of a system with no satellite tracking and allowing the use of flat antennas on car roofs. I am not sure that this small thing will get there so I will stop here. Pedro Baptista (JBAPTIST at ESTEC.BITNET) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 87 14:25:35 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov (Mike Trout) Subject: Airlines in Space A minor correction on a previous posting of mine: I stated that United Air Lines predicted failure of the DC-3. An e-mailed question prompted me to re-check my sources. United did hold back on buying the DC-3 for quite a while and United's Pat Patterson didn't think the plane would amount to much. But the big opponent to the DC-3 was TWA. Their test pilot flew the prototype and announced that it was "a clunk". Extensive development problems seemed to back him up for a while, but we all know what eventually happened. And now what you REALLY wanted to read: due to extensive flamage this location (my terminal is melting), this discussion about airline and airliner history is being moved to rec.aviation. I agree that it doesn't belong here. Unfortunately, I feel that it doesn't belong in rec.aviation either (note the .rec), nor in any other existing group. I've proposed a misc.frequent.flyer group to handle discussions about the airline industry. So far the whopping response has been three yes votes and three no votes. I promise that when incorrect airline information is posted in sci.space, I will not reply other than to invite the poster to join me in rec.aviation for a showdown. Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #297 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Jul 87 06:19:48 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01477; Wed, 29 Jul 87 03:18:49 PDT id AA01477; Wed, 29 Jul 87 03:18:49 PDT Date: Wed, 29 Jul 87 03:18:49 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707291018.AA01477@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #298 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 298 Today's Topics: Be an astronaut (or just look like one) Re: anniversary Re: Be an astronaut (or just look like one) Audio Tape of Challenger's Last Seconds Re: Government in space Sagan != Death of the Future Space science is not special, nor is Mars Still more infighting Re: Sagan != Death of the Future ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Jul 87 17:28:11 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Be an astronaut (or just look like one) Okay, as long ago promised, here is the information on astronaut-type jumpsuits (I'm not a shuttle pilot, but I play one on TV...). Disclaimer in advance, I don't work for any of these companies, but I do own (or plan to) at least one suit from each company. I am gathering together the group order from Barrier wear, cost to you will be cost from Barrier-Wear plus postage from me to you (jumpsuits don't email...yet). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. U.S. Space Camp, 1 Tranquility Base, Huntsville AL 35807 These are the jumpsuits used in Space Camp and come with the Space Camp patches. Adult and kid's suits are available with adult costing $74 and kid $69. Adult sizes are even mens' 36 to 50 regular. Kids run even sizes 6 to 20. If you attend camp, you have a chance to try them on for size first. The material is sky blue polycotton (50/50). The suits have exposed zippers, chest and hip pockets and velcro wrist and ankle adjustments. Available by mail (catalog available at above address or call 800-633-7280 and ask for the gift shop). PERSONAL OPINION - The last on my list, since there are better suits available for the same or less money, even the kids' On the other hand, if you attend camp, you CAN try them on for size first. 2. The Cockpit, 33-00 47th Ave, Long Island City, NY 11101 (retail outlet) 595 Broadway, NY, NY 1-800-354-5514 The retail arm of Avirex, the folks who make Space Camp's jumpsuits as well as having made military flight gear for many years. Adult flight suits similar to NASA's include Item #6341. 100% cotton in NASA Cobalt Blue, seven zippered pockets, velcro wrist and waist adjustment tabs, two way front zipper, Velcro square for IDs. even sizes 36-50 regular. This is the version without shuttle chase team patches. $69. Much nicer than the Space Camp suit, this is what the Enterprise Team wore to camp last year. The only disadvantages are a) cotton shrinks and b) no pockets to put your hands in. Item #6340 is similar in Royal Blue (what the astronauts will be wearing when flights resume in 198?). It has epaulets and is cut to the 1985 Navy flight suit mil specs. $89 A kids' suit (Item #6339K) is $39.50 and identical to the space camp kids suit except for slightly different patches. PERSONAL OPINION - I'd certainly buy the kids' suit from them ( a lot cheaper for the same suit ), and would buy the adult jumpsuit too if it wasn't for 3. Barrier_Wear 158 Bodo Drive Durango, CO 81301 (their address) They make the clothing for NASA. In royal blue Nomex, the cost is $275. And if you want exactly what the astronauts wear, that's the way to go. HOWEVER, before you panic, I've been working with Ray Lawson at Barrier-Wear since April, and we've come up with a modified version in 50/50 poly/cotton in the new Royal Blue color. It's missing some external velcro strips, the lower leg and cigarette pockets, but still has chest and thigh pockets, pass through hip pockets (the kind you put your hands in) zippered sleeve and ankle adjustments, velcro patch for identification, etc. The price is compatible with the others (I'll have the exact price from Barrier-Wear July 28th). Sizes available are 32 short to 46 long. The only thing is, Barrier-Wear isn't in the retail biz. We need to buy (in the general vicinity of) 20 of the things. I'm putting the order together. Many orders will come from the Space Camp groups I'm headed down with, but if you're interested by all means let me know. Total cost to you will be $ (Barrier-Wear's price) + $ (postage and wrapping). I'm not planning on making any profit on this, this is my cost. My address is: +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+ | Rich Kolker The work goes on... A|W|A | | 8519 White Pine Drive The cause endures... H|T|H | | Manassas Park, VA 22111 The hope still lives... /|||\ | | (703)361-1290 (h) And the dream shall never die. /_|T|_\ | | (703)749-2315 (w) (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker) " W " | +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+ I'll post the price of the Barrier-Wear version next week when I get it. Those of you in the Washington, DC area, I'll have a prototype the August 1,2 weekend (email me so we can get together). ++rich ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 87 17:07:53 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: anniversary in article <2048@zeus.TEK.COM>, dant@tekla.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60HC) says: > Anyone for the creation of a national space holiday? If other > minority groups can have holidays, why not the space cadets? I believe that AIAA has been trying to get July 20 designated as a national holiday for about 17 years now. July 20, and usually the entire period covered by the Apollo 11 mission has been desginated a state holiday by all 50 states for at least the last 5 years. Bob P. Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 87 16:06:32 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Be an astronaut (or just look like one) In article <276@netxcom.UUCP> rkolker@netxcom.UUCP (rich kolker) writes: >Item #6340 is similar in Royal Blue (what the astronauts will be wearing when >flights resume in 198?). It has epaulets and is cut to the 1985 Navy >flight suit mil specs. $89 There must be some suitable comment about an organisation which has already chosen what colour of flight suits astronauts will be wearing on the next flight of a machine which MIGHT take off in over a year from now. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 87 23:25:55 GMT From: robiner@oberon.usc.edu (Steve Robiner) Subject: Audio Tape of Challenger's Last Seconds I had heard that the New York Times had recieved a court settlement in which NASA had 30 days to turn over the actual audio tape retrieved from the Challenger black box. Its been well over 30 days, but I haven't heard anymore about it. Has anyone heard or read about this tape? =Steve= ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 87 22:19:00 GMT From: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Government in space [KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU.UUCP ] >And the prime question wasn't whether the Southern economy could >run without slaves, but whether slavery was moral. It wasn't. And >the situation today is exactly parallel. Those stately antebellum >mansions were quite beautiful. So are the pictures from Apollo >and Voyager. But that doesn't justify either slavery or taxation. Beautifully put. I agree. But that is not the whole issue. *As- suming* slavery or taxation exist, it is better to build graceful mansions than ugly ones; it is better to promote space explora- tion than, say, population control. At least it *may* be better; another argument - that government space programs actually retard private ones - may still hold. I am open to conviction. But it would be naive to expect the government to tax less because peo- ple stop pressuring it for space programs. They'd just spend it on something else. There is nothing inconsistent in resisting taxation *and* arguing for greater space budgets. Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 87 16:28:31 GMT From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu (Doug Mink) Subject: Sagan != Death of the Future I am getting fed up with all of the Carl Sagan bashing that's been going on lately. I would like to make a few points in his (and the Planetary Society's favor). I am a biased participant, being a trained planetary astronomer and a charter member of the Planetary Society, though I was involved in very early L-5 activity at MIT in 1975-76. 1. Carl is one of the grand old men of the young field of planetary studies, having done good scientific work on Mars in the very early 60's and edited the major journal in the field, *Icarus*, for more than 10 years. He studied under Gerard Kuiper at the University of Chicago and taught at Harvard (which turned him down for tenure, to their later dismay) before settling in at Cornell. I worked in his lab there for 2-1/2 years. His writings made him famous well before Cosmos, and he is respected by scientists in his field for increasing public suppoort for their work. 2. The Planetary Society has, for the most part, the support of the planetary science community, members of which have devoted their lives to the study of the solar system. We see expanding humanity's consciousness of its place in the universe as important a goal as getting a few humans out there. 3. We have tried for years to keep some sort of planetary exploration program alive in the face of varying NASA budgets and the GIGANTIC cost overruns of the manned space program. Remember that the last successful planetary probes were launched years before the shuttle flew. The crumbs of money that fall toward science that can be done (or at least attempted) from the shuttle dwarf what can be obtained through current planetary programs. I have been employed for the last three years on a shuttle-flown astrophysics project that was funded that way. 4. The Mars goal was not set by Carl and Bruce, but by a group of graduate students at the University of Colorado who called themselves the Mars Underground (many of whom I am proud to call friends). They decided that the constant studies and redesigns of the US planetary program were totally unproductive and went outside normal channels to call the first Case for Mars Conference in 1981, getting some support from the Planetary Society. The third conference is occurring even as I type, in Boulder. The Boston Globe has been carrying daily dispatches from it this week. Their goal, in the words of Dan Burnham, designer of the turn-of-the-century Plan for the City of Chicago was to "make no small plans; they have no power to move the minds of men." And I think that the minds of men (and women) are moving. On to the Oort cloud, Doug Mink, aging, but hopeful, hippy astronomer mink@cfa.harvard.edu {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 87 19:41:45 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Space science is not special, nor is Mars In article <630@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> mink@cfa.harvard.EDU (Doug Mink) writes: > We see expanding humanity's consciousness of its place in the universe Which is hardly the sole province of space science! >as important a goal as getting a few humans out there. See what I mean about fundamentally different goals? We want to get a LOT of humans out there. You don't even acknowledge the concept. >Their goal... was to "make no small plans; they have no power to move >the minds of men." And I think that the minds of men (and women) are >moving. Project Apollo moved people's minds too. Then it moved NASA into a hole that it shows no sign of getting out of even today - because Apollo was a PROJECT, not a PROCESS. The Mars mission is another closed project. If we do it the way the Martians want, another generation of planetary scientists will have employment. Ah, but what then? I think a lot more planetary science would get done if the up-front costs for launching were not hundreds of millions of $$$; if opportunities were so frequent you didn't have to design hardware to last for decades; if each project wasn't such a major financial and managerial endeavour. The way to achieve this is greatly expanded human presence in space. Maybe it's just my prejudiced imagination, but this talk of human destiny, high goals, place in the universe, etc. etc. which comes up every time the Martians try to justify themselves seems to contain an unconscious assumption of moral superiority that makes me very uncomfortable. Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ Down with Mars! Back to the Moon first. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 87 00:18:07 GMT From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu (Doug Mink) Subject: Still more infighting Jon Leech replies to my article defending Sagan and Mars: > See what I mean about fundamentally different goals? We want to > get a LOT of humans out there. You don't even acknowledge the concept. I acknowledge that it is desirable OVER THE LONG TERM to get people into space. BUT if you can tell me how the US is going to have more than 10 shuttle launches per year before the year 2000, do it. I've recently read a bit about the political origins of the Apollo program, and that information leads me to believe that something of that magnitude will never happen again in the USA unless there is some EXTERNAL influence that makes Congress believe that we must establish a presence in space. Right now we don't even have the ability to launch unmanned spacecraft. Maybe I'm too cynical about how the US program disintegrated after the Challenger explosion, but I grew up with NASA, starting to follow the space program when the astronauts were selected in 1958 (I still have the original LIFE article). When I started at MIT in the fall of 1969 after Apollo 11, I studied with scientists who had experiments on Apollo and thought it would go on forever. It could have but for a failure of nerve in Washington, DC, where few people in power cared about the space program. The sorry state of the US space program at present is due to the fact that manned space flight is damned complicated, much more so than anyone thought it would be. Because it cost so much, the shuttle was required to do more than it could possibly be expected to. Obviously what we need now is an unmanned heavy-lift freight system to support relatively infrequent (10/year) human trips into space (over the next 10 years). While this need is obvious, it does not seem to be the way things are going to go. Hence we are battling manned versus unmanned when both are needed in near-earth spacea. > I think a lot more planetary science would get done if the > up-front costs for launching were not hundreds of millions of $$$; if > opportunities were so frequent you didn't have to design hardware to > last for decades; if each project wasn't such a major financial and > managerial endeavour. The way to achieve this is greatly expanded > human presence in space. Which costs tens of billions of $$$. This is the shuttle fallacy all over again. Cheap launches come when there are a lot of them; that's the Russian truth. > Maybe it's just my prejudiced imagination, but this talk of human > destiny, high goals, place in the universe, etc. etc. which comes up > every time the Martians try to justify themselves seems to contain an > unconscious assumption of moral superiority that makes me very > uncomfortable. I don't see how exploring the solar system with robots which provide their sense data to anyone on earth is more elite than sending a relatively few people into space at a far greater monetary cost is more elite. Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer mink@cfa.harvard.edu {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 87 01:20:09 GMT From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: Sagan != Death of the Future > I am getting fed up with all of the Carl Sagan bashing that's been going > on lately. I would like to make a few points in his [favor.] > 1...4... You forgot: 5. A perpetrator of the infamous TTAPS hoax, a landmark in the squalid decline from objective scientific discourse to fraudulent political pleading. Furthermore, this partisan orientation is quite evident in the Mars scheme. What is necessary for a real space industry is to cause NASA not to clobber private space efforts. As readers of the Commercial Space Report know, NASA has long been an active (and powerful) enemy of private space startups. The rest of the government seems to be about as hostile--take the recent Commerce dept chokehold move against private earth imaging. The stupidity of this move is that now good commercial imaging will be available to everyone *except* the U.S., this done in the interests of national security of course. --JoSH ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #298 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Jul 87 06:19:56 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03282; Thu, 30 Jul 87 03:18:51 PDT id AA03282; Thu, 30 Jul 87 03:18:51 PDT Date: Thu, 30 Jul 87 03:18:51 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707301018.AA03282@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #299 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 299 Today's Topics: Re: Still more infighting Re: Insult of TTAPS study Little kids and big agencies (was: Re: space photos ...) Re: Still more infighting Re: Sagan == Death of the Future more on Mars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Jul 87 02:57:48 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Still more infighting All this arguing over Mars just gave me the idea for this quick, and no doubt biased, net.survey. I encourage everyone who has strong feelings about Mars missions one way or the other to respond (to me personally, not the net, please!) I will summarize in 2 weeks or so. I) Do you think our next major goal in space after the space station should be (check one): ___ A piloted mission to Mars ___ A permanent Lunar base ___ (Other, describe here) 1 II) Do you personally work in space science? III) Any comments relevant to the topic? (1) I am asking this because I want to see if space scientists have notably different views on the subject than everyone else. Send responses to jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Internet) ...seismo!cit-vax!jon (UUCP) Now, back to the postings... In article <632@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> mink@cfa.harvard.EDU (Doug Mink) writes: >Obviously what we need now is an unmanned heavy-lift freight system to >support relatively infrequent (10/year) human trips into space (over >the next 10 years). While this need is obvious, it does not seem to be >the way things are going to go. Hence we are battling manned versus >unmanned when both are needed in near-earth spacea. I think it's exactly the way things are going to go. The ELV industry is in much better shape than NASA. They have guaranteed launches from the DOD and with the development costs covered, are able to offer Atlas-Centaur, Titan, and Delta II launches commercially. The Air Force Advanced Launch Vehicle program just issued its first contracts, and low cost is a major factor the designers are to work for. Ariane 5 and the Japanese H-2 are coming soon, too. By the early 90's, the current launch vehicle shortage will have turned into a glut, except that commercial operators will start thinking up lots of new uses for space by then. How expensive would 747s be if Boeing had only built 4 of them, and had to develop numerous highly complex systems that had never flown before, rather than designing with what was available at the time? They're not THAT much less expensive than a shuttle even as it stands - I suspect the learning curve alone accounts for a lot of the difference. >> I think a lot more planetary science would get done if the >> up-front costs for launching were not hundreds of millions of $$$; if >> opportunities were so frequent you didn't have to design hardware to >> last for decades; if each project wasn't such a major financial and >> managerial endeavour. The way to achieve this is greatly expanded >> human presence in space. >Which costs tens of billions of $$$. This is the shuttle fallacy all >over again. Cheap launches come when there are a lot of them; that's >the Russian truth. This is getting into a circular argument. We're not going to have lot of launches just to support unmanned spaceflight. - The Soviets have more launches largely because their satellites don't last nearly as long as ours. Whether that is intentional or not is debatable but irrelevant to the point. - The price they quote for a Proton launch bears no particular relation to what it costs, one being hard Western currency and the other internal accounting. - Large-scale manned spaceflight is prominently quoted among the applications of the Energia booster. Gordon Woodcock (Executive Chairman, NSS, and a director in Boeing's Space Station group) has an interesting paper in the latest (May/June) issue of SSI Update which addresses the economic feasibility of space. Two interesting conclusions: ``There are economically plausible evolutionary paths by which space transportation operations could "bootstrap" from today's low traffic and high cost to the reverse situation. These paths require that a second-generation reusable launcher somehow be brought into being without amortization of its nonrecurring development becoming an albatross around the neck ofa prospective commercial operator. If that can somehow occur, and if the other substantial barriers to commercialization of space transportation can somehow be surmounted, economic bootstrapping of demand growth and cost reduction can bring about an era of affordable large-scale industrialization and settlement.'' ``Affordable settlements are described in this paper as a logical outgrowth of space industrialization initiatives and the resulting decreases in costs of space operations. The principal key is an affordable trip to low Earth orbit, and that is possible with commercialization of launch services and economic growth of the market for space transportation.'' >I don't see how exploring the solar system with robots which provide >their sense data to anyone on earth is more elite than sending a >relatively few people into space at a far greater monetary cost is more >elite. I don't know how you got onto this track. I think unmanned planetary exploration is cheap and wonderful and deserving of lots more money - although the average American saw pictures from Voyager on her TV one week and never thought of it again. We can send a few scientists to Mars for tens of billions, or we can do a lot more in Earth-Moon space. It's clear that putting X people on Mars one time is a lot more elite than 10X (or whatever) in LEO and on the Moon permanently, with more following. Sure, we could do both - except that the reality is that NASA is not going to get more than one major project in that timeframe (1995-2005). If this claim turns out to be wrong, I will be delighted to see both happen. Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ Down with Mars! Back to the Moon first. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jul 87 09:15:26 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Insult of TTAPS study Newsgroups: sci.space >5. A perpetrator of the infamous TTAPS hoax, a landmark in the squalid >decline from objective scientific discourse to fraudulent political >pleading. Furthermore, this partisan orientation is quite evident >in the Mars scheme. > >--JoSH I have seen some of the comments and I think Doug does a very cogent job. TTAPS appeared as a logical corollary to the LBL/UCB work of the Alverez et al work. The people who work with topics like atmospheric dynamics, palentology, and other forms of planetary science. TTAPS represents a hypothesis and it deserves objective scientific commentary, not insults. You don't know what you are talking about, so shut your face in this case! --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 87 21:09:53 GMT From: beta!a!mwj@nyu.arpa (William Johnson) Subject: Little kids and big agencies (was: Re: space photos ...) In article <2392@ames.UUCP>, eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) writes: (I've moved this from sci.astro where he first posted it) > An added note since we were discussing astronomy education. When I > was in grade school, a friend's father worked for Hughes on the > Surveyor Lander at JPL. Later I phoned [(818)-354-4321 its in the > phone book] and wrote and got tons of literature (they fully realized > that they were sending it to a kid) [all this for coupons?! ;-)] One > photo of JPL I will remember vividly of a building (264), little did I > realize I would eventually work in that building. Some of you guys > might never work further on space and astronomy, but your kids might. Oh boy, does your little anecdote ever bring back a memory! Not knowing how old you are, I don't know whether the following story came before or after yours, but: I was in, I believe, 2nd grade when the first United States spacecraft reached Venus. (One of the Mariners, I think.) We read about this in My Weekly Reader or such, and with the innocence of an 8-year-old I asked my teacher why the Mariner wouldn't go on in and take pictures of Mercury too. She didn't know, and with at least equal innocence suggested I write to the director of JPL (William Pickering, as I recall) and ask HIM -- and I did. A week later, I got a response: a letter -- SIGNED BY PICKERING -- spelling out the reason, technically correct (as I realized on taking a mechanics course in college) and couched in terms an 8-year-old could -- and did -- understand. Accompanying this were the obligatory pretty pictures of an Atlas taking off, Mariner itself, and I forget what else -- my parents still have them in a scrapbook of my childhood. 25 years later, I am a practicing physicist with a big interest in the space program (no, not Star Wars), and I have long felt that that letter "launched" me in my chosen profession. Furthermore, 25 years later the memory of getting that letter still brings tears to my eyes. William Pickering (or whoever it was), wherever you are -- bless you. Soapbox time. THIS is how to get the United States back into space: get the attention of every little kid you can and convince them that space is NEAT. We adults may be screwed up beyond redemption, but if the kids get interested, WE'LL DO IT. Or at least they will. Bill Johnson Los Alamos National Laboratory ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 87 18:43:41 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: Still more infighting It seems to me that all this Saganaki (a flaming appetizer) being posted to this group is ignoring historical reality: The Apollo program was a "one-shot" exploration program. And it was a remarkable success. We went from a cold start to putting people on the moon in less than ten years. It was accomplished by a group of dedicated people who shared the simple dream of seeing somebody walk on the moon. Then... what happened? We turned our space program over to the "infrastructure" people, that's what. The people who promised us "routine" access to space (as if once- a-month flights to the moon weren't routine access...). The people who foresaw long-term space stations (as if Skylab, which had been tossed up almost as an afterthought, was something else...). The people who promised cheap. In other words, the people who brought us the Shuttle. There's a lot of talk in this newsgroup about how we have to turn space over to businessmen, how we have to build the equivalent of roads and sewers, how we have to develop all those things that we seemed to have back during the glory days of Apollo. What they seem to miss is that the US space program has been in the hands of those exact people for the last fifteen years, and all we've got to show for it is some burned O-rings. I think it's time to give space back to the dreamers. If they want to go to Mars, that's fine with me. If going to the moon and staying is what they want, that's fine too. The important thing is to get moving again, toward some tangible goal that can inspire the way the moon did almost 30 years ago. Preferably one that's big enough to require routine access to space...and when we get it, just maybe, we'll be smart enough not to blow it the way we did last time. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 87 02:00:21 GMT From: ulysses!faline!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future I have been patiently waiting for the "bash the Planetary Society" fad to wane, but I can't let some of this stuff go by without saying something in their defense. If their newsletter (The Planetary Report) is any indication, the Planetary Society is run by highly competent professionals with a sincere interest both in doing meaningful scientific exploration and in making the results of their work available to the interested public. Every issue of the newsletter contains at least one very interesting article presenting the results of a ongoing mission (e.g., the composition of the Uranian atmosphere) or proposing some clever new technique for further exploration (e.g., a combined helium/hot air balloon for exploring the Martian atmosphere by day, and its surface by night). Some of these things (like the Martian balloon) I never read about elsewhere, so I almost always learn something new. The articles are invariably thoughtfully written. They strike a good balance between including interesting details and remaining readable by a general, though scientifically oriented, audience. Carl Sagan is only one of many contributors, and not even a major one at that. In stark contrast, L-5's publications (before I let my membership lapse) read more like the preachings of a religious cult. One writer after another repeats the same dogmatic themes, with only minor variations. An "Us vs Them" mentality (US vs USSR; US vs Europe and Japan; Private Enterprise vs NASA and the US Government; True Space Believers vs Congressional Heathens and Assorted Other Pagans and Philistines) is pervasive. Thoughtful, in-depth analyses are discouraged. In other words, they read just like most of the stuff on this group. I think it is the height of unfairness to say that the Planetary Society wants to "steal" your dream. Let's face facts. If anything, our bloated overemphasis on manned space flight has not only "stolen dreams" from the less glamorous but scientifically far more worthwhile unmanned planetary exploration program, it has killed the dreamers through attrition. Everybody here knows what the Challenger disaster and the Centaur cancellation have done to those few scientific missions left with funds after the Shuttle development overruns cancelled dozens of other worthwhile projects. You're crazy if you want to go into space science today in the US. Don't get angry at Van Allen and Pierce for telling it like it is. As far as the "Mars Project" is concerned, I have my doubts too. However, Sagan is quite explicit and up-front in stating his reasoning. It would force the US and USSR to divert some of the enormous resources they waste each year on self-destructive persuits towards something that, while certainly not the most cost-effective way to spend such sums of money, is at least more benign than building missiles or anti-missiles or anti-anti-missiles. I think many otherwise "pro-space" people vehemently oppose the Mars project mainly because they would have to admit that our military-industrial complexes have garnered so much political influence in our respective countries that rational decision-making is no longer possible; finding "busy-work" for the bomb-builders is now a political prerequisite if we are to stop building weapons we don't need. This is especially true for the pro-SDI crowd, as they would have us believe that there are rational reasons for SDI, instead of its real purpose being to guarantee full employment and exponential growth for the weapons industry. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 87 14:32:11 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (d.l.skran) Subject: more on Mars This is a letter I just sent to the editor of the "Space Advocate" insert in the NSS's Space World magazine, who has solicited letters pro/con on Mars. Dear Space Advocate Editor: It is clear that the "Martian Question" is a controversial one. The supporters of a Mars mission make a number of excellent points, including that the Mars mission, like the Moon landing, is a simple, widely understood goal that can be advocated without a lengthy prior explanation. One major purpose of NSS is to educate the public about space development. It will be many years before our goals are as well understood as the exploration of Mars, a subject that has been in the public eye for more than a hundred years. Keeping silent while the Saganauts promote Mars as a goal will only delay the date of our permanent breakout into space and lose a golden opportunity to present as an alternative a program of space development. I do not advocate directly opposing a "man-on-Mars" program. Although I personally think we are better off without such a program, I would never urge that this opinion be the public stand of the NSS. Instead, we should "in principle" endorse the exploration of Mars -- after the space station is completed, the near-Earth asteroids explored, a lunar mine established, and so on, and turn our full efforts to pushing these projects. If, at some point, a Mars program got underway, and some aspect of it that could be beneficial to space development was threatened, then we should support that aspect of the Mars program. At no time should NSS waste its limited resources to advocate an "Apollo" style Mars mission. Unfortunately, the space movement is already factionalized, mainly between those who advocate only space exploration (the Planetary Society), and those who advocate both space development and exploration (NSS, SSI, ASF, Spacepac, SEDS, Sunsat Energy Council, Lunar Development Council, and the American Lunar Society). The agenda of the space development movement must be to break free of the paradigm of funding research that captures the imagination to funding projects that benefit us all economically. Only by escaping from the trap posed by old ways of thinking can we build a permanent future for us and our children in space. It is a measure of how far we have come that, regretably, innovators such as Van Allen and Sagan now represent the "old ways." Sincerely, Dale L. Skran Jr. mtgzz!dls 11 Beaver Hill Rd Morganville NJ 07751 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #299 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Jul 87 06:20:19 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05020; Fri, 31 Jul 87 03:19:09 PDT id AA05020; Fri, 31 Jul 87 03:19:09 PDT Date: Fri, 31 Jul 87 03:19:09 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8707311019.AA05020@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #300 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 300 Today's Topics: Re: Insult of TTAPS study Re: Space Dreams Re: Little kids and big agencies Re: Sagan == Death of the Future Saganization The Cost of Space Tourism The Cost of a Vacation in Space Re: Little kids and big agencies human vs machine spaceflight Re:Re: My grouse with L5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Jul 87 19:16:47 GMT From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: Insult of TTAPS study > TTAPS represents >a hypothesis and it deserves objective scientific commentary, not insults. > You don't know what you are talking about, so shut your face in this case! I can only assume you want me to keep talking about it, or you would not have offered such a vacuous barb as a challenge. Very well. What I am talking about is not the scientific merits underlying the atmospheric studies. I'm talking about the hoax, which was the heavily funded effort to convince the public that Sagan et al had found positive proof that even the smallest nuclear war would end all life on earth. How many papers in refereed publications and conferences have a public relations firm hired to tout them to the popular press? If a paper is as scientifically compelling as TTAPS claimed to be, why would it *need* one? Why this is germane to SPACE is that Sagan's opinions as to what are the right things for space science or exploration are *untrustworthy*. The man lies to benefit his political agenda. Lots of people do that. But Sagan lies about SCIENCE, and that is unforgiveable. --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 87 17:01:01 GMT From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu (Keith P. Mancus) Subject: Re: Space Dreams article here; it's good to know that one is not alone. I went through similar experiences growing up, except that I wasn't born until 1967. I spent all my growing-up years immersed in space literature, reading histories of all the boosters, probes, and manned missions from the V-2 to the lunar landings. I even spent a lot of time reading books on spaceflight written in the 1950's that told of the great future we had ahead. I never met anyone who understood my feelings until college; my parents certainly didn't understand (in all fairness, they were already in their fifties) and the other 'students' in my high school were of the "let's get out of here and make money and goof" variety that others have complained about. Finally, I met a few other like-minded people here at Princeton, and they've helped keep me from becoming totally disillusioned. I've been around airplanes since I was 6, and I never get tired of flying or of just looking at airplanes. When it came time to choose a major, I picked aerospace engineering. But all the while I was hoping to use it for space work; I never forgot where I wanted to go. I remember reading one of those simple little magazines that was handed out to my first grade class (in 1974). The front cover was an artist's conception of the Shuttle, and the title was "Space Shuttles in 1978" (hah!). Inside was an article on the Shuttle and another on the upcoming Apollo-Soyuz linkup. I watched the first launch of Columbia; I continued to stare at the TV screen for several minutes after there was nothing more to see. I remember the day I arrived home from school and was greeted with "The Shuttle just blew up!" I was born near the end of the First Great Space Boom, and most of my life has been spent watching the budget go down and down and the time projections of space stations and colonies get pushed off farther and farther into the future. I am only 20 years old, and I *still* have doubts whether I'll get my chance to go beyond the atmosphere. -Keith Mancus ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 87 17:42:46 GMT From: terra!brent@sun.com (Brent Callaghan) Subject: Re: Little kids and big agencies In article <243@a.UUCP>, mwj@a.UUCP (William Johnson) writes: > Soapbox time. THIS is how to get the United States back into space: > get the attention of every little kid you can and convince them that > space is NEAT. We adults may be screwed up beyond redemption, but if > the kids get interested, WE'LL DO IT. Or at least they will. I couldn't agree more! I've never had any problem with NASA's PR. I grew up in New Zealand and always had my letters replied to promptly and courteously. I remember I was always tremendously excited when I came home from school and saw the big envelope from the "MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER". The envelope always contained a personally written letter. In my first year at Auckland University I had access to an IBM 1130 with a Fortran compiler. I became interested in celestial mechanics and writing simulations. I sent a letter to the Manned Spacecraft Center requesting trajectory data for the scheduled flight of Apollo 10. They sent me the data alright - a 4 inch stack of double sided sheets covered in coordinates. It must have cost a fortune in postage. Of course there was an accompanying letter expressing hope that I would find the data useful. I was ecstatic! I wrote a program to convert the trajectory data from geocentric coordinates to local right ascension and declination and plotted the coordinates on a star map. The plan was to try an glimpse the spacecraft through a telescope during the translunar or transearth coast. It took several Apollo flights and more heavy packages of trajectory data before we were successful. We spotted Apollo 15 exactly where it was supposed to be through a 20" telescope at our local observatory. This kid still thinks "space is NEAT"! Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan @ Sun Microsystems uucp: sun!bcallaghan phone: (415) 691 6188 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 87 22:32:23 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!dhp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Douglas H. Price) Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future I feel qualified to be a Planetary Society basher, being (and still am) a charter member. If you will go back to your past issues of Planetary Report, about a year ago there was an editorial highly critical of manned spaceflight. The editorial was clearly of the "they're bleeding us poor researchers" slant, with the very strong implication that the entire manned space program should be trashed immediately since there was little valuable science that "couldn't wait" until some unspecified future. (Note on the above, not that they aren't bleeding the researchers. Just like another contributor to the net last week, I just don't think trying to get more money by cutting a bigger piece of the pie for yourself is a good way of doing business.) Well, Society headquarters must have been buried in a mountain of hate-mail, because by the very next issue, the Planetary Report editorial had done a 180 degree turnaround, admitting that there might be something worthwhile to manned spaceflight after all. The letter column was full of strongly worded criticism for the previous issue's editorial. I therefore believe that the MEMBERSHIP of the Planetary Society is clearly pro-manned space, but the BOARD of the Planetary Society has its own axe to grind. Douglas H. Price Analysts International Corp. @ AT&T Bell Laboratories ..!ihnp4!ihlpa!dhp ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 87 23:05:41 GMT From: carnes@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Richard Carnes) Subject: Saganization Paleontologist David M. Raup had this to say about Carl Sagan, in *The Nemesis Affair* (recommended): "A research scientist who allows his or her name to be displayed prominently in the press is taking a risk. If this same scientist appears on Johnny Carson or hosts a television series, disaster may await. I am talking about what I call `saganization'. "Carl Sagan, a superb astronomer, has made his mark in several fields of science. Even as a student at Chicago, he had a seminal effect on the university community by spearheading discussion and research on the origin of life and related topics. He got people from many different disciplines talking to each other. He is now the David Duncan Professor of Physical Science at Cornell and Director of Cornell's Laboratory for Planetary Studies. He founded *Icarus*, a major journal in solar-system astronomy, and his entry in *Who's Who* is one of the longest I have seen, with a seemingly endless list of academic honors and awards. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (no mean feat for a physical scientist), although not the National Academy. He maintains an active research program, now focusing on the possibility of the existence of life elsewhere in the Solar System. "Pick a biologist or geologist at random and ask: `What do you think of Carl Sagan?' The answers will not be uniform but they will contain a disturbing number of negatives. You will hear that Sagan is more interested in personal glory than science. You will learn that his `Cosmos' series was a disgrace because it showed too many shots of Sagan and because it had a strong religious overtone. He sells T-shirts. He spends all his time on the lecture circuit and never does any science. His biology is terrible. He isn't much of an astronomer--even though the speaker knows neither astronomy nor astronomers. And so on. This is saganization. "As far as I can tell from my own observations, none of the negative charges can be sustained. I happen to think the `Cosmos' series was excellent education that did much to promote public understanding of science. A Sagan-Phil Donahue interview once turned into a superb lecture in chemistry. The scientific talks I have heard Sagan give are good, state-of the-art science. He attends scientific meetings regularly, takes part in the discussions. "A surprising number of scientists have been saganized. Stephen Jay Gould is another example. A fine and imaginative scholar, Gould is breaking new ground in evolutionary biology and paleontology. He also happens to write and speak very well, talents that enhance an interest in communicating with the general public. His saganization bothers him deeply, because his most important objectives are to contribute to his science and to be respected for it by his peers. Carl Sagan, Steve Gould, and other examples have led many in the scientific community to be very cautious of the press." Another distinguished scientist who has been saganized is ecologist Paul Ehrlich. Not coincidentally, Ehrlich and Sagan each chaired one of the panels of scientists that reported to the public on the nuclear winter studies (see *The Cold and the Dark*). Richard Carnes ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 22:52 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: The Cost of Space Tourism About the cost of space tourism: for your information, the cost of supporting a person on the space station will be about $1 million per day. Even if that's reduced by a factor of 100 it's still outrageously expensive for a several week vacation. I don't see launch and hardware costs coming down by a factor of 100 in 20 years, by the way; a factor of 10 I could believe, if we work hard. This seems sufficiently obvious that I'm amazed that anyone could think space tourism could be flourishing in 20 years. Yet, to judge by the most recent Space World, a lot of NSS members think just that (read it; some of the predictions are hilarious). I think there's an element of wishful, almost self-delusional, thinking here. Lest anyone think I'm hopelessly negative, let me say that I'm confident that one day space tourism (or even commuting to/from orbit) will be commonplace. Long after we're dead, though. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 87 18:04 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: The Cost of a Vacation in Space If you figure all the costs of building the space station and supplying life support materials, the cost to stay in it will be roughly a million dollars per person per day (more for short stays, due to the fixed cost of the ticket to orbit). I'd be willing to pay perhaps $20K for a month in space; readers of this list will probably not be able to afford more than a few hundred $K any time during their lives. Some of the >$30G (1987) price tag for the station (phases 1 & 2) is development cost, but a space tourist facility would have to be more luxurious to be attractive. I don't see costs coming down in 20 years by the multiple orders of magnitude that would be needed to make space tourism feasible. Paul F. Dietz dietz@slb-doll.csnet ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 87 18:24:27 GMT From: faline!mike@bellcore.bellcore.com (Mike A. Caplinger) Subject: Re: Little kids and big agencies Promoting the space program by interesting children in it is exactly what NASA has already done; I suspect that's why most of us read this group in the first place! The problem is things have fallen apart even with our interest. It's just not possible for most of us to work in the field right now. I have a degree in astrophysics and I was at Caltech in the Planetary Sciences Department in 1981, just about when the unmanned program went down the tubes. I'm as interested in space as anyone, but interest doesn't keep one from the mind-numbing frustration working for NASA must bring these days. It'll be a long, long while before we can get another generation as interested in space as those of us who grew up in the 1960's, when space was for real, are. And all this bickering about whether men should fly to the Moon or Mars, when we'll be lucky to be back in orbit two years from now, isn't going to help. Mike Caplinger ps. I don't care if you belong to the Planetary Society or not; if you don't think the two most important projects right now are Galileo and the HST, then there's something seriously wrong with you. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 87 12:29:09 GMT From: unc!symon@mcnc.org (James Symon) Subject: human vs machine spaceflight opinion: I hear and read a lot about how much more science we could get done if we used robotic instead of occupied vehicles. The assumption seems to be that going up ourselves is just another way to take real experiments up. Or perhaps a way to garner popular/political support for a space program. I've never seen it this way. Human spaceflight is research into human spaceflight. Now if you believe we should NEVER go into space--that we will NEVER have a reason to go there, then we shouldn't do the research. If you believe that we will sometime in the future expand into space then we need to do the basic research for that expansion and there is only one way to do it. Spaceflight is not something about which you can say "when we need it we'll do it." The advances are gradual, incremental. If we wait until we need it badly, for whatever reasons, we will kill many people trying to do it big before we know how to do it well. It is expensive research. It is important research. It would be worth doing even if no other scientific research were carried along. Unfortunately it has long term goals which get lost in any limited- scope cost/benefit analysis. Jim Symon UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon Internet:symon@cs.unc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jul 87 14:03 EST From: Subject: Re:Re: My grouse with L5 Subject: Re:Re: My grouse with L5 >>In article <4397@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> adamj@lime.BERKELEY.EDU (Adam J. Richter) >> writes: >> 1. Grab the spot-light. March on Washington and BURN SOMETHING. >> (e.g., an effigy of Fletcher?) > > You are right, we need to do something that can get us some >publicity and some national exposure. "The people" need to made aware >of the plight of the space program... Unfortunately, a more organized group is required to do something like this. To be affective, and not just a nuisance, a march requires a lot more people and a lot of time and planning. This is a very good idea but a group just can't rise out of nothing and do it. 65 people will be ignored. >> 2. Make score-cards. Congressmen, NASA employees, etc. >> Just what they've done, not whether it's good or >> bad. Score-cards might not be the right term. >> Maybe, "histories?" Whatever, it is useful >> to know where officials stand on manned/unmanned, >> capitalist/socialist, pro/anti SDI, etc., also >> how they stand on Space as a per se objective. > > AN excellent idea. Really. THis is something NSS should be doing. > This is a good place to start, but requires a lot of research. Any library in a university or the main library in a city has copies of the minutes to almost all of what goes on in any given congressional session. The congressional records can be obtained easily. The problem is wading through all the different issues that come up in any given session and determining which apply. There is a committee on space in the congress which is a good place to start looking for all the base issues. Then they must be followed through any voting procedures. A lot of the issues never make it as far as the floor and are therefore difficult to keep track of. Also, if few issues make the floor, it is hard to know how your run of the mill congressman would vote. Anything further would require direct letters to the officials in question. >> 3. I like that suggestion someone made about a *real* >> space newsletter. If someone puts it >> on-line, and it is "just the facts" (or at least >> labels editorials as such), I'll litter Berkeley with it. >> > I'm working on it, I'll post my progress later. Good. If the information can be spread over the net to key people, distribution becomes considerably easier. There all many colleges and universities on the net who have small clubs interested in space active on their campus. The net allows them to get nationally based newsletters quickly and distribute them on campus. The more people that know, the more power we have to work with. Also, by working with college students, we are dealing with the future engineers, pilots, and congressmen. The space program (for lack of anything better to call it) is going to require years to improve to the state we want it in. This is a good place to start. >> 4. Sit-ins in sunny Florida could be a lot of fun, and >> a good way to start preaching to the non-converted, unlike a >> convention. > > Sure. See, the only problem about all of this, for me, is I >don't know how to do it. I've never marched on Washington, I don't know >how to find out what is going on in congress, what is being voted on, >who voted for/against what, etc. I would tend to rely on NSS or some >other space group to get this sort of information. Keep these ideas, Well, I've given you every idea I have off the top of my head. Nothing is impossible, but the organization and dedication necessary for this type of project is immense. I don't have the time or effort to start it myself, but should someone come along that does, let me know. I will help. It's my future, and I want some influence. Becki Tants Office Coordinator I, Chemistry Stockroom Syracuse University RETANTS@SUNRISE.Bitnet ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #300 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Aug 87 06:17:55 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06473; Sat, 1 Aug 87 03:16:46 PDT id AA06473; Sat, 1 Aug 87 03:16:46 PDT Date: Sat, 1 Aug 87 03:16:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708011016.AA06473@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #301 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 301 Today's Topics: Mir Watch and What you can do. Political scorecards Surveys of Congressional Positions on Space L5 fanatics; the antispace movement Re: L5 fanatics; the antispace movement Re: SPOT & maximum resolution Re: SPOT & maximum resolution ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Jul 1987 14:18-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Mir Watch and What you can do. 1) Sheri (I want to see Earth from orbit), and 2) L5 doesn't do anything? I recommend you call the NSS office in DC and have them either get you in touch with a local chapter or give you information on our Mir Watch campaign. I would not be at all surprised if the Post article was in some devious way associated with our project: the timing is right. We kicked off the Mir campaign with a reception in the capitol building, which I attended (or partly attended: I spent the first two hours sitting on the belt way waiting for a wreck to be cleared). The centerpiece was a large rotating model of Mir and a computer running the orbit calculations. Turn out was good, and I think we made our point to some key people. Gordon Woodcock wrote a program to give us the best viewing times for MIR as it goes over head at a given locality. These location are available from Henry Vanderbilt at the DC office. The object is to take community groups out and show them the soviet station going overhead. I've heard that invariably some little kid asks "Where is ours?" to which you get to reply, "WE don't HAVE one..." Like most of our efforts this is primarily local. You get a lot more mileage and a lot more permanent effect on people by doing things that way. Media hype techniques are effective for selling hula hoops, not for selling a long term space program. Quite a few chapters are using this as a counterpoint to the Spaceweek celebrations around the country. (The vast majority of which are run either overtly or otherwise by NSS/L5 people) A second push will probably occur about the time kids go back to school. Many of our chapters have been working with local school systems doing space education efforts (and supplying the unsung manpower to make a large number of the Young Astronauts chapters work), and this would fit right in with our increasing emphasis on educational matters. After all, we ARE a 501-C3! For the people out in the midwest, I'd recommend going to the Midwest Space Development Conference. This event will no doubt be a good place to learn more about Mir Watch, and if you are an educator, a great deal of programming will be aimed using space education. Issues of Teaching Space, an educational newsletter published by our Cincinatti chapter people with occasional aerospace grants, is also a good class room resource. Video tapes on space are available from Minnesota L5 and Baltimore L5. Most are at the cost of the tape. Topics vary from highly technical to introductory. Quality from studio to home video. Many space related sessions from conferences are included. L5 people have been central to efforts to include space related programming in many other conferences. Space tracks for Balticon, Worldcon's, various teacher's conferences, etc have been organized by L5 chapters. Several of the largest teachers conferences coming up will have space tracks organized by Georgia Franklin and Jule Zumwalt from Seattle L5. L5 has provided a great deal of support to SSI. Most key L5 people are also senior associates. Most key SSI people are also L5 members. Most of the SSI support teams spin offs from the local L5 chapters. The study project for construction of an SPS designed to be built from lunar materials was done by Seattle L5 people who incorporated a company in order to carry out the project. L5 is working closely with AMSAT on the packet radio satellites, and we are currently studying the possibility of doing a Lunar Orbiter project with them and SSI. We are acting as a coordinator. About $6K or so was raised at the Pittsburgh Conference for the feasibility study. L5 chapters have computer bulliten boards for supplying space related information in about 10 cities. L5 chapters are a primary source for space related information in many cities, and are the prime generators of letters to the editor, the applyers of negative pressure on those who print editorials or news that is anti space program in nature. Many chapters are major generators of space related news in their areas. In a good year, our Pgh chapter will generate at least one HARD news item on the evening TV news, will do 3-4 radio talk show appearances and maybe 1-2 TV talk show/ soft news appearances. Replicate this across the country... L5 chapters are often the major source of lecturers on space in the community. Once again, our chapter typically supplies lecturers for 5-10 community groups per year. One of our members is a Teacher in Space candidate who does inschool talks to public and private school groups at the rate of 2-3 a week. She has talked to a sizeable percentage of the students in Western Pennsylvania at this point. We assist other community organizations that are involved with science education. Our group often supplies volunteers to help the local planeterium when it needs expertise on space. We also have ties with local eductional television and the Pittsburgh Regional Center for Science Teachers. Other groups do similar things. We have ties into Chambers of Commerce's around the country. Our people have been central to the founding and/or operations of many of the Space Business Round Tables around the country. We have a telephone tree that is activated for legislative action. We have generated possibly as high as 45000 letters in a maximum effort campaign. More than one congressional office has had it's phones completely tied up by our calls for several days running. Our DC lobbyist has been told by some key staff people that we have made many space budget issues untouchable from budget cutting. We are unfortunately not (yet) large enough to force significant increases, although we have a letter from one of the congressional committee members thanking us for our key efforts in getting the replacement orbiter funding sliced out of the DOD budget. We also have an older letter from Hans Mark, former associate director of NASA, thanking us for being one of the primary forces for getting the space station initiated. Some of you on the net may have been part of the guerilla warfare on that issue, if you remember the Scientists for A Manned Space Station we put together with many of you adding your names. This was part of a key ploy in the first and second year funding battles. A battle in which we were a key coordinating force in the 'outside' players. I could include pages and pages of what we do. Anyone who skims through Space Calendar who knows who our people are will rapidly get the impression that we have our fingers in just about everything. WE are the ACTIVE space organization. Our activities mainly occur via volunteer grass roots efforts (and funding), NOT via nationally publicized efforts at a well funded national office. OUR office is invariably in cash flow crisis and has acted as a support structure for local activities. NOBODY does more in the local communities than we do. If you want to read a magazine and share vicariously in what 'we' are doing or complain about what we aren't doing, go join someone else. 'We' don't need you. But if you want to pledge "your life, your fortune and your sacred honor" to creating a space faring civilization, and are willing to take personal responsibliity for starting the activity that we aren't doing that you feel needs to be done, then YOU are the kind of person that belongs in NSS. Ad Astra, Dale Amon, NSS (NSI/L5) Board of Directors ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 1987 16:01-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Political scorecards Spacepac keeps a scorecard such as has been asked about. The information is hard to come by because most sapce related votes never go to the floor, (at least not since the early 70's) so rating can be difficult except for the members of key committees that handle NASA issues. Dale Skran is the new Spacepac Chapters Coordinator (I was the old one) and is on the net. I suggest anyone interested in this document get in touch with him. Scott Pace (also on the net) is the usual source of this spiral bound book, (The Space Activists Handbook) but he rarely reads his mail. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 87 19:25:54 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (d.l.skran) Subject: Surveys of Congressional Positions on Space You can request the "Space Activist's Handbook" from Spacepac for $15 at the following address: Spacepac Suite S 2801 B Ocean Pk Blvd Santa Monica, CA 90405 If you are interested in helping Spacepac, feel free to give me a call at 201-946-9367. Leave your name and number on the answering machine and I'll get in touch with you. Dale Skran Spacepac Chapters Coordinator mtgzz!dls ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 87 18:26 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: L5 fanatics; the antispace movement About the L5 Society... I think a good word to describe some members of the erstwhile L5 society is "fanatic". Webster's definition: "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion". I see a lot of this. For example, see the latest Space World which printed the entries in a contest in which people at the recent Pittsburgh convention were asked to predict what would be happening in 2007, fifty years after Sputnik. Many of the predictions showed little connection with reality (variable gravity hospitals in low earth orbit, for example). Someone commented that those opposed to space are even less organized. Definitely, this needs fixing. I propose the formation of the National Organization Opposing Space Exploration. (Their slogan: "If we hang together, space exploration is finished (and vice versa)".) Paul F. Dietz dietz@slb-doll.csnet ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 87 17:10:44 GMT From: nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: L5 fanatics; the antispace movement In article <8707280029.AA01063@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >About the L5 Society... > >I think a good word to describe some members of the erstwhile L5 >society is "fanatic". Webster's definition: "marked by excessive >enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion". I see a lot of this. >For example, see the > ... ad nauseum Sometimes I wonder if people like you do these things not because you really care but because you like to start fights.... Well, I'm not into throwing insults around onthe net like other people, but you must realize that this can be said about ANY group of people. There are anti-space fanatics who are more fanatical than any space fanatic (my justification is twofold, both personal experience and this: That many anti-space fanatics are so because of religious beliefs, and religion sparks more fanaticism than any other cause. I challenge you to dispute that. Note that the phrase "many anti-space fanatics" does not mean "all anti-space fanatics"). The fact that almost every group of people have fanatics amongst them (and if you really think L5 is unique in this respect then you are no less than ignorant, but I don't believe this is so) is not a product of the group, be it religious, technical, space, social, whatever, but a product of human nature. There are a lot of people who are ready to be fanatics about anything, and once they find a cause off they go. I'm not saying this is good or bad either, I'm just saying it happens, and you simply can not criticise a group for having fanatics. If you don't like fanatics, criticise the human race. Many people would view your own criticisms to be founded in jealousy and envy, that you do not have a cause of your own which you believe in. Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 87 03:14:03 GMT From: newton.physics.purdue.edu!clt@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Carrick Talmadge) Subject: Re: SPOT & maximum resolution In article <472@augusta.UUCP> bs@augusta.UUCP (Burch Seymour) writes: >As to it's resolution. SPOT's OK, but far from wonderful. The DoD birds >are *supposed* to resolve 3 or 4 inches from several hundred miles. Lessee... The diffraction limitation for a circular lens using Rayleigh's criterion is 1.22 lambda D ----------- = sin(theta) ~= --- diameter R where lambda -- wavelength of light (~5e-7 meters) diameter -- diameter of lens aperature D -- linear resolution of lens [3-4 inches] R -- 300 miles This gives: 300 miles * 1610 meters/mile diameter ~= 1.22 * 5e-7 meters * ------------------------------ 3 inches * 0.0254 meters/in = 1.22 * 5e-7 meters * 6.3e6 ===> diameter = 3.8 meters = 150 inches <==== Conclusion: You need a pretty dern hefty lens to get anything near this resolution. This is ignoring atomospherical distortion problems, which I recall to limit resolution to about 0.5 arc seconds [anybody remember the correct number?]. Using 0.5 arc seconds as illustrative, this would imply a linear resolving limit at 300 miles of about 50 inches. Good enough to spot a man (or tell what kind of tank you're looking at) but not much more. Carrick Talmadge clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu -------- When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. -- Sherlock Holmes Yes, but what happens if nothing's left? -- Watson's reply ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 87 03:09:15 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: SPOT & maximum resolution In article <796@newton.physics.purdue.edu> clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (Carrick Talmadge) writes: >In article <472@augusta.UUCP> bs@augusta.UUCP (Burch Seymour) writes: >>As to it's resolution. SPOT's OK, but far from wonderful. The DoD birds are >>*supposed* to resolve 3 or 4 inches from several hundred miles. > >Lessee... The diffraction limitation for a circular lens using >Rayleigh's criterion is >This gives: >===> diameter = 3.8 meters = 150 inches <==== > >Conclusion: You need a pretty dern hefty lens to get anything near this >resolution. > >This is ignoring atomospherical distortion problems, which I recall >to limit resolution to about 0.5 arc seconds... I think that the 0.5 arc seconds number is for looking out from the bottom of the atmosphere. Looking down from the top, the smearing is more like 0.5 arc seconds (if that is the right number, it is approx. right) times the thickness of the main part of the atmosphere, call it 5-10 km, which gives a centimeter or two. To see why the direction you're looking matters, think of someone with his face pressed up against frosted or "bathroom window" glass. You can see him better than he can see you. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #301 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 2 Aug 87 06:25:45 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07623; Sun, 2 Aug 87 03:19:06 PDT id AA07623; Sun, 2 Aug 87 03:19:06 PDT Date: Sun, 2 Aug 87 03:19:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708021019.AA07623@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #302 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 302 Today's Topics: Re: SPOT & maximum resolution Re: SPOT & maximum resolution Re: SPOT & maximum resolution Re: Metric vs. English units Re: Metric vs. English units Re: Carl Sagan Re: Metric vs. English units nanotech book request Re: Carl Sagan Re: Metric vs. English units Visitor's Drives...Last Atlas-Centaur Shrugged...Proxmire Shot For Treason Maggie keeps Britain Grounded ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jul 87 09:06:56 GMT From: newton.physics.purdue.edu!clt@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Carrick Talmadge) Subject: Re: SPOT & maximum resolution In article <3317@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (David Palmer) writes: >In article <796@newton.physics.purdue.edu> clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu (Carrick Talmadge) writes: >>This is ignoring atomospherical distortion problems, which I recall to >>limit resolution to about 0.5 arc seconds... > >I think that the 0.5 arc seconds number is for looking out from the >bottom of the atmosphere. Looking down from the top, the smearing is >more like 0.5 arc seconds (if that is the right number, it is approx. >right) times the thickness of the main part of the atmosphere, call it >5-10 km, which gives a centimeter or two. David Palmer, along with Steve Willner (willner%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu) and Bob Ayers (ayers@src.DEC.COM) have all correctly made this point regarding atomospheric distortion, although Steve Willner suggested that a value of 3-10 arc seconds might be more appropriate for typical viewing from Earth, rather than my value of 0.5 arc seconds. If David Palmer's suggestion is correct that the correct formula is (Earth limiting resolution) X (thickness of atmosphere) this would give a number more like 15-20 cm as a lower limit under typical viewing conditions. [I think my 0.5 arc seconds, or something close to it, may be correct for *optimal* atronomical viewing conditions from a higher elevation observatory, such as Kitt Peak.] Steve Willner also pointed out that (1) older satellites already had 72" mirrors on board, [Bob Ayers pointed out that 60" mirrors were given away for the construction of the MMT, so obviously mirrors in this size range can't be in too short of supply] and (2) under high contrast conditions [or for high signal to noise ratio, as he puts it], a factor of as much as two in resolving power can be gained. Putting these two comments together, one could claim even for a satellite at a "safe" orbit of 300 miles up, a maximum resolution of 3" could be obtained (of course, under perfect seeing conditions). Things also will clearly get much better by allowing the perigee of the orbit to go much closer to the the Earth than 300 miles, although at the obvious expense of a shorter satellite life time. Still nothing that comes close to reading newspaper print, which CBS reported last year that the new spy satellites could do. Even reading license plates from space looks rather problematic (another standard claim of the grunt media), although an SR-71 would have no problem with this. Carrick clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jul 87 15:38:40 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: SPOT & maximum resolution Newsgroups: sci.space >Lessee... The diffraction limitation for a circular lens using >Rayleigh's criterion is . . . good added comment . . . > When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, > no matter how improbable, must be the truth. -- Sherlock Holmes > > Yes, but what happens if nothing's left? -- Watson's reply You are making certain assumptions about how lenses are used on some of these sensors, (you are thinking of camera optics) and detector mechanisms. Try considering using other sensors as well as cameras). Existing sensing systems are not near their potential limits. Don't forget to take motion blur into account. Try writing the National Recon Office. (Exercise left to reader ;-). P.S. I finally saw the SPOT image on Nightline. I think it is nothing more than a texture map onto a sphere with the center like a lens since it is close to the viewport. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center Don't write me, write the NRO. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 87 13:17:11 GMT From: mtune!codas!novavax!augusta!bs@rutgers.edu (Burch Seymour) Subject: Re: SPOT & maximum resolution > This is ignoring atomospherical distortion problems, which I recall to > limit resolution to about 0.5 arc seconds [anybody remember the > correct number?]. Using 0.5 arc seconds as illustrative, this would > imply a linear resolving limit at 300 miles of about 50 inches. Good > enough to spot a man (or tell what kind of tank you're looking at) but > not much more. I won't claim the information I presented is perfect, as I noted it came from the book _Deep_Black_ by William Burrows. His claim of 3 inches was based on 2 sources. First he went to an astronomy professor, who is an expert at telescope design (I don't have the name handy as my copy of the book is loaned out), and using the best guesses at the size of the telescope on the bird (KH-11 I *THINK*) they worked out the theoretical resolution of 3 inches. He backed this up by political reasoning. The SALT agreement limits the up-scaling of existing weapons (I'm going from memory here so excuse any detail fuzzing) to 5%. They took the smallest Russian weapon that fell into that agreement and took 5% of its size, the login being we constructed the treaty based on what we *could* verify. Five percent of that weapon's size turned out to be... 3 inches. Another factor to consider is the telescopes are thought to use all sorts of active measures to correct atmospheric distortion. Rubber mirror is the term used in the book. They measure the distortion in a wave from and then adjust the mirror to compensate. Besides, there's a picture in the book that CLEARLy resolves less than 50 inches and the claim is made it was take by a KH-11 at 504 miles. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 87 15:25:02 GMT From: scw@locus.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units In article <2805@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: >> However, some progress was made. During this time, soft drink >> companies were coerced to change to metric packaging. Out of this was >> born the liter and 2-liter bottle of soda > > I remember [...]t any easier to calculate the better per-unit >price? And while I'm on the subject, what's this facination American >marketing has with 9's? I mean, green beans for $0.69 instead of $0.70? >And not just in supermarkets; a Sun-3/50 now lists for $4995; why not an >even $5k? Ah, the art of pricing, and magic numbers. The fondness for the digit 9 in prices, especially in the least significant is due to the fact that $4995 seems to be a LOT smaller than $5000, 'Look George, This car only costs 4 thousand dollars, that one costs FIVE thousand dollars'. Other interesting 'magic' prices are xx.49 (less than 50 cents) $0.69 and xx76 (or xx.76) [this one only in the USA, probably because of contations with 1776]. Also for the same reason 4995 seems to be much smaller that 4999. Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614 UUCP: ...!{{inhp4,ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs,ibmsupt!ollie}!scw ARPA:scw@CS.UCLA.EDU <-note change from locus.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 87 14:10:38 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units In article <2805@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > I remember when metric was just starting to get introduced. The > big incentive was that since all units were powers of ten, it would be > easy to compare prices in the supermarket. Bullshit! Now, instead of > 28 oz for $1.49 vs. 45-1/2 oz. for $2.19, we have 750ml for $1.39 vs. > 1.75l for $2.29. You think that makes it any easier to calculate the > better per-unit price? Good point. American marketing types apparantly believe that we won't be able to handle major changes in product size. When metric units are used, it's usually just a rough conversion of the old product size into a rounded-off metric value. A better idea would be to change product sizes to things like 1 liter, 2 liter, 500 ml, etc. I've noticed other countries seem to have no problems with this--are we Americans so set in our ways that we can't handle a 25% increase or decrease in the size of a can of vegetables? To get this topic back to sci.space (at least partly), I'm interested in the experience of net readers with regard to learning the metric system. I HAD to learn it in public school. Learning the metric system was a required part of ninth grade science; if you didn't learn the metric system you flunked science, you flunked ninth grade, and you didn't get into high school until you passed it. This was the mid-60s in the city of Tulsa. Does anybody else have similar/dissimilar experiences? Are schools teaching the metric system today? If we want to keep up with the rest of the world in space and elsewhere, shouldn't this be part of school curricula? The way things are going, space will be explored using the metric system. We're fooling ourselves if we think we're training future astronauts if all they know how to measure is pounds and miles. Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 87 22:16:55 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!dhp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Douglas H. Price) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan A few friends and I came up with the ultimate Carl Sagan measurement, the "sagan." A Sagan, of course, is an arbitrary number of the "billions and billions" persuasion. One can speak of "sagans of space", or "sagans of jelly beans". One important point, though. The phrase "sagans and sagans" is not to be used. It is redundant. Douglas H. Price ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 87 14:18:19 GMT From: nsc!nsta!amos@decwrl.dec.com (Amos Shapir) Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units (This barely relates to sci.space, so I'm redirecting to sci.misc) The federal US is already metric - sort of. Signs I have seen lately in some national parks say: ELEVATION: 609.6m (2000 ft) and even: WATER 13.72m (45 ft) No wonder such advertising makes people think the metric system is complicated and obscure... -- Amos Shapir (My other cpu is a NS32532) National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. (972)52-522261 amos%nsta@nsc.com @{hplabs,pyramid,sun,decwrl} 34 48 E / 32 10 N ------------------------------ Subject: nanotech book request Date: Thu, 23 Jul 87 13:32:26 EDT From: LT Sheri Smith USN A couple of months ago there was a short discussion on the net about nanotech. Two books were mentioned as being advisable to read..one which hailed the new technology as the end of war and a chicken in the pot for everyone. The other was supposed to be a more sober treatment of the subject. I jotted down the names and authors of both, and now can't find them. If you know what I'm talking of, could you please post the info to me direct?? I am working on a novel and think this may be a significant aid to fleshing out the story. Many thanks.. Sheri ltsmith@mitre.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 87 15:58:01 GMT From: mtune!akgua!sortac!wcb@rutgers.edu (Bill Barksdale) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan In article <4729@ihlpa.ATT.COM> dhp@ihlpa.UUCP (Douglas H. Price) writes: >A few friends and I came up with the ultimate Carl Sagan measurement, >the "sagan." A Sagan, of course, is an arbitrary number of the >"billions and billions persuasion. One can speak of "sagans of space", >or "sagans of jelly beans. One important point, though. The phrase >"sagans and sagans" is not to be used. It is redundant. Great! But, why not define the "sagan" so it will be useful in the kind of calculations the man is known to make: 1 sagan == the total number of stars in the universe This will technically remove the redundancy from "sagans and sagans," but there's always a price . . . Bill Barksdale ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 87 14:00:09 GMT From: phri!roy@nyu.arpa (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units In article <3513@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> rose@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Dan Rose) writes: > I remember being shocked at the *committee's* lack of familiarity with > the system -- for instance, it took a European to point out that > dekameters, centiliters, and so on weren't actually used. I don't know about that. I'm looking right now at a French wine bottle. The bottle itself has "75 cl" cast into the glass (although the paper label says "73 cl"). Perhaps a somewhat more esoteric example, but the proper unit of measurement for Circular Dicroism (look it up in a book on spectroscopy) is mdeg/dmol (millidegrees per decimole). But, yes, it certainly is more common to use 10*(3*i) units; what H/P calculators refer to as engineering, as opposed to scientific, notation. Getting even furthur off the space track, I once was working from a hand-drawn schematic when I ran across what was supposed to be a "10 nF" capacitor. This had me so confused that I tracked down the guy who wrote that and asked him what he meant. Other than that, I've only seen capicitors in uF or pF, with a "10 nF" cap being called ".01 uF" Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 87 07:31:46 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA (MacLeod) Subject: Visitor's Drives...Last Atlas-Centaur Shrugged...Proxmire Shot For Treason >In article <8707150210.AA08860@angband.s1.gov> EXT768@UKCC.BITNET (Steve Abrams) writes: >> ... As the Science News article says, should the number of >> observed superluminals continue to increase, "(i)t will be more and more >> difficult to believe that so many of the most energetic and violent objects in >> the universe point themselves right at us." Didn't some science fiction writer hypothesize that what we are seeing is the decelerating fusion drives of ships coming to say hello? No? Oh. Excuse me, I am in a rotten mood tonight, after reading that the last Atlas has shrugged and now the US has no operational boosters of any sort online. If I weren't an anarchist I would suggest that management of our space program borders on treasonous and that those responsible be taken out behind the Capitol and shot, Proxmire first. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 87 12:14:56 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Maggie keeps Britain Grounded The following article appeared on the weekly space news column "In Orbit" on Channel 4's Oracle service. I reproduce it below in full below because, despite being an important announcement (To us in Britain at least), it was totally ignored by all the other media. The author also expresses the events much better than I could. I have added my comments at the end. All credits for the article go to the original author. ============================================================= MAGGIE KEEPS BRITAIN GROUNDED Dr David Whitehouse. Thursday was a very sad day for those of us keen to see Britain follow our European partners and become more involved in space. Margret Thatcher, in response to House of Commons space advocate Michael Marshal (parlimentary advisor to British Aerospace) said she had no plans to increase what we spend on space. For many years it was argued that Britain needed a co-ordinating body to avoid duplication of its space effort. To this end the then Minister Geoffrey Pattie announced the creation of the British National Space Centre in January 1985 - just in time to impress at a European Space Agency meeting. It would be set up officially in a few months from then, it was said, but time dragged on until November when the BNSC was established in London's Millbank tower. Its first task was to come up with a space plan to improve our performance in this important field and see how to benefit most from it. Britain's space plan was eventually submitted to the goverment in July 1986 and then shuffled back and forth for refinements and consultations. It called for an increase to about 300 million pounds a year from 100 million pounds in the amount Britain spends in space (mostly with ESA). A goverment decision was expected in Oct '86 .. Dec '86 .. The new year .. February .. Before the election .. after the election. and this week, finally, we got it. During this time Mr Pattie was shuffled to the backbenches. Yet everyone was confident of an increase. Preperations at ESA level were under way... After all the expectation the increase in space funding is... precisely nothing. More than that, the first the British National Space Centre knew about the non-increase was when told exclusivley by "In Orbit" after House of Commons question time. It is staggering that it should have taken well over a year to decide on no increase, leaving once-confidant space officials embarrased and signaling to our European colleages that our enthusiasm doesn't stretch to actually spending money. Space is important - the pinnacle of out society's technology. ALL comparable countries in Europe are increasing their space spending because they realise it's a vital investment. No-one can, of course, have everything they want. Bit if we are to maintain our standing and prepare for the future can we afford not to spend on space? We've lost a part of the 21st century. Tomorrow's adults will be the poorer. ============================================================= There isn't really much I can add, except to echo the feelings expressed above and ask the simple question. What now? Does anyone out there have any ideas what we in this country can do now. With the unwillingness of the goverment to spend any money, and their obsession with privatising EVERYTHING perhaps they might be persuaded to help make changes in the law to favour companies investing in space. What changes would be needed. How about selling shares? (The goverment loves selling shares, even when what its selling doesn't belong to it). Money for the channel tunnel has been raised in this way. Can space be next in line? if so how? There has to be some way forward. We've been grounded too long as it is. Bob. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #302 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 3 Aug 87 06:20:19 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09111; Mon, 3 Aug 87 03:19:20 PDT id AA09111; Mon, 3 Aug 87 03:19:20 PDT Date: Mon, 3 Aug 87 03:19:20 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708031019.AA09111@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #303 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 303 Today's Topics: Re: Little kids and big agencies (and last word on metric) Re: Soviet TM-3 mission launched to Mir John Leech's survey, another possible goal Cheap ways into space please. Relativistic mass increase Re: FACT SHEET/Commercial Centers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 87 10:27:32 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Little kids and big agencies (and last word on metric) Newsgroups: sci.space >at Caltech in the Planetary Sciences Department in 1981, just about Oh yeah?! Were you at the Monday afternoon Colloquia? Just curious, small world. > Mike Caplinger > >ps. I don't care if you belong to the Planetary Society or not; >if you don't think the two most important projects right now >are Galileo and the HST, then there's something seriously wrong with you. Hear hear! Added note: Julian Gomez and I went on a flight on Thursday last before SIGGRAPH. I should also mention that General Aviation maps are also in English like the measurements from Mean Sea Level. The problem is not exclusively NASA's, so can we now get off this? >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 87 12:31:17 GMT From: gatech!udel!thomson@rutgers.edu (Richard Thomson) Subject: Re: Soviet TM-3 mission launched to Mir In article <8707261421.AA07521@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes: >The crew consists of Alexander Victorenko, Alexander Alexandrov, and Mohamad ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ >Farise. Yuri Romanenko and Alexander Laveikin who have been up there for... ^^^^^^^^^ Won't this make it confusing for the USSR to understand the transmissions? It's almost like something out of Airplane!... Rich Thomson ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 87 15:27:11 GMT From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: John Leech's survey, another possible goal In article <3309@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jon@oddhack.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes: > ... I encourage everyone who has strong > feelings about Mars missions one way or the other to respond (to me > personally, not the net, please!) ... sorry, but ... > I) Do you think our next major goal in space after the space > station should be (check one): > > ___ A piloted mission to Mars > > ___ A permanent Lunar base > > ___ (Other, describe here) If one posits the U.S. government should spend any money at all, the next goal should be an inexpensive private launch capability. The U.S. government offers to buy 100 million dollars worth of LEO launch capability per month from the lowest bidders, with "business-like" penalty clauses for failure or delay by either party. The government sends up whatever it likes; spy sats, space probes, space stations, or Carl Sagan. The guarantee has to be fairly long-term, impervious to the moods of the administration or congress, so perhaps the interest on a $20 billion endowment earmarked only for those purposes is the way to do it. It should be administered by GSA or some other agency disconnected from DOD, NASA, etc. Over time, inflation diminishes the $100M/month to nothing, reducing the government's involvement. In the medium term, it acts as a trustworthy goad to private investment. As many big and small companies compete for this money, launch costs should drop dramatically, the fittest companies will survive, etc. $1.2 billion per year seems awfully small compared to current spending levels. In the beginning, it would buy only 3 or 4 launches per year. I would bet that it could start a lot of small companies developing launchers, though, resulting in LOTS of launches later. (It might even help with world peace. People would sneak into missile silos at night and steal the rockets. We can offer immunity to folks who steal Soviet ones. Would Soviet sailors mutiny if they could get $500 million for their sub full of launch vehicles??? :-) ) A good way to raise a chunk of this $20B is to sell NASA, of course... on the other hand, who would be fool enough to buy it? Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Return-Path: EMAILDEV%UKACRL.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU Date: Mon, 27 Jul 87 13:02:33 BST From: (ZZASSGL at UMRCCVM) Subject: Cheap ways into space please. Having followed that various arguments about NASA, L5, profits etc etc etc none of which have come to any great conclusion how about trying a different tack? WHY IS GETTING A FEW MILES UP INTO THE AIR SO EXPENSIVE??????? It is often stated that to get x kilograms to a height of y kilometres costs z cents if done efficiently ( the actual numbers are not very important the fact that z is reasonably small is). The real problem is to get closer to z with every new launch(?) technique. It seems to me that now that the system of mounting the payload on the end of a huge bomb is pretty well debugged nobody is doing any really powerfull(=expensive) research on better ways of doing it. The most down to Earth system I've read about is the "Sky Stalk" or "Sky Lift" (=Sky Elevator") as described by Clark and others. Of course we do not yet have the materials necessary to build such a structure as these writers have described. But then prehaps there are better ways of building such structures. There are other possibilities - such as half way stations maintained at high altitude by means of solar heated ballons(with prehaps a small atomic plant for nighttime). Would people pay to stay at a Hilton maintained at 50000 feet? OK I've thrown a couple of quarter baked ideas to the wolves how about some others and comments. After all if you can't beat the bureaucrats at least you can outthink them. Geoff. Lane. UMRCC ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 87 11:19:59 GMT From: eagle!icdoc!aw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andrew Weeks) Subject: Relativistic mass increase Brian Yamauchi asks : >I have two questions for the physics experts on the net: > >1) Through time dilation, it is theoretically possible to travel X >light years in less than X years of subjective time. How does the >energy required travel to do this compare to the energy that would be >required if the universe was not subject to relativity (and the >lightspeed limit). Relativistic mass is given by: m = M/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) where M is the rest mass The energy required to reach v is therefore (m - M)*c*c, (which approximates to m*v*v/2 if v is much less than c) This means that relativistic mass increase and kinetic energy are the same thing, even at low speed. >2) How does relativistic mass increase conform to conservation of >mass/energy in the universe? Is the energy expended for acceleration >being converted directly into the additional mass? Yes. >If energy is being converted to matter then consider the following >situation: suppose you accelerate to .9999c relative to Earth and then >stop accelerating. Then, from your point of view, the mass of the >Earth will have increased while your (subjective) mass has remained the >same. Does this mean that the energy you have expended has been >converted to mass on the Earth? > >This seems *wrong* but I can't think of a better explanation. An accelerating space-craft is not an `inertial frame of reference', ie one in which Newton's firtst law is true. Physical laws apply differently in such frames. After all, if you accelerate to c/2, in your frame, the rest of the universe has accelerated to c/2, while you remain stationery. How did it get the energy to do this?? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 87 13:11:49 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: FACT SHEET/Commercial Centers Newsgroups: nasa.telemail.lf I forward this from the NASA Internal news system. I hope someone out there could use the information. I note that many of the universities are not the first rate ones, and many are probably not Usenet nodes. Perhaps sites near those nodes can help out. Better to improve rather than strictly critize. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene >Jim Ball July 28, 1987 >Headquarters, Washington, D.C. >(Phone: 202/453-1922) > > > > CENTERS FOR THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE > > > A key element in NASA's initiative to support the expanded >commercial use of space is the creation of innovative research >institutions funded through a cooperative partnership of >industry, universities and government. > > Known as the Centers for the Commercial Development of >Space (CCDS), these non-profit research organizations focus on >specific technology areas identified as having potential for >future commercial development in space. > > NASA's Office of Commercial Programs manages the grant >program and provides funding up to $1 million annually to the >commercial development centers, which also receive support from >corporate and university affiliates. > > NASA support represents "seed money" to establish and >sustain the centers while increasing non-NASA financial and >institutional contributions lead to self sufficiency for the >CCDSs after a period of 5 years. > > The space agency also offers to the CCDS NASA scientific and >technical expertise, opportunities for cooperative activities and >other forms of continuing assistance. > > The CCDS program began in late 1985. In the first two >solicitations, nine centers were selected by NASA to conduct >pioneering commercial development research in areas ranging from >materials processing to remote sensing. These centers represent >involvement by 58 private companies, 22 universities and 6 other >government agencies. > > > - more - > > > > > > > > Page 2 > > > Seven CCDS have been added to the program as a result of the >1987 solicitation. These include the first centers to specialize >in the areas of space power, space propulsion, life sciences and >materials for space structures. > > In soliciting proposals for the CCDS grant program, NASA >identifies a number of research areas considered to have >promising commercial potential. > > Proposals submitted to NASA are evaluated by a distinguished >independent group of peer reviewers representing industry, >academia and government. > > The selections are based on these evaluations and the >availability of budgeted funds for this activity. Continued >funding of a CCDS depends on the center receiving a favorable >annual review of its progress. > > Though NASA designates the general area of commercial >development research for each center, the specific agenda of >research and development activities are determined by the private >sector to produce benefits for commercial enterprises. > > The 16 CCDS, their host facility and the year of their >selection are: > > > 1985 > >Center for Advanced Materials, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, >Columbus, Ohio. > >Center for Macromolecular Crystallography, University of Alabama >- Birmingham. > >Consortium for Materials Development in Space, University of >Alabama - Huntsville. > >ITD Space Remote Sensing Center, NASA National Space Technology >Laboratories, Mississippi. > >Center for Space Processing of Engineering Materials, Vanderbilt >University, Nashville, Tenn. > > > 1986 > >Center for Development of Commercial Crystal Growth in Space, >Center for Advanced Materials Processing, Clarkson University, >Potsdam, N.Y. > > > > > > > Page 3 > > >Center for Space Vacuum Epitaxy, University of Houston, Texas. > >Center for Mapping, Ohio State University, Columbus. > >Center for Space Automation & Robotics, University of Wisconsin, >Madison. > > > 1987 > >Center for Advanced Space Propulsion, University of Tennessee >Space Institute, Tullahoma. > >Center for the Commercial Development of Space Power, Auburn >University, Auburn, Ala. > >Center for the Commercial Development of Autonomous and Man- >Controlled Robotic Sensing Systems in Space, Environmental >Research Institute of Michgan, Ann Arbor. > >Center for Secretion Research, Pennsylvania State University, >University Park. > >Center for Bioserve Space Technologies, University of Colorado, >Boulder. > >Center on Materials for Space Structures, Case Western Reserve >University, Cleveland, Ohio. > >Center for Commercial Development of Space Power, Texas A&M >Research Foundation, College Station, Texas. > > > > - end - ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #303 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 4 Aug 87 06:20:09 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11185; Tue, 4 Aug 87 03:19:06 PDT id AA11185; Tue, 4 Aug 87 03:19:06 PDT Date: Tue, 4 Aug 87 03:19:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708041019.AA11185@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #304 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 304 Today's Topics: Rabbit vs. Turtle Re: FTL and time travel Pro-Space Publicity Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING Re: size of moon Sagan and Mars Space Shuttle & Presidental Candidates Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle We can too help! (was: My grouse with L5) Look like an astronaut ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 87 16:36:23 EST From: JBAPTIST%ESTEC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Jose Pedro V. Poiares Baptista) Subject: Rabbit vs. Turtle U.S. space policy reminds me of the rabbit in the old tale of the race between the fast rabbit and the slow turtle. The rabbit (U.S.) runs from one tree to the other proving to itself that it is the fastest runner in the forest and when it gets there (to the tree) decides to rest in the shadow and have a nap (read U.S. space policy runs from one project to the next scraping whatever is behind, people, experience, "products"). The target is mainly achievement not something more concrete. The "rabbit" is the fastest runner in the world, no doubt about that. The turtle keeps its pig-headed mind on the target (winning the race) and for her the trees are only events (read gradual development of existing "products", proper long-term planning, constant R&D for new projects and updating of old ones, even budget distribution along the years). The "turtle" goes slow and has short legs. In the end the turtle won the race. Nice Tale. Pedro ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 87 18:18:06 GMT From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org (Wayne A. Throop) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel > kraml@trwrb.UUCP (Robert P. Kraml), >> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne Throop) >> [...] FTL implies time travel. > Does this assume that the FTL travel takes place through space (our > universe)? No. > Would this hypothesis still hold with the "hyperspace" > idea (i.e., circumventing our universe to get from a to b)? Yes. > What I want to know are there any intrinsic differences between FTL > through space and FTL around space? Not from the standpoint of the FTL implying time travel. There may be others, of course. Wayne Throop ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 87 10:26:24 CDT From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Pro-Space Publicity I was just looking through a back issue (May '87) of GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE magazine (I'm no executive, myself -- this was an extra copy discarded by the library in our building). Anyway, I would recommend that Space readers try to locate a copy of this issue, as there are a couple articles in it of particular interest to you. One is on the management of the NASA Space Station program, but the primary one, and why I am posting this with the subject above, is an editorial column about how ABC and CBS refused to air a McDonnell Douglas-sponsored ad, prepared by J. Walter Thompson, in favor of the development of the US Space Station which dramatically displayed our current inferiority to the Soviets in space. It's on page 56, and pictures from the ad are on page 57. I'll quote a bit: "... The video portion begins with a a shot of outer space and gradually, as a space station comes into view, the voice-over narrator says that 'Right now, in space' medicines are being developed to cure disease, new materials are being developed that could revolutionize the quality of products manufactured on Earth and scientific discoveries are being made that could change history. By the end of the script, a Battlestar Galactica-sized space ship fills the screen -- with a red star and the letters CCCP on it. Says the narrator, 'Shouldn't we be there too? America needs the Space Station.'" "...Budget limits said they could afford to buy time on only one Sunday morning talk show and a few local-TV nightime news slots. [This explains why I had never seen this ad nor heard of it before now.-WM] The networks made that decision easy for them. Only NBC said it would run the ad. ABC and CBS turned it down, said it was 'too controversial'." [About a half-page of discussion omitted, ending with comments on the role of the media to censor ads for various reasons.] "... When they deny expression of 'controversial' opinions they don't like, this Republic has a heap of trouble, folks." (editorial by C. W. Borklund, Editor-In-Chief) I think the point here, related to recent discussion on this list, is that there HAVE been efforts out there to publicize the pro-space concerns voiced by many of this list's participants. But much of this effort has been stifled and suppressed by enemies of the pro-space viewpoint. If someone with the clout of McDonnell Douglas can't get a professionally-produced ad on TV, what chance do private persons have of spreading the word with some kind of newsletter or lobbying effort? (Though the budget limits mentioned above indicate that McD-D wasn't putting much corporate might behind this -- I wonder if the networks would have been so quick to refuse a "media blitz" campaign, where McD-D would be buying a LOT of ads, not just a few?) Anyway, I think a lot of the past weeks' posters/participants would find this editorial and the series of stills from the ad of great interest. Maybe McD-D would donate copies to other groups for dissemination in various ways, like local cable public-access channels? Be a shame to waste the production costs... Regards, Will Martin wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (on USENET try ...!seismo!wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA ) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 87 18:59:53 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!lew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lew Mammel, Jr.) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING In article <1302@sputnik.COM>, inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) writes: > When Sagan walks across his astral calendar and on the 30th he talks > about the emergence of man, I for one get a much better feel for the > time spans involved when we speak of the cosmos. This is surely nitpicking, but I don't like Sagan's calendar since it represents a linear phenomenon ( passage of time ) by area. The little patch at the end of the calendar actually minimizes the psychological impact of the small ratio of historical to geological time. Now if *I* were doing it *I* would use rolls of adding machine tape with a time scale of 1 year/mm. I would show that historical time unrolled in a few steps ( 5000 yrs = 5 m ) Then I would get into a truck loaded with rolls of adding machine tape and drive the length of Route 80 while I commented on the epochs that were unrolling. I imagine myself like David Attenborough - "Here we ah in the late Jurassic period as we pass through the decidedly Cenozoic vegetation of Iowa ..". Oh well, *I* didn't do the show did I? > ..................................... Just last week, I performed a > rather Saganesque demonstration for a friend of mine. We were on a > beach and I found a stone that I called Earth, then another one that > was about one-sixth the size. Together we calculated where to put it > so it could be the moon, then we figured out how big the sun would be > and that it would be about a half mile offshore. We wound up doing > most of the solar system - I must confess I couldn't remember the size > of most of the outer planets relative to Earth. She was delighted; had > never done anything like that, and thanked me because it helped her > understanding. Here I fault Sagan a little more substantially. He committed the same crime everybody else does in uncoupling distance scales from size scales in his stroll through the solar system. I once built a 10^-10 scale solar system and actually showed it to my daughter's fourth grade class. We went out in the schoolyard and I put different kids in charge of each planet and sent them out in different directions ( no arbitrary syzygy ) with their charges. Some of us stood near earth and looked with binoculars at Jupiter and Saturn ( about 70 and 150 meters distant and the size of small marbles ) > That's the value of Carl Sagan. He is a valuable spokesman for > science, and discussions about whether someone likes him or not strike > me as inappropriate to this newsgroup, and even a little offensive. > When *my* starship leaves, I'd much prefer that Carl Sagan be my > fellow passenger than some stuck up twit who wouldn't deign to speak > with me unless I could prove a passing mark in calculus. I like Sagan OK, insofar as he certainly does more good than bad ( I think ) but I am deeply mistrustful of the Ooo - ah approach exemplified by COSMOS. I remember coworkers talking about how spectacular the effects were and so on, but I don't think anybody was inspired to so much as look at a star through a pair of binoculars. ( Vega through 10X50's is sublime. ) The hard truth is that the beauties of astronomy are subtle, and it takes a little cerebration to achieve the breathtaking stage. A real astronomy show would be like a Zen instruction book - "Stop watching this show! Go outside!" Lew Mammel, Jr. ------------------------------ Return-Path: Date: 29 Jul 1987 01:49:35 EDT (Wed) From: Dan Hoey Subject: Re: size of moon To: "David A. Lyons" Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Date: Friday 24 Jul 87 11:43 PM CT From: David A. Lyons Subject: size of moon ...Probably a lot of people never stop to think that 1/6 surface gravity is not the same as 1/6 mass--I am guilty of this myself.... Amazingly, though, surface gravity *is* proportional to escape velocity, assuming spheres of equal uniform density and Newtonian physics. Dan Hoey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jul 87 12:22:59 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Sagan and Mars I have been reading (except for the political flames) but not responding to recent SPACE digests, being a bit too busy writing and defending my thesis. However, I would like to go on record as saying that I, too, am a bit queasy at Sagan bashing and very, very uneasy about the anti-Mars sentiment on the net. I don't watch TV, and have never seen Cosmos, but I have great respect for scientists who make the effort to bring science to the general public. Quoting Roald Hoffman (Nobel prize in Chemistry, 1981; writing in _American Scientist_ July-Aug 1987): "...To simplify may be to trivialize... but think of the alternative to *not* trying to explain what we are doing, not just the technological end or the medical benefit, but the hard (and sometimes soft), beautiful logic that fascinates us. The alternative, not really far down the road, is a cutting off from sthe society that supports us, and from those close to us, a sinking into still more jargon,; the alienation of just those young people whom we want to join us." Bringing science to the populace, and trying to convey the excitement and beauty, is not easy; and unfortunately, rather than being a worthy and respected task, far too often brings scorn and ridicule from colleagues, rather than the respect it deserves: "Popularization is taken as a sign of softening, the kind of thing a macho scientist in his prime just wouldn't think of doing... If he is so good at talking about science--and we know this takes time, so much time--the presumption is that there must be something inadequate in his science. I suspect that there is some illogical reaction along these lines in the astronomy community to Carl Sagan, a remarkable expositor who has done more for science around the world than any other person I know." (again from Hoffmann) There seems a remarkable intolerance in this list for different opinions. I think that, overall, we should realize that Sagan is much more with us than against us. Save the bashing for Proxmire and Van Allen. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 87 16:38:51 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!calgary!arcsun!rob@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rob Aitken) Subject: Space Shuttle & Presidental Candidates [more $9.95 << $10.00 flamage deleted. -Ed] Obligatory space shuttle question: Does anyone have any information on the priority/funding that the various U.S. presidential candidates are prepared to give NASA, and how this will affect the launch schedule? Rob Aitken In Canada: aitken@noah.arc.cdn Everywhere else: arcsun!rob@seismo.css.gov ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 87 17:06:50 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle In article <3309@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jon@oddhack.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes: > How expensive would 747s be if Boeing had only built 4 of them, and > had to develop numerous highly complex systems that had never flown > before, rather than designing with what was available at the time? > They're not THAT much less expensive than a shuttle even as it stands > - I suspect the learning curve alone accounts for a lot of the > difference. In today's dollars at least $1 billion apiece if we had only built 4. It is not correct that a 747 is comparable to a Space Shuttle in cost. According to the "Boeing News" of July 24, 1987:(page 1) "China Airlines will acquire six 747-400 superjets valued at about $1 billion...". These are the new version coming out next year. According to NASA's 1988 budget estimate, the replacement orbiter will cost $2.1 billion in 1987 dollars. j ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 87 20:54:45 GMT From: s.cc.purdue.edu!ain@h.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White) Subject: We can too help! (was: My grouse with L5) In article <3282@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@oddhack.Caltech.EDU (Jon Leech) writes: > There's really not much else many ``dedicated supporters of >space'' can DO. ... > ... The >rest of us are not in a position to do anything but cheerlead for >whoever is getting SOMETHING done ... Nonsense! In this newsgroup alone, there are many people with skills that any start-up space company NEEDS, such as physics, engineering, computer programming, dietetics, medicine, law, etc. These skills cost lots of money for a small start-up company to get and only add to the already enormous cost of a leading edge technology venture involving space exploration. Although we can't invest money, or didn't get a job with a company that is involved with space, there is still something that can be done to further space exploration -- donate your time and skills to some small start-up company's space project. Donating this kind of time will do far more to further the space exploration we all want to see than will spending time to get space related orginazitions in the news (after all, actions have always accomplished more than words). Or, if you don't like the idea of donation your time to a particular comnpany, then how about bashing some ideas arround here on the net -- I don't mean just talking about them, but rather doing detailed calculations to determine feasibility, actually drawing up plans, finding sources and costs of materials, and perhaps even doing some "basement" research on new techniques or materials. Then releasing the designs to the public domain. Donating this kind of time and effort will surely do far more for space exploration than an infinite number of meetings or conferences that achieve nothing more than talk. By now, you are probably expecting me to try to get other people to donate time to some start-up company I have, but you would be wrong. I do not have any such company and never intend to start one. However, since this is my idea, I will be the first to offer some of my free time as a programmer and computing power of my micro to a start-up company that needs some code written. If there is anybody that is interested in taking me up on my offer, I can be reached at the below addresses. -- Pat White UUCP: k.cc.purdue.edu!ain BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM U.S. Mail: 320 Brown St. apt. 406, West Lafayette, IN 47906 ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 87 16:32:21 GMT From: sundc!hadron!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Look like an astronaut Okay, as I promised, the information on prices for the Barrier-Wear jumpsuits. They're $95 (we get a proce break if we buy 100...not real likely). That's more than I thought they were going to cost. I will have a prototype in my hands this weekend. It may still be worth it. The biggest advantage to these suits is that you can put your hands in your pockets, which you can't in the Cockpit suits. In the royal blue, they're only $6 more than the Cockpit. After we get a chance to look at the prototype this weekend at Not-the- August Party (we is a group of folks going down to Space Camp together) I'll let you know if the order is going to go ahead. Those of you who have emailed me will get more information (Monday) in your mailbox. Rich Kolker 8519 White Pine Drive Manassas Park, VA 22111 (703)361-1290 (h) (703)749-2315 (w) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #304 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 5 Aug 87 06:19:52 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13740; Wed, 5 Aug 87 03:18:43 PDT id AA13740; Wed, 5 Aug 87 03:18:43 PDT Date: Wed, 5 Aug 87 03:18:43 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708051018.AA13740@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #305 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 305 Today's Topics: Soviet/Syrian mission lands Suggestions on names for Mars Observer Discovery Jane's opinion of NASA astronaut breakfast Re: Spotting Apollo 15 Re: Spotting Apollo 15 Shuttle Jumpsuits...Ordering Info Manned vs. unmanned missions, public perception of space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 87 00:54:09 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet/Syrian mission lands The Russian/Syrian space mission ended today (July 29th) when the Soyuz TM-2 spacecraft returned to earth. On board were Alexander Viktorenko (mission commander), Mohammed Faris (Syrian Airforce Major) and Alexander Laveikin. This forms a partial crew switchoff as Laveikin has just spent the last 174 days on Mir (his first space voyage). Laveikin apparently has had health problems - he was very slow adapting to zero G, and now has heart problems. He has been replaced by Alexander Alexandrov, flight engineer on the Syrian mission, who has already spent 149 days in space on Salyut 7 during the Soyuz T-9 flight in June '83. Remaining with Mir is Yuri Romanenko (104 days from Soyuz 26 & 33). A crew switch off was probably not planned in the original mission, but as I noted two months ago in a posting there were statements then that the crew may be relieved before too long. No more was said about that until just before this flight so Laveikin must have taken a turn for the worse. The Soyuz TM-2, which came up with this mission, is bringing down materials processing samples, and photographs. The fresh TM-3 is being left behind and the Soviets have said that it will be moved from the rear docking port to the forward one in the next few days (they like to change Soyuz's every 6 months or less to keep the ships in good order). This change probably means that the Progress 31 tanker will be coming up within a couple of weeks (they usually do that after a visit). By the way, in answer to the question of a few days ago on Space digest, the cosmonaut that got sick previously was Vladimir Vasyutin, commander of the Soyuz T-14 mission to Salyut 7 in Sept. '85. He became ill and was running 104 degrees temperatures when the mission landed in Nov 85, long before it was expected to come down. It turned out that he had a prostate infection, which is the reason why they are so quiet about it. If there is one thing that is even more secret in Russian society than the military it is things even slightly related to sexual functions or, um, equipment. That mission was their first attempt at a crew switchoff. So now when a Soviet cosmonaut gets ill they replace him and continue the mission. They are obviously building up to a constant presence in space. I wish we were. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 87 12:45:52 GMT From: topaz.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: Suggestions on names for Mars Observer A friend who is working on the Mars Observer spacecraft and I have decided to solicit suggestions (unofficially) on a less prosaic name for the MO. Names should be appropriate for a spacecraft whose mission is a long-term survey of Mars and nearby space, and should not have been used on earlier spacecraft. Please mail your suggestions to me at masticol@topaz.rutgers.edu. - Steve Masticola. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 87 17:13:17 GMT From: duh%psueclb.BITNET%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Discovery Hey! I just heard on the radio that they sucessfully powered up Discovery at KSC. This is the first time that Discovery has been powered up since the accident, and its an important milestone along the path to flight of Mission-26. I just had to tell everyone, but I'm sure you all knew. :-) :-) :-) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 87 04:47:23 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60HC) Subject: Jane's opinion of NASA An article in the local newspaper gives some interesting comments from Jane's Spaceflight Directory (from the introduction by Reginald Turnill): [These quotes are from an article which in turn quotes Turnill.] Turnill found that in visiting NASA facilities he found "many who doubted whether there would be a resumption (of shuttle missions) before 1989 and even some in high places who thought Shuttle Mission 26 might not occur before 1990. "The fact is that currently NASA has lost the will to fly men in space. There are apparently some 2,000 people now concerned with 'safety, reliability, and quality assurance' -- people whose own safety can be ensured only by saying 'No.'" NASA has its usual reaction: long on promises, short on results. This is mostly nothing new to those on the net, but it's interesting that's it's now making it into the regular press. Another quote (of Turnill): "It is time for the West, and the U.S. in particular, to worry less about the nightmare of 'technology transfer' and to worry more about the lessons to be learned by making a close study of what our Eastern European rivals are doing." Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 87 19:28:19 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: astronaut breakfast The traditional breakfast for astronauts since Mercury days has been steak and eggs. The eggs are scrambled but how is the steak prepared and what cut of beef is it? ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 87 19:44:32 GMT From: terra!brent@sun.com (Brent Callaghan) Subject: Re: Spotting Apollo 15 In article <618@mas1.UUCP>, gulvin@mas1.UUCP (Tom Gulvin) writes: > In article <24146@sun.uucp> brent%terra@Sun.COM (Brent Callaghan) writes: > >It took several Apollo flights and more heavy packages of trajectory > >data before we were successful. We spotted Apollo 15 exactly where > >it was supposed to be through a 20" telescope at our local > >observatory. > > > >This kid still thinks "space is NEAT"! > > Hold on there brent - you can't tell us a cool story like that with > out more details! You mean that you actually SAW apollo 15 from the > ground? What did you see? CSM/LM (on way to moon)? S-IVB + CSM + Lunar > adapter? White smudge? What were the conditions of observation? > Field of view? Type of equipment? Shoe size?... I interested some amateur astronomers in the project. They were a bit sceptical but after we went over my printouts they figured that it was worth a try. We were lucky to get time on a 20" reflector at the Auckland observatory. Our biggest problem with spotting the thing was in getting a clear sky. We had bad weather almost every night we had time booked for observing. We had the computed position plotted onto a starmap and pointed the telescope there looking for something unusual. This night we had a gap in the clouds that lasted about 10 minutes. We saw an orange dot exactly where it was supposed to be. We assumed that the orange was due to the gold foil reflecting sunlight off the angular surfaces of the lunar module. The brightness varied during the observation in a way that suggested that the spacecraft was rotating slowly - passive thermal control. Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan @ Sun Microsystems uucp: sun!bcallaghan phone: (415) 691 6188 ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 87 21:03:50 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!dhp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Douglas H. Price) Subject: Re: Spotting Apollo 15 >The brightness varied during the observation in a way that suggested >that the spacecraft was rotating slowly - passive thermal control. Indeed, Apollo spacecraft did slowly rotate while in transit. This was euphemistically referred to as "barbecue mode". The idea was to distribute solar heating evenly across the spacecraft. Douglas H. Price Analysts International Corp. @ AT&T Bell Laboratories ..!ihnp4!ihlpa!dhp ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 87 13:14:04 GMT From: sundc!hadron!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Shuttle Jumpsuits...Ordering Info Thank you for waiting... The Barrier-Wear shuttle jumpsuits are going to cost $95. Since this is more than I thought they would, I'll take care of postage. For those of you who missed it, these are a polyester/cotton version of the astronaut shuttle jumpsuit, made by the original company and cut from the same patterns. They are the royal blue color that will be used when flights resume. Lower leg pockets and external velcro have been removed to save cost (originally $275). Sizes are from 32 short to 46 long. My best suggestion for finding your size is to go to the nearest Sears/work clothes store etc. where they sell work coveralls and try some on. The waist is adjustible. As an alternative, I give you the following information, which is stolen from the men's jacket size chart in the Sears catalog: SIZE CHEST WAIST 36 34-36 29-31 38 37-39 31-33 40 39-41 33-35 42 41-43 35-37 44 43-45 38-40 46 45-47 41-43 Chest and waist of course are in inches. As I said, I recommend finding a place that has coveralls and trying some on. Also take into account you can get short, regular and long. So...to order. Make checks payable to W.A.C.O. (all the money is passing through this account so the order can be made before all your checks clear) and send them to me at the address below. Here's the form: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME................................. ADDRESS........................................... .................................................. PHONE (In case I have questions)......................... Size(check correct size or use numbers if ordering more than one) Short Regular Long 32 ..... ..... ..... 34 ..... ..... ..... 36 ..... ..... ..... 38 ..... ..... ..... 40 ..... ..... ..... 42 ..... ..... ..... 44 ..... ..... ..... 46 ..... ..... ..... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The order will be going out NO LATER THAN Sept 1, so I need your money in hand by August 28. Delivery should be about 3 weeks later (hopefully sooner). I AM NOT MAKING A PROFIT ON THIS, as a matter of fact, I'll probably lose a few bucks on postage. I'm just providing a service in exchange for being able to get a suit myself. +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+ | Rich Kolker The work goes on... A|W|A | | 8519 White Pine Drive The cause endures... H|T|H | | Manassas Park, VA 22111 The hope still lives... /|||\ | | (703)361-1290 (h) And the dream shall never die. /_|T|_\ | | (703)749-2315 (w) (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker) " W " | +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jul 87 13:04 CDT From: (Kevin 'Charlie' Brown) Subject: Manned vs. unmanned missions, public perception of space Oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes: > I think a lot more planetary science would get done if the up-front > costs for launching were not hundreds of millions of $$$; if > opportunities were so frequent you didn't have to design hardware to > last for decades; if each project wasn't such a major financial and > managerial endeavour. The way to achieve this is greatly expanded > human presence in space. Typically, planetary probe projects are a LOT less expensive than manned missions (mainly due to *much* smaller payload, lack of life-support systems, smaller power requirements, etc.). However, I do have to agree that most of the problem is in the high launch costs. This problem plagues both manned and unmanned missions. I should point out that unmanned missions can and should be used to aid us in reaching the ultimate goal of a large manned presence in space. Specifically, probes are useful in allowing us to see what we're getting ourselves into. It logically follows, then, that before we go someplace (like the moon), we should send unmanned probes first. I have to agree with the idea that the best way to start establishing a presence in space is to establish a presence on the moon, since there are resources there that will be needed in near-earth space construction, and it is far easier to get something off the moon than it is to get the same thing off the earth. I also agree that the moon needs a lot more exploration. Since unmanned probes are very good for exploration purposes, it seems to me that we need to send several exploratory probes (preferably the rover-type, but we also need orbiters) with state-of-the-art sensory equipment to the moon. Once we've gained a detailed knowledge of the moon (both front and back sides), then we can safely establish a manned presence there. If we can already safely establish a manned presence on the moon, then we should do so, but I don't know that we know enough about the moon yet... If planetary exploration via unmanned probes is so much more cost-effective, why bother sending a manned exploration team to Mars? Why not send several unmanned rover-type probes instead? While this is going on, we can begin to establish a presence in near-earth space (earth-moon system) and, having done that, we can then *safely* establish a presence on Mars (imagine the problems we would have right now if a rescue team were needed for a manned Mars mission. A well-established presence in near-earth space would make such a rescue mission much easier and much more timely. As it stands right now, by the time we could get a rescue mission off the ground the people on Mars would probably be dead). The main reason that launches are so expensive is that the hardware isn't mass produced. Our industry relies on mass production for its survival, and it's mainly through mass production that the price of a product will drop to a reasonable level. Consider how expensive an automobile would be if only twenty or thirty copies were produced, compared with the price of the same automobile when 20,000 or 30,000 are produced. But a company will not mass produce something that will be bought in limited quantities at best. The result: we need to launch a lot of stuff into space in order to lower the costs. This includes both manned *and* unmanned missions. We're currently in a circular situation: we are unwilling to launch large numbers of payloads on a regular basis because the cost per launch is so high, and we can't lower the cost per launch until we start launching large numbers of payloads into space. To break out of this, somebody is going to have to be willing to spend some money on launching payloads into space on a regular basis until launch costs come down. As the cost per launch goes down, more people will be willing to send payloads into space, and unless something really nasty happens the trend will continue until it reaches an equilibrium point. Mink@cfa.harvard.EDU (Doug Mink) writes: > The sorry state of the US space program at present is due to the fact > that manned space flight is damned complicated, much more so than > anyone thought it would be. Because it cost so much, the shuttle was > required to do more than it could possibly be expected to. Obviously > what we need now is an unmanned heavy-lift freight system to support > relatively infrequent (10/year) human trips into space (over the next > 10 years). While this need is obvious, it does not seem to be the way > things are going to go. Hence we are battling manned versus unmanned > when both are needed in near-earth space. Actually, both types of space flight are complicated, but in different ways. Manned space flight is complicated due to the life-support problems, and the fact that we do our best to keep the people alive up there (thus the redundant life-support systems. I wouldn't have it any other way, but it does make things a bit costly). On the other hand, unmanned space flight is also complicated, mainly because the knowledge we have of the environment into which we send our probes is much less than our knowledge of the environment into which we send our manned missions. For example, if the probe gets far enough away from earth, then you start having to worry about time delay in communications. Let's face it, spaceflight in general is complicated, but obviously it's also manageable. It seems to me, however, that the main (but certainly not the only) reason that our space program is in shambles is that people simply don't consider it as important as other earth-bound issues. Now that the Soviet space program has made ours look childish, people may start viewing the space program as an important issue. Unfortunately, I suspect that if we somehow mobilize our space program (whether it be via NASA or private enterprise or both), people will eventually lose interest again once they no longer perceive the Soviet space program as a threat. The ultimate problem (as I see it) is that most people here in America are very nearsighted. The reason that American companies rarely plan into the far future is that the people in those companies don't think in terms of the far future, only in terms of the near future. The main problem is not with our companies or with our government (though these things are an extension of the problem), but rather with *us*, i.e. the average American. The American people need a change in philosophy. The current philosophy seems to be 'live for today'. While this philosophy may be necessary to a degree for survival, most people do nothing but live on a day-by-day basis. How can we possibly realize a long-term goal when most everyone is concerned with only the present and/or near future? Kevin Brown (KCB9792@TAMSIGMA.BITNET) Texas A&M University Voice: (409)846-2667 SNAIL: 4302 College Main #353 Bryan, TX 77801 Live for today AND tomorrow. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #305 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 6 Aug 87 11:09:21 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15963; Thu, 6 Aug 87 08:07:18 PDT id AA15963; Thu, 6 Aug 87 08:07:18 PDT Date: Thu, 6 Aug 87 08:07:18 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708061507.AA15963@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #306 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 306 Today's Topics: Stanford Satellite Program at AIAA/DARPA Conference Dry Ore Separation Device Progress 31 launched to Mir Re: Jan Wasilesky Re: Sagan and Planetary Society Mars, nyet. Space isn't all too special, either Re: SPACE Digest V7 #299 goals Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Aug 87 17:45:04 GMT From: scherzo!lyang@sun.com (Larry Yang) Subject: Stanford Satellite Program at AIAA/DARPA Conference STANFORD SMALL SATELLITE PROGRAM TO PRESENT PAPERS AT AIAA/DARPA SATELLITE CONFERENCE Monterey, California, August 4, 1987: Graduate students and faculty of the Stanford Small Satellite Program will present three papers at the AIAA-DARPA "Lightweight Satellite Conference", August 4-6 at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey. The meeting is intended to facilitate the transfer of information relative to the critical technologies and management methods which will support the development of low- cost, lightweight satellite systems. Graduate students Victor Aguero (AA), David Cannon (ME), Robert Crigler (ME) and Burton Lee (Engineering Management) will present "Small Satellite Ejector Mechanisms: Implications for Bus Design and Passive vs. Active Attitutde Control" at the Satellite Bus Design Session. The Data Transmission Session will hear Victor Aguero, David Lauben (EE) and Karan Ponnudurai (EE) present "Small Satellite Communication Systems: VHF- An Alternative to S- and L- band". Both papers summarize results of research per- formed on contract to NASA-Ames during the past academic year. Dr. Michael Wiskerchen, Associate Director of the Center for Aeronautics and Space Information Sciences (CASIS), has been in- vited to present "Rapid Prototyping Testbeds" before the Ground and Mission Operations Technologies Session. The major NASA operations centers have funded CASIS to develop information tech- nologies aimed at reducing mission costs and accelerating the transfer of advanced applications into operational environments. Dr. Wiskerchen shall discuss implications of the CASIS coopera- tive research/applications program for lightweight satellite mis- sions. The Small Satellite Program was established in late 1985 to apply advanced technology and management methods to new-generation space platforms. NASA-Ames contracted for studies of small sa- tellite technology, and in particular, for the desgin of a proto- type 120 lb. satellite called SURFER (Stanford University Radio Frequency Emissions Receiver). SURFER is intended to address the needs of space scientists who desire a low-cost free-flying plas- ma field measurement platform for use with Space Shuttle tethered satellite missions. Enthusiastic support from graduate students, however, quickly demonstrated the program's substantial value as an educational vehicle. To date, an estimated 80 graduate and undergraduate students have participated in related for-credit projects, coursework, and independent study. Major aerospace contractors have recognized the importance of the program by hiring several team members. Victor Aguero, Program Manager, states that discussions are currently underway to expand the Stanford program into additional small satellite research areas, including applications of compo- site materials, surface mount technology and other advanced tech- nologies. For further information, please contact: Victor Aguero, Program Manager: (415)723-2945 or (415)723-3245 E-mail: aguero@star.stanford.edu Burton Lee, Deputy Program Manager: (415) 723-2945 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Aug 87 17:13 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Dry Ore Separation Device Today's NY Times (8/5/87, page D6) has an article on a recently invented ore separation device. The device separates mineral grains by density. Unlike other machines with this function, it uses no water. Grains are dropped into an oscillating separation chamber where some arrangement of baffles causes dense grains to drift to the center. Although the inventor wants to use it on desert gold deposits, it seems to me a device like this would be ideal for beneficiating lunar ore. For example, you might want to separate ilmenite or meteoric metal particles from the less dense silicates and glasses. The machine seems rugged and simple, and might very well operate in a vacuum. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Aug 87 18:52:11 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Progress 31 launched to Mir The Soviet Union has launched the Progress 31 cargo craft to Mir last night (Aug 3/4) and it will dock with the station on Aug 5-6th. Typically this will carry up 1 tonne of fuel and 1.5 tonnes of cargo. On board Mir Yuri Romanenko (up for 180 days now from the Soyuz TM-2 crew) and Alexander Alexandrov (now up 14 days from the Soyuz TM-3 crew switch off) have been using the Kvant observatory section to look at this year's supernova. Progress 31 makes the 7th tanker, and 12th vehicle to visit Mir. In other news the Russians launched on July 25th a very large (15-20 tonne) earth resource satellite. Information suggests that it is similar to the large Landsats the Ride report was calling for in the Mission-to-Earth studies of the 1990's. Its mass is 5-7 times that of the Landsat. Unless something unusual happens the Soviet's will be celebration the 30th anniversary of Sputnik on October with a new space endurance record by Romanenko. It will be about a decade before we can equal his mission duration, as things stand now. I just hope this can change. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 1987 15:50-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Jan Wasilesky Very well put Jan, and those are precisely my own feelings. I'm a hard core libertarian, but I'm also a realist. It is important to have strong ideals to help set long term goals and to guide your decisions. But if you ignore current realities, you do your own ideals a disservice. As a fanciful example to the already tortured historical parallel, who do you think would have accomplished more: 1) An activist who stood up at a slave auction and tried to release the slaves on the block. 2) A planter who built a plantation with an extra big basement where he could secretly run a school to teach teachers to spread literacy among the slaves. The first goes to jail and gets in the history book while accomplishing nothing. The second would probably never be known, might even be castigated and lumped with the supporters of slavery, and yet is the one who REALLY plants the seeds of destruction. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 1987 16:10-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Sagan and Planetary Society I may disagree with Sagan on many points, but I don't feel quite the vehemence of many here. We (NSS/L5) have had common cause with them on numerous occassions, Galileo, guaranteeing the continued suppert of Voyager, etc. I'm sure if they would agree publicly that commercial goals and the building of a permanent infrastructure were important parts of an overall grand program, including a lunar base as a preliminary to a Mars base, then I'm quite sure we could work amicably with them on wider issues. We at NSS/L5 have nothing inherently against many of the things they want, in fact we share many of the same goals. It is only that they have often made public statements attacking some of OUR primary goals, and this has caused some bitterness and angry responses. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jul 87 21:08:55 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Mars, nyet. I feel very uneasy about the anti-Mars sentiment expressed on the net. I fervently hope that these expressions against Mars exploration are "in the family" squabbles, and that they are not being broadcast further. You all do realize, I hope, that to outsiders (i.e., politicians) the detailed arguments will blur into obscurity and all that will be heard will be a vague anti-space sentiment. If there is one lesson that must be learned if space advocates are to have any level of success, it is that such criticisms must be kept internal, and a united front presented to the outside. Even if it means not criticizing (in public) a program that may draw money away from your pet project. When subgroups within a research community (and not just the space network; but fusion, high-energy physics, solar power, whatever) publicly criticize the need for each other's projects, it is almost always the case that opponents and budget-cutters use the disharmony as a tool to cut funding to ALL the projects. That means, don't air the dirty laundry in public. I think a good argument could be made that it is not a case of either going to Mars or else building a space infrastructure, but instead a case of either going to Mars or else continuing to piss away time money and effort with the kind of space program we've got. In other words, Mars or *nothing*. I may not in fact believe this is strictly true, but I think it is a valid argument, and I certainly can't criticize people who do believe this for arguing the case for Mars. Give them the benefit of being honest. And, remember, it is a *lot* easier to build up a infrastructure if you can point to a tangible goal, like Mars. At least, if you are arguing that Mars will drain resources needed to build a real space infrastructure, give me a reasonable argument as to why you believe that if we *don't* go to Mars, we *will* get the infrastructure. In case you haven't noticed, the Mars Underground had *nothing* to do with the dismantlement of the Apollo program. Arguing that "Apollo ended up being a one-shot deal with no systematic exploration follow-up, so therefore we should not go to Mars" is tantamount to doing statistics from ONE DATA POINT. It is meaningless. Any sort of Mars mission would necessarily build up a significant amount of space infrastructure, not to mention sheer experience in zero-gee. The thing to do is to USE that build-up, and make sure it doesn't get destroyed when the hoopla is over. Co-opt the Mars project, do it right; don't torpedo it, or you may find that you are left with nothing at all. With respect to Sagan in particular, some people have argued that Sagan's express purpose in pushing this Mars project is to foster cooperation with the Russians, in a vain attempt to avoid such misunderstandings and posturing ("you're an evil empire!" "Oh, yeah? Well, you're imperialist swine!") as might lead to a nuclear war. This may be so, but is this bad? I do not see how one can fault the man for wanting to avoid nuclear war, even if he has to advocate (gasp) space exploration to do it. --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday 29 Jul 87 9:10 PM CT From: Jacob Hugart To: Subject: Space isn't all too special, either In his article, oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes: > See what I mean about fundamentally different goals? We want to >get a LOT of humans out there.[space] It would be nice to have thousands (no, millions!) of humans in space, or on their way away, but imagine what could happen to a craft - carrying hundreds of spacers - doing what the Challenger did? Unless, of course, such ships are designed to be rugged and long-lasting. But no, you said: >I think a lot more planetary science would get done...if opportunities >were so frequent you didn't have to design hardware to last >decades;...The way to achieve this is greatly expanded human presence >in space. I agree that things won't become practical nor affordable until we get more people out there, but who is going to go? The situation on Earth is quite comfy right now, and no one seems to be in a rush to leave. We can't place people in orbit if they don't want to go. Certainly, there is no force compelling us to move starward, no tug of destiny, but the few people who want to go are the ones who can go. It will take time, but we can't succeed by shoving shiploads of humans into space. If we are to be successful in surviving in space, without your helpful, homey Earth, we must probe the limits of our machines. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jul 87 15:11:01 GMT From: "Michael J. Hammel" Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #299 Ok, I've read the reports and now I wanna put in my 2 cents. All these arguments for and against the moon and mars seem pointless. The more we push for one or the other the more viable the ideas seem. But where does this lead? Nowhere. How can someone like me (not involved in space industry, just an average joe who thinks like 2nd graders, that space is "neat") make a rational decision on what I want? The more I hear the two sides argue the more I want to say "Enough! Drop 'em both, and lets pick something we can ALL be part of." I remember getting up one morning very early to watch a splashdown of one of the Apollo's. I don't remember how old I was, or which Apollo it was, or when it landed, or anything. I just remember how good I felt inside knowing it was possible to get just a little closer to those specks in the sky. I was just a kid then, but I'm not anymore. Someday I may have to choose between a host of ideas on what we should do next. I'm not worried about the what. I'm just worried about the when. Its been too long since I felt good about what we're doing in space. And one more thing: maybe alot of you dislike Sagan and Co. for their ideas to to push for mars. But at least it seems like they are really doing something. Maybe if I heard more about what the other guys are actually doing, I'd feel better about these debates. Michael J. Hammel SNHAM @ TTUVM1 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jul 87 17:00:17 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: goals Jon Leech:> >Do you think our next major goal in space after the space >station should be (check one): >__ A piloted mission to Mars Yes >__ A permanent Lunar base Yes >__ (Other, describe here) Yes My first choice would be a PhD (Phobos/Deimos) manned mission together with asteroid manned rendezvous. Note that PhD has quite a low delta-V requirement (in fact, even less than a lunar surface mission), especially if aerobraking is used at both ends. My other first choice would be a tether-based transportation system. This does not necessarily mean a skyhook, but very simple systems including the one proposed on the net here by Dani could significantly reduce Delta-V to orbit. However, I am also FOR a Mars Mission AND a lunar base. Something is better than nothing. >II) Do you personally work in space science? No, photovoltaics ("solar cells") --Geoffrey A. Landis, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 87 18:36:23 GMT From: jplgodo!wlbr!etn-rad!jru@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (John Unekis) Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands In article <8707300454.AA04852@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes: > The Russian/Syrian space mission ended today (July 29th) when the >Soyuz TM-2 spacecraft returned to earth. . . . . . . . > > They are obviously building up to a constant presence in space. >I wish we were. > This is getting nauseating. Could we please stop flagellating ourselves with the Soviet space accomplishments. They have had more than their share of failures. Remember when one of their cosmonauts accidently opened a valve and let the air out of his capsule ? Remember when they had a retro-rocket failure and their hard-landing was really a hard landing? The only thing that the Soviets do better than the U.S. is to control their press. If they blow up a rocket, there is no Congressional Comittee set up to publicly humiliate the Nation for months on end. There is no television coverage of the engineers responsible being asked to rat on their superiors and incriminate government officials. They simply take those responsible for the failure out, shoot them through the kneecaps, and then get on with the business of exploring space. We seem to have a national obsession with guilt. We must indulge ourselves in an orgy of accusations and incriminations to clear the national conscience. The net result is that we embarass ourselves in the eyes of the world and learn almost nothing of real value. What is the actual result of the Challenger crash? A rocket booster sprang a leak and the ship blew up killing the crew. SO WHAT!!! We kill more people on our highways every day than have died in the entire history of our space program. Why can't we just accept that these are the risks associated with space exploration and get on with it. The more man ventures into space, the more people will eventually die there. These people will be heroes for taking the risks that they do, but our entire space effort shouldn't be brought to its knees every time there is a casualty. Lets stop shaking at the knees and get America back in SPACE ! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #306 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Aug 87 06:19:25 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17743; Fri, 7 Aug 87 03:17:50 PDT id AA17743; Fri, 7 Aug 87 03:17:50 PDT Date: Fri, 7 Aug 87 03:17:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708071017.AA17743@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #307 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 307 Today's Topics: Sequal to "MAGGIE KEEPS BRITAN GROUNDED" Re: Space isn't all too special, either Re: Space Dreams Re: Space isn't all too special, either Re: L5 poll Re: Manned vs. unmanned missions, public perception of space Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands Lobbying Re:Carl are you out there ? Re: Lobbying Volunteering ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Aug 87 14:28:08 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Sequal to "MAGGIE KEEPS BRITAN GROUNDED" The following news item appeared last night on the BBC's ORACLE news service. It was front page headlines on the Times this morning, appeared as a short article in a few more newspapers, and wasn't mentioned in more. I suppose it shows the strange variety of oppinions on space exploration in this country. --------------------------------------------------------- The head of the British National Space Centre has resigned following the Goverment's refusal to fund research. Mr Roy Gibson handed in his notice two weeks after the goverment turned down a request to fund a 300 million pound space technology project. The BNSC said the funding would enable Britan to participate in international space ventures as well as home projects. It would have included the development of the HOTOL space plane, a rocket launcher designed by Rolls Royce and British Aerospace. -------------------------------------------------------- The projects funding was wanted for were involvment with Columbus, the ESA module for the US space station; a communications satellite; and preliminary development work on HOTOL. If money can't be found to do any more initial development then I can't see it ever getting built. It looks like HOTOL is going to be yet annother missed opportunity. We will be watching the Japanese launching their HOTOL lookalike in 2007 and thinking if only... This should be a warning to those in the USA who want the US Goverment out of space exploration, leaving everything to be done by industry. This is exactly the type of space presence Britain currently seems to have. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 87 20:49:58 GMT From: sdcrdcf!markb@oberon.usc.edu (Mark Biggar) Subject: Re: Space isn't all too special, either In article <8707300211.AA02504@angband.s1.gov> GWCHUGPG@UIAMVS.BITNET (Jacob Hugart) writes: >It would be nice to have thousands (no, millions!) of humans in space, >or on their way away, but imagine what could happen to a craft - >carrying hundreds of spacers - doing what the Challenger did? Unless, >of course, such ships are By the time we get millions of humans into space no one will think any more of such an accident than what is currently thought about a large air liner crash. Should we ban 747's and DC-10's just because we can't keep them from crashing? Remember that it is still safer to travel cross country by plane then by car (of course trains are safer then either). Mark Biggar {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,akgua,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!markb ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 86 08:55 EST From: C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Re: Space Dreams I *was* fortunate enough to be old enough in 1969 to appreciate what it meant (or should have meant, in retrospect) to have a man set foot on the moon. It is true that millions of kids, including many 9-year olds like myself at the time, had every reason to believe that we were stepping off into the grand future that scientists had predicted years earlier. Thanks to our visionary leadership in Washington (D's and R's alike), I too am afraid that routine access to space will have to wait until well into the next century. One hope that I have is that the history books of 50 years from now accurately reflect that the politicians of the last decades of the 20th century didn't give much of a damn for space-related activities. Since glory and historical immortality are what many of these 'critters' seek, I will rest more comfortably in my retirement years knowing that because of their own short-sightedness, their names will be discarded as easily as our dreams for a 'space reality' during our collective youth. BTW - I'm not this cynical in all of my areas of interest, by any means. But most of those do not depend upon the motives/beliefs of politicians. Dave Chatfield, Dept. of Computer Services C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 87 14:16:17 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!homxc!brt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (B.REYTBLAT) Subject: Re: Space isn't all too special, either In article <8707300211.AA02504@angband.s1.gov>, GWCHUGPG@UIAMVS.BITNET (Jacob Hugart) writes: > In his article, oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes: > > > See what I mean about fundamentally different goals? We want to > >get a LOT of humans out there.[space] > > It would be nice to have thousands (no, millions!) of humans in space, > or on their way away, but imagine what could happen to a craft - > carrying hundreds of spacers - doing what the Challenger did? Unless, > of course, such ships are designed to be rugged and long-lasting. This guy scares me folks. > But no, you said: > > >I think a lot more planetary science would get done...if > >opportunities were so frequent you didn't have to design hardware to > >last decades;...The way to achieve this is greatly expanded human > >presence in space. > > I agree that things won't become practical nor affordable until we get > more people out there, but who is going to go? I will, you silly person. Any time. Now. Tomorrow. Whenever you can get me there. > The situation on Earth is quite comfy right now, and no one seems to > be in a rush to leave. Have you been sleeping ? Have you not read the articles posted by many individuals to this very newsgroup? If a way was found for anyone who wishes to go, the stampede on this newsgroup alone would rival The Charge Of The Light Brigade !^)* > We can't place people in orbit if they don't want to go. > > Certainly, there is no force compelling us to move starward, Of course there is! Its in the hearts of those of us who daily dream of going. > no tug of destiny, Destiny? Destiny? We don't need no stinking destiny !^)* > but the few people who want to go are the ones who can go. Wish 'twere so. Wish i live long enough for it to be so. If not for myself, at least for my children. > It will take time, but we can't succeed by shoving shiploads of humans > into space. If we are to be successful in surviving in space, without > your helpful, homey Earth, we must probe the limits of our machines. Huh? Ben Reytblat AT&T-BL ihnp4!homxc!brt ps. sorry for flamage. i get set off by this sorta stuff. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 1987 15:33-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: L5 poll Paul, I really think you are being unfair to the people in that poll by calling them 'fanatics'. If this had been a poll at a professional conference, you could expect different answers. Our membership is drawn from ordinary citizens, not all of which have the day to day immersion in space affairs that you or I have. If you think that statements about the future such as those in the Space World poll taken from housewives, small time computer consultants, high school kids, artists, public relations people and so forth makes them fanatics, then you are being VERY elitist. There were also a few people in the poll who would disagree with your more pessimistic outlook. It doesn't mean they are right any more than it means that you are right. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 87 03:46:20 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Manned vs. unmanned missions, public perception of space > ... I also agree that the moon needs a lot more exploration. Since > unmanned probes are very good for exploration purposes, it seems to me > that we need to send several exploratory probes... to the moon. Once > we've gained a detailed knowledge of the moon (both front and back > sides), then we can safely establish a manned presence there... We already DID this, 20 years ago, to the point where we felt quite safe about sending manned expeditions. The only big question remaining which an unmanned system could answer better than a manned expedition is the distribution of resources over the lunar surface, and especially whether there are volatiles at the lunar poles. A lunar polar orbiter with modern remote-sensing gear is high priority. But there is little that a lunar rover could do that Apollo didn't do better. Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 87 17:39:12 GMT From: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (G.Gleason) Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands In article <231@etn-rad.UUCP> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis) writes: > This is getting nauseating. Could we please stop flagellating > ourselves with the Soviet space accomplishments. . . . This is getting nauseating. Berating Soviet space accomplishments does nothing to further our own. The Soviet committment to a presence in space should have little to do with our own. I also take offense at the way you reduced the importance of the Shuttle failure. There was no excuse for that shuttle to be launched over the objections of the engineers, and I do think it is important that we look carefully at the type of management failure that caused this tragedy. And, on top of the actual shuttle failure, we find ourselves with little in the way of expendible rockets to back up the shuttle. We need to set the pace for future space development, and not worry about what the Soviets are up to, and we should do so in full cooperation with the rest of the free world. Now that the technologies spurred on by the space program have become well developed and routine, we barely have a presense at all in space, much less a permanent one. Gerry Gleason ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 87 01:09:01 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Lobbying To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu > Our DC lobbyist has been told by some key staff people that we have made > many space budget issues untouchable from budget cutting. We are > unfortunately not (yet) large enough to force significant increases, It takes very little pressure to make a budget untouchable. As a result, tax rates and the federal debt are both at record levels. Government is more powerful every year. Liberty is lost, a little at a time. How can you lend support to such a thing when you call yourself a libertarian? > But if you want to pledge "your life, your fortune and your sacred > honor" to creating a space faring civilization, But you want to pledge OTHER people's fortunes, not just your own. This is wrong. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 87 09:21 EDT From: Emanuel.henr@xerox.com Subject: Re:Carl are you out there ? Cc: Emanuel.henr@xerox.com What about letting Carl Sagan Speak for himself. I have a hard time believing that he does not have access to this list at the University. I would love to hear what he has to say. (clearly Pro- Sagan) At least sombody out there could call his attention to this list for the purpose of response. Hello Anybody out there ? Do the Space Station - a great staging point. Keith J. Emanuel Xerox Corp. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1987 13:51-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu To: "Keith F. Lynch" Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Lobbying Keith: I don't have to agree with every activity. As an official representative of the society I am ethically bound to publicly support the policies of the organization or to resign. I mostly agree with policy. Call me an extra terrestrial libertarian. I don't really believe it can happen here, and I'm an utter pragmatist. Libertarianism is my preference, but I'll use what exists in fact, not in my imagination. I doubt anyone in NSS agrees with every activity. That must be true of any organization that attracts a broad cross section of the public. We are not selling a particular brand of politics, and it is inherent in our goals that there is room for every brand of ism once we get out there. There is more to life than the Libertarian party. I will not limit my life to the point where I take no action or join or work with any organization for purely ideological reasons. That would be fanaticism. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 1987 14:33-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Volunteering I hate to point it out, but one of the best ways to get to know the people who might need your abilities is to attend conferences and get to know the people personally. Small companies are unlikely to trust their fortunes on unknown's. They may need the help, but what guarantee do you have if you aren't paying the person's livelihood? If you don't have a contract with damage clauses? Believe me, I've been there and lost my shirt because I didn't have a big enough stick. If you really want to get involved in this manner, attend our Space Development Conference in Denver, or watch Space Calendar and pick one that looks interesting. Then introduce yourself to people at the cocktail parties, the conference suite etc. Sit up half the night and talk to the people running the companies. Another possibility is to either start a new organization or start a volunteer referral service within an existing one. I do know that there has been significant volunteering of services in many of the rocket companies. I've pointed a few people to Gary Hudsen myself. Conferences are many things to many people. As for myself, I never get to see the speakers because I'm also too busy meeting in the halls and the back rooms. There is a great deal of very intense real work and idea generation that occurs when you get people face to face. I'm not putting you down, it's just that like most people, you are grabbing on to a particular facet of space development (one that really is very central) and saying "Everyone should do this, nothing else is important." What we need to do is build a space based CIVILIZATION. That means entrepreneurs to generate small companies, venture capitalists to fund them, lobbyists to keep the regulations off their back and military from locking them out, conferences where they can exchange ideas and do back room plotting, social organizations to help them keep up their spirits and feel they aren't alone, societies to build a social consciousness that makes it possible to get venture capital, makes people want to go into space research, makes people want to fund space research, makes people want to volunteer to help in any of these areas. Not to mention lobbying to make sure that basic research needed for novel propulsion systems of the next century is carried out, building local groups with long term cohesion that can become stable private funding sources for private research organizations like SSI and of course, local action to make sure the schools turn out a generation that is scientifically and mathematically literate enough to be involved. The world is not a simple place, and opening the high frontier is neither a cheap nor a short term goal. Engineering is NOT the reason we are behind. Someone has to work on the job of making our culture act more like a tortoise with rabbit legs. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #307 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Aug 87 06:19:11 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19789; Sat, 8 Aug 87 03:18:01 PDT id AA19789; Sat, 8 Aug 87 03:18:01 PDT Date: Sat, 8 Aug 87 03:18:01 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708081018.AA19789@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #308 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 308 Today's Topics: Re: We can too help! Re: Space tourism Re: SPACE Digest V7 #298 Re: My grouse with L5 Re: SPACE Digest V7 #298 newsletters, AW&ST summaries (was Re: My grouse with L5) Re: newsletters, AW&ST summaries (was Re: My grouse with L5) Re: We can too help! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 04 Aug 87 12:04 PDT From: Frank Mayhar Really-To: Space Subject: Re: We can too help! Patrick White writes: > [...] In this newsgroup alone, there are many people with skills > that any start-up space company NEEDS, such as physics, engineering, > computer programming, dietetics, medicine, law, etc. [...] > Donating this kind of time and effort will surely do far more for > space exploration than an infinite number of meetings or conferences > that achieve nothing more than talk. > -- Pat White At last! Someone with a really useful idea! My expertise lies more with programming than with space science or engineering, but I would be more than willing to contribute a major portion of my spare time and energy to such a project. And I think that if enough of us do the same, maybe we really could make a difference! Thanks, Pat. If there's anyone out there willing to take me up on my offer, I can be reached at the following addresses: Frank Mayhar ARPA: Frank-Mayhar%ladc@HI-MULTICS.ARPA USNAIL: 680 Grand Ave. #201, Long Beach, CA 90814 Frank ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 87 12:08:50 GMT From: jwl@ernie.berkeley.edu (James Wilbur Lewis) Subject: Re: Space tourism In article <4130001@hpclla.HP.COM> rak@hpclla.HP.COM (Rajiv Kumar) writes: -From: hpda!hpclla!rak@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rajiv Kumar) -> Ultimately, to live free of any Earth government, and of the threat -> of war. -> Keith -Dream on! The moment any Earth Govt sees that its own nationalistic and -military interests are at risk, it will not allow its citizens to go to -space and build private colonies. Why do you think a bunch of people -cannot just claim some land in Antarctica and live free. -Rajiv Kumar -rajiv@hplabs or hplabs!rajiv Well, maybe if we're obnoxious and nonconformist enough, they'll create a penal colony "out there" just to get rid of us.....like Botany Bay. While Earth stagnates under the weight of oppressive governments, the free spirits and adventurers could prosper in space. -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley "So, come on out, mate...to the land Out There! We'll put another Denevian Slime-Devil on the barbie!" :-) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 1987 15:37-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #298 Bob Pendleton: If you are in Utah, the declaration is most likely the work of J. David Baxter, Utah Space Associates L5. He has been working on the National Space Observance since the early 70's. I don't think the AIAA has gotten involved heavily in this. Most states (but not all) that declare Space Weeks do so because of the work of the local L5 chapters. The central push comes from an organization named (appropriately) Spaceweek. This is run out of Houston Texas by some very hard working people (Dennis Stone in particular). We have worked closely with them for quite a few years. The NSS/L5 part of the annual Spaceweek effort is run by Chuck Devine in NJL5 (reachable via Dale Skran or Evelyn Leeper) The Spaceweek group has typically had some corporate support. MACDAC for sure, and a number of others I can't remember and am too lazy to dig from my files.... ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 87 15:37:12 GMT From: jade!tart16.berkeley.edu!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Adam J. Richter) Subject: Re: My grouse with L5 It is apparent to me that my responses have not escaped the Siemens vax, so I'm reposting this from Berkeley. If you've seen this already (and don't work for Siemens) please send me mail. ........................ >> == Me (Adam J. Richter) > == Evelyn C. Leeper [Evelyn Leeper responds to my claim that L5 does little more than "cheerlead" for NASA. Here, she picks up on my cliam the the L5 papers posted to the net were "NASAese..."] >Yes, it was the NJ [North Jersey] L5 who posted the papers. But we did >something with them. See below. [They presented them to their congresspersons.] >> 1. Grab the spot-light. March on Washington and BURN SOMETHING. >> (e.g., an effigy of Fletcher?) >Sorry, I don't think "burning something" in Washington is going to get >us into space--unless it's the booster of a rocket. But the North >Jersey L5 does go to Washington every year to visit the New Jersey >congresspersons and let them know that space is important to their >constituents. The papers posted here were given to the congresspersons >this year as an example of the direction that *we* wanted to see the >United States--not NASA, necessarily--take to get us into space. The (unspoken) intended audience of such a demonstration would be other voters, not congresspersons--obviously. The problem that this idea address is that of the uninformed voter. Sorry if I was unclear. The point is to convey the anger and frustration that most space supporters feel about the failure of anyone to achieve anything meaningful in the past decade and a half. >> 2. Make score-cards. Congressmen, NASA employees, etc. >> Just what they've done, not whether it's good or bad. >We do that. Unfortunately, we can't mail them out, willy-nilly, to >everyone in the state. So if you're not in the L5, you won't get them. Well, that's gauranteed to influence tons of voters... :-) >> 3. I like that suggestion someone made about a *real* >> space newsletter. If someone puts it on-line, and it is >> "just the facts" (or at least labels editorials as >> such), I'll litter Berkeley with it. >You want a real space newsletter? Get AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE >TECHNOLOGY. It's on-line (at least Henry's summary). This has been mentioned by another respondee too. I thought about it before I posted. There are problems with Henry Spencer's AW&ST postings. You have to know what Mir is, where the throat of the nozzle is, why LOX/kerosine can win over LOX/LH2, etc. There might also be copyright hassles, though this seems unlikely. In addition, they are more a summary of what AW&ST printed than what happened. (E.g., commercial for United Tech, pictures of HOTOL, etc.) I would like: ONE PAGE describing what has happened lately in terms of real progress (NASA releasing a "finding" is *not* news). Side politicking verboten. E.g., no "space colonies must be run at a profit" (whether it's true or not), no rallying for or against SDI, etc., etc. A slick-looking postscript verion would be nice. >> 4. Sit-ins in sunny Florida could be a lot of fun, and >> a good way to start preaching to the non-converted, >> unlike a convention. >I won't even say what I think of this idea. But the media would >certainly emphasize the "fun" part over the preaching part: "Today, a >bunch of space fans decided to take advantage of the lovely Florida >weather and sun themselves at Cape Canaveral...." I would be interested in an example of when the main-stream media has emphasized the "fun" part over the preaching part. Granted, opposition people often do it (with no loss of credibility), but the media, I think, will take any view presented to them at face value. E.g., The anti-apartheid demonstrations at UCB were fun, and the national media took it very seriously. I don't mean to slight the political motives of demonstrators. I just want to point out that these things don't have to be the most miserable experiences of your life. > [...] If you think that sitting on the sidelines grumping about what > we're trying to do is going to help, you're even more deluded than we > are. [...] I insist that the speach and the speaker be treated seperately. My criticisms of L5 are valid. If you have suggestions for me, I'm all ears, but criticizing me does not exculpate L5. >I have no patience with people who insist that *someone else* should do >all the work to get us into space, and even provide a worklist for >them. If you want to go into space, and you think these things are >what need to be done, then, by God, get out there and do them! Whining >to the rest of us about how we're not doing what you want won't >accomplish anything. Sorry if I came across as suggesting that L5 do something to something for space. :-) On the contrary, these were examples of what I think would be routine acitvities conducted by a real space organization. RE: "Get out there and do them!" The suggestion about the newsletter was an offer to get out there and do something. The suggestion about the score-card was for someone who might have access to this sort of information. The suggestion about the march was intended to gauge enthusiasm for such an idea, a straw pole. I'm open to other suggestions. > Evelyn C. Leeper Here's a suggestion. National referrendum: "Do you support the establishment of a permament American city on the moon?" ...Of course, a defeat would be the end of space, a victory would be a new beginning. So, you might have to play some real hard-ball. Spend the entire treasury and go into debt for sure. This would be a really good clincher after a lot of obnoxious behavior, like marches, sit-ins, bill-boards, leafletting to the point of litter, speaches, rallies, etc. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 87 18:41:52 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #298 in article <554585843.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU says: -- Bob Pendleton: If you are in Utah, the declaration is most likely the -- work of J. David Baxter, Utah Space Associates L5. He has been working I'm in Utah and I've met Mr. Baxter. Our space week observance was bigger than ever. The planning committee has people from AIAA, L5, Hansen Planetarium and several other organizations. The cash needed was supplied by AIAA and the Crossroads Plaza, a shopping mall. Some labor was provided by all the organizations that participated. Most of the displays were cororate donations, but there were several private donations. -- on the National Space Observance since the early 70's. I don't think -- the AIAA has gotten involved heavily in this. Most states (but not all) I don't know whats going on at the national level, but in Utah AIAA is the focal orgainzation for space week activities. -- that declare Space Weeks do so because of the work of the local L5 -- chapters. The central push comes from an organization named -- (appropriately) Spaceweek. This is run out of Houston Texas by some Yes, these folks do a fine job. Call them up and ask them about Ken Randle. Space week was being celebrated for quite a while before they think they invented it. What can I say, if there is any area of the country that has an L5 chapter and and AIAA chapter who don't work together on space week, well... shame on them! Bob Pendleton ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 87 04:25:23 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: newsletters, AW&ST summaries (was Re: My grouse with L5) > >You want a real space newsletter? Get AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY. > >It's on-line (at least Henry's summary). > > This has been mentioned by another respondee too. I thought > about it before I posted. There are problems with Henry Spencer's > AW&ST postings. You have to know what Mir is, where the throat of the > nozzle is, why LOX/kerosine can win over LOX/LH2, etc. There are a number of tradeoffs in this, but my terse style of presentation ultimately boils down to three considerations: 1. I lack the time to expand it. 2. I frankly don't care for the constant repetition that would be needed to re-introduce definitions and background wherever needed. I can live with it when reading, but I *don't* want to type it. Now that I'm feeling pretty much caught up, I may throw in an *occasional* note about such things, but it won't be frequent. 3. Something that stood out very clearly in the poll I conducted a while ago about expanded vs. condensed format is that people want it *brief*. > There might also be copyright hassles, though this seems unlikely. Depends on whether you're thinking of me or AW&ST doing the hassling. On my side of things, I have no objection to my summaries being redistributed further provided they are intact and properly credited; I have already okayed several requests along these lines. On the AW&ST side, I try to keep out of trouble with them: I print terse summaries only, I credit them explicitly and publish AW&ST subscription info regularly, and I run well behind their publication schedule. (This is a contributing factor to my decision that a month behind is "caught up", although other considerations also enter.) > In addition, they are more a summary of what AW&ST printed than what > happened. (E.g., commercial for United Tech, pictures of HOTOL, etc.) This is true, although people may have noticed some recent comments from Flight International, and there will be more -- AW&ST does miss some non-trivial things. > I would like: ONE PAGE describing what has happened lately > in terms of real progress (NASA releasing a "finding" is *not* news). Obtain an empty sheet of paper. Study it carefully for content. That's the real progress, on this side of the world at least. > Side politicking verboten. E.g., no "space colonies must be run at a > profit" (whether it's true or not), no rallying for or against SDI, > etc., etc. The way I see it, even if my editorials weren't popular (which they are: my poll included a lot of strongly positive comments about them, and no negatives at all), reading them is the price you pay for reading the rest of the summaries. :-) If I'm going to go to the work of typing the news in, I'm going to do a bit of soapboxing at the same time, and anyone who dislikes it can stop reading! :-) More to the point, it is significant that my editorials are clearly separated from the factual content, and are much terser than the sort of endless back-and-forth flaming you refer to. > A slick-looking postscript verion would be nice. I wouldn't mind doing this, but I have neither the time nor the facilities. Postscript is also *less* readable to those who lack Postscript devices. Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 87 18:42:45 GMT From: jade!thoth5!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: newsletters, AW&ST summaries (was Re: My grouse with L5) Henry, I think your AW&ST summaries are great, wonderful, fantastic. My posting which you responded to was about why I didn't think they would be good for leafletting. --Adam ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Aug 87 8:15:45 EDT From: Les Eastman Subject: Re: We can too help! >> there is still something >>that can be done to further space exploration -- donate your time and >>skills to some small start-up company's space project. I'm willing. Is there anyone in the Baltimore, MD - Wilmington, DE area that needs chemistry and/or computing skills. ( The degree of skill in both my be of dubious quality but I am willing to try. ) Les Eastman lreastma@crdec.arpa (301) 671-3873 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #308 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Aug 87 06:25:35 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA20963; Sun, 9 Aug 87 03:18:35 PDT id AA20963; Sun, 9 Aug 87 03:18:35 PDT Date: Sun, 9 Aug 87 03:18:35 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708091018.AA20963@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #309 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 309 Today's Topics: Re: Pro-Space Publicity The Rocket Team #1 - First A4 Launch SPOT Specifications TTAPS, Sagan, etc. Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING Next ARIANE launch within the next month Intermediate report on sci.space analysis ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 87 13:35 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: Pro-Space Publicity To: wmartin@almsa-1.arpa, space@angband.s1.gov The reason networks shy away from broadcasting controversial advertisements is the so called Fairness Doctrine, which requires them to broadcast opposing viewpoints. Rather than having to do that, they just don't broadcast any of it. This happened a few years ago with a commercial about the federal deficit. Fortunately, the FCC wants to throw out the Fairness Doctrine, on the grounds it violates the first amendment. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 87 14:27:48 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: The Rocket Team #1 - First A4 Launch [ This is the first in a series of excerpts from The Rocket Team, a book describing the experiences of the team that built the A4 (V-2). A reference is included at the end of this article. I think these bits of history will be of interest to many of the readers of this newsgroup. ] On March 23, 1942, Hitler once again shifted priorities to the detriment of the A4, putting all Germany's resources into the invasion of the USSR, while allowing the large rocket program to languish. [The A4 was re-named the V2 just before it went into active service. -dcn] Despite this, on June 13, the A4 was ready for its first launching. While the crew was busy preparing the missile in Test Stand 7, excited members of the team, most of whom were illegally in the area or there only under the flimsiest of reasons, gathered. They did so at distances from the `bird' in direct proportion to their faith in the rocket's designers and builders or in inverse proportion to their ignorance of what could very well happen upon ignition. The more optimistic and faithful (as well as some of the more ignorant) stood chatting shop in front of the bunker located near Test Stand 1, only 250 meters from Test Stand 7. There was a fairly dense cloud cover, but the A4 lifted off normally enough - or so it seemed. There was a slight rolling about its long axis as the rocket disappeared through the clouds; then, there was a muffled rumble. Thunder, perhaps? No, sickeningly, back through the clouds plunged the cart-wheeling rocket. The A4 crashed in to the Baltic little more than a kilometer away, sending up tremendous fountain of water. Then, just as suddenly, there was nothing more to be heard but the gentle lapping of the Baltic upon the shore. Rocket No. 2 was no more successful than the first. After launching on August 16, it exploded at an altitude of 11.72 kilometers and fell into the sea some 9 kilometers from the launch site. ... The third test, on October 3, was a different story, as Dornberger recalled: It was an unforgettable sight. In the full glare of the sunlight the rocket rose higher and higher. The flame darting from the stern was almost as long as the rocket itself. The fiery jet of gas was clear and self-contained. The rocket kept on its course as though running on rails; the first critical moment had passed. Missile A4 had shown itself to be stable about its longitudinal axis. The projectile was not spinning; the black and white surface markings facing us did not change. The missile followed its programmed trajectory to the target point 192 kilometers down range in the Baltic. ... Following this successful launching, von Braun was awarded the Kriegsverdienstkruez I mit Schwertern (War Service Cross, First Class, with Swords), not the Iron Cross, which was a military decoration. [from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4 (paper) ] Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 87 18:41:25 GMT From: udel!thomson@princeton.edu (Richard Thomson) Subject: SPOT Specifications After reading several pleas for more technical information on SPOT (Satellite Pour l'Observation de la Terre), I ran across an article titles "Spotlight On The World" published in the July 1987 issue of Laser Focs/Electro-Optics. This is one of those trade journals available "free to qualified subscribers". The following information is taken from that article out of context and without permission: Orbital Parameters of SPOT-1: Launched: February 21, 1986 Revolutions/day: 14 + 5/6 Nodal period: 101.46 min Mean altitude (45 deg. N): 832 km Inclination (mean): 98.37 degrees Orbital (repeat) cycle: 26 days Number of tracks/orbital cycle: 369 Intertrack distance (equatorial): 108.4 km Accessibility pattern at 45 deg. lattitude: 1,4,1,4,1,4,1,4,1,4,1 days Mean local solar time at descending node: 10:30 AM Design Specifications: Channels Parameter Pa XS1 XS2 XS3 Spectral band, um 0.51-0.73 0.50-0.59 0.61-0.68 0.79-0.89 Detector IFOV, rad 1.2e-5 2.4e-5 2.4e-5 2.4e-5 Detector numbers/line 6000 3000 3000 3000 Modulation transfer function: to CCD line 0.26 0.62 0.55 0.52 along CCD line 0.27 0.43 0.38 0.26 S/N at radiance, max >233 >212 >230 >274 On-orbit calibration, % relative 1 1 1 1 absolute 10 10 10 10 Number of gains 8 8 8 8 Signal encoding, bit 6/DPCM 8 8 8 Geometric Characteristics: Ground swath width: 60 km (one HRV) 117 km (two HRVs combined) Off-nadir viewing capability (field center) +/- 27 deg. covering 950 km Gound resolution spectral band XS 20 m panchro band Pa 10 m Band-to-band registration spectral band 3 m multidate registration 10 m Image distortion, anisomorphism 1e-3 The article claims that information in it came from information supplied by SPOT Image Corporation, 1897 Preston White Dr., Reston, VA 22091-4326 and "The SPOT Satellite System", Gilbert Weill and Michel Courtois, (C) 1985 by CNES and SPOT Image Corp. If anyone would like more detailed explanations of some of these terms, perhaps I can dig them out of the article, although there were discussions of the optical portion of the spacecraft which were above my level of understanding. Rich Thomson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1987 19:12 EDT From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TTAPS, Sagan, etc. JoSH asks, "How many papers in refereed publications and conferences have a public relations firm hired to tout them to the popular press? If a paper is as scientifically compelling as TTAPS claimed to be, why would it *need* one?" A strange question, since "scientifically compelling" is scarcely enough gain public. Consider Darwinian Evolution, which is popularly unpopular. Here, too, is his great work on Cosmos, Sagan managed to get some public sympathy for this important issue. Consider the liklihood that the destruction of the Brazilian forest could have bad effects on the world: this will need powerful promotion. The extinction of primates and other proto-intelligent mammals can be prevented only by popular appeals. As for calling the nuclear winter a hoax, my impression is that the range of predicted effects of a major nuclear exchange is still 1quite uncertain - but that no one had predicted even the currently accepted minimal damage before Sagan's group's study. On this whole planet, we have only a very few people gifted with the abilities both to understand science and to communicate about their possible consequences. Sagan, Asimov, Morrison, - how many others can one name. I am grateful that there are any at all, and especially to those generous enough to interrupt the excitement of a productive scientific career to make that sacrifice to public service. This superb astronomer has exposed himself to public criticism and I interpret a lot of what has been said about him as reflecting envy - from those who simply don't appreciate the personal cost of that public loss of privacy. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 87 20:41:29 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxd!jody@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (JoLinda Ross) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING > I like Sagan OK, insofar as he certainly does more good than bad ( I > think ) but I am deeply mistrustful of the Ooo - ah approach > exemplified by COSMOS. I remember coworkers talking about how > spectacular the effects were and so on, but I don't think anybody was > inspired to so much as look at a star through a pair of binoculars. ( > Vega through 10X50's is sublime. ) The hard truth is that the beauties > of astronomy are subtle, and it takes a little cerebration to achieve > the breathtaking stage. A real astronomy show would be like a Zen > instruction book - "Stop watching this show! Go outside!" > > Lew Mammel, Jr. Well someone was inspired, at least I was. When Cosmos came on, I was in high school, and a universe was open to me. I always knew it was there and I knew about star (in a kid sort of way) but I was just seeing lights in the sky. With Cosmos astronomy change from the science that PhDs work on to a science where I could understand a little of the universe. Not only did I look through binoculars, but I took every astronomy course offered in high school and college. Now telescopes were available to me. And though it is also true that the universe has subtle beauty I found it more spectacular then the special effects of most SF movies. jody ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 87 13:51:48 MEZ From: ES54%DFVLRGO1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Next ARIANE launch within the next month From: jens-thomas meyer 0551/709-2325 ES54 at DFVLRGO1 During a symposium in UK I have heard that the date for the next ARIANE launch is fixed to August, 20th. It will be a launch of an ARIANE-3. I get from the launch-table that this ARIANE-3 should launch two satellites (ECS-4, SPACENET F-3). Yesterday I heard from the german tv-news that the launch will be in the second half of September. As a conclusion, I think, it is possible to say that there will be an ARIANE launch within the next month. Jens-Thomas Meyer (ES54@DFVLRGO1.BITNET) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Aug 87 16:49:24 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Intermediate report on sci.space analysis This is a brief on report of the network memory project several net members are trying to organize. I hope I answer some of the follow up queries. The majority of subject headings are one-time postings, follow up (Re:) topics seem to be a minority (we concentrate only on a few topics). The entire collection of back issues of the Space-digest constitute 18.1 MB dating back to 1980. (This took several NASA VAX-hours to geen.) This is a somewhat biased sample 1) due to the reliability and lack of early gateways, 2) not all net.space mail made it to the ARPAnet during the Challenger accident. Possibly some minor editing on Ted's part. Interesting Trivia Statistics (consider some of the things I say as approximations) Over 12,000 message were posted in the seven years of space-digest. The average message length was around 40 lines (take note stat fans, this is a very bi-modal distribution: many very short messages and a good small lump of longer ones. Some people are really tenacious. Added some new words to English like: aaaaaaaaarggghhh As a sanity check, the word "the" appeared 146146 times. The topic which got me thinking about this problems was the External tank: posted 49 times. Who posts the most? (The following is not continous nor was it obvious how I got all of this, it is an approximation) 1251 ted anderson (this is due to archiving on the ARPAnet side) 524 robert elton maas (the real top poster) 418 paul dietz 418 henry spencer 252 adam buchsbaum 238 dale amon 218 phil karn 197 alice!sjb 176 jerry pournelle 152 eugene miya (don't mind the man behind the curtain) 131 keith f. lynch 127 david smith 109 tom wadlow 105 rick mcgeer 99 hans moravec 84 jim mcgrath 81 st401385%brownvm.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu 80 richard m. king 79 marvin minsky (got me off my duff when I ran into him at ACM/SIGGRAPH) 74 al globus 69 esg7%dfvlrop1.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu 57 roger noe (ex-Rockwell) 55 will martin 53 dani eder (boeing) What institutions post the most? (this includes gateways as well as real postings? MIT by a long shot. Used 11473 times largely mail headers and contained within other messages. (There were quite a few from Berkeley [gateway again], but far from 10K). So what have been the [un]popular topics? I checked via content as well as subject, and the two are very consistent (removing articles and other simple adjectives). nasa, the shuttle, and what I term short-term space objectives I suspect a great deal of this is due to the Challenger accident which resulted in me sending 3 inches of Versatec paper to Houston and getting a note that I should not list so much during prime-time. Also interesting to note are the absolute frequencies of some of the words (like they were made with each other). Frequency word 42893 space 8866 shuttle 5901 nasa 5100 earth 4100 orbit 4027 launch 3336 article 3263 system 3034 station 3010 program 2970 because 2780 energy 2580 sun 2516 solar 2449 moon 2358 high 2295 power 2261 satellite 2237 flight 2160 volume 2138 mass 2084 light 2084 before 1998 mission 1990 topics 1985 those 1964 off 1962 technology 1925 large 1918 around 1910 too 1903 back 1880 here 1865 few 1839 year 1834 mar 1823 need 1821 enthusiasts 1819 still 1792 cost 1788 another 1768 star 1749 going 1747 probably By Subject field alone: 1093 shuttle 250 nasa 244 launch 196 station 184 solar 156 program 136 moon 131 star 128 paradox 126 soviet 124 sts 121 comet 118 voyager 118 challenger 116 what 116 power 116 light 103 orbit 100 why 96 mars 96 fermi 95 satellite 94 l5 92 nuclear 92 high 91 question 91 lunar 89 how 88 planet 87 info 87 halley It is encouraging to see lots of questions, rather than answer flames. I think in these words and topics we can see slight frequency trends, but nothing which jumps out. I can say more, but comment would be hunches. I do read old random notes in their entire body. Where to next? Determine the most obvious and popular repeated questions. Determine real sources of information. Please don't post follow ups to this note, send me mail. If you are interested in helping out (not just flaming send mail to Dale.Amon who is acting as Secretary. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #309 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Aug 87 06:19:59 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22623; Mon, 10 Aug 87 03:18:55 PDT id AA22623; Mon, 10 Aug 87 03:18:55 PDT Date: Mon, 10 Aug 87 03:18:55 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708101018.AA22623@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #310 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 310 Today's Topics: TTAPS and PR Re: Cheap ways into space please. Re: Cheap ways into space please. Re: Cheap ways into space please. Re: Cheap ways into space please. Australian Space News (forwarded) Beamed energy for spacecraft Phoenix launch vehicle Re: Beamed energy for spacecraft ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Aug 87 16:02:34 GMT From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: TTAPS and PR I don't really want to keep this discussion going on SPACE as it is really only peripherally related to the subject that people are interested in. However I do feel that I was slightly misinterpreted and would like to clear things up: Minsky: ... "scientifically compelling" is scarcely enough gain public. Consider Darwinian Evolution, which is popularly unpopular. Evolution caused a huge uproar when it was first introduced, and still does. This is because people took it seriously, because scientists continued to push it even in the face of criticism, because it was scientifically compelling. TTAPS was a flash in the pan because it isn't. As for calling the nuclear winter a hoax, my impression is that the range of predicted effects of a major nuclear exchange is still quite uncertain - but that no one had predicted even the currently accepted minimal damage before Sagan's group's study. I believe that standard effects-of-nuclear-war studies included a cooling phenomenon. When I say "hoax" I'm talking about the popularly written articles intended to convince the lay public that a nuclear war must mean the end of life on earth. On this whole planet, we have only a very few people gifted with the abilities both to understand science and to communicate about their possible consequences. Sagan, Asimov, Morrison, - how many others can one name. In all seriousness, I would add Minsky. This superb astronomer has exposed himself to public criticism and I interpret a lot of what has been said about him as reflecting envy - from those who simply don't appreciate the personal cost of that public loss of privacy. I'll believe that if you tell me that you can replace "Carl Sagan" in that statement with "Edward Teller" and still say it with conviction. * * * As long as I'm writing to SPACE, let me add an unrelated note. Recently I toured the Mercury launch facilities at Canaveral. Looking at the rockets (and particularly the electronics!) I was struck with how primitive it all was. With 25 years added technology, any medium-sized company should be able to duplicate that stuff *easily*. --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 87 04:54:09 GMT From: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Cheap ways into space please. Unfortunately, _altitude_ isn't the only requirement. You also have to be travelling in the correct velocity (right speed in the right direction). For a low orbit, this is ~5 miles/sec parallel to the ground. Altitude is *easy*, a cheap sounding rocket could be launched to orbital altitudes. (wouldn't stay there long). And anyone in oribt would go by it at orbital velocity... far to fast to think of transferring anything between them. Beanstalks are a special case. Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 87 22:34:11 GMT From: amdcad!amd!intelca!tymix!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Michael McNeil) Subject: Re: Cheap ways into space please. In article <453@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >Unfortunately, _altitude_ isn't the only requirement. >You also have to be travelling in the correct velocity (right speed in the >right direction). For a low orbit, this is ~5 miles/sec parallel to the >ground. > >Altitude is *easy*, a cheap sounding rocket could be launched to orbital >altitudes. (wouldn't stay there long). And anyone in oribt would go by it >at orbital velocity... far to fast to think of transferring anything >between them. > >Beanstalks are a special case. Although -- there was an article in *Analog* a couple of years ago on the idea of launching cheap vehicles to orbital altitude, but with much, much less than orbital velocity, and then *catching* them into a space station using a "reverse mass driver." Sounds scary, but perhaps the requisite accuracy of aiming of both station and vehicle can be attained reliably. (If not, *blam*!) I haven't heard much about the idea since, however.... (Yes, the station loses orbital velocity with each docking and would eventually fall. A balance between dockings and relaunchings -- or an expenditure of fuel to make up the deficit -- would be necessary.) Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation Santa Clara, California {hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma} !oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Life, even cellular life, may exist out yonder in the dark. But high or low in nature, it will not wear the shape of man. That shape is the evolutionary product of a strange, long wandering through the attics of the forest roof, and so great are the chances of failure, that nothing precisely and identically human is likely ever to come that way again. Loren Eiseley, 1957, *The Immense Journey* ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 87 17:44:55 GMT From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: Cheap ways into space please. In article <757@3comvax.UUCP>, michaelm@3Com.COM (Michael McNeil) writes: > Although -- there was an article in *Analog* a couple of years ago on > the idea of launching cheap vehicles to orbital altitude, but with > much, much less than orbital velocity, and then *catching* them into a > space station using a "reverse mass driver." Sounds scary, but > perhaps the requisite accuracy of aiming of both station and vehicle > can be attained reliably. (If not, *blam*!) I haven't heard much > about the idea since, however.... The article you are referring to is "The Spaceport" by Roger Arnold (roger@telesoft.UUCP) and Don Kingsbury, in the November and December 1979 Analog. Roger's system was for small payloads (500Kg) initially. This, like most low cost systems, is premature to build if you launch 6 missions a year. As Roger and others have argued on the net, you have to get the launch rate up to get the costs down. When the market is large enough to support large scale launch systems, they will appear. There are systems that could launch for $5 per kilogram (see Paul Birch's paper on "Orbital Rings..." in the November 1982 J.B.I.S., or my "Launch Loop" article in the December 1983 Analog), but require launch rates approaching a million tons per year to achieve such economies. To build such a system before the market develops would be economically and operationally unsound; it would probably launch the wrong things to the wrong orbits at the wrong rates from the wrong places. The government would simply throw money at the problem; this isn't the way to encourage frugality. Right now they are spending billions and launching nothing. I don't see how private launch companies could do much worse. [misc. ranting deleted] Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 87 04:01:52 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Cheap ways into space please. > The article you are referring to is "The Spaceport" by Roger Arnold > (roger@telesoft.UUCP) and Don Kingsbury, in the November and December > 1979 Analog. Roger's system was for small payloads (500Kg) initially. A historical note on this: Dandridge M. Cole thought of this one first, ten or fifteen years earlier, although he had his catcher/accelerator attached to a captured asteroid -- I don't think it occurred to him that the asteroid wasn't really needed. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Subject: Australian Space News (forwarded) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 87 15:31:45 EDT From: LT Sheri Smith USN Am forwarding the following to the space.net as Raymond is unable to post: From: munnari!basser.cs.su.oz!ray@uunet.UU.NET Date: Sat, 1 Aug 87 20:43:02 EST Subject: Re: Wash Post article > From ltsmith@mitre.arpa@munnari Thu Jul 30 23:54:18 1987 > To: ray@basser.cs.su.oz > > ... how about keeping the net posted on what the Aussies are doing in > the space fields? Has a decision ever been reached on whether or not > to build a spaceport down under?? Thanks for posting the WP article. I've tried posting a couple of things to the net. It seems that I'm restricted to posting within Australia. The decision on the Australian spaceport is still passing through government channels. We've just had an election down here, and I'm told that the spaceport decision was slowed because some people felt that it was too controversial a decision to be making at election time. The spaceport's chief advocate (one Joh Bjelke Peterson, the Premier of the state of Queensland, and roughly equivalent to a US state governor) took a bit of denting at the election (over other issues) and his support may not be enough to carry it through. We'll probably know in a couple of months. I don't really know what the Queensland government plans for this spaceport. All reports are terribly vague. Australia simply doesn't have a launch vehicle. My best guess is that we'll supply some real estate, and BASIC ground support (roads, buildings, schools etc) and a foreign power or foreign company will supply the launch vehicle and most of the high-tech support. This would be similiar to the support we offerred the British when the launched their Black Arrow and Blue Streak rockets in the fifties and sixties from our "Woomerra" rocket range. BUT I'm only guessing. The proposed site is on Cape York Peninsula. This is the long pointy bit on the top right hand side of Australia. Its nice and close to the equator and it has good reliable weather all year round. I understand that Hawai is making a strong bid for a spaceport. I'd imagine that these two sites are going to be fighting it out head to head, and the world can only support one of them. Hawai has some disadvantages, but unlike the area earmarked in Australia, its not wilderness, so it would require less development. Ironically, most of what I know about this proposal comes from Aviation Week and Space Technology! Raymond Lister Basser Department of Computer Science University of Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA ACSnet: ray@basser ARPANET: munnari!basser.cs.su.oz!ray@seismo.css.gov ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 87 18:46:47 GMT From: imagen!atari!apratt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Allan Pratt) Subject: Beamed energy for spacecraft In the August 2 San Francisco Examiner, I read an article on Canada's upcoming attempt to fly a model (15' wingspan) airplane using microwave energy beamed from an earth station. Can anybody elaborate on this? The article stated that the bottom of the plane was covered (mostly) with rectennas for converting the A/C microwaves into DC for the propeller motor, and that the plane could fly a tight figure-eight to stay in the energy beam while climbing. The illustration accompanying the article showed the beam's diameter as 15', the same as the plane's wingspan. This can't have been right, unless the beam tracks the plane through its flight path. The article mentioned this as a way to get into space, and mentioned that DOD was planning a similar experiment, possibly including a laser as a second stage power source for better efficiency at higher altitudes. What about this? At least you don't have to carry fuel enough to push your fuel into orbit... A ground station can be as big and hairy as you like, and the energy can come from any number of sources. Can't it? Is there anything about this in the literature (Henry Spencer)? Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 87 03:51:21 GMT From: jade!web4h!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Phoenix launch vehicle I would like some informed criticism on Gary Hudson's _Phoenix_ launcher design. What follows is my best recollection of it, refreshed by a quick phone conversation with Tom Brosz (publishes the _Commercial Space Report_). The _Phoenix_ bears a destinct visual resemblence to one of the heavy launch vehicle designs that periodically pop up in magazines. It looks like a gigantic Gemini space capsule (actually, much more squat). The lower funnel-shaped part holds a tank full of 50% liquid/50% solid "slush" hydrogen, feeding a ring of forty-eight "combustors" (combustion chambers and throats without nozzles?) imbedded in the bottom along with a perspiring heat shield, which does not have to be that strong as that the engines fire during reentry. The upper cylinder holds a triple-point (solid/liquid/gas) oxygen tank, electronics, and payload. I'm a bit hazy about how the ring of combustors work. They are supposed to form a single "aerospike." (Something that I really don't understand.) Surprisingly, everyone whom I've asked about the engine, seems to be pretty confident that the "aerospike" is a well understood technology, and are more concerned by other details like optimistic mass ratios and exhaust velocities. As I understand things, the squat shape of the _Phoenix_ and the extra density of slush hydrogen and triple-ponit oxygen, mean a smaller craft, which means a better mass ratio. In addition, the thing is supposed to get a higher exhaust velocity by burning an oxygen-rich fuel mix. I think that Hudson says it can be ready in five (?) years for $200M. Everyone whom I've talked to about this projection feels that it is very optimistic. I've heard a number of criticisms, though I've never heard numbers to back them up. I've heard that there are problems with pumping slush hydrogen at high speeds. I've heard that there are problems with reliably keeping combustion limited to the combustion chamber when burning H2/O2 with extra O2. Tom Brosz claims that perspiring heat shields have been tested on airplaines, though this seems a bit untried to me. So, how realistic is the _Phoenix_? Can it be physically done? How about from an engineering point of view? How much $$$ for real? How many communications satalites would you need to launch before it exploded so you could afford to buy a replacement? If I wanted Boeing to build me one, how much would I have to cough up and when? [Editorial:] Psychologically, the _Phoenix_ is a big win. Everything about it is innovative and new. It is the sort of craft that you'd expect to be designed by a country with an active moon colony and a few space stations. It is something the Soviets can't do. It to the space shuttle is as a design for a Sun-4 is to a punched-card machine. It is a refreshing distraction from our world, in which we can only hope that someone might invest the resources to perhaps struggle to REGAIN THE TECHNOLOGY OF TWO DECADES PAST. It is a future, but the most we dare hope for today is to return to a past. Adam J. Richter adamj@bartleby.berkeley.edu ...!ucbvax!bartleby!adamj (609)734-6525 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 87 17:39:06 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Beamed energy for spacecraft > ...upcoming attempt to fly a model (15' wingspan) airplane using microwave > energy beamed from an earth station.... > What about this? At least you don't have to carry fuel enough to push > your fuel into orbit... A ground station can be as big and hairy as > you like, and the energy can come from any number of sources. Can't > it? Is there anything about this in the literature (Henry Spencer)? I'm dimly aware of this project, but don't know details. The general idea of beamed power for spaceships has been thought of before. About a decade ago, Jim Baen (!) thought of using beamed power to run an ion drive, since the big problem with ion drives is the mass of the power system. Jerry Pournelle analyzed it in one of his Galaxy columns (titled "Jim Baen and his Electric Spaceship" as I recall!) and concluded that it wasn't fantastic but did seem to have potential. Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #310 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Aug 87 06:26:14 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA24936; Tue, 11 Aug 87 03:18:36 PDT id AA24936; Tue, 11 Aug 87 03:18:36 PDT Date: Tue, 11 Aug 87 03:18:36 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708111018.AA24936@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #311 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 311 Today's Topics: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle Re: Still more infighting Why [not] air-breathing boosters? Re: Why [not]? {Getting experts in other areas in net} Re: The rocky road to the stars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Aug 87 20:24:48 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle Some background: in 1985 Boeing was asked by the Air Force to evaluate the Phoenix. We understand that Hudson was asking the AF for use of Vandenberg AFB as a launch site. They asked us if the Phoenix concept was 'for real'. Our conclusions were: (1) Hudson's weight growth margin of 5%, given the number of advanced technologies in the Phoenix, was overly optimistic. It should be in the 15-25% range. (2) The weight statement in their baseline concept underestimates certain components, such as the passenger door and cargo door. These are described as similar to airplane doors, but the weights used by Hudson were much smaller than airline practice. (3) The advanced technologies (aerospike, slush propellants) are inconsistent with the idea '$200 million to develop'. We estimated $2.2 billion total development cost for the Phoenix concept as described by Hudson. (4) The weight underestimates exceed the claimed payload. --------- Now, there are ways to improve the performance of the Phoenix so that it can be made to work. One way is to get a bunch of fighter engines (F-100), strap them onto the Phoenix, and use them as boosters up to about Mach 2.5 in a vertical takeoff mode. The jet engines then peel off and land as RPVs. A fighter engine can lift 8 times it's own weight at sea level. Method two is to turn the Phoenix into a two stage rocket, becoming a 1/20 weight version of the 'big dumb booster' heavy lift vehicle described in the Solar Power Satellite Studies in 1979-1980. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 87 15:00:07 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Still more infighting In article <3309@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@oddhack.Caltech.EDU (Jon Leech) writes: >How expensive would 747s be if Boeing had only built 4 of them, and had >to develop numerous highly complex systems that had never flown before, >rather than designing with what was available at the time? They're not >THAT much less expensive than a shuttle even as it stands - I suspect >the learning curve alone accounts for a lot of the difference. Actually, 747s run an order of magnitude less expensive than a Shuttle Orbiter. Heck, a 747 costs less than a shuttle *launch*. A 747 costs about $130million (or did a year ago). An Orbiter is in the $1-2billion range (replacement cost for Challenger), and a launch is about $200million (not counting gov't subsidies). For all that, a Shuttle Orbiter is probably *less* complex than a 747. The comparison I'd always made was with another large Rockwell aerospace vehicle, the B-1B, built at the same place as the Orbiter. The B-1 is perhaps more complicated than the shuttle, certainly *as* complex - and built to Mil Spec besides. In quantities of 100 (or whatever the production run is) a B-1 costs about $200 million. Anyone doubt that 100 shuttles could be built for the same or lower unit cost? Not that that'd help much -- there are only 2 (3 if you count Vandenburg) shuttle launch pads, only facilities to stack a couple of 'em at a time -- and that's a long, labor intensive process. Capital costs aside, the operational costs of shuttle are too high. ELV's are one alternative, useful in the near term. Longer term we've got to look at reusability and/or *very* low cost production methods to bring price down. Even ELVs are still largely handbuilt like Rolls-Royces, at least in the US. We need assembly lines, computer-integrated manufacturing, the production methods of the 80's, not the 50's. With known technology the cost of launches - on man-rateable boosters - can be brought down to under $500/lb (vs current ~$2000/lb). Gary Hudson of Pacific American Launch Systems thinks they can be brought down to under $100/lb with reusable, ballistic SSTO like his 'Phoenix'. Private enterprise can do it, just as they built the commercial aircraft fleets. All it takes is for NASA and the feds to get out of the way... Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair (Why do they call it a signature file if I can't actually *sign* anything?) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 87 20:54:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Why [not] air-breathing boosters? /* Written 3:24 pm Aug 5, 1987 by eder@ssc-vax.UUCP in uiucdcsb:sci.space */ |Now, there are ways to improve the performance of the Phoenix so that |it can be made to work. One way is to get a bunch of fighter engines |(F-100), strap them onto the Phoenix, and use them as boosters up to |about Mach 2.5 in a vertical takeoff mode. The jet engines then peel |off and land as RPVs. A fighter engine can lift 8 times it's own |weight at sea level. | |Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder /* End of text from uiucdcsb:sci.space */ What are the technical problems with this approach? Obviously, we haven't tried an air-breathing first stage on orbital launchers before. Forgive me if I'm rehashing old ground, but in the 3+ years I've been reading this group, I haven't seen a really clear answer to this. I have seen a lot of statements about its being a good or bad idea, but remarkable little data to back them up. It strikes me that the major problem must be that the payoff just isn't big enough; after all, Mach 2.5 is only one tenth (or so) of the velocity that must be attained. Nevertheless, a whopping amount of propellant mass is consumed hoisting the rest of the vehicle while gaining that ten per cent. The idea ought to be workable if the rest of the numbers work out, particularly if the gain in specific impulse (through not having to carry oxidizer along) is great enough. I don't have efficiency figures for any jet engines, though. The posting above gives me a rough idea of thrust: it appears from the statement, ``a fighter engine can lift eight times its own weight,'' that they deliver about 80-90 Newtons of thrust per kilogram of engine deadweight mass (or a specific thrust of 80-90 m/s**2). At what rate do they consume fuel when putting out that kind of thrust? How long a burn can they make (will the engine survive going from 0 to Mach 2.5 at full afterburner, given the expected accelerations)? How many missions can they be expected to last (I hear, for instance, that SR-71 engines are expected to fail after 25-50 operating hours)? What sort of Isp can they deliver? Answers to questions like these are needed to back up the blanket statement that a concept is ``infeasible'' (or, alternatively ``feasible''). Sometimes a concept can be shown to be infeasible because even a back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the numbers are obviously bogus. Surely some aeronautics type out there has the numbers (for today's engine technology, at least) that could bring the argument onto firmer footing. We've certainly been talking about air-breathers long enough without the data! kBk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Aug 87 16:25:35 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Why [not]? {Getting experts in other areas in net} Newsgroups: sci.space >Surely some aeronautics type out there has the numbers (for today's Actually I wonder how many aeronautics types are out there reading this? I have corresponded and relayed questions for maybe 3-4 students to some real experts here. I can't do this all the time, but I was wondering how many of you (rhetorically, don't answer me) have communicated with anyone other than computer people about space? Perhaps you should circulate among non-computer colleagues and set up contacts which you introduce to these space postings and when you go further off in life, these `seeds' help out space. These people need to be scientists in other disciplines: physics, biology, etc. They need to be economists, and other non-scientist types (you know future elected officials kind of thing). I am suggesting this as a lobbying activity. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 87 08:35:16 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: The rocky road to the stars This is a follow-up on my posting of a month ago. > ME: I have the impression that collisions with largish "dust > grains" may be a serious obstacle to interstellar travel. > At the speeds usually considered necessary for interstellar > trips, such collisions seem unavoidable and too energetic to be > shielded effectively. Has anyone analyzed this problem before? > EUGENE MIYA: ... There are [2 solutions I can remember off the top]: > 1) is the equivalent of armor plate. ... 2) is to > use a thin layer of aluminum to dissipate energy (of small particles)... Thanks for the info, but these methods don't seem to be applicable to speeds near the speed of light. Because of the much higher collision energies, plain shielding against 1 gram pebbles would require an armor plate at least tens of miles thick (which would be quickly destroyed by a few impacts). As for the second method, at relativistic speeds there is not much difference between hitting a 1 gram pebble or a 1 gram of gas. > HENRY SPENCER: Check out the Project Daedalus report from the British > Interplanetary Society, for example. Results are sensitive to > estimates of the density of interstellar debris of size X, but in > general the problem does not seem intractable. The Daedalus report > studied a large unmanned probe at about 15% of the speed of light, and > concluded that some simple precautions would suffice. > Basically all that was necessary in interstellar space at those speeds > was a bit of armor on the leading face. That cut the probability of > real trouble down to 0.1% or so. [...] The solution was to maintain a > fine dust cloud some thousands of kilometers ahead of the probe; > incoming particles would hit the cloud and vaporize. The distance > between cloud and probe was calculated so that the resulting fireballs > would expand to a safe density by the time they reached the probe. > While it looked possible to maintain the cloud from the probe itself, a > simpler method was to use a secondary probe, a "dust bug", flying in > the cloud itself. Occasionally the dust bug itself would be destroyed, > so the main probe would have to carry several. Thanks for the reference; I will try to find it. Meanwhile, may I ask some questions? For one thing, how did they propose to keep the protective dust cloud plowing through the interstellar medium at 0.15c? If I have not bungled my physics, a particle moving at 5e7 m/s through a gas with 1e6 atoms/m^3 (1 per cubic centimeter) will encounter the same resistance as one moving at 5 m/s through a gas with 1e20 atoms/m^3 --- not impressive, but not negligible either. Also note that interstellar particles will probably have proper motions on the order of 1e4 m/s or more. Therefore, if the dust shield is a thousand km ahead of the ship, it would have to be about 1km wide to give adequate protection. > ME: If the average density d(M) of particles with mass >M in > interstellar space is a bit more than 10^-17 per cubic meter, > the probability of colliding with one or more such particles > will be practically 1. I dont have any idea of what is d(M) > for "large" M (say, 1 mg), but I expect 10^-17 particles/m^3 to > be far below the detection threshold. > PAUL DIETZ: Is 10^17/m^3 too low to detect? The way to detect > large (gram sized) particles from interstellar space is to look > for meteors with high velocity. This has been done in the > midwest with multiple cameras (equiped with rotating disks to > chop the trails to measure velocity). Interstellar grains > should have velocities in excess of solar escape velocity. > I don't believe any such grains have been detected. > > Assuming extrasolar meteors are moving in parabolic orbits, a > 10x10 km patch of sky will sample about 7x10^12 m^3/second, or > 10^17 m^3 in about four hours. > > This detection method will fail for very heat sensitive grains. > But grains can't be made of solid hydrogen, which would > evaporate even in interstellar space, and organic blobs would > get polymerized by cosmic rays. A couple of questions: 1) Suppose interstellar pebbles in the neighborhood of the solar system move at about the same speed as comets in the Oort cloud, which I believe is on the order of 1e3 m/s or less (Pluto's orbital speed is 5e3 m/s, right?) As they fall to the Earth orbit, their speed will increase at least 70-fold, to some 7e4 m/s. It is not obvious to me that their density (particles/m^3) will remain unchanged; offhand, I would expect it to be reduced by about the same factor. If this is true, then, in the experiment you described, a density of 1e-17 particles/m^3 (in interstellar space) will give only one event every 280 hours. 2) I have read somewhere that interstellar dust grains (the ones we can detect, 0.1 micron or so) probably consist of a silicate core covered by a layer of water ice. Large "pebbles", if they exist, will likely be loose aggregates of such dust grains. Think of them as very small comets. When such a pebble falls towards the inner solar system, it will heat up and start to boil away, just like a comet. Well before it reaches Earth orbit, its ice will evaporate, and the puff of dust that remains will be blown apart by the solar wind. In other words, the experiment you describe may put a limit on the density of refractory pebbles; however, it doesn't seem to say anything about small dusty snowballs. (Incidentally, it seems that estimates of the size and density of the Oort cloud have been growing steadily in the last years. Maybe it extends all the way to Alpha Centauri?) > STEVE WILLNER: Present data on interstellar particles come from > three sources: 1) Observations of dimming, reddening, and > polarization of light of distant stars. These observations ... > tell us directly about dust grains with radii of order 0.1 micron or > or mass ~1E-14 grams. 2) Knowledge of "heavy element" abundances > [which constitute] about 3% of the mass of most stars ... 3) > Depletion of heavy elements from the gas phase. > > In spite of the varieties of information, almost nothing is directly > known about dust grains larger than a couple of microns (~1E-10 g) > or so. The best that can be done is to combine the limit from item > 2 above with estimates of gas density [which range] from 1E-2 H > atoms per cm^3 inside the shell of supernova remnants to 1E5 in the > densest molecular clouds. However, a typical density in regions > near the Sun is about 1 atom per cm^3. Thus a typical density of > solid particles is 2E-26 g cm^-3. ... Thanks for your posting; I have long been looking for this information. However, I still don't think the evidence is conclusive. If I have not bungled my algebra, it would seem that 0.1 micron is roughly the maximum size for which the dust grains can be expected to be carried along by the parent gas cloud. Grains much larger than that seem able to lead an independent life. For example, they may remain behind when the gas cloud dssipates or is blown away by stellar wind. In a cloud that is stable against collapse, embedded large grains still may collapse on their own. When two clouds collide and lose their kinetic energy into heat, large dust grains may still keep going in their original trajectoriy and speed. And so on. If this is true, then maybe there is an open cycle where the metal content of stars and gas clouds is more or less stable at 3%, without that posing any constraint on the pebble density: supernovas, stellar winds dust aggregation & separation ----------------------> gas clouds --------------------- | w/ fine dust | | | | | | V stars V Interstellar ^ | Pebbles | | -------------------------------- Collisions, compression, cooling, collapse I agree that this is a bit far-fetched. However, consider that something like it happened in our solar system: most of the primeval gas cloud was blown away, leaving behind a few metal-rich pebbles (such as the Earth). Why should we assume that this phenomenon happens only in planetary systems, and not in interstellar space? Also, I think I read somewhere that there has to be some process that removes grains larger than 0.1 micron from gas clouds, to explain the observed size distribution. Could that be aggregation into much larger pebbles? I recall there was a theory suggesting that the mysterious "dark matter" (aka "missing mass") required by galaxy dynamics consisted of "orphan" planets (Jupiter-size and smaller) floating away in interstellar space. What happened to that theory? By the way, what happens to any planets that form around stars in dense star clusters? (Is that possible?) Do they remain tied to their parent star? Or will they eventually "boil" off the cluster? Well, nuf said. Sorry for bothering you with my late night elucubrations... Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@src.dec.com, ...decvax!decwrl!stolfi) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Barbicane could not help smiling at Michel's reply; then, returning to his theory, said --- ``Thus, in case of a shock, it would have been with our projectile as with a bullet which falls in a burning state after having struck a metal plate: it is its motion which is turned into heat. Consequently I affirm that, if our projectile had struck the meteor, its speed thus suddenly checked would have raised a heat great enough to turn it into vapour instantaneously.'' ---Jules Verne, _Round the Moon_ (1870) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #311 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Aug 87 06:20:04 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA27325; Wed, 12 Aug 87 03:18:58 PDT id AA27325; Wed, 12 Aug 87 03:18:58 PDT Date: Wed, 12 Aug 87 03:18:58 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708121018.AA27325@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #312 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 312 Today's Topics: space news from June 29 AW&ST Antigravity? Re: Antigravity? how to maintain cooperative info free-trading over interstellar dist. Will people reach the stars? Re: Subjective FTL & Conservation of Mass ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Aug 87 23:09:06 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from June 29 AW&ST [Well, I'm back from vacation and more-or-less caught up on crises, so here I am again. Once again I am slightly behind schedule, but I will catch up on a more relaxed timetable than before, i.e. a catchup issue when it's convenient rather than 2/week until caught up. --HS] [Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is PO Box 1505, Neptune NJ 07754 USA. Rates depend on whether you are an "unqualified" or "qualified" subscriber, which basically means whether you look at the ads for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial or military interest. Best write for a "qualification card" and try to get the cheap rate. US rates are $55 qualified, $70 unqualified at present. It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of it has nothing to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth it to you. -- HS] NASA's ITD Space Remote Sensing Center, one of its first Centers for Commercial Development of Space, has received a two-year extension of federal subsidies, after which it is predicted to be self-supporting. Rockwell plans mission operations center for Navstar at company facilities in Seal Beach, CA. NASA Lewis plans serious research effort into hydrogen slush as rocket propellant. NASA to shut down the SSME test stand at Rocketdyne in favor of a third test stand at the National Space Technology Lab labs in Mississippi. NASA is also building an SRB joint-test stand at Marshall, similar to facilities at Morton Thiokol. China is again studying manned spaceflight. The first Chinese astronauts will be shuttle payload specialists, but a Gemini-class Chinese spacecraft late in the 1990s. The Chinese space program has strong government support despite China's poverty, partly because the Ministry of Astronautics is one of the few Chinese organizations with international recognition and a significant record of drawing in foreign money and technology. China is building its first Clarke-orbit metsat, for launch in early 1990s, and is preparing to launch a polar-orbit metsat next year. Testing of the third Chinese comsat is underway, for launch in March. Scheduled for 1991 or 1992 is a three-axis-stabilized TV broadcast satellite. DMSP (military metsat) launched from Vandenberg June 19 on Atlas E. First DMSP to carry a microwave imager that can see into clouds for better tropical-storm assessment. Senior NASA officials believe a shuttle-derived heavylift launcher comparable to Energia could be built for $900M; RFPs may be issued by Marshall in July. USAF agrees that this would be useful, but still wants its own ALS heavylift launcher with newer technology (and a later startup date -- NASA hopes for SDV [Shuttle-Derived Vehicle] launch in 1993, USAF ALS is slipping to late 1990s). Marshall is waiting for approval from NASA DepAdmin Myers, who is expected to approve if White House and OMB concur. The White House might balk at funding two different heavylift launchers with different objectives and design philosophies; the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting might balk at funding SDV on top of the shuttle and the space station. The July RFP would be for a system study, two contractors for 18 months, leading to one contractor getting a development contract in early 1989. First flight could be as early as June 1993. Launch frequency would be 2-3/year, at about half shuttle costs per pound. Several test launches would precede use for the space station. SDV will probably have the same configuration as the current shuttle, with the orbiter tail section retained and the rest of the orbiter replaced by a payload canister. [This further development of the shuttle is long overdue. -- HS] SDV does not seem to have been coordinated well with ALS; one contractor which is interested in both says that NASA and USAF both got annoyed when each learned that the company planned to compete for the other agency's launcher! James Beggs, ex-NASA admin, cleared of fraud charges related to his prior employment with General Dynamics. He now feels free to speak out about the Challenger accident. In particular, he says he would fly on a shuttle tomorrow with the old boosters, provided the temperature was above 50F. SSME ran 16m42s on test stand in June, longest shuttle-engine run to date. Boeing's electronics company has come up with a thin-film solar cell with unusually high efficiency, 17.4%. The cell is a two-layer device with an orthodox GaAs top cell and a complex new bottom cell. Thin-film cells are particularly interesting for space applications because they are lighter and more radiation-resistant than ordinary cells. In non-AW&ST news, the Soviet Union is pushing Indonesia to launch its next Palapa comsat on Proton instead of the Shuttle. In particular, Indonesia's now-grounded payload-specialist astronaut has been offered a trip to Mir to sweeten the deal. Ref: Flight International. Flight International now admits its early guess on propellants for Energia's strap-ons was wrong; the Soviets have officially stated that the boosters use LOX/kerosene and the core uses LOX/LH2. Canadian astronomers report that a sophisticated survey of 16 nearby Sunlike stars shows clear signs of low-mass companions around two and hints of them around five more. "Low-mass" here means 1-10 times Jupiter, i.e. a very large planet. They worked out a way of measuring Doppler shifts of the stars (which move slightly in response to planets' gravity) with much greater accuracy than before, about 10 m/s. Two stars, one of them Epsilon Eridani, show evidence for motions at the four-sigma level of confidence (pretty strong). Given orbital periods on the order of a decade, a long-term study will be needed to pin down orbital elements of the planets. One very significant thing that the survey did *not* find was brown dwarfs (halfway between big planets and small stars), which strongly supports other lines of evidence suggesting they do not exist. (The report a few years ago of a brown dwarf orbiting van Biesbrock 8 is now thought to have been wrong.) Ref: Science, 26 June, p. 1623. Letter of the Month, in the same issue of Science: "The galaxy-spanning luminous arcs reported by M. Mitchell Waldrop in Research News on 6 February have a very simple explanation. They are part of the scaffolding that was not removed when the contractor went bankrupt owing to cost overruns." "Arthur C. Clarke, Sri Lanka" Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 87 05:10:39 GMT From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Antigravity? For all the recent traffic on FTL travel, I'm suprised nobody brought up antigravity. There is apparently an experiment being conducted in Greenland to measure the gravitational constant with extreme accuracy along a 3,000 foot hole in the ice cap. The intent is to determine whether the discrepencies found in some old measurements of the speed of falling objects are due to a weak repulsive force, rather than air currents or some other pertubation. The discrepencies point to a repulsive force between masses, which varies according to atomic number, but is only active over about 1,000 feet. Do any physicists out there have more details? From what I understand, this sounds like a "second order" effect in the Taylor expansion of a basically nonlinear equation, heretofore ignored, but maybe I'm wrong. How likely is it that the experiments will succeed? If they do, is it likely to prove of any use (long term, of course) to making space travel cheaper? Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 87 20:20:23 GMT From: robiner@oberon.usc.edu (Steve Robiner) Subject: Re: Antigravity? In article <594@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> kempf@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Jim Kempf) writes: >For all the recent traffic on FTL travel, I'm suprised nobody brought >up antigravity. There is apparently an experiment being conducted in >Do any physicists out there have more details? From what I understand, There is a layman's article on this in the March 87 issure of Omni magazine. There is a guy named Fishbach ( or something like that ) who noticed correlations in old data on gravity which supported what he called a fifth fundamental force. More recent research, I believe, has shown that the repulsive effect has something to do with a previously unobserved baryon-baryon interaction. It is not related to gravity. They are still doing research on it and you might be able to find details in Physical Review Letters ( after you sift out all the superconductor articles. ) Or you might just post to sci.physics and ask them. =Steve= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jul 87 23:37:12 From: Robert Elton Maas To: "munnari!basser.cs.su.oz!bruce%uunet.UU.NET"@relay.cs.net Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: how to maintain cooperative info free-trading over interstellar dist. From: munnari!basser.cs.su.oz!bruce@uunet.UU.NET Date: Fri, 24 Jul 87 23:02:44 EST Subject: Re: Why live in interstellar space (moving somewhere or not)? >The only solution I see .. is to have lots of trade-relay stations >spaced (pun, sorry) close enough that each neighboring pair can have >frequent interchanges to encourage cooperation and punish defaulting >... Or equivalently, traders roam through space, buying 'on spec', carrying lots of stock and selling where they can. This slows down transfer of new info immensely. Instead of nearly the speed of light (exactly speed of light on each hop, with small delay while it is assimilated and readied for re-transmission), only the speed that traders can move about (less than one tenth the speed of light). The essential point of ".. trade-relay stations spaced .. close enough .." is that the duration of any transaction (the time that elapses between when you give me your goods and then I give you my goods) is small. Right, for maintaining cooperation, that is the key point. Closely spaced trade-relay stations and transactions with traders both have this property. Right, but transactions with traders moves the goods too slowly to compete with short-hop speed-of-light trading. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Aug 87 16:35:55 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Will people reach the stars? To: JAACS%UNO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: > I was wondering if you know of any POLI-SCI digest that can be > subscribed to. Yes. POLI-SCI@RED.RUTGERS.EDU. Send to POLI-SCI-REQUEST@RED.RUTGERS.EDU to request being added to the list, or to request copies of the archives. If you like, I will send you some recent archives. Be sure to send them an address that can be replied to from the Internet. For instance JAACS%UNO.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU. > about info-barter: How would you decide who's information was "good > information"? The same way it is done today. Much of today's economy is based on information rather than goods or non-information services. Newspapers, computer networks, churches, phone companies, science, math, art, TV, radio, VCRs, advertising, Consumer Reports, lawyers, magazines, music, books, software, video games, snail mail, blue prints, engineering textbooks, assembly instructions, public relations, cookbooks, and schematic diagrams, for instance. If two groups had no physical contact, all trade would be information trade. > There are many people, like myself, who either don't have access to > information that is worth exchanging or don't have the tallents to > articulate that information. Most individuals don't have any goods or services to sell, either, except their time at whatever job someone is willing to offer. > Would you suggest that such freeloaders be left to die. I think you have lost the context. I was suggesting that in the future there might be large numbers of independant space colonies in the solar system, perhaps mostly in the asteroid belt. Each colony would be self sufficient in food, water, air, and other necessities, just as the US might be worse off but would certainly not collapse with no trade with other countries. Just as the Earth is (or could be) self sufficient in goods and services, forming a closed economy with no trade with anyone off Earth, because nobody IS off Earth, yet. So, imagine hundreds or perhaps even millions of asteroids filled with people. The population of each one might be anywhere from one to several billion (the Earth's current estimated population, five billion, could comfortably fit in an asteroid ten kilometers on a side). The colonies, at least the larger ones, would be totally self sufficient. They may trade goods and information with other asteroids. Probably mostly information. So, why should one of these venture outside the solar system? On the negative side, trade of goods would become impossible. But probably few goods would have been traded anyway, if they have an ample supply of all the natural elements, and devices with which anything they want can be grown or built out of their raw materials, given only the information as to how to build them. On the negative side, solar energy would no longer be available. So lets say they use fusion or fission or some other source of energy. On the positive side, they are exposed to less harmful radiation, being further from the sun. On the positive side, they would have unique information to trade. Information only available from beyond the solar system. And ultimately, from other solar systems. They may even meet aliens. Even if the only aliens they find are primitive plants and animals, enormous benefits can be gained by studying them, as any such living things would have evolved completely independent ways of surviving in this universe of Murphy's law, ways that people could harness for their own benefit. Also on the positive side, if they have any long term plans which require truly immense amounts of mass and energy, these can be found in other solar systems. One common argument against people ever reaching the stars is that it would take generations, and nobody is willing to leave home, friends, and family, and spend life cooped up in a box. But here I am speaking of taking home with you. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 87 20:44:23 GMT From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org (Wayne A. Throop) Subject: Re: Subjective FTL & Conservation of Mass > yamauchi@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Brian Yamauchi) > 1) [question about energy requirements] Let me rephrase this somewhat: How does the energy required to travel a given distance (distance measured from some at-rest frame) in a given time (time measured from the traveler's frame) compare, between a newtonian calculation and a special relativistic one. The given distance is d.g, the given time is t.g, then the newtonian case is easy, because the requred velocity v.r is just (d.g/t.g). v.r = (d.g/t.g) E = m (v.r)^2/2 = (m (d.g/t.g)^2) / 2 which is the energy needed to boost the vehicle to the required speed. The calculation of the required speed under SR is a little trickier, but (in units where c=1) we have: t.h = d.g / v.r t.g = t.h (1-(v.r))^.5 = d.g (1-(v.r))^.5 / v.r t.g^2 = d.g^2 (1 - v.r) / v.r^2 = (d.g^2 - d.g^2 v.r) / v.r^2 t.g^2 v.r^2 = d.g^2 - d.g^2 v.r t.g^2 v.r^2 + d.g^2 v.r - d.g^2 = 0 v.r = -d.g^2 (+/-) (d.g^4 + 4t.g^2 d.g^2)^.5 / 2t.g^2 and the energy needed E = m (v.r)^2 / 2(1-v.r^2)^.5 + (m/(1-v.r^2)^.5 - m) So, how does this compare? Well, let's say you want to go 4 light years in 2 subjective years, as originally proposed. You get 2 units of wenergy per unit mass required by the newtonian form, and about 1.3 units of energy per unit mass required by the SR form. Thus, you can go further for less under SR. (I'm sure this overly simple exposition will be heavily flamed. So it goes.) > 2) How does relativistic mass increase conform to conservation of > mass/energy in the universe? Is the energy expended for acceleration > being converted directly into the additional mass? Yes. (more or less) -- Fooled around enough with numbers. Let's not be ourselves today. Is it my imagination? Is it just someone's face pleasantly out of proportion? --- Talking Heads from "Wild Gravity" -- Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #312 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Aug 87 06:18:35 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA29554; Thu, 13 Aug 87 03:17:24 PDT id AA29554; Thu, 13 Aug 87 03:17:24 PDT Date: Thu, 13 Aug 87 03:17:24 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708131017.AA29554@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #313 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 313 Today's Topics: Newsweek Special Report: "Lost in Space" Interstellar information trade. Re: FTL and time travel Re: FTL and time travel Re: Dry Ore Separation Device Re: Pro-Space Publicity The Alternate Space Station - humor - please at least smile! Re: McDonnell Douglas Pro-Space Publicity ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 87 21:51 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Newsweek Special Report: "Lost in Space" The latest issue of Newsweek (8/17/87) has a special 18 page, two part report on the state of the US space program. The first article makes the standard argument that the US space program is crippled by lack of long term goals, and suggests the space station and new orbiter not be built. The second article is longer than the first, and is all about launcher technology (!) and the politics of procurement. The author champions the Big Dumb Booster, and explains why the US instead has unreliable expensive boosters. The BDB is very big, very cheap, and very simple. No liquid hydrogen. Big pressure fed engines. It is not made of advanced composites, nor titanium, nor even aluminum, but mostly *steel*. Engine nozzles are not cooled, and first stage engines aren't even steerable. The article estimates it could lift 50 tons into orbit at a cost of $310/lb, vs $6,800/lb for the shuttle (1987 dollars). Buy this issue. The second article is fascinating. I hope it will make you as angry as it made me. If it is correct, NASA could have developed launchers that were cheaper, simpler, and more reliable than the shuttle, and could have spent less time and money doing it. I'm going to mail copies to Ronnie and my congresscritters. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Aug 87 00:00:47 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Interstellar information trade. To: REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu > From: Robert Elton Maas > There's a problem maintaining trading over distances where radio takes > a good fraction of a lifetime. > Even if trade is desirable, defaulting on the agreement is profitable > due to lack of repeated interactions. Radio need not take a good fraction of a lifetime, and there is no limit to the number of repeated interactions. o Initially, people will move out only into the Oort (cometary) cloud, which is only a few hours or days away by radio. Some will gradually move into near interstellar space, a few weeks to a few months away. o Several solar systems are within ten light years. Virtually every solar system is within ten light years of several others. So at the least, each colony could trade only with its immediate neighbors, and information would still get everywhere at nearly the speed of light. o Human lifetimes may be much longer than now, with advances in medical science and cybernetics. o The relevant lifetime may be that of a corporation rather than that of an individual. Management would never vote to stop sending, since that means they would stop receiving N years later, and since stockholders would know that the corporation would be worthless in N years, this would drive down the current value of the stock since nobody would want to buy it later since they would all know that it would be worth less and less later and later until becoming worthless after N years. > It is a form of "prisoner's dilemma" game where you win in the short > run by defaulting, and lose only if the game has enough cycles for the > other party to retaliate enough. Right. But there are more than enough cycles. Also, since gathering information is of great value to the colony itself, they will do it anyway. Thus the only possible gain from defaulting is saving the energy and hassle of transmitting the information you already have, while the loss from defaulting is lack of all information that all other colonies will ever generate, including works of art, cures for diseases, books, movies, new recipes, lists of potential supernova explosions and cosmic ray storms, new software, new inventions, news, and much more. Thus the possible temporary gain from defaulting is much smaller than the certain long term loss. And if any colonies do decide to opt out of the information trade, if they are able to thrive anyway, more power to them! Perhaps they will be the only survivors of the dreaded interstellar meme plague of 2987. :-) Also note that a colony may contain more than one group engaged in interstellar communication. Signals from other solar systems could be restricted to the appropriate group by means of encryption. > See Axelrod's book ("The Evolution of Cooperation" I think is the > title) for computer tournament of Prisoner's dilemma simulations and > relationship to evolution etc., directly applicable to this distant- > radio commerce. You continue to confuse actions selected for by evolution with actions freely decided upon by rational beings. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with eachother. In evolution, creatures exist with certain instincts, all slightly different. Those instints held by creatures whose instincts happen to lead them to produce more descendants tend to get preferentially passed on to future generations. Ultimately, creatures tend to behave in ways that appear to be rational attempts to have as many offspring as possible. These instincts are NOT rational, however, as can be proven by changing the environment and seeing that the creature continues to behave in the old way, even though it is irrational and destructive in the altered enviroment. It can also be proven by the fact that these behaviors are NOT always to the individual benefit of the creatures holding them, but often cause the creatures to be quite miserable or even dead, though generally causing more offspring to survive in the long run. And it isn't "altruism" either, since these same instincts make the supposed beneficiaries, the offspring, equally miserable or dead. A rational being does what he does not because of any inherited instincts, but because he is aware of the probable consequences of his possible actions and able to choose the actions which he judges will best benefit himself. These actions need not involve having children, and in general will NOT be altruistic. They WILL generally be of great benefit to others, but only because he expects them to supply things of value to him in return. If there could be technological non-rational beings (just barely conceivable) and they colonize solar systems, they would tend to trade information because creatures aboard colonies which did just happen to trade information for no reason would tend to reproduce (and create new colonies) faster than creatures aboard colonies which just happened to not trade information. Thus the interstellar information trading instinct would be as universal in these creatures as the stinging instinct in bees or the evasive-maneuvers instinct in flys. If rational beings such as people have interstellar colonies, most of them will rationally decide to trade information since it is to their own individual benefit. Not at all the same thing. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 87 20:09:08 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel In article <156@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes: >> kraml@trwrb.UUCP (Robert P. Kraml), >> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne Throop) > >>> [...] FTL implies time travel. > [...] >> What I want to know are there any intrinsic differences between FTL >> through space and FTL around space? >Not from the standpoint of the FTL implying time travel. >There may be others, of course. I still maintain that the idea that FTL implies time travel is a crock. FT*I* (infinity) may imply time travel, but the possibility that something could go faster than light (through space, I'm not discussing 'hyperspace') no more implies time travel than does the fact that you see a lightning flash before you hear the thunder. Detecting an event is not the same as causing it, and the order in which it is possible to detect cause in effect may be totally irrelevant to the order in which they actually occured. "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once." "Space is what keeps it from all being in the same place." Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 87 16:07:20 GMT From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org (Wayne A. Throop) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel > alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) > I still maintain that the idea that FTL implies time travel is a > crock. And Alastair is still wrong, too. > FT*I* (infinity) may imply time travel, but the possibility that > something could go faster than light (through space, I'm not > discussing 'hyperspace') no more implies time travel than does the > fact that you see a lightning flash before you hear the thunder. Actually that is just the point. Under the assumptions of special relativity, traveling faster than light is *equivalent* to traveling faster than instantly, and *does* imply time travel (though of course, the lightning example does *not* have these implications). I have pointed out that the lightning example is *NOT* analogous, and have explained several times why special relativity implies that any FTL message is also an instant message or pastward message. If y'all don't understand these points, I suggest reading elementary texts on relativity, available in most Daltons and Waldens I've been in, as well as most public libraries. Work it out for yourself. Assume a spaceprobe departs earth with a Lorentz contraction of ten-to-one. After ten years, send a message to this probe at ten times lightspeed. Have the probe reply at ten times lightspeed. Do the calculations yourself, being careful to do the return calculations from the point of view of the probe, and not from the point of view of the earth. You'll see that the message comes back before it left. How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle {The Sign of the Four} Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 87 16:52:45 GMT From: uunet!iscuva!jimk@seismo.css.gov (Jim Kendall) Subject: Re: Dry Ore Separation Device In article <8708052231.AA14821@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >Today's NY Times (8/5/87, page D6) has an article on a recently invented >ore separation device. The device separates mineral grains by density. >Unlike other machines with this function, it uses no water. Grains are Can anyone post more information on this? Who makes it? How much? E-mail is fine.... Jim Kendall ISC Systems Corp. E. 22425 Appleway Liberty Lake, WA 99019 ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 87 14:17:34 GMT From: sundc!hadron!inco!mack@seismo.css.gov (Dave Mack) Subject: Re: Pro-Space Publicity In article <8707282105.AA00528@angband.s1.gov>, wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes: [ABC & CBS refused to air a McDonnell Douglas ad about Mir] In the July '87 issue of International Combat Arms (The Journal of Defense Technology), McD-D took out a full page ad showing a photo (painting?) of Mir in orbit (white module with two solar panels attached to green module with prominent red star). Across the bottom of the ad, it says, "Shouldn't we be there too?" Pity about the TV spot. ICA isn't one of your more widely read journals. I guess I can disclaim my disclaimer this time. Dave Mack (from Mack's Bedroom :<) McDonnell Douglas-Inco, Inc. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed 8201 Greensboro Drive are my own and in no way reflect the McLean, VA 22102 views of McDonnell Douglas or its (703)883-3911 subsidiaries. ...!seismo!sundc!hadron!inco!mack ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 87 00:38 PDT From: William Daul / McDonnell-Douglas / APD-ASD Subject: The Alternate Space Station - humor - please at least smile! Cc: SGK.MDC@office-1.arpa, RBC.COR@office-1.arpa Cc: ipc.n/marsh%Ontyme.Tymnet@office-1.arpa I think the administration just hasn't applied it's "forward" thinking enough. Sure, spend about 6 billion to remove a dam from Yosemite Park, forget trying to prevent possible damage from a depleted ozone layer (if it turns out to be a result of human activities), but there is another cost cutting measure they are overlooking. Why put the Space Station in orbit? We could save a lot of money just building it in one of our more isolated deserts. Sure, the micro-gravity experiments might be less then perfect (do them in a swimming pool), the Hubble Space Telescope might not see to the farthest reaches of our universe, but it does save money. Think of the advantages. We won't need to build the Challenger replacement. We would have a better chance of preventing accidental technology transfer. We could easily expand the station's size to include whatever space demands that NASA or DOD would require. There is plenty of sun (in the daytime, of course) for solar panels and what they cannot supply we can get form the nearest power plant. We can service the space station with lower cost transport systems (jeeps, helicopters, pick-up trucks). We could let a contract out to UPS for a delivery service. The possiblities are endless and they all save money. I suppose we do still have the issue of liability. That is probably the most formidable problem the country faces today. I don't have a solution for that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= OK, I know someone is going to flame at me for this...I have my asbestos PJs on. I just couldn't resist sending this...let me have it. I hope some of you get a laugh out of it. --Bi// ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 87 01:31 PDT From: William Daul / McDonnell-Douglas / APD-ASD Subject: Re: McDonnell Douglas Pro-Space Publicity Cc: wmartin@almsa-1.arpa I will see what I can find out from our publicity department. More soon... --Bi// ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #313 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Aug 87 08:51:40 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02830; Fri, 14 Aug 87 03:18:11 PDT id AA02830; Fri, 14 Aug 87 03:18:11 PDT Date: Fri, 14 Aug 87 03:18:11 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708141018.AA02830@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #314 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 314 Today's Topics: News from CANOPUS - Space Station Re: Space tourism Re: Space tourism Re: Space tourism Re: size of moon Stars in Collision Re: size of moon Less Interstellar Dust(?) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Aug 87 22:26:34 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: News from CANOPUS - Space Station The following articles are from CANOPUS, title registered and copyright American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. (The articles are not copyrighted.) Executive editor is William W. L. Taylor. CANOPUS is available on-line to users of SPAN (Space Physics and Astronomy Network). Depending on a number of factors, either Dr. Taylor or I may begin posting articles from CANOPUS in sci.space. One factor is response to this article - please e-mail to me one of the following suggestions: a)post selected articles in full, b)post condensed versions or summaries, c)forget it. (CANOPUS is far too long to post in full.) This article is cross-posted to sci.physics because of its particular relevance to a recent item in "What's New"; I have attempted to direct followups to sci.space. SPACE STATION TO BE ANALYZED -- AGAIN - can6873.txt - 6/9/87 National Research Council has initiated a study of the Space Station program at the request of NASA, the Office of Management and Budget, National Security council, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Robert Seamans, former NASA associate administrator for manned space flight in the 1960s and now a senior lecturer at MIT, will chair the 13-member commission. Former Astronaut Owen Garriott, a member of the Task Force on Scientific Uses of Space Station, is a member. An initial report is due in late June with a final report due in September. The NRC commission will look at NASA's design methodology and assumptions, assess priority functions for meeting scientific and other goals, and consider alternative designs. [First phase of report has now been widely publicized -- SW] STOFAN DEFENDS SPACE STATION COST ESTIMATES - can7874.txt - 7/13/87 The National Research Council's estimates of the Space Station's program's costs are accurate but have been misconstrued by the media, according to NASA Associate Administrator Andrew Stofan. "The cost of the Space Station has not varied $1 from 6 months ago to now," he told a meeting of the Huntsville section of the National Space Club on Friday, July 10. "Their numbers are all correct," but take in all costs associated with the Station, not just its development and building costs. The original cost when the program started several years ago was $8 billion, "a very optimistic number" that someone had placed on a viewgraph and which then assumed a life of its own. Instead, the program now is limited to $8 billion (1984 $) total funding through the next 3 years, after which the next president can worry about how expansive he wants the program to be. When the program was re-estimated last year the price tag was $14.4 billion in fiscal 1988 dollars, or $12.2 billion in fiscal 1984 dollars. The NRC estimate was about double those figures but took in the cost of launching and maintaining the station over a decade or so. This will cost about $1 billion per year. The NRC, however, "was impressed with and agreed on cost methodology," but noted that NASA's funding plans allow for operations and other costs in different parts of its budget plans. Stofan noted that NASA has never included launch and operating costs in its R&D costs for any space projects. The NRC committee, chaired by Robert Seamans, now is conducting what Stofan called " the 1,000th assessment of Space Station." He expects that the report, due in September, "will be semi-critical in several areas," and will request that NASA solve some problems. But Stofan noted that NASA has often been criticized at the midpoint of various programs as it faces issues that arise during the design process. Although he sounded tired of the frequent reviews of the program, Stofan said that he will pay attention to the NRC's conclusions: "I'm going to take it very, very seriously. If I can't answer it, maybe we do have a problem." However, he also called the review a chance for opponents to commit political mischief: "We are inside a fish bowl with a large magnifying glass and everybody sticking their fingers inside and tickling the fish. No, [the review process] will not go away." Stofan had praise for the Soviet Union's Mir space station which he saw displayed in full-scale mockup form at the Paris Air Show. "I was very impressed with the hardware I saw," he said. "They have a fantastic program." Mir now has an astrophysics module attached and will be given a new science and applications module a year over the next 4 to 5 years and will have a crew of 6 to 8 persons in the early 1990s. Perhaps because Mir was viewed as an extension of the Salyut space station program started in 1971, the American public has remained largely unaware of what the Soviets are doing in space. The launch of the Energia superbooster, comparable to the U.S. Saturn V in size and capability, "[may be] the shocker that will wake us up," Stofan said. "Their program in a broad front is very ambitious and the infrastructure they have in their country to support this is impressive." Stofan believes that the American public is "very, very supportive of Space Station" and that the program is needed "to qualify man for Mars ... [it is] absolutely essential to open that door to move out into space." Stofan criticized science populist Carl Sagan for his stand against the Space Station, claiming that Sagan is "underinformed" about the possibilities that the program offers. "You cannot send a man to Mars ... unless you do the Space Station first," Stofan said. He noted that the various science disciplines "look at their own little narrow field and say, `Hey, maximize mine.' The rest of the science community in the United States does not look at [Sagan and his colleagues] as the spokesmen." Stofan said that the Space Station will be "the ideal piece of hardware" for many space scientists. "We have a terrible problem in the space sciences," he said. "We have a lack of access to space." Space Station will allow "essentially immediate access to space" with experiments being accommodated in as little as 6 months rather than 10 to 15 years. He did not describe how NASA will shorten the selection and flight process which has become drawn out for Space Shuttle and which is expected to take as long in the Station era. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 87 14:08:31 GMT From: sundc!hadron!inco!mack@seismo.css.gov (Dave Mack) Subject: Re: Space tourism In article <4130001@hpclla.HP.COM>, rak@hpclla.HP.COM (Rajiv Kumar) writes: > > Ultimately, to live free of any Earth government, and of the threat > > of war. Unless, of course, the government of the L4 colony decides to attack the L5 colony, etc. There is no group of people on Earth who do not have a de facto government. This is because the vast majority of people *want* to be lead. The people who migrate into space will be no different. Space colonies will not change the fundamentals of human nature. > >Keith > > Dream on! The moment any Earth Govt sees that its own nationalistic > and military interests are at risk, it will not allow its citizens to > go to space and build private colonies. Why do you think a bunch of Once the mechanisms for relatively inexpensive launch are available, I suspect that the people who really want to go will be able to. The (only) advantage to having multiple national governments is that if you don't like one, you can pick another one. (OK, some governments make the move more difficult than others. Just build your own balloon and go over the wall.) In the "free" world, there will be somebody who is willing to put you in space for a price. Surviving once you get there is a separate problem, of course. How about Costa Rica? Anybody interested in building a launch facility in Costa Rica? I bet they wouldn't go out of their way to prevent people from going into space. > people cannot just claim some land in Antarctica and live free. It couldn't have anything to do with the climate, could it? Actually, I don't think there is anything to prevent people from setting up a colony in Antarctica, although no one would recognize a claim to sovereignty. > Rajiv Kumar > rajiv@hplabs or hplabs!rajiv Dave Mack ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 87 20:27:04 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Space tourism In article <350@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >Unless, of course, the government of the L4 colony decides to attack >the L5 colony, etc. There is no group of people on Earth who do not >have a de facto government. This is because the vast majority of people >*want* to be lead. The people who migrate into space will be no >different. Space colonies will not change the fundamentals of human >nature. It's too early to say that. I believe that in the long term (centuries? more likely millenia), space colonization will result in speciation of the human race. Consider one of Gould's suggestions for the mechanism of punctuated equilibria: a small population becomes isolated, usually geographically (read: in the Oort cloud or further). The population evolves rapidly, due both to a limited gene pool and different environmental pressures. When it eventually mixes back, a new species has evolved. Speciation certainly could change the fundamentals of human nature. Here's another possible path: it seems reasonable that space colonies, especially in the early days, will select very strongly for intelligent and cooperative colonists. The colonists might end up as anarchists or socialists. By the time selection pressures die off, from better knowledge and designs, cultural pressure for such traits may be strong enough to freeze the behavior pattern. Hopefully there will be many small colonies with different forms of government. The opportunity to create many different cultures and let them compete is very exciting. Let the people who KNOW they have the answers go out and prove it, and the unambitious can stay here. Humanity will benefit. Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 87 00:47:15 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: Space tourism In article <350@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >... There is no group of people on Earth who do not have a de facto >government. This is because the vast majority of people *want* to be >lead. That is one factor, but another factor is the annoying minority who want to lead, coupled with sufficient apathy by those who don't want to be lead. (For apathy, you may substitute respect for society, etc.) In addition, the act of eliminating leadership is in itself an act of leadership, since there is (in most systems) no way of privately opting out of a governmental system. You can call this "The Anarchists' Paradox" if you want. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 87 17:01:11 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: size of moon In article <554536175.hoey@nrl-aic> hoey@NRL-AIC.ARPA (Dan Hoey) writes: >Amazingly, though, surface gravity *is* proportional to escape >velocity, assuming spheres of equal uniform density and Newtonian >physics. The equal uniform density assumption is a bad one. Earth is denser than the Moon which is denser than a gas giant. Jupiter has a much, much higher escape velocity than Earth (exercise left to the reader, I'm snowed under with work right now (which is why I am posting to the net :-)) even though its gravity is 2.6g. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Aug 87 22:29 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Stars in Collision The recent discussion of nearby supernovas got me thinking about an even more violent phenomenon: collisions between neutron stars. Such collisions are more common than one might think, since closely orbiting neutron stars will spiral into one another as they emit gravity waves. The binary pulsar, discovered in 1974, will, for example, decay in 100 million years. A neutron star collision will liberate a lot of energy -- roughly the gravitational binding energy (about 10^53 ergs). That's about the energy of a supernova. However, there would be no overlying blanket of matter to soften the explosion, so much of the energy will come off as a short burst of energetic gamma rays rather than being converted into kinetic energy of outflung debris. Energy that might be emitted over weeks or months in a normal supernova is radiated away in seconds, at much shorter wavelengths. That's probably bad news for any planets near the event. How frequent are these events? I've seen a claim that we should see one every few thousand years per galaxy. There *are* unexplained gamma ray bursts that have been observed by spacecraft for going on 20 years now (see Sci. Amer. 2/85), but they probably have many causes. To find out if the bursts are extragalactic we could place gamma ray detectors aboard spacecraft about 100 AU out from the sun. By carefully measuring the arrival time of bursts at the spacecraft (one burst, the 3/5/79 event, had a rise time of <0.2 milliseconds) we could determine the distance to the source. Roughly, if the spacecraft are a distance S apart, and the rise time of the pulse is t, we can determine the distance of the source out to S^2/(ct). For S = 200 AU and t = .2 milliseconds, that's 1.5 million light years. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 87 15:49:30 GMT From: fluke!inc@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Gary Benson) Subject: Re: size of moon Amazing that surface gravity is proportional to escape velocity? [Given Newtonian physics] Come on! There's nothing amazing about that at all!! They are not only proportional, but equivalent! Don't they *_MEAN_* the same thing? Where were you when we talked about this in "101"? ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 87 19:25:08 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Less Interstellar Dust(?) Several weeks ago, I posted an article on the amount of interstellar dust in "average" regions of our Galaxy. Since then, I've run across two research papers about the dust content in the local Solar neighborhood, which appears to differ somewhat from the average. Both papers were published in 1982, so there may well be more recent information that I have not seen. One article reports reddening measurements toward about 300 stars in the northern hemisphere within a distance of 100pc. The second article reports polarimetry of 180 stars within 35pc over the whole sky. Both types of observation are sensitive to dust particles in the size range 0.1 to 1 micron, but the second also requires the dust grains to be aligned by the Galactic magnetic field. (The grains probably are fairly well aligned over this small distance, but there are no guarantees.) Neither investigation found any dust at all within a distance of 75pc for the first and 35pc for the second. The upper limits correspond to average gas densities averaged over the appropriate paths of about 1/3 and 1/30 H atom cm^-3 respectively, provided the standard gas to dust ratio applies. These may be compared to the "average" value ~1 H atom cm^-3. The Sun thus appears to be in region where dust (and gas) are considerably below their usual density. Taken at face value, this would appear to be good news for high speed interstellar travel but bad news for interstellar ramjets. However, Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@jumbo.uucp) writes: > If I have not bungled my algebra, it would seem that 0.1 micron is > roughly the maximum size for which the dust grains can be expected to > be carried along by the parent gas cloud. Grains much larger than > that seem able to lead an independent life. For example, they may > remain behind when the gas cloud dssipates or is blown away by > stellar wind. This idea is certainly right, though the size is too small. There is fair evidence that the grains we see (up to 1 micron or so) follow the gas pretty well (except where conditions get so severe the grains are destroyed). I get about the same size as Stolfi if I neglect grain charge, but real grains will always be charged, and Coulomb forces will dominate. On the other hand, boulders clearly will not get pushed around by the gas, no matter how much charge they carry. Where in the range of ~20 orders of magnitude in mass is the changeover from being coupled to the gas to being independent? I've looked into this just enough to be convinced that it is a hard problem, and even with perfect theory, we may not know enough about the history of the local interstellar medium to give a believable answer. (Grain charge depends on local physical conditions and to some extent on grain properties, and the interaction with gas depends on exactly what dust-removal process one is considering.) My _guess_ is that milligram particles (the largest expected to hit a small interstellar ship based on average interstellar density) are _not_ coupled to the gas; if this is right, it would be more reasonable make estimates using the average interstellar density rather than the actual local density. But _any_ estimates based on present data are very uncertain. By the time people seriously consider building interstellar ships, I'm sure much better data will be available. References: Perry, Johnston, and Crawford 1982, Astron. J. vol. 87, p. 1751. Tinbergen 1982, Astron. & Astrophys. vol. 105, p. 53. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #314 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Aug 87 06:18:55 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04554; Sat, 15 Aug 87 03:17:49 PDT id AA04554; Sat, 15 Aug 87 03:17:49 PDT Date: Sat, 15 Aug 87 03:17:49 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708151017.AA04554@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #315 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 315 Today's Topics: Supernova Information Sagans Repost: A galactic Calendar SETI Project Please quash the one-shot Mars canard Suggestions on names for Mars Observer Re: Suggestions on names for Mars Observer Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle Re: space shuttle bbs Re: Government in space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Aug 87 18:52:04 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Supernova Information Since there was discussion of supernovae in this newsgroup, some readers may wish to look at the paper by Arnett in the August 1 Astrophys. J. Arnett's paper contains a reasonable "first cut" model of SN 1987A. I've posted a summary of the paper in sci.astro. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa1 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Telex: 921428 satellite cam ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 87 15:49:17 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Sagans Let me be the 51st to say this In article <8708111200.AA25402@angband.s1.gov> FSCHAS@NERVM.BITNET (Charlie Hofacker) writes: >I have 3 questions for anyone who might care to indulge me... >1) How many stars are there in the universe, One Sagan :-) >2) How do we know this, We multiply the density of stars locally, assume that we are nowhere special (the cosmological principle) and multiply by the volume of the Universe, which is simply obtained from the age of the Universe >3) How can we ever know that there aren't more stores beyond the range > of our sensing devices? One of the theories popular this week is the "Inflationary Scenario". This allows for the possibility (and anything not forbidden is compulsory) of what are technically called BEMEUs (bug-eyed monster external universes. I kid you not). If these exist, then they are beyond range of our sensing devices. They are also outside of this universe, so they have no relevance to your question. Unfortunately, the phrase "Sagans and Sagans of stars" may be useful, although the Sagans need not be all the same size. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 87 18:58:57 GMT From: ur-tut!gfox@cs.rochester.edu (Gregory Fox) Subject: Repost: A galactic Calendar Say, I hate to divert anyone's time from anything more important, but if someone who knows what they're talking about could bring their brain to bear on this little hypothetical problem of mine, I'd be much obliged... Has a calendar ever been developed that uses the rotation of the galaxy as the basic unit of measurement? If not, mightn't it be possible from dividing the rotational period by some cosmically significant number? Or perhaps something based on hydrogen or the speed of light or pi or some subatomic particle, etc., etc... Needless to say, I don't have two brain cells to rub together on this subject, but maybe someone else does, and I love the sound of brain cells rubbing together... Thanks, "Beneath the wind-turned wave, Infinite peace... -GS Islands join hands, 'Neath Heaven's sea..." -King Crimson, Islands ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 87 13:54:02 GMT From: topaz.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: SETI Project Does anyone know the current status of the SETI project? Does it still have funding? I hope so - in contrast to many other space projects (space station, manned-mission-to-Mars races, and especially SDI), it has a very modest budget and a high potential for benefit (or at least social change) if its results are positive. It also has a high potential of being viewed as a crackpot project. Has there been any effort to protect the "water hole" band? (I know there's been some effort - what I mean is, has it succeeded?) Also, it's occurred to me that technology is being developed for SETI which can be used for signal intelligence applications (million-channel receivers, specifically.) Is this connection being exploited by the usual users of those kinds of things? By the way, thanks for the mail about names for Mars Observer. A few years back, someone suggested combining this mission with a cometary flyby and calling the result "Halley's M.O." 8~) Steve Masticola ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Aug 87 11:22 CDT From: Subject: Please quash the one-shot Mars canard Original_To: SPACE I'd like to dispose of one canard that keeps popping up in our discussions of Mars exploration. It goes like this: "The Planetary Society is advocating a dash to Mars as soon as possible, which is stupid because after a trip or two there, we'll have nothing left but our Mars rocks and our memories, *just like Apollo*." I've seen a lot of postings which presume that Lou Friedman, Carl Sagan, and their buddies are SO DUMB that the "Apollo Problem" HASN'T OCCURRED TO THEM YET. I take strenuous objection to this; those guys are as smart as you are, and are quite aware of the danger that Mars could become another dead end. The truth is that they are pushing for an *extended* program of Martian exploration, up to and including permanently manned Mars bases which use local resources for most of their consumables. This goal makes perfect sense, because as planetary scientists they'd want to study Mars intensively, returning over and over again to examine a broad range of phenomena. (How long did it take before the Earth was adequately "explored?") So, please, let's not have any more criticism of Mars initiatives on the assumption that their advocates are idiots looking for one-shot missions. There is, however, a difficulty their position runs into (and the same one Apollo and the Apollo Applications Program met): Continuing manned and unmanned Mars exploration won't happen unless there is political support for it. It would be very expensive by current space-budget standards. And many of the arguments put forward in favor of a piloted trip to Mars lose their appeal when applied to a continuing program. So it would be a tough problem to maintain support over the decades necessary to carry out such a program, and one does have to worry about a jaded Congress (or Politburo) pulling the plug in the wake of the first success. I attended the Case for Mars III conference, I hope without losing my objectivity on these questions (-:, and expect to work up a summary soon for your reading pleasure and enlightenment. But it will take some time. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Aug 87 00:42:36 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Suggestions on names for Mars Observer To: masticol@topaz.rutgers.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov Kepler? Lowell? Hale? Shiaparelli? Bradbury? Heinlein? Weinbaum? Wells? Burroughs? Anything but Sagan. :-) ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 87 22:19:06 GMT From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu (Keith P. Mancus) Subject: Re: Suggestions on names for Mars Observer How about Stickney??? (Anybody recognize the reference?) -Keith Mancus ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 87 02:57:45 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle In article <1354@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >In article <3309@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jon@oddhack.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes: >> How expensive would 747s be if Boeing had only built 4 of them, >> and had to develop numerous highly complex systems that had never >> flown before, rather than designing with what was available at the >> time? >In today's dollars at least $1 billion apiece if we had only built 4. >It is not correct that a 747 is comparable to a Space Shuttle in cost. >... >According to NASA's 1988 budget estimate, the replacement orbiter >will cost $2.1 billion in 1987 dollars. 250 million is within one order of magnitude of 2100 million. This is comparable in my book, given the great difference in what the craft are to accomplish. The point is clear - spacecraft need not cost outrageously more than aircraft, if they are produced in quantity. We just have to have uses for quantities first. The usual Catch-22. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ Down with Mars! Back to the Moon first. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 87 04:07:12 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle In article <1354@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >According to NASA's 1988 budget estimate, the replacement orbiter >will cost $2.1 billion in 1987 dollars. I just heard a blipnews item that said that a new shuttle had been approved to be built by Rockwell for $1.2G David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 87 08:27:17 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle In article <3423@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes: > In article <1354@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: > >According to NASA's 1988 budget estimate, the replacement orbiter > >will cost $2.1 billion in 1987 dollars. > > I just heard a blipnews item that said that a new shuttle had been approved > to be built by Rockwell for $1.2G > > David Palmer > palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu That report refers to a contract dollar value that Rockwell International received recently. In prior years, NASA purchased 'structural spares' in case an orbiter got dinged up real bad. These parts, which cost $300 million total, consist of a forward fuselage (crew cabin in english), mid fuselage (cargo bay), aft fuselage (engine compartment), and a set of wings. Put these together and you have all the primary structure for Orbiter 105. The new contract Rockwell got is to buy all the other parts (tiles, life support, cargo bay doors, etc., etc. Part not included in this order are: 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines, Remote Manipulator Arm, Space Suits, other crew equipment detachable from orbiter, and a replacement for the payload that was onboard the Challenger. This is because of the NASA bookkeeping system. These other parts are managed by different NASA centers, and appear as different line items in the budget. Dani Eder/Advanced Launch System/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 87 15:27:52 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle I remember reading, and you know how good memory is when you can't find the reference, that if a production line had been built the cost for one more shuttle would have been about $500 million. The break even point was something like 1 more shuttle than was built. I also remember that the author claimed that congress picked the number of shuttles to make sure that a production line would not be built. Would someone who actually KNOWS why a production line was not built please straighten me out on this? Bob Pendleton ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 87 19:34:20 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!steve@AMES.ARPA (Steve Nuchia) Subject: Re: space shuttle bbs In article <434@uop.UUCP>, (Robert McCaul--The Equalizer) writes: > there used to be two bbs systems i logged into for info on the shuttle > projects...the one in the 301 area used to be: > then there was one i guessed was a news feed in houston.. > will they come back? > can someone put me onto them again? > are there any such other systems run to keep us informed? I don't know what happened to the original system, but I could take up the slack pretty easily. My wife works in a group that has routine access to schedules and (unclassified) manifests. It would be pretty easy to keep an online version of all that. I'm public access here anyway, though the BBS software is in a state of disrepair. If there's enough interrest I'd be happy to clean out a board section for space mission info, or whatever is wanted. Steve Nuchia (713) 334 6720 voice (713) 334 1204 2400N81 login "trouble" or "newuser" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Aug 87 16:12:57 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Government in space To: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov, Poli-Sci@red.rutgers.edu > From: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu > *Assuming* slavery or taxation exist, it is better to build graceful > mansions than ugly ones; it is better to promote space exploration > than, say, population control. By that reasoning, one could justify ANY government program on the grounds that the money COULD have been spent for something worse. > another argument - that government space programs actually retard > private ones - may still hold. I am open to conviction. It is pretty clear that they do. Government launch services are provided at a financial loss, which may get more stuff into space in the short term, at great expense to taxpayers. But they stifle the development of cost effective alternatives which could REALLY open the space frontier, in a way that the Space Shuttle never could. Even if there was no subsidy, the fact that NASA does not have to pay taxes, unlike a private company, causes an implicit subsidy. (Of course taxation also generates an equal drag (given equal taxation) on all other parts of the economy.) Also, government wants to keep private companies out of space for several other reasons, chiefly "national security". > But it would be naive to expect the government to tax less because > people stop pressuring it for space programs. They'd just spend it > on something else. That's not the point. I cannot self consistently advocate something I oppose. > There is nothing inconsistent in resisting taxation *and* arguing for > greater space budgets. That's not true. This IS the position almost everyone takes, including most members of congress. Strongly advocating one or two taxpayer financed programs while weakly opposing all the rest. We have seen that it doesn't work. When the farm lobby and the oil lobby and the space lobby go to Washington, they aren't competing against eachother. They are competing against the taxpayer. The lobbyist has millions to gain, while the taxpayer has only ten dollars to lose - on that one project. Is it any wonder that government spending, taxation, and debt are all at record levels? Is it any wonder that people in the US today are only a little better off than 60 years ago, even though productivity is enormously higher? One CANNOT consider programs on a case by case basis. Every possible way of spending taxpayer money has SOME vocal and wealthy advocates, who can make it sound like we are purchasing utopia for a dime. Of course we are purchasing trash for trillions of dollars. And it is time we stopped. No government spending on space could ever lead to anything useful. If a use of space is worth more than it costs, individuals and companies will voluntarily invest in it. If a use of space is worth less than it costs, nobody should spend anything. And if there is any doubt as to whether a use of space is worth as much as it costs, let only those who consent risk their money on it, by investing in whatever company. The only legitimate function of government is protecting individual rights. This means police, courts, and domestic national defense. These can be paid for without a tax or any other coercive method. ...Keith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #315 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Aug 87 06:27:40 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05945; Sun, 16 Aug 87 03:18:11 PDT id AA05945; Sun, 16 Aug 87 03:18:11 PDT Date: Sun, 16 Aug 87 03:18:11 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708161018.AA05945@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #316 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 316 Today's Topics: What politics? (Re: Keep Space safe for Space?) Re: The Cost of Space Tourism The Cost of Space Tourism Re: The Cost of Space Tourism Space tourism Re: The Cost of Space Tourism Citizens in space = more NASA fraud Re: Look like an astronaut, sort of Re: Citizens in space = more NASA fraud Apollo lefovers Astronaut Wings Re: Picking up the Eagle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jul 87 03:40:11 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arpa (Peter da Silva) Subject: What politics? (Re: Keep Space safe for Space?) ... I just couldn't resist the title... Yeh, I do have a dogma. The government shouldn't be doing anything that can be done by the public sector. That's all. Right now my personal feeling is that Space is just beginning to be something that private enterprise can get heavily involved in. The government should start by reducing the barriers to private launches. When it becomes feasible to do private launches this will allow them to happen. I have this feeling that private launches will start taking off (um... increasing) within 6 months to a year from the date the government gets out of the way. I think a private, eficcient, spaceplane will show up no more than 5 years after that. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter (I said, NO PHOTOS!) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 87 08:11:24 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: The Cost of Space Tourism The definition of 'astronaut' in the US is a human who has been more than 50 miles above the surface of the Earth. Thus two of the X-15 Spaceplane pilots earned their 'Astronaut wings' during high altitude ballistic flights. I can envision a lively business in taking passengers up to 50+ miles on a similar trip, just so they can go home and claim they've been in space and are 'astronauts', which they would legitimately be. If I were asked to design such a system, I would begin by using a 747 as a carrier plane. It would carry a spaceplane on its' back that would have some Aerojet Air-Turbo-Ramjet engines. These can go up to about Mach 6 and 140,000 ft (28 miles). A small rocket boost would get you up to over 50 miles. At a guess, I would expect you could carry at least 20 people at a time, with a per flight cost of $500,000, or $25,000 per passenger. These figures have no calculation behind them, just informed guesswork. If anyone out there knows a cruise-line operator or similar tourist-type operator, I'm sure my employer would design such a system for them. Dani Eder/Advanced Launch System/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 87 01:22:22 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: The Cost of Space Tourism To: DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov At least some of what is being called space tourism is ten minute suborbital flights. These would be a LOT cheaper than a stay in a space station. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 87 09:14 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: The Cost of Space Tourism To: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Keith said: > At least some of what is being called space tourism is ten minute > suborbital flights. These would be a LOT cheaper than a stay in > a space station. I'm reminded of Tom Heppenheimer's comment about people who want to go into space. He suggested flying the Concorde instead. You are high enough so the sky becomes very dark, and instead of ending up in a cramped tin can, you end up in Paris. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 87 22:12:02 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Space tourism To: DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov If I want to see a dark sky, I will just travel to the countryside at night (which is long overdue). What I personally want out of space travel is: 1) To experience weightlessness, preferably for several days. I can get several seconds by riding in a "demon drop" at an amusement park. I wonder if they sell rides in the "vomit comet" or the equivalent? Too bad nobody has found a way to cause weightlessness in a stationary room on Earth. They DO have skydiving rooms, in which fans suspend you in a fierce vertical wind, but that isn't the same. 2) To see the Earth from far above. Preferably from well beyond low Earth orbit, like the Apollo Astronauts. 3) To see other sights from nearby, such as Saturn. 4) Ultimately, to live free of any Earth government, and of the threat of war. 5) (Fantasy mode (?)) To see what, and who, is around other stars. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 87 02:11:43 GMT From: jade!web4h!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: The Cost of Space Tourism In article <1362@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >I can envision a lively business in taking passengers up to 50+ miles >on a similar trip, just so they can go home and claim they've been in >space and are 'astronauts', which they would legitimately be. I'm not sure the market would be all that big.... >[...] At a guess, I would expect you could carry at least 20 people at >a time, with a per flight cost of $500,000, or $25,000 per passenger. >These figures have no calculation behind them, just informed guesswork. > >If anyone out there knows a cruise-line operator or similar >tourist-type operator, I'm sure my employer would design such a system >for them. Society Expeditions. I was under the impression that they were committed to buying one of Gary Hudson's _Phoenix_ single-stage- to-orbit craft for $200M, if he could ever build one. However, I called Tom Brosz (publisher of _The Commercial Space Report_) and he said that SE never signed such an agreement, although they remain interested in the Phoenix. [The Phoenix is the subject of my next posting.] Adam J. Richter adamj@bartleby.berkeley.edu ...!ucbvax!bartleby!adamj (609)734-6525 ------------------------------ Reply-To: seismo!sdcsvax!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Tue, 4 Aug 87 21:55:29 PDT From: seismo!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.CTS.COM!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Citizens in space = more NASA fraud Alcestis R. Oberg wrote an article promoting more "citizens in space" as a way of making NASA less of an "elitist" organization so that the American people would support NASA. This article appeared in the August 4 issue of the LA Times. Here is my reply to that article: Editor: Alecestis R. Oberg's article "Let 'We the People' Have Role in Space Flight, Too" (August 4) is a perfect example of why I do not expect space to be a genuine frontier for this generation, nor for our children. Ever since the Apollo program's magnificent accomplishments were discarded by the Nixon administration, via the then and current NASA administrator James Fletcher, our "space program" has been living on that accomplishment while growing progressively more sophisticated in its corrupt and even criminal activities. The "teacher in space" program, along with all other programs involving unqualified citizens being blasted into orbit, are desgined to sustain the flimsy image that NASA is bringing the space frontier to the average american. Alecestis Oberg is culpably ignorant in promoting this fraud on the citizens of the United States. Anyone who writes books, let alone articles, about the potential of the space frontier, cannot be forgiven such errors. Sadly, these errors are rampant in the failings of the news media to uncover the corrupt and criminal activities of the NASA bureaucracy even after such a clear signal as the senseless explosion of the space shuttle Challenger. Criminal violations of the Hatch Act are occurring almost day by day at Johnson Spaceflight Center in Houston, among other centers, and the Justice Department simply looks the other way. Where is the news media? How can we expect NASA corruption to be exposed when even blatent felonies go unnoticed by those who are supposed to protect 'We the People'? How many years before the news media finds the technical competence to go after these stories? How many years after that before repeated stories of NASA corruption motivate a successful presidential candidate to adopt an appropriate space policy? How many years after that until NASA is either disbanded because it is beyond fixing, or is put back on the road to discovery and basic scientific research, instead of inhibiting the engines of free enterprise from making access to space affordable to 'We the People'? As a long time space activist and enthusiast, I call on the government and the news media to recognize that the NASA of the Apollo years is no longer with us and cannot be resurected. The best we can hope for now, is that NASA's monopoly on space activity will be broken up by breaking the organization up, just as we would break up any monopoly. Let the various NASA centers exist independent of each other and eliminate NASA as an organization by eliminating NASA Headquarters. Productive centers, such as Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Ames Research Center, will survive and be even more productive freed of the weight of parasitic centers such as JSC. Most important of all, getting NASA out of the way will let us play the space game by the American rules of competition in the free market, rather than by the Soviet rules of long range planning by a centralized government bureaucracy. With a truly Americanized space program, we may finally find ourselves facing the true potential of the space frontier. Sincerely, James Bowery, Vice President San Diego L5 -- A chapter of the National Space Society ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Aug 87 11:39:53 PDT From: John Sotos Subject: Re: Look like an astronaut, sort of I'm not sure the astronauts do this, but in the Air Force the idea is to have your flight suit be a little too long on you. This way, when you are sitting down, the cuffs of the suit do not creep up above the top of the flight boots. If it did creep up too high, there would be flesh exposed, unprotected by the flame resistant Nomex in the suit or by the flight boots. Thus, the nickname "bag" for a flight suit. Smart AF types also wear their Nomex gloves during take-off & landing. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 87 04:42:30 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (d.l.skran) Subject: Re: Citizens in space = more NASA fraud I am astounded that Mr. Bowery's unconstructive and opinionated letter could come from anyone active in the the L5 Society or the NSS. > James Fletcher, our "space program" has been living on that > accomplishment while growing progressively more sophisticated > in its corrupt and even criminal activities. The "teacher This is an extremely serious claim, backed up by not the slightest fact. Mr. Bowery merely asserts that NASA is guilty of corrupt and criminal activities. > Anyone who writes books, let alone articles, about the potential of > the space frontier, cannot be forgiven such errors. Alecestis Oberg scarcely needs to be forgiven for anything. The promotional efforts Mr. Bowery dislikes so much are the reasonable efforts of a funding-starved agency to gain support. > Sadly, these errors are rampant in the failings of the news > media to uncover the corrupt and criminal activities of the If you have facts, send them to the New York Times. They have "exposed" NASA corruption in the past (very unconvincingly, in my opinion), and I'm sure they'll be willing to listen to you as well. If you don't have any facts, why are you publically attacking NASA while using the L5/NSS name? > As a long time space activist and enthusiast, I call on the government > and the news media to recognize that the NASA of the Apollo years is > no longer with us and cannot be resurected. I don't think there is a person in the US who fails to realize this. > is that NASA's monopoly on space activity will be broken The real monopoly in space is the Pentagon, not NASA. > Productive centers, such as Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Ames > Research Center, will survive and be even more productive freed of the > weight of parasitic centers such as JSC. Do you have some personal grudge against JSC? What's the story here? > NASA out of the way will let us play the space game by the American > rules of competition in the free market, rather than by the Soviet > rules of long range planning by a centralized government bureaucracy. This libertarian fantasy about the benefits of breaking NASA up ignores the reality that for many decades to come any private US firms in space must compete against heavily subsidized foreign national spaceflight monopolies. Given the US industry is getting kicked to pieces by "Japan INC" I see little prospect that it will do any better in space. At some point in the distant future, the amount of money needed to enter the space business and the associated risk will be low enough to allow the removal of NASA from large-scale technological projects. That day is decades away. We need to get good at the large scale, long term project approach, not avoid it. NASA may not be the proper vehicle, but my experience as an engineer working for a major hi-tech corporation indicates that neither are the short-term focused American companies. > Sincerely, > > James Bowery, Vice President > San Diego L5 -- A chapter of the National Space Society Dale Skran former President, NJL5 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 87 21:11:43 GMT From: sundc!rlgvax!russ@seismo.css.gov (Russ Olsen) Subject: Apollo lefovers I've been reading _First to the Moon_, a book by the Apollo 11 astronauts (and ghost writter) about the first Moon mission. Somewhere along the way someone from NASA says that the ascent stage of lunar module was left in an orbit around the Moon which should last about 20 years. Let's see... 1969 + 20 = 1989. Does anyone know if the ascent stage of Eagle is still in orbit? If so, does anyone have an idea of when it will hit? As an aside the same guy quoted in the book said that in 20 years we could probably just go out there and pick Eagle up. Fat chance. Maybe we could ask the Russians to do it. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 87 19:45:08 GMT From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu (Keith P. Mancus) Subject: Astronaut Wings In article <4223@hplabsb.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >In article <1362@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >> The definition of 'astronaut' in the US is a human who has been >> more than 50 miles above the surface of the Earth. Thus two of the >> X-15 Spaceplane pilots earned their 'Astronaut wings' during >> high altitude ballistic flights. > >That's the military's definition for military pilots. Civilian X-15 pilots >did not get astronaut wings. > > David Smith I thought the official definition was 100 km (62 miles)? ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 87 13:30:23 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Picking up the Eagle I know it is not good form to follow up my own postings but... ******** The scene: Tranquillity Base Museum. The time: the 21st century. ... and this is the bottom half of the Eagle, the craft which first took men to the surface of the moon. But where did the people sit? Oh they were in the top bit. It was left in orbit and it eventually came down and smashed to bits because no-one came back to get it. Didn't come back? Why not? No-one knows Comrade. ******* Add as many :-) as you think it needs. Bob Gray. Edinburgh University Computing Service, IT school ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The British National Space Centre: one of this country's better kept secrets. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #316 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Aug 87 06:17:45 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07392; Mon, 17 Aug 87 03:16:19 PDT id AA07392; Mon, 17 Aug 87 03:16:19 PDT Date: Mon, 17 Aug 87 03:16:19 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708171016.AA07392@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #317 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 317 Today's Topics: Picking up the Eagle (Was Re: SPOT Specifications) Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands 7-day Adult Space Academy for 1988 Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands Telstar NET SPACE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Aug 87 12:29:37 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (Bob Gray) Subject: Picking up the Eagle (Was Re: SPOT Specifications) In article <596@rlgvax.UUCP> russ@rlgvax.UUCP (Russ Olsen) writes: >someone from NASA says that the ascent stage of lunar module was left in >an orbit around the Moon which should last about 20 years. > >Let's see... 1969 + 20 = 1989. > >Does anyone know if the ascent stage of Eagle is still in orbit? If so, >does anyone have an idea of when it will hit? The ascent stage of the first lunar lander should surely be classified as one of the USA's important vehicles and should be on display in the museum (I forget which one) next to the Apollo 11 command module. The news that part of America's greatest achievment in space is about to smash into the moon and be lost if fed to the general public in the right way might be the spur needed to get NASA or someone else to do something. Eight years to go from putting a man in orbit to puting a man on the moon the first time. How long to go back to the moon (either manned or unmanned) and recover Eagle? You have two years. On second thoughts, everything else is disposable, why not national treasures? Bob Gray. Edinburgh University Computing Service, IT school ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The British National Space Centre: one of this country's better kept secrets. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 87 02:20:49 GMT From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Wanna C. DeSupernova) Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands In article <4228@hplabsb.UUCP>, dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: > Oops. Komarov was not the first man to return to space. Grissom went > into space for the 2nd time two years before, on Gemini 3. Cooper > went into orbit for the 2nd time aboard Gemini 5. Suborbital "flight" is not serious. Cooper, therefore, was the first to execute a second orbital flight (Mercury 9 and Gemini 5). He was followed by Schirra (Mercury 8 and Gemini 6). Thereafter other space-veterans were Stafford, Young, Conrad, Lovell, and Komarov. Yaron Sheffer ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 87 17:47:30 GMT From: clyde!wayback!atux01!jlc@rutgers.edu (J. Collymore) Subject: 7-day Adult Space Academy for 1988 I received a letter from Deb Barnhart (Deputy for Space Camp) in response to my recommendations for a seven-day Adult Space Adcdemy Level II session(s). She stated that they liked my suggestions and WILL implement such a program next year in 1988! She did not mention what the price would be, or the week(s) that it would be offered. However, for those of you who want more than the three-day sessions offer, and a week at Space Academy fits comfortably into your vacation schedule, keep those days free in September-October of 1988! Hope to see you there! Jim Collymore ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 87 22:07:33 GMT From: omega@ngp.utexas.edu (Omega.Mosley`) Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands In article <2030@utastro.UUCP>, yaron@utastro.UUCP (Wanna C. DeSupernova) writes: > Suborbital "flight" is not serious. Cooper, therefore, was the first > to execute a second orbital flight (Mercury 9 and Gemini 5). ...sorry, Yaron, but NASA, not to mention Jane's, counts Suborbs in the Mercury class as serious flights. Therefor, Gus Grissom was the first to return as far as the records go. Omega.Mosley ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 87 20:40:06 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Telstar July 10, 1987 was the 25th anniversary of the launch of Telstar. Telstar was the first communications satellite and the first commercial venture into space. Telstar, weighing in at 170 pounds, was launched using a two stage Delta liquid fueled rocket with a solid fueled third stage. The third stage was derived from the third stage used on the Vanguard launchers. I thought you might want to know. Bob Pendleton ------------------------------ Date: Thursday 06 Aug 87 3:15 PM CT From: GREGG COHEN FSTCGAPG@UIAMVS To: Subject: NET SPACE This was sent to me by a friend who is now in Houston. It was in the Houston Chronicle several weeks ago (I didn't get the date or page number) I think that it is indicative of the political stance where space program is concerned. "DEMS BAILED OUT OVER 'SPACE CITY'" by Nicholas C. Chriss Bill Buckley, Bob Strauss and seven Democratic presidential contenders rattled on for two hours at the Wortham Center last week about the nation's future and the nation's problems- the deficit, tax reform, nuclear weapons, oil prices, AIDS, and yes, even Cuba- but never once mentioned the nations faltering, trouble plagued space program. It wasn't as if these people were in Dubuque, Iowa [What is wrong with Dubuque? -GC]. They were in 'Space City' -Houston. It was if the Chalenger accident had never happened, as if the shuttle spaceship had never disintegrated in flight 74 seconds after launch in January 1986, resulting in the deaths of 7 crew members; as if the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's plans were not on hold, with the $16 billion space-station program buried in so much confusion it is called the "space station of the month project"; as if launches weren't in a hiatus; and as if NASA had more than just its one heavy-lift rocket left. The American space program today has so little heavy-lift strength that several companies have gone into the business of trying to place multimillion dollar, two ton U. S. commercial satellites on Soviet rockets because this country doesn't have the rockets to launch them. And right here in Space City, where much of the trouble is, not a word from these people who want to be president. [goes on to discuss how Houston is Space City, with astronauts' homes, JSC, Lunar and Planetary Institute, and fledgling companies] But there was no mention of any of this at the debate, or in any of the news conferences some of the contenders held prior to and after the debate. With all his wit and wisdom, columnist Buckley never brought it up, and Democratic baron Strauss, a Texan, did not in their questions Sen. Albert Gore of Tennessee, a member of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which has dealt with the space program, including the failure of quality assurance, neglected to even mention NASA, the Challenger, or anything about space goals of the future. Instead, Gore chose to cite the "young, restless spirit of our pioneer nation" as embodied by Andrew Jackson more than 100 years ago [maybe Albert has been listening to Tippy's choice of records, instead of the news -GC]. Former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt enumerated nine items the country must have to save itself, including leadership, but the space program was not among them. Joe Biden bragged about his experience in Congress, as did Paul Simon. Jesse Jackson explained his presence in cuba some years ago. Dick Gephardt wants to put a picture of the Constitution in the Oval Office. The closest these distinguished and polished politicians came to space was the Strategic Defense Initiative, but apparently even the discussion of "Star Wars" didn't ring a bell in their minds concerning the present problems of space exploration. None had a word to say about where the United States is going in space, or the fact that we are at least 10 years behind the Soviet Union in space achievements and dropping further behind each year. "We have a bipartisan non-policy on space," said a somewhat cynical and long-time observer of NASA and the nation's space program. "It's very typical of politicians since the payoffs are always beyond the election after next." In other word, it takes longer than two or four years to implement a NASA policy and get a voting return on the investment. [end of article] I have a few questions and observations about this. 1. Why does it take so long to implement 'policy'? 2. Are the politicians telling us something the general population feels by going to Houston and neglecting to even acknowledge the largest single industry in the area (other than oil)? 3. Maybe this is where we can have a voice. By pointing out to our colleagues that one little slip and a whole political party decides that it is not worth discussing, we should take more control of the 'politics' of the situation ourselves, . (I know that this is hard to do other than vote for someone who 'says' they want the same things we do) I would also like to know if this road show has been anywhere else that the lack of discussion of a direction for space exploration has occurred. I agree, there is only one space-faring nation that is why I took Russian as a foreign language Gregg Cohen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #317 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Aug 87 06:21:08 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09199; Tue, 18 Aug 87 03:20:03 PDT id AA09199; Tue, 18 Aug 87 03:20:03 PDT Date: Tue, 18 Aug 87 03:20:03 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708181020.AA09199@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #318 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 318 Today's Topics: Mars Survey results (long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Aug 87 02:16:16 GMT From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jonathan P. Leech) Subject: Mars Survey results (long) Well, the responses to my Mars survey have finally stopped trickling in, and here are the results. Enjoy. First, the numbers: 40 people sent in responses. Of those, we had: 35 In favor of a Lunar base 3 In favor of a Mars mission 9 In favor of other major goals as the next major project after the Space Station. The totals exceed 40 as several people said we should do it all. The 'other major goals' fell into 3 categories: * Major unmanned planetary science initiatives (Mars sample return, Mars surface rover, Io & Titan landers were all mentioned by different people) Initiatives to make access to low Earth orbit routine & cheap (5 responses said basically the same thing). One person suggested new propulsion mechanisms for fast & reliable interplanetary travel, & exploitation of asteroids. 5 people identified themselves as space scientists. 2 of those were in favor of the Moon base, 1 of Mars sample return, 1 of a combined Mars orbiter & surface rover, and 1 of doing Mars, the Moon, and lots of planetary science at the same time. I was expecting more pro-Mars sentiment from the space scientists. It's interesting that these responses cover 3 of the 4 areas that Sally Ride's report on future NASA goals is supposed to address. Nobody mentioned the intensive 'Mission to Earth' program supposedly in that report (how do we get a copy?). It is of course invalid to draw any broad conclusions from this data. People who read sci.space/SPACE DIGEST are a biased population, and there was a strong selection effect in who chose to respond. I thank everyone who responded. Following are the comments sent in by many of those people (over 400 lines worth). If you followup this article, please make sure to remove all that stuff! -- Jon __@/ (*) OK, 'piloted' is a reasonable gender-neutral word to use in place of 'manned'. But 'unpiloted' gives entirely the wrong impression. Better suggestions solicited... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENTS RECEIVED IN SURVEY (in order of reception): ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rmeyer@CCA.CCA.COM (Richard Meyer) I am very much in favor of a grand program with the final goal of sending a piloted mission to Mars. My hope is that in the course of this mission, worthwhile intermediate goals will also be set as major milestones (the goal being as it is, very ambitious), thus keeping the enthusiasm and support of the public alive over a long period. From: seismo!harvard!cfa!willner (Steve Willner) No one goal should exclude all other activities. We need a variety of scientific missions to prepare for the future, to encourage technology development, and to learn about the Universe. From: kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) ...I want to establish a long-term many-person prescence in space as soon as possible, and I want to go up myself as soon as possible for an extended stay (not a hit-and-run Shuttle mission!) I don't want to have to say, at age 50 or so, that I was born too soon. From: web@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) One can hardly claim that half a dozen visits to the moon constitute complete exploration in any sense. There is much more to understand there. Routine access to space will be necessary for either a permanent lunar base or a manned mission to mars, but the former is a less costly, less risky scheme for development of this capability. A Mars mission is the appropriate goal for manned space exploration immediately after establishing a permanent presence on the moon. When we goes to Mars it should not be to visit, but to stay. From: Joel Swank I favor a perminant lunar base as the best way to move into space. I am not against a Mars trip. The best option would be manned use of near space AND robot exploration of distant space. But the most important thing is to get off our butts and do something. From: blia.UUCP!heather@cgl.ucsf.edu (Heather Mackinnon) A space station is certainly the next step. After that, I think we need to consider a colony either in earth orbit or on the Moon. The colony could be small but should attempt to grow its own food and manufacture many of the goods it needs. It should be a colony as opposed to a base, a place where people (men, women and children) live as opposed to a place where a young military inductee does hir time. I think a colony would both capture the public imagination and give us invaluable insights as to what is necessary to move further from Earth. As trips grow longer, the need for vessels to be both farms and factories increases. In the long run, the commercial opportunities in space will be a deciding factor in how fast human presence grows in space. I think both a lunar base and a personned flight to Mars lack scope and commitment. The flight to Mars is a throwaway; a lunar base would be military in nature rather than exploratory. From: gb74219@scgvaxd.SCG.HAC.COM (Gordon Barbay) I grew up with space program and am a supporter of a strong manned effort. I feel that the support for unmanned missions will wane if the mannned program lapses. However I do think we should have a strong unmanned program to compliment the manned program. Bottom line here is we shouldn't be squabbling over what size piece of the pie each area gets but should all be trying to get a bigger pie. From: Ken Arnold The Mars mission is the Apollo debacle all over again on a larger scale. Once we get there, we're finished, so disinterest sets in. A permanent Lunar base as a goal is not so cut-and-dry. From: seismo!swatsun!scott (Jay Scott) What's really most important is to have a coherent plan that people agree on. Even a kind of mooshy vague one, as long as it will stick around and not go poof like a certain past one. Here's my reasoning about my particular choice of plan: Companies trying automate their operations are more likely to succeed if they take it a step at a time, applying what they learn at each stage in the next one. I think that's true when doing anything big and risky, especially if you hope for great benefit in the long run: Go slow and build up. In exploring an object in space, the build-up steps are somewhat agreed on: 1) flyby done for all planets but Neptune and Pluto, and for active comets, but not for asteroids or comets far from the Sun 1.5) hard land (sometimes) 2) soft land done for the Moon, Mars, and Venus 3) fetch samples back done for the Moon 4) visit in person done for the Moon (Apollo did 3 and 4 at the same time) 5) set up housekeeping not done (There are other possibilities, for example building an intermittently- tended base.) The argument is between doing steps 3 and 4 for Mars, though not necessarily all at once like Apollo, and doing step 5 for the Moon. (Step 4 for Venus looks impossible. Good thing, or we'd have a worse argument. :-) The Moon is cheaper, easier, quicker, and less risky, and it's roughly as important as Mars. (More important if you believe humans belong in space, and that having a permanent presence will help build the infrastructure; maybe less important if you believe only in gathering information.) So by this argument it should be next. Some people don't think step 5 makes sense for any planet. (I guess they'll stay home. :-) I don't know what to do about that. It strikes me as incaution, but no doubt they see it as caution. From: dennis@cod.nosc.mil (Dennis Cottel) Get people permanently living and building in space, even in LEO, then the rest will follow. Let the Soviets make the spectacular trip to Mars at enormous expense, while we build up a longer term foundation for the future. From: John Hogg Go cheap, go stupid, go risky if required, but go now. From: seismo!cbmvax!hutch!rabbit1!tom More money for observation: earth, space, and lunar based. From: Brad Miller _x_ (Other, describe here) Tests of new propulsion mechanisms for fast/reliable interplanetary travel; and/or exploitation of asteroids. I also think unmanned exploration is the way to go for now: it's a *lot* cheaper. Keep the gov out of space. All of the above done w/private $$, thank you. From: ota@galileo.s1.gov _X_ (Other, describe here) Some kind of a national project to reduce the cost of reaching LEO would be best, like building the transcon railroad. Probably that will require some kind of a "use" for all that stuff which is better a Lunar base than a Mars mission. From: DAVID%penndrls.BITnet@Hamlet.caltech.edu (R. David Murray) I don't really care what we do in space, so long as we are doing something. The only thing I object to is asking for more money for project X at the expense of project Y. All the projects that survived the initial evaluation phase have vast merit. All should be funded. They won't be, but the ***last*** thing we (space enthusiasts of all kinds) should do is present a case to congress why one (or more) of the projects is not a good idea. From: RETANTS%sunrise.BITnet@Hamlet.caltech.edu (Rebecca Tants) I think that it is important to work toward both goals, but I feel that the moon is our first priority. We have already started by putting a man up there, now we must continue. I do not feel, however, that the two goals are mutually exclusive. I belive that we can begin building that base, while preparing and launching a manned flight to mars. Both can be worked on if we can get the money. Private industry getting involved in the space exploration program could help this problem. NASA is not getting the budget they need to do both, and are not effectively useing what they are getting. This has to be worked out before anything is completed. From: RON PICARD Any reason to go to Mars applies towards going to the moon. From: Hank.Walker@taurus.ece.cmu.edu Make money and send robots, then send people. From: David Waitzman wait for mars- we don't yet have propulsion systems that make it viable to go there. a moon base will provide positive returns. From: ~ Victor Von Doom ~ Would like to see government programs that encourage or at least don't interfere with private space development. From: Jacob Hugart Whatever we will do to/on Mars, we have/can achieve on the Moon. We could use the practice -- and the patience. Besides, it isn't really a question of which comes first, but of when do we begin? From: "Paul F. Dietz" The major goal should be reduction of the cost of getting to orbit. Even if the moon wasn't there, $100B for a manned Mars exploration program would be difficult to justify scientifically -- why spend such a large fraction of the US scientific budget on such an esoteric subject? This argument will remain valid until launch costs are reduced dramatically. Assuming we've decided to spend money on space science, that money should be allocated purely on the basis of scientific merit, not for political reasons. I would personally like to see much more spent on telescopes in earth orbit -- observations from such instruments would be enormously important scientifically, and they'll be cheap relative to manned Mars exploration or a lunar base (although one may eventually want to place observatories on the moon, several decades hence). The current lack of US telescopes in space is, in my opinion, a greater scandal than the lack of planetary probes. NASA should spend more money on basic technological development -- materials, new engine technologies, components, etc. That sort of development isn't all that expensive at first, has the highest spin-off potential, and is important for the long term health of the space program. From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu I am not against going to Mars, only against doing it in a manner that leads to a one shot program. It is entirely appropriate to plan a program that includes both Mars and a lunar base as components. From: Tim Shimeall I) Next goal in space: Permanent lunar base -- note that this is NEXT, not FINAL goal I think we should try for mars immediately after that & use the lunar base as a gateway for exploration of both the moon and the other solar system planets... III) I sat through a very interesting presentation about a year ago, given by a guy from NASA Ames. He talked about how to go to Mars by the year 2000, using almost-current technology, with continuous exploration for the next 10 years. He had a LOT of good reasons for putting a base on mars rather than the moon: -- closer to outer solar system (and beyond) -- atmosphere (protection, fewer pressure problems) -- availability of bio resources (water, etc) which simplifies base-building -- can manufacture propellant (CO->CO2) in site In short, I'm torn between the moon and mars: I think the moon is a more easily acheivable near term goal -- but Mars is where I really want to get to. Hiking trips up Olympus Mons, anyone? From: Russ Williams Hi, I think that a lunar base should be done before visiting mars, I don't work in space science, and I would comment that manned exploration seems far costlier and less reliable; it seems much more sensible to use robot probes, and I would like to see exploration of the solar system stepped up using probes. If in addition, the manned program gets rolling again, so much the better! But don't sacrifice our proven ability to succesfully explore for risky premature manned efforts. From: "PAT REIFF" 1. Mars:yes Moon:yes (can be used as a way station for Mars mission - coattail effect) Other: unmanned Io and/or Titan landers (to go with Jupiter or Saturn orbiters, respectively). Need to keep unmanned program active - still the cheapest way to gather scientific data; also best for training of graduate students. 3. In an international COSPAR meeting, summer '84 in Graz, Austria, they had a public session in which Russian, U.S., and European astronauts talked about their experiences (they even had an Indian who had done meditiation to forestall space sickness - it apparently worked, since he didn't get sick). Anyway, I almost raised my hand at that meeting to suggest a joint US/Soviet Mars mission, but I chickened out. The neat thing about such a mission is that it gives our two countries a major project to work on peaceably - not just the Apollo/Soyuz which was an afterthought - this one will take real planning and a lot a cooperative work. My personal dealings with Russian scientists have been very friendly and productive, and this would be a terrific way to excite the young people of both countries again. From: Lynn.ES@Xerox.COM (Donald S. Lynn) The Mars mission isn't a bad idea. Lunar base is just better. I think we will get more for the bucks if we do the moon first. Lots of things we learn about long term stays off earth for the moon will apply to Mars missions when we do them later. From: ROSENTHAL@ames-pluto.ARPA (Don Rosenthal) I. The wording of your first question assumes an agreement on the validity of the planned space station for space science. There is hardly general agreement on that, but as it's not the main focus of your survey, I'll leave that topic for now--be happy to discuss that issue with you some other time. My first priority is getting through the backlog of grounded astronomical missions: HST (which I worked on for four years), Gallileo (which should win a place in the Guiness book of records for mission delays), etc. But that's not really what you were looking for either. To answer your question most directly, I would have to say that from the point of view of space science, a combined Mars Observer and semi-autonomous roving vehicle is extremely exciting. More so (again, from a scientific perspective) than a return to the moon. Although one never wants to be in a position of judging scientific importance of one group's interests over another, I would say that the reason for my special interest in Mars comes from the evidence that seems to show that for their first half billion years or so, the Earth and Mars were remarkably similar, and evolved away from each other. That leaves a tremendous number of intriguing questions open for investigation. I would have to state that the best science is done when people, rather than only machines, were conducting the science. For that reason, I feel that eventually, a pilotted mission to Mars is appropriate. Before or after returning to the moon? For purely scientific reasons, I would say before. For other, more "practical" reasons (especially economy and travel time, but also from the point of view of developing the technology and infrastructure for planetary exploration) the moon makes more sense. III. There is much doom and gloom presented in the discussion group with respect to NASA. Much of it is true. But I'm also encouraged by the fact that at many levels there is now a true committment to changing the Agency for the better. I would not have signed up if I felt it was an unchangeable bureaucracy. There's a new management attitude of "give the techies enough rope to hang themselves with". That's all I ask for. From: seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter (Peter da Silva) A permanent lunar base should include at least a pilot plant to test the feasibility of using lunar aluminum as a building material in cislunar space. From: "Michael J. Scudder" I would agree with Dale Skran and not directly oppose a manned Mars mission. Instead, try to direct the Mars effort toward building up easy access to space and opening up the moon for peaceful uses. From the viewpoint of capturing the public's imagination, a permament Lunar base should be (almost?) as good as putting a man on Mars. When people realize that going for a moon base brings closer the day their kids and perhaps little sisters and brothers can go into space, the moon looks much more attractive. I was at the Boskone Science Fiction convention in February and listened to an L5 sponsered panel on a joint US-Soviet mission to Mars. The Audience was 80+% in favor when polled. I also was in favor, although that was before I was reading the SPACE notes file. The arguments were: (1) The Soviets are going anyway. They want (perhaps mostly for public relations purposes) us to go with them. We might as well take advantage of the opprtunity. (2) The effort could divert the super-powers from the arms race. (3) We would get the infrastructure we want as a necessary consequence of preparing to go to Mars. [Reflecting on the Apollo experience I suspect we would find some way to go without building much infrastructure. Having decided to go to Mars, we would naturally want to find the cheapest way to do this. For a lunar base, the impetuous would be toward reducing the cost of getting out of our gravity well even at the expense of considerable capital investment.] A sustained commitment by the goverment to purchase payload transport to space, as in Keith Lofstrom's proposal, sounds like a very good station'. From: Christopher Joerg A mission to Mars is too much of a 'one shot deal'. It would be nice to do but once it's over we are right back where we started from. (and heading no place) A permanent moon base would be more useful scientifically, and it would help us develop a space technology that would make space more accessible in the long run. From: seismo!ai.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry (Henry Spencer) Actually, low-cost Earth-to-orbit is far higher priority than any of these, but I increasingly believe that a deliberate government effort to achieve this is doomed to fail. The preferred government role is as a customer -- a long-term steady major-volume customer -- which will encourage private industry to get costs down. Apart from its desirability for other reasons, the Lunar base is an *ongoing* operation rather than a one-shot. Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #318 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Aug 87 06:19:39 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01467; Wed, 19 Aug 87 03:18:46 PDT id AA01467; Wed, 19 Aug 87 03:18:46 PDT Date: Wed, 19 Aug 87 03:18:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708191018.AA01467@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #319 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 319 Today's Topics: Re: Still more infighting Re: Please quash the one-shot Mars canard Re: Sagan == Death of the Future Re: Sagan == Death of the Future (Inter)National Moon Colonies Re: Still more infighting Re: RIGHT STUFF misquote (but true anyway!) Re: Mars Survey results (long) Lunar City Re: Sagan == Death of the Future Re: NET SPACE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Aug 87 00:18:02 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Still more infighting > The Apollo program was a "one-shot" exploration program. And it was a > remarkable success ... Then... what happened? We turned our space > program over to the "infrastructure" people, that's what... "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." The Apollo program was not, repeat NOT, conceived as or meant as a one-shot exploration program. The men who built the Apollo spacecraft thought they were building the first version of something that would evolve into more capable lunar spacecraft, unmanned cargo landers, etc... not to mention non-Apollo uses. The men who built the Saturn V, although they had the needs of an ongoing Apollo program in mind, thought they were building the booster that would be NASA's heavylift launcher well into the 1980s, at which time it would presumably be superseded by something still better. These men were very definitely trying to build infrastructure; the first landings on the Moon were just the first step. > The people who promised us "routine" access to space (as if once- > a-month flights to the moon weren't routine access...). Once a month? Please recheck your reference books. Apollo never reached that level of activity, although one day it might have if it had been allowed to. > The people who foresaw long-term space stations (as if Skylab, which > had been tossed up almost as an afterthought, was something else...). Skylab, for all its virtues, really *was* a one-shot. In particular, its major consumables (oxygen, attitude-control gas, etc.) could not be replenished in orbit. I would guess that at least one Soviet cosmonaut has, by now, more time in space than all nine Skylab astronauts put together. A space station, yes, but "long-term" is stretching it a bit. > I think it's time to give space back to the dreamers... On the whole I agree... provided the dreams aren't one-shots and can't easily be perverted into one-shots. Note the word "sustained" in my signature. Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 87 00:28:33 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Please quash the one-shot Mars canard > I've seen a lot of postings which presume that Lou Friedman, Carl > Sagan, and their buddies are SO DUMB that the "Apollo Problem" HASN'T > OCCURRED TO THEM YET. I take strenuous objection to this; those guys > are as smart as you are, and are quite aware of the danger that Mars > could become another dead end... Yet they press ahead, disregarding it. (If they have a plan -- a *plan*, not just wishful thinking -- for dealing with this problem, I sure haven't seen any sign of it.) Sure does make one wonder about their motives, doesn't it? > The truth is that they are pushing for an *extended* program of > Martian exploration, up to and including permanently manned Mars bases > which use local resources for most of their consumables. This goal > makes perfect sense, because as planetary scientists they'd want to > study Mars intensively, returning over and over again to examine a > broad range of phenomena. (How long did it take before the Earth was > adequately "explored?") Tell them their lunar-specialist friends can explain what happened to the extended exploration planned by the Apollo project. For that matter, ask them whether six brief visits are an adequate way to explore a planet, and if the answer is "no", ask them why they think a return to the Moon is of no real importance. (They have said so, in writing.) > So, please, let's not have any more criticism of Mars initiatives on > the assumption that their advocates are idiots looking for one-shot > missions. Not idiots looking for one-shot missions. Just short-sighted people who see a Mars program, even if it gets cut to a one-shot mission, as being more important than building an *ongoing* space program which will take a bit longer to reach Mars. > And many of the arguments put forward in favor of a piloted trip to > Mars lose their appeal when applied to a continuing program. So it > would be a tough problem to maintain support over the decades > necessary to carry out such a program, and one does have to worry > about a jaded Congress (or Politburo) pulling the plug in the wake of > the first success. But we must press on nevertheless, ignoring this fatal flaw? Or hoping that it will magically go away somehow? Or, perhaps, ignoring it... because making the first trip AS SOON AS POSSIBLE is the only thing that certain planetary scientists really care about right now? Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 87 21:12:55 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future > However, Sagan is quite explicit and up-front in stating his > reasoning. It would force the US and USSR to divert some of the > enormous resources they waste each year on self-destructive persuits > towards something that, while certainly not the most cost-effective > way to spend such sums of money, is at least more benign... Unfortunately, this is the same misguided zero-sum argument that says that the only way to support unmanned planetary exploration is to attack manned spaceflight. The idea that Mars funding would come out of the DoD budget is laughable; if it were funded at all, it would be funded *in addition* to whatever level of defence spending was fashionable at the time. If one or the other had to give because total spending was too high, it would be the space budget that would get the axe. I'm afraid Sagan is letting his political obsessions blind him to fiscal realities. Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 87 15:27:01 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future In article <704@faline.bellcore.com> karn@faline.UUCP writes: >I think it is the height of unfairness to say that the Planetary >Society wants to "steal" your dream. Let's face facts. If anything, >our bloated overemphasis on manned space flight has not only "stolen >dreams" from the less glamorous but scientifically far more worthwhile >unmanned planetary exploration program, it has killed the dreamers >through attrition. Everybody here knows what the Challenger disaster >and the The dream *IS* manned (personned) space flight, not just flight, but a spacefaring civilization. Ask the average Joe Taxpayer why he supports the space program -- is it because he sees himself or his kids someday travelling out there, or is it because he wants to make the solar system safe for robots? As the man said in _The_Right_Stuff_, "no Buck Rogers, no bucks". >that there are rational reasons for SDI, instead of its real purpose >being to guarantee full employment and exponential growth for the >weapons industry. > >Phil This comment is so stupid it's not worth the net traffic to flame it. -- Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair (Why do they call it a signature file if I can't actually *sign* anything?) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Aug 87 14:55:06 GMT From: "Michael J. Hammel" Subject: (Inter)National Moon Colonies Evelyn C. Leeper writes: > Do you support the establishment of a permanent American city on the > moon? By all means, yes. But I was wondering why it should be American only? An undertaking such as this must be quite expensive. Wouldn't it be to our advantage to do a joint project, say with the European's and maybe Japan? The expense would be lessened, as might the time it would take to complete. I don't keep a watchful eye on the world much these days, to busy trying to pay the bills I guess, so maybe this sort of thing isn't really possible, politically I mean. I was just curious what you thought. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 87 15:34:38 GMT From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu (Doug Mink) Subject: Re: Still more infighting I came across a September 1969 copy of Space/Aeronautics magazine (I have no idea whether or not it's still published). It is a special issue assessing the past and future of Man in Space following the moon landing. On page 57 is a fascinating time table of the future through 1985. Some highlights of what was definitely a wish list even then include: - Apollo lunar exploration through 1977, followed by a lunar orbit base. - An Apollo Applications Orbiting Workshop in the early 70's leading to a prototype station in 1976, operating stations in 1978, and an earth-orbitin space base in 1980. - An interim shuttle in 1973 and advanced shuttles in 1977. - A nuclear rocket for use in space by 1975 with earth-orbit to lunar orbit shuttles in 1979 as well as a planetary "tug". - Post-Saturn and Titan 3 "cheap" boosters in 1976. - Manned planetary missions in 1984. The caption read: "The existing technology and the plans NASA has for developing it will phase toward families of stations, bases, and shuttlecraft, operating in earth orbit, and with possible manned missions to the near planets." Other than the Apollo Applications Workshop which became Skylab, NONE of this exists (for all practical purposes, the shuttle doesn't exist now). An alternate present based on what could have happened it NASA had maintained level funding after its budget peaked (in 1966, I believe) would make an interesting setting for an SF story. It was the world I thought I was growing up into. Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Cambridge, Massachusetts UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink Internet: mink@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 87 16:25:50 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Evelyn C. Leeper) Subject: Re: RIGHT STUFF misquote (but true anyway!) In article <825@thumperbellcore.com>, mike@thumper.UUCP writes: > > safe for robots? As the man said in _The_Right_Stuff_, "no Buck > > Rogers, no bucks". > > The correct quote (from the movie; I'm not sure if this phrase occurs > in the book at all) is "No bucks, no Buck Rogers". True, but as my husband has pointed out in relation to whether or not one should oppose the manned Mars mission, the converse *is* true: "No Buck Rogers, no bucks." Congress (and the mass of the American public) will not spend a lot of money on a non-flashy program. If they can't have their "Buck Rogers," we can't have the bucks. A quiet step-by-step approach may be the best, but realistically, we have to give the public they can understand--like a person on Mars. Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 87 16:07:51 GMT From: sundc!hadron!inco!mack@seismo.css.gov (Dave Mack) Subject: Re: Mars Survey results (long) I missed this survey but I'd like to drop in my 2 cents anyhow. The planetary scientists have their own agenda. They want the instruments they need to do their research, so it's no surprise that they favor unmanned missions to Mars, etc. Unfortunately, this doesn't contribute to a permanent human presence in space. (Neither would a one-shot manned Mars mission.) I regard that permanent presence in space as important for a variety of reasons. The greatest problem in accomplishing this is lifting matter out of the Earth's gravity well. We should do as little of this as possible. Ideally, the only payload going from Earth should be people. Everything else should be manufactured in space. The most reasonable nearby source of raw materials is the Moon. The first priority would be to establish mining, smelting, and manufacturing facilities on the Moon, together with specialized manufacturing capabilities in circumlunar orbit. The facility would be permanently manned but highly automated. This facility would then manufacture its own extensions, a lunar launch facility, and launch vehicles. Ultimately, it would deliver preformed components and some raw materials to circumlunar orbit for assembly into large space structures as needed. In retrospect, this is pretty ambitious for a citizen of a nation that can't even get satellites into orbit anymore. Sigh. Dave Mack ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 87 22:32:03 GMT From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu (Keith P. Mancus) Subject: Lunar City >But why should it be American only? [discusses joint projects] I don't like this idea at all. Having all the different government departments and agencies agree on an idea is difficult enough; getting the equivalent agencies of other countries to agree too is hilarious! Look at the current status of the joint ESA/NASA space station! By all means let the colony (?) be open to qualified individuals of other nations. Part of America's strength has always been her mix of different nationalities, cultures, religions, etc. I have many friends who are not American citizens. So let's make the colony a mix, but DON'T SHARE THE OWNERSHIP of it. I have no use for foreign *governments* (our own gives us enough trouble!) -Keith Mancus ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 87 19:49:23 GMT From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!ems!rosevax!pwcs!dennisg@speedy.wisc.edu (Dennis Grittner) Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future In article <8391@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> However, Sagan is quite explicit and up-front in stating his >> reasoning. It would force the US and USSR to divert some of the >> enormous resources they waste each year on self-destructive persuits >> towards something that, while certainly not the most cost-effective >> way to spend such sums of money, is at least more benign... >the space budget that would get the axe. I'm afraid Sagan is letting >his political obsessions blind him to fiscal realities. Well gee whiz Harry. I think that it is admirable to have the GOAL of the US and the USSR devoting more of their money and energy to spaceflight than to weapons and other military expenditures. I think it's a bit silly on your part to attack such an admirable goal, and darned pessimistic to assume that Reagan's stupid military priorities will reign forever. I, for one, think that the goal of having MORE money spent on space and less wasted on military trash is a wonderful one. A move toward JOINT, peaceful exploration of space with the USSR wouldn't bother me either. I'm just not ready to accept the reality that almost none of the electorate is ready to STOP wasting money, and start having vision. I think that somebody like Carl Sagan CAN have a positive effect, and we ought to be helping him - even if we don't agree with everything he says or does. Dennis Grittner City of Saint Paul, Minnesota (612) 298-4402 Room 700, 25 W. 4th St. 55102 "Let's just put Ollie, Ronnie, and the rest in jail!" ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 87 19:37:06 GMT From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!ems!rosevax!pwcs!dennisg@speedy.wisc.edu (Dennis Grittner) Subject: Re: NET SPACE In article <8708062017.AA16514@angband.s1.gov> FSTCGAPG@uiamvs (GREGG COHEN FSTCGAPG@UIAMVS) writes: >This was sent to me by a friend who is now in Houston. It was in the >Houston Chronicle several weeks ago (I didn't get the date or page >number) I think that it is indicative of the political stance where >space program is concerned. > >"DEMS BAILED OUT OVER 'SPACE CITY'" by Nicholas C. Chriss > >Bill Buckley, Bob Strauss and seven Democratic presidential contenders >rattled on for two hours at the Wortham Center last week about the >nation's future and the nation's problems- the deficit, tax reform, >nuclear weapons, oil prices, AIDS, and yes, even Cuba- but never once >mentioned the nations faltering, trouble plagued space program. Flame ON! Is it really surprising that candidates for President should have priorities OTHER than Space when the average voter doesn't give much of a darn about space? Is it surprising that this condition exists when many of the posters to this newsgroup argue about the direction of 'space policy' and present no united front on the subject? It it really surprising when many of the posters to this group attack the intentions of everyone who disagrees with their viewpoint even if the person(s) they attack so vigorously have a great deal of credibility in the 'real , political world'?? When ( and IF ) the proponents of Space travel and exploration put aside their petty differences and create an intelligent, united front with sound proposals that many people can understand and support, then the people who would be President will pay attention to 'Space'. I've also noticed that ideas for the expenditure of funds do much better when they are sold on their own merit and not compared to everything else 'on the agenda' with comments about how food stamps are to blame for the problems with the space program. Flame OFF! Let's talk POSITIVELY about the benefits to ALL PERSONKIND from space exploration , and how the USA can benefit along with the rest of the world by being a part of this exploration. Dennis Grittner ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #319 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Aug 87 06:18:16 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03654; Thu, 20 Aug 87 03:17:12 PDT id AA03654; Thu, 20 Aug 87 03:17:12 PDT Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 03:17:12 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708201017.AA03654@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #320 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 320 Today's Topics: HELP WANTED: Lunar Orbiter Asteroid Collision Our future in space Re: Alan Sheperd Re: Our future in space Re: Our future in space The Media and Science Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Aug 1987 22:22-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: HELP WANTED: Lunar Orbiter NSS, AMSAT and SSI are involved in a project to design, build and launch a lunar orbiter. (No we won't design the launcher. Probably would be an Ariane flight.) A few weeks ago some people were asking about volunteering to do 'real' work. Here is your chance. We are looking for experienced professionals who are willing to assist gratis. Contact the S. David Eisenberg, the Lunar Orbiter project engineer, at 212-580-2952 if you feel you can make a significant contribution to this effort. As you know, AMSAT has been building embarassingly cheap satellites for many years. L5 began working very closely with them some time before the merger in which we became NSS. Gordon Woodcock (Boeing Space Station group, NSS Exec Committee Chairman) has run the calculations on the burns required, and discovered that a planned AMSAT Geosync satellite attempt could make lunar orbit with a different burn program. For those who may wonder how this may be so, the key is the delta v required for the plane change and circularization burns. Mr. Eisenberg also needs to get network access. If anyone here has the power to grant guest accounts, please contact him. Preference is an account in the New York City area. The ability to transmit design info and to contact experts via EMAIL is critically important. Ad Astra, Dale Amon NSS Board of Directors ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 87 22:09 +0600 From: Kerry Stevenson Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at RELAY.CS.NET Subject: Asteroid Collision In the last couple of days I've read two newspaper articles about an asteroid named 1983-TV. The first article says that Soviet astronomers say this body will crash on Earth in 128 years (2115). For some reason, our local newspaper decided that an article on this subject was worth only one paragraph, and the information I've got is sketchy at best. A couple of days later a followup article (another paragraph) stated that West German astronomers have dismissed the whole thing as pap. So, does anyone out there in netland have any more info on this potentially important event? I suspect that it is in fact pap, since it does not seem widely reported. If there is any truth to this, what schemes might be used to deflect and/or destroy the object? Should we even bother? Kerry ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 87 05:10:51 GMT From: nysernic!nic.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Our future in space I am trying to take as neutral a position as possible on the issue of the Planetary Society, good or evil. Let me just add a few things I think a lot of people have been saying or trying to say. The human race does not have a very promising future in space from today's standpoint. Forget the Soviets, if there is going to be a free society in space it must be the west (US, w. europe, australia, japan, who knows). This I think we all agree on. We have one common goal: Improve drastically the state of our space program. Not necessarily NASA, but the ongoing process of putting things and people into space. There are a lot of people in all the space groups, yet we are completely ineffective in getting our government to take notice. Why? Because we don't do anything together. I think the L5/NSI merger was the right idea. We need more of this. Right now, the entire space program is in jepordy. This is no time to be carrying a banner for one specific project, the government needs to realize that SPACE is important - right now, THEY DON'T. There is no way they will budget mars or lunar missions if they don't think space is important. This is the common ground we must join upon. The space groups should forget for the moment their pet projects, they are reaching for the very top while the base is crumbling. I propose a sort of summit between all the pro space organizations (I'll even moderate), the purpose being to unite, and combine all our resources for one massive, all out assault on congress/the white house. I am totally serious. Let's get off our damn butts. Bickering amongst ourselves accomplishes nothing whatsoever. Some people don't like L5, NSS, PS, whatever. Fine, don't argue about it - work at a lower level, because somewhere below the affiliations there is a basic desire to go into space, or see space developed as it should be. -Chris "Think before you flame" PS One final observation, something I've noticed on the net, and now much more prominently in trying to start a local chapter of a space group. Space "enthusiasts" are like the mythical Brooklyn Dodger Fans. "No one more loyal than a Brooklyn Dodger Fan" you would hear. "Packed every game to capacity", "Couldn't hear a damn thing in Kaminsky Park when there was a game on". I just read a book that reveals the truth. In actuality, even in the season when they won it all, they never sold out during the regular season, and the avg attendance was under 50%. Even when the rumor began to spread that if more people didn't show up for games the Dodgers would leave, attendance kept dropping. Oh, there were still plenty of loyal fans, who would hit you if you bad-mouthed the Dodgers, but when it came to game time, where were they???? Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Aug 87 18:37:25 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Alan Sheperd Newsgroups: sci.space >class as serious flights. Therefor, Gus Grissom was the first to return as far I'm real busy. And I thought Alan was first? P.S. On the subject of goals and stuff, I would what would have happened if we had not had reacted to Sputnik they way we did: create NASA, IGY, the temporary trend in education, etc. I think we still would have gotten men (generic) into space, on the moon (1980s?), but the schedule would have been slower and also more driven by the military and scientists rather than political results. Particle accelerators (esoteric fun) do get funded, so it is possible. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 87 06:30:07 GMT From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) Subject: Re: Our future in space In article <366@nysernic> weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes: >putting things and people into space. There are a lot of people in >all the space groups, yet we are completely ineffective in getting our >government to take notice. Why? Because we don't do anything >together. My best information (which is out of date) gives ~125000 in the Planetary Society, ~20000 in NSS. I don't know about AIAA's membership, but they are a professional society, not a pro-space group per se. These kind of numbers are pretty insignificant (<.1% of US population) when, as you point out later, so few of them actually DO anything like lobbying their congresscritters. Scientists and engineers who are high up in the leadership of pro-space organizations do deliver testimony before Congressional subcommittees reasonably often, but that's not because of the affiliations with PS/NSS/whatever. > I propose a sort of summit between all the pro space >organizations (I'll even moderate), the purpose being to unite, and There was an organization called, I believe, the National Coordinating Committee for Space, that attempted to mediate between the major groups. I think it is defunct, unable to get any cooperation. >combine all our resources for one massive, all out assault on >congress/the white house. I am totally serious. Yep, Reagan is 'pro-space' all right. So much so that Congresspeople have been asking the White House for a formal response to the NCOS report for months now. Better return for lobbying effort would probably be obtained by expending it on the likely presidential candidates, one of whom will be in a position to initiate new projects. Reagan is not, unless he's got something planned between now and the State of the Union address in January. There is no sign of this. Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon) Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group __@/ Down with Mars! Back to the Moon first. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 87 12:39:16 GMT From: udel!thomson@princeton.edu (Richard Thomson) Subject: Re: Our future in space In article <366@nysernic> weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes: >I propose a sort of summit between all the pro space organizations >(I'll even moderate), the purpose being to unite, and combine all our >resources for one massive, all out assault on congress/the white house. >I am totally serious. > -Chris > "Think before you flame" This is exactly what we need! We all agree that space is a worthwhile goal and I think Chris has hit the nail on the head here. The politicians don't think its a worthwhile goal. Just look at the policies of our current president and you see how high space ranks on the platform (it's in there somewhere, I think :-). I disagree that the average person doesn't want to pursue space development. They may not understand alot of the reasons why Apollo looked like a one-shot deal, but if you ask them if they'd like to be orbiting the Earth in a space station they'll most likely say yes. People also think that NASA gets just oodles of money every year. They, like us, are ready to believe. They need a politician who has a sense of vision to lead them. We should make ourselves heard to make the politicians 'see' with this kind of vision. Count me in! Rich ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 87 22:34:34 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!yetti!geac!chris@seismo.css.gov (Chris Syed) Subject: The Media and Science "Science forges ahead by pursuing preconceptions...even mistaken ones." - W.V.Quine. In a recent article in the Toronto _Globe & Mail_, Canadian biologist David Suzuki, (whose TV series may have made it to PBS), discussed pseudo science's hold over the popular imagination, and concluded: "The public's need for mystery suggests that scientists have failed miserably to convey the essence of science itself. It is not just cut-and-dried facts.... The reason scientists devote their lives so fanatically to research is that they are immersed in mystery and wonder every day. If there were more scientists like Dr. Sagan and Stephen Gould, who could share that with the public, there would be no need [to debunk pseudo science]." I have been reading recent discussions of two sorts in this newsgroup: one flaming Carl, or the media in general, and the other citing personal experiences that kindled the senders' interests in space, science, or eventually, I suppose, computing. It strikes me that the experiences which initally motivated everyone were aesthetic or emotional ones- somehow, everyone got "turned on" to science. Instead of lamenting that the media misreport or glamorize science, perhaps we should exploit the particular excellences of radio, TV and film. "The nice thing about moving pictures", my film prof used to say, "is that they move." (yeah, I know all about flicker fusion). That they do, and quickly. An educational length film is usually 27 min 30 sec, and rarely do TV shot lengths exceed 10 sec. TV is not suited to presenting in-depth treatments of academic disciplines. But it is admirably suited to kindling enthusiasm through aesthetic experiences. The problem with science is that it is mostly a combination of cerebral things and tedious, lengthy, nitpicky analysis of data - neither of which are right for TV. I once tried to portray astronomy "as it happens" on film. What I got was a bunch of people sitting around in a visually exciting radio observatory, doing boring things. Would you watch a half- hour show of someone looking at squiggles on paper or chewing a pencil? TV is great at compressing time. TV is great at visually exciting things. Maybe you can't give 'em Buck Rogers all the time - but those Voyager pix everyone seems to want are rather nice, don't you think? (NASA, by the way, has reel upon reel of space footage). Now this does not mean that you must present things untrue, nor things glamorous but divorced from people's experience to do a good show. The British series _Don't Ask Me_, with physicist Magnus Pike and a crew of experts from many fields, is a case in point. Magnus, a gesticulating, engaging fellow, got ordinary people to ask questions such as: "Why does a peanut bob up and down in my beer?", and gave them elegant, brief, physical explanations. The motive was to turn people on to the physics of everyday life- to make science come alive. This accords with what we know of adult education - ya gotta hit 'em where they live, and you can't scare 'em off with things they don't understand. "Milk before meat", as the medievals would say. Another example is David Stringer's _Not Another Science Show_, a TV Ontario production. A proposition: Product Recognition, Wider Footprint etc. One way to get space bucks is to get a lot of people excited about science. Since sagans and sagans of people watch the tube every night, we ought to be happy when they turn to series like _The Botanic Man_, (which may have made it to PBS). But more importantly, it would be nice to figure out how to get stuff _regularly_ on computing, space, astronomy, anything scientific or technological, onto prime time network feed. At least, it seems like a reasonable course to me. And I'd hazard a guess that production-value - flashy visuals, something like an unfolding story, would be prime requirements. Oh yes, and cost, of course. A counter argument: Great Britain produces elevated stuff all the time, but it dosen't seem to have affected Maggie! (At least, it didn't hit her in her pocketbook). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 87 13:43:35 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 August 13 13:43:35 PDT (=GMT-7hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 August 13 13:43:57 PDT (=GMT-7hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: "ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want Date: Wed, 29 Jul 87 21:08:55 EDT From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Mars, nyet. I feel very uneasy about the anti-Mars sentiment expressed on the net. I fervently hope that these expressions against Mars exploration are "in the family" squabbles, and that they are not being broadcast further. You all do realize, I hope, that to outsiders (i.e., politicians) the detailed arguments will blur into obscurity and all that will be heard will be a vague anti-space sentiment. I think I agree. Instead of knocking the Mars/Apollo mission, we should push hard at our pet projects. If somebody interrupts us to ask "what about the manned Mars landing" we simply say it isn't cost effective, there are plenty of other projects that have better payback at lower cost, and given that we don't have enough money to do them all, we'd prefer to get more payback via these other projects. If there is one lesson that must be learned if space advocates are to have any level of success, it is that such criticisms must be kept internal, and a united front presented to the outside. I'd like to amend that. We should be united in that we say only pro-space things in our major statements, anything negative being restricted to relative statements such as I proposed above and only in respose to a specific question about that project we don't like. But we needn't be united in what we ask for. If some of us beg for manned Mars landing, some beg for unmanned Mars rovers, some beg for lunar mining, some beg for asteroid rendezvous and sample return, some beg for lunar polar orbiter, and some beg for LEO space station, the impression will be that there are an awful lot of good things to do in space, whereas if we restrict ourselves to one concensus "best project" the impression will be there's only one thing worth doing in space, it's that or nothing. Of course at some point we must reach a compromise of what will actually be funded and what won't, but let's leave that for later, and let our public posturing be "we want this and this and this and that and that and that etc., why can't we get it all?" and maybe they'll increase the total budget when they realize how many good things aren't currently funded but should be. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #320 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Aug 87 09:04:51 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05598; Fri, 21 Aug 87 03:18:21 PDT id AA05598; Fri, 21 Aug 87 03:18:21 PDT Date: Fri, 21 Aug 87 03:18:21 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708211018.AA05598@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #321 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 321 Today's Topics: Re: Newsweek Special Report: "Lost in Space" Re: Sagan == Death of the Future Re: Alan Sheperd Re: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" leafletting Re: Pro-Space Publicity Re: leafletting Re: Our future in space Space Treaties Congresscritter contact info various Re: Sagan == Death of the Future ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Aug 87 18:09:12 GMT From: gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!ivory!mike@rutgers.edu (Michael Lodman) Subject: Re: Newsweek Special Report: "Lost in Space" These articles made me very angry as well. Between the " space pilots " of the air force and the deep pocket funding of high tech hardware by the government our space program is almost destroyed. We don't need to have men in space. We don't need the government launching commercial payloads. The Air Force should be limited to what they can prove is neccessary for our defence. NASA should be limited to research missions only and they should be unmanned. When it becomes economicaly feasible to have a space station, some company or consortium of companies will build it, launch it, and maintain it. When it becomes essential that a man be in space, one will be there. As for the "No Buck Rogers, no bucks" quote, this is unproven and in fact if you told the man on the street you were going to save a few billion bucks and do the same job, he would probably support you whole-heartedly. Here's for a cheap, simple heavy lifter. No more space-boondogles er shuttles, no Advanced Lifting Vehicles based on shuttle technology, and no bloody space planes. We don't need them. Michael Lodman (619) 485-3335 Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM {sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!ivory!lodman When you die, if you've been very, very good, you'll go to ... Montana. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Aug 87 16:58:33 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future > >the space budget that would get the axe. I'm afraid Sagan is letting > >his political obsessions blind him to fiscal realities. > > Well gee whiz Harry. I think that it is admirable to have the GOAL of > the US and the USSR devoting more of their money and energy to > spaceflight than to weapons and other military expenditures. I think > it's a bit silly on your part to attack such an admirable goal, and > darned pessimistic to assume that Reagan's stupid military priorities > will reign forever. I didn't say the goal was wrong, just that it was hopelessly unrealistic, and that people who claim it is realistic are either lying or self-deluded. I'm quite aware that Reagan leaves office in early 1989, but what has that to do with the problem? Reagan did not create DoD's sacred-cow status; at most he enhanced it slightly. DoD budgets *never* get cut -- *seriously* cut -- because it's better to spend money on something else; they get cut only when everything is getting cut, when the objective is to reduce the total expenditures, not to direct them more wisely. If asked to choose between the safety of the country and a Mars expedition, the bulk of the public (and Congress) will unhesitatingly opt for the former -- and you bet your booties that's how DoD will present the question if it ever comes to a real fight over the issue. (Before you cite the use of DoD money for the replacement orbiter, remember the large number of military Shuttle missions that are planned and the widespread feeling that the USAF is not paying its fair share of Shuttle costs. That's a very different story, not to be confused with spending DoD money on things with no military application at all.) As for it being silly on my part to attack such an admirable goal, doing so is no more silly than attacking a project to spend much time and great effort investigating the biochemistry of the Easter Bunny. It diverts resources from attainable goals, and discredits the movement. > I , for one, think that the goal of having MORE money spent on space > and less wasted on military trash is a wonderful one... I agree. I also think it would be a wonderful goal to have free elections held in the Soviet Union next Thursday. > A move toward JOINT, peaceful exploration of space with the USSR > wouldn't bother me either. I think it would be great, but the Soviets would be fools to go very far in that direction -- what have they possibly got to gain from such a backward and unreliable partner? -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 87 20:38:45 GMT From: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (G.Gleason) Subject: Re: Alan Sheperd In article <8708120137.AA08786@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >P.S. On the subject of goals and stuff, I would what would have >happened if we had not had reacted to Sputnik they way we did: create >NASA, IGY, the temporary trend in education, etc. I think we still >would have gotten men (generic) into space, on the moon (1980s?), . . . Anyone care to speculate where we would be on many basic technologies without the research prompted by the needs of the Apollo program. I know that IC's would have come along because they are an obvious advance on discrete circuits, but it would have taken longer. Apple II like machines might just be coming out now. There are studies that indicate that the Apollo program has paid back the economy many times over, even if you don't look at spin-off technologies. What we need is a strong program in basic technologies which will make working in space routine. If we could only get SDI funding levels for basic space research. Gerry Gleason ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 87 16:25:14 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want The trouble with this idea is getting everyone to go along with it. Sagan and Van Allen, to name two, have been knocking space projects they don't like for twenty years now. Like it or not, this *is* an adversary process at the moment. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 87 15:03:00 GMT From: irwin@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" I subscribe to the Newsweek magazine. The latest issue has a large portion devoted to our space effort. I spent last evening reading and by the time I was through, it had made my blood "boil". It tells why we spend millions instead of thousands, billions instead of millions, why cost per pound is $6,000 to $8,000 as opposed to $300 to $500 to LEO. It compares liquid as opposed to solid boosters on the shuttle, goes into detail about the "big dumb booster" as compared to the "high tech state of the art" (there is where our billions went) rockets that we now use. The reason the space telescope is still on the ground, lack of long term space goals, and many other things are covered. If you want for good reading, I suggest this one to open your eyes. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Aug 87 14:36:29 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 August 08 14:36:29 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 August 08 14:37:48 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: leafletting I'd like to volunteer to help with preparing a leaflet which briefly lists the major recent progress in space (mostly MIR of course, at present), if several others also volunteer. One possibility is that people send me info about what is going on, I collect it, delete duplications (picking best wording from alternate submitters), trim it down to about 60 lines (one page), and present the resultant file to the rest of the committee for review. Somebody else cleans up the file for public consumption, then I do final proofreading for typos and broadcast the online file to Space-Enthusiasts for anyone to turn into paper. My local public library (East Palo Alto) has a fancy display of SPACE, which is 100% USA, no mention of MIR or anything, so I would volunteer to post a few copies of our leaflet there to combat the yankeecentric half-truth they are promulgating. Anywhere more than one person in the same geographic area volunteers, actual leafletting of a shopping center or bus stop etc. could occur (it's awful lonely and dangerous for one isolated person to leaflet, especially when somebody starts an argument or discussion which prevents that one person from giving attention to passing out leaflets), providing some way is available to mass-produce nicely-printed copies of the leaflet. But posting copies on bulletin boards or distributing to libraries could be done by isolated individuals. Regarding content of the leaflet: It'll take too long to create for a "one-week" summary to be meaningful, maybe even a "one-month" summary would be out of date by the time it is distributed. I suggest that the leaflet is mostly "this-past-month" but includes background of each such project (when MIR was launched, previous major crews, precursor Salut 7), and includes a few major events of the past couple years that didn't overlap into this current past month. We might include known contracts granted and work started if they are really major steps forward, such as "space tug" being built by TRW (announced in Peninsula Times Tribune a couple days ago, to be first launched into space in only 4 years from now) in addition to actual accomplished missions. We should be sure to include Voyager/Uranus flyby 1.5 years ago, Giotto et al, in the before-this-month summary because many people seeing this leaflet are decades out of date with space and would be seeing such info for the first time, or at least seeing it all together in perspective for the very first time. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 87 20:19:29 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Pro-Space Publicity Someone had a videotape of that Mac-DAC ad showing in one of the hospitality suites at the Space Development Conf. in Pittsburgh last spring. *Great* ad, complete with (inaudible at first) Russian radio chatter in the background. One thing, though. The station isn't "Battlestar Galactica" sized, though it may look that way because of the camera angle on that scene (similar to the opening scene of Star Wars 4: A New Hope, with the Imperial Cruiser coming into view from overhead). It was actually a model of Mir/Salyut. (BTW, how many people know that "mir" also means "outpost" or "fort"? The fortified settlements on the Siberian frontier in the last century (analogous to the old western frontier in North America) were called mirs.) Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair (Why do they call it a signature file if I can't actually *sign* anything?) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 87 17:49:07 GMT From: nysernic!nic.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: leafletting Count me in. My original idea was to send copies of this "newsletter" to congress, as well as posting it in public places, and sending copies to local news stations. Enough info is here on the net (like Glenn's postings and Henry's AWST summaries). Anyone else know how to get the addresses of people in congress? Do you want to start a small mailing list of volunteers who would like to help in this project? Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 87 14:52:18 GMT From: nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: Our future in space In article <3590@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@oddhack.Caltech.EDU (Jon Leech) writes: > My best information (which is out of date) gives ~125000 in the >Planetary Society, ~20000 in NSS. I don't know about AIAA's >membership, but they are a professional society, not a pro-space group >per se. These kind of numbers are pretty insignificant (<.1% of US >population) when, as you point out later, so few of them actually DO >anything like lobbying their congresscritters. Scientists and >engineers who are high up in the leadership of pro-space organizations >do deliver testimony before Congressional subcommittees reasonably >often, but that's not because of the affiliations with >PS/NSS/whatever. I neglected to mention that phase 1 of my proposed alliance would involve a massive assault on the people/news media, phase 2 would be government. I really believe that there a lot of Americans who think we SHOULD have a strong space program, and also think we DO. They should be educated. > There was an organization called, I believe, the National >Coordinating Committee for Space, that attempted to mediate between >the major groups. I think it is defunct, unable to get any >cooperation. This is the attitude I'm talking about...."*sigh* someone tried that already and it didn't work". So what, let's try again. Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 87 08:11 EST From: RON PICARD Subject: Space Treaties I've seen references on the net about the 'Moon Treaty' and the 'Outer Space Treaty'. I wrote my congressman to obtain copies of them but was told they have nothing on file with these names. Are these the correct (official) names? Are they UN treaties and if so what do I need to do to get copies? Thanks for the help. Ron Picard (PICARD@GMR.COM) General Motors Research Labs ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 87 13:46:05 GMT From: udel!thomson@princeton.edu (Richard Thomson) Subject: Congresscritter contact info People often post to this group about 'telling your congressperson'. I wanted to do this kind of thing as well but had a problem. I wasn't legal to vote the last time around and I don't know where my congresspeople are (I was even a little shaky on their exact names...). Then I discovered the BLUE pages in our telephone book. I don't know if you have blue pages in your t.b., but in ours they are between the white and yellow pages. Under a heading like 'Congress' in the government service section was the phone numbers for our two senators and (sigh) one representative. This is the quickest way to get in contact with the people who count in these matters! Call them up! Let them know what you think! I know, I know. You're thinking 'yeah, but what does Delaware (Dela-where?) do for the space program?'. Actually the space suits for EVA are made in Dover, Delaware. So there. Rich -- Rich Thomson Aspiring Grad Student ARPA: thomson@louie.udel.edu Forget Mars, we've got business on the Moon. UUCP: don't know OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 87 08:55:34 EDT From: rachiele@NADC.ARPA (J. Rachiele) Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: various While we're talking about politics: Can someone post a list of the various congressional committees which make decisions on the space program, and the members of these committees? If by some chance a senator was from my state, or a rep from my district, I would be happy to pepper him with letters, telegrams, and phone calls to encourage him to support the space program, and point out to him what a one-issue voter I am. I'm sure there are many on this list who feel the same way I do..... I will add my name to the list of people willing to help out a space race company with computer programming assistance. But think about it: If such a company has people who read this mailing list, they most likely don't need help from computer people. This came up before, does anyone know where the various candidates for president stand on the space program? Is John Glenn running again? Jim Rachiele rachiele@nadc.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 87 13:21:08 GMT From: rlgvax!russ@seismo.css.gov (Russ Olsen) Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future In article <1980@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, mhw@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Marc Weinstein) writes: > In fact, there is a way we can help him. I dunno exactly where to get > information, but the Planetary Society, of which good ol' Carl is the > Chairman (or at least the spokesperson), is looking to further the > cause of space exploration in United States spending. I will try to > dig something up on the Society, but for a (cheap) $20 "contribution" > and a simple survey which you fill out, you can become a member of the > Society and receive the Planetary Report on a monthly basis. > > Marc Weinstein > Bell Labs - Indian Hill > ihnp4!ihlpf!mhw The Address of the Planetary Society is P.O. Box 91687 Pasadena, CA 91109 Russ Olsen @ Computer Consoles, Reston VA russ@rlgvax ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #321 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Aug 87 23:40:17 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00363; Sat, 22 Aug 87 18:19:12 PDT id AA00363; Sat, 22 Aug 87 18:19:12 PDT Date: Sat, 22 Aug 87 18:19:12 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708230119.AA00363@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #322 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 322 Today's Topics: space news from July 6 AW&ST Re: Sagan == Death of the Future Re: Space group cooperation Re: political support for space colonization Re: Why [not] air-breathing boosters? Re: space news from June 29 AW&ST Re #308 (postscript devices) RIGHT STUFF misquote (was Sagan == Death of the Future) Re: JUGGLING: how to break a record. Space Debris Re: JUGGLING: how to break a record. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 87 23:08:04 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from July 6 AW&ST Commerce Dept will run a quick assessment of the commercial space market as input to a revision of US commercial space policy. Japan will start flight tests next year of a flyback-booster design for sounding rockets. Could be relevant to the Japanese spaceplane work. NASA says NRC's space-station cost estimates match NASA's own after an adjustment for different accounting methods. USSR steps up space marketing campaign: an organization has been formed to market images from Soviet spacecraft. Wide interest is claimed. The images are said to have 6m resolution, better even than Spot. Orbiter Discovery will be powered up Aug 3 for the start of formal checkout for STS-26. Rollout is set for March 7, engine firing could be April 7. Development of the tractor-rocket crew-escape system is going well, with rocket-firing tests starting. NASA says that a final decision on whether it will fly on STS-26 can be delayed until May without schedule impact; the working assumption is that it will be included. Revised Shuttle schedule for first six missions: 26 TDRS aboard Discovery, 2 June 1988 27 DoD to Clarke orbit [military comsat?] on Atlantis, Sept 8 28 DoD/CIA imaging spysat on Columbia, set for Nov 10 but KSC would like to move it to Dec 1 29 another TDRS on Discovery, Feb 2 1989 30 Magellan (bumping Hubble telescope) April 25 31 Hubble Telescope (bumping Astro-1 UV telescope package) June 1 The rest of the new manifest is still being revised; a particular area of uncertainty is how many more DoD payloads will move to expendables. Up to six full shuttle-loads could be moved through 1994. DoD flight rate could drop to 1-2 a year, which would be good news for civilian missions. NASA is now trying to be firm about late changes in flight planning. Major cargo decisions will freeze at T-18 months, detailed flight planning will freeze at T-11mo, and secondary payloads and crew issues will freeze at T-7mo. NASA picks Grumman as space station program support contractor, with major role in systems engineering and integration. Lockheed gets the software support contract. DMSP (military weather satellite) launched June 19 from Vandenberg on an Atlas-E, to replace an earlier DMSP launched five years ago. Congress gets off its behind about Landsat commercialization subsidy: $62.5M provided, subject to Congress and DoC clearing up their squabble about whether one or two satellites will be included. Eosat says that foreign Landsat customers are unable to understand what's going on. Landsat business continues brisk; Eosat is now distributor for data from the new Chinese receiving station, and reports great interest. US remote sensing users are getting worried that if Landsat is abandoned, the US will no longer have clout in remote-sensing policymaking, and the Japanese or the French may start restricting access to data from their satellites. "Will open skies be open without a US presence in those skies?" Japanese study recommends immediate start on work on a small unmanned spaceplane, for first launch 1993 on an H-2. Hope (H-2 orbiting plane) will be 12m long, 10m wingspan, delta with two small canards, 3000kg payload. This is seen as a useful precursor to a more advanced manned spaceplane. NOAA and FAA are getting together on a satellite-based system to warn air traffic of volcanic ash clouds. NOAA weather satellites can track the clouds using infrared imagers, but aircraft radar can't. The main effort needed is to set up a system to get the data to the pilots; it could be operational by the end of the year. Precision tracking of Pioneer 10 and 11 has strengthened the theory that the solar system has a tenth planet in a highly eccentric orbit. Exotic solar companions like brown dwarfs or black holes are definitely ruled out; their effects on the Pioneers' paths would have been seen by now. A tenth planet in a circular orbit would likewise have had detectable effects. The guess is something with about 5 Earth masses in a highly inclined and eccentric orbit, period 700-1000 years. Anything smaller could not account for the known perturbations in the orbits of the other outer planets, while anything bigger would have shown up in the Pioneer data. Harris Corp repays $1.26M to NASA after Justice Dept. alleges "extraordinary profits" on the TDRS ground station at White Sands. Pictures of the Hermes flight-deck mockup displayed at the Paris airshow. Predictably, there is heavy emphasis on CRTs and side-stick controllers (two per pilot, for multi-axis control). Pictures of the outside of the Hermes mockup, differing from the US shuttle in various ways, notably upturned wingtips rather than a fin on the fuselage and a "cargo bay" that isn't: what look like bay doors do open, but only to expose thermal radiators. (From the latest Astronomy:) The two nearby stars which almost certainly have planets around them, based on the recent Canadian report, are Epsilon Eridani and Gamma Cephei. There is enough data on the one orbiting Gamma Cephei to indicate that its orbital period is 2.7 years and its mass is about 1.7 times Jupiter. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 87 15:48:47 GMT From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@eddie.mit.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future > ... the Planetary Society... is looking to further the > cause of space exploration in United States spending... Slight correction: the Planetary Society is looking to further the cause of planetary science... at the expense of all other forms of space exploration, if necessary. Opinions vary on whether this is a good thing. Consider how you feel about it before joining. You might also want to review Sagan's last few episodes of Congressional testimony before joining, because you are supporting that testimony by joining -- he often cites the size of the Planetary Society as support for his views. (For that matter, you might want to ask about how officers and spokesmen for the Planetary Society are chosen, and whether they can be changed by member vote.) -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 1987 15:45-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Space group cooperation This is not a new issue. The Coordinating Committee that was mentioned was put together by Dr. David Webb a few years back. It had some successes but in some ways was ahead of it's time: all the groups were so lean and hungry and distrustful that it was hard to get anything done. A great deal has changed since then, mostly for the better. Most of the space organizations DO cooperate at a high level. There is a great deal of cameraderie between NSS(L5), SSI, AMSAT, SEDS, ASF, USSF, Sunsat Energy Council, Spaceweek, WSF, ISRG, Women's Space Network, Teacher in Space Foundation, and others. We often work together with amateur astronomy groups, amateur rocket people, NRRL, and others. Joint events with local AIAA sections and AAS are common. Young Astronauts is mostly aloof from everyone, but there has been cooperation, particularly on the local level. NSI, L5, Planetary Society and others cooperated on the national NCOS seminar series. Planetary Society and L5 were both involved in the Voyager and Galileo defense some years back. So it is not true to say that the organizations do not work together. It is also not to say that even more cooperation would not be good, or that reviving the Coordinating Council would not be a good idea. You will not find any disagreement from me on this issue! The real truth of the matter is that the world of space organizations 'sort of' breaks down into two 'political' groupings. One contains most of the organizations; the other contains Planetary Society, a few minor organizations and a few major science oriented ones (like WSF) that work with everyone equally well. There are some very real differences of opinion between the 'Space Science' and the 'Frontier/Commercial' oriented groups, but I believe that the solar system is big enough for the both of us. We needn't love each other, we just need to not stop on each other's toes. Dale Amon NSS Board of Directors ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 87 00:32:20 GMT From: xanth!kent@ames.arpa (Kent Paul Dolan) Subject: Re: political support for space colonization Then again, if you like the idea, but hate the proponent, I'm sure among you all there could be found another lunatic enough to volunteer. For sure, the idea of a pro-space candidate has more to recommend it than the idea of me as that candidate, unless no other appears. Now, I really must get to work! Kent, the man from xanth. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 87 20:30:39 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Why [not] air-breathing boosters? Data on airbreathing engines in production can be found in an annual 'specifications' issue of Aviation Week. I don't have this year's handy, but the issue date shouldn't be too hard to find. Just look for the perfect bound (square edged) issues as opposed to the normal staple bound issues. It's one of the two or three such per year. >From memory, a typical fighter engine has a maximum speed of about Mach 2.5 (750 meters/sec) at an altitude of 75,000 feet (22 km). Slightly lower speed limit at sea level. A engine weight might be 3000 pounds, producing 24,000 lb sea level thrust. The specific fuel consumption at max thrust and sea level is about 1 lb/hr/lb thrust. This is equivalent to a specific impulse of 3600 seconds. The real advantage of a fighter engine lies not in the performance. A fighter engine weighs 10 times as much as a rocket engine for the same thrust, and gets about ten times the fuel efficiency. The real gain comes from the long engine life compared to rocket engines. Dani Eder ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 87 05:56:00 GMT From: uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uicsrd!mcdaniel@a.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: space news from June 29 AW&ST What's a metsat? Tim McDaniel mcdaniel%uicsrd@a.cs.uiuc.edu [A meteorological Satelite -Ed] ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 8 August 1987 2:10pm From: AOVS752@uta3081.cc.utexas.edu (PETER.HALAMEK) Subject: Re #308 (postscript devices) What is a postscript device ? My comment on AW&St summaries by Henry Spencer: They are very useful to those who have some background. A complete novice simply must do some "outside reading". Peter Halamek (AOVS752@UTA3081.BITNET) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 87 21:48:57 GMT From: faline!thumper!mike@bellcore.bellcore.com (Mike A. Caplinger) Subject: RIGHT STUFF misquote (was Sagan == Death of the Future) > safe for robots? As the man said in _The_Right_Stuff_, "no Buck > Rogers, no bucks". The correct quote (from the movie; I'm not sure if this phrase occurs in the book at all) is "No bucks, no Buck Rogers". This is in reference to the cost of the space program and of manned spaceflight in particular. I'm not saying one thing or another about the manned/unmanned spaceflight controversy -- and neither does this quote from THE RIGHT STUFF. I hate to see mangled quotes shift in meaning. Mike Caplinger, mike@bellcore.com ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 87 22:14:29 GMT From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andre Guirard) Subject: Re: JUGGLING: how to break a record. In article <7095@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >> ... I believe that the world record is currently 19 [rings] juggled >> for over a minute... >Sergei Ignatov has done 13 rings. There is no hope of anyone doing 19 >rings at this point in human evolution. You can't throw them high >enough to get enough time to do them. All right, folks! What say we get organized here and SEND A JUGGLER TO THE MOON! Or Mars. I'd be satisfied with Mars. This could be a new goal for our space program. What's the record for number of objects juggled underwater? Andre Guirard ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 87 05:26:58 GMT From: hao!boulder!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!itsgw!nysernic!nic.nyser.net!weltyc@ames.arpa (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Space Debris In the August issue of Astronmy, the cover story is on space debris, something discussed here a while ago. Apparently NASA has sponsored numerous studies on the topic, and the problem is even more serious than I seem to remember was implied by comments made here. Apparently, LEO is full of debris - here's some numbers: 1,582 payloads (working and defunct satellites) - trackable 4,488 objects of debris larger than a softball - trackable 30,000 (est) marble to softball sized objects - untrackable "trillions" of paint flakes - untrackable "tens of hundreds of trillions" of dust particles - untrackable One of the biggest worries in this respect is the Space Telescope. These experts estimate a 1% chance that it will be struck by one of the untrackable marble to softball size objects, which would destroy it during it's 17 year lifetime. There is little doubt that after a few years the mirrors will become so full of dust that it will be no better than a ground based telescope. Another problem is the fact that the telescopre is not steerable, so even an imminent collision with a trackable object would be unavoidable. And then there's the paint flakes. Chances are apparently pretty good that the telescope will be struck by paint flakes. If the mirrors take too many hits, they will be too cratered to be of any use. A "postage-stamp sized" paint flake struck one of the windows of the Challenger in 1983, creating a 2.4 millimter wide crater in the window. Hmmm this don't sound too good. I wonder if the Ruskies are having any problems with this stuff... Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc ------------------------------ Resent-Message-Id: <8708111200.AA25402@angband.s1.gov> Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 87 07:56:39 EDT Resent-From: Harold C Pritchett Resent-To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov Date: 10 August 1987, 16:51:08 LCL From: Charlie Hofacker A short while ago, a new word was introduced to the English language, a sagan. It originally meant, "billions and billions," but like many words, its meaning changed to mean "the number of stars in the universe." I have 3 questions for anyone who might care to indulge me... 1) How many stars are there in the universe, 2) How do we know this, and 3) How can we ever know that there aren't more stores beyond the range of our sensing devices? I suppose the finite age of the universe helps to get around question 3) but I am not so sure. "Lets not go to Atlanta, Charlie Hofacker we have unfinished business FSU College of Business in Tallahassee." ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 87 17:01:37 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!majka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Marc Majka) Subject: Re: JUGGLING: how to break a record. In article <1404@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes: >What's the record for number of objects juggled underwater? I've tried several times to juggle underwater. It is *hard*! The trouble is the viscosity of the water. Try throwing a rock up in water - even with all your strength, it only goes about 6 or 8 inches. I've managed a few throws and catches, but I would hardly call it juggling. The next experiment will be with neutral or slightly positive objects. Marc Majka ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #322 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Aug 87 18:49:36 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01213; Sun, 23 Aug 87 03:21:51 PDT id AA01213; Sun, 23 Aug 87 03:21:51 PDT Date: Sun, 23 Aug 87 03:21:51 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708231021.AA01213@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #323 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 323 Today's Topics: "Clarke orbit" Re: Space Debris Re: The Rocket Team #2 - V2's in New York? Re: Space Debris Re: "Clarke orbit" Re: Space Debris Re: "Clarke orbit" Re: Space Debris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 87 14:30:22 PDT From: John Sotos Subject: "Clarke orbit" Every once in a while on the net someone will make a reference to "Clarke orbit." What is the advantage of this term over "geosynchronous" or "geosync" orbit? I can think of at least two *disadvantages*: (1) the meaning of the term is not deducible from the term itself; (2) although Clarke was the first to recognize the important uses to which the orbit could be put, he was not the first to discover its geosynchronous nature (was it Lagrange?) I don't care much about (2), but point (1) is a serious disadvantage, which should be obvious to computer types: you have stepped out of the kernel or your language (for English: Greek & Latin) and have constructed a special case (a.k.a. "hack"). Bad coding style, no?, made worse by the fact that a good alternative exists. (And for those who dislike typing, note that "geosync" has only one more letter than "Clarke".) Sure, Clarke is a good man and deserves to be remembered for his contribution, but not at the cost of obfuscation. John Sotos President, SKEOPS (Society to Keep Eponyms Out of the Physical Sciences) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 87 05:44:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Space Debris /* Written 12:26 am Aug 11, 1987 by weltyc@nic.nyser.net in uiucdcsb:sci.space */ /* ---------- "Space Debris" ---------- */ [...] 1,582 payloads (working and defunct satellites) - trackable 4,488 objects of debris larger than a softball - trackable 30,000 (est) marble to softball sized objects - untrackable "trillions" of paint flakes - untrackable "tens of hundreds of trillions" of dust particles - untrackable [...] And then there's the paint flakes. Chances are apparently pretty good that the telescope will be struck by paint flakes. If the mirrors take too many hits, they will be too cratered to be of any use. A "postage-stamp sized" paint flake struck one of the windows of the Challenger in 1983, creating a 2.4 millimter wide crater in the window. Hmmm this don't sound too good. I wonder if the Ruskies are having any problems with this stuff... /* End of text from uiucdcsb:sci.space */ Uh, wait a minute. Paint flakes and dust particles in LEO are going to get blown out of orbit pretty quickly, between solar charger particle interactions, light pressure, and upper atmosphere drag effects. What is the source that replenishes these ``trillions'' of particles? The Challenger had its windshield struck by something MICROSCOPIC that left a 2.4 millimeter LONG track in the glass. It wouldn't have been noticed at all except for the fact that the windshields are regularly inspected because a micrometeoroid impact is a source of a sample of extraterrestrial material. I'm not even sure that the track was visible to the naked eye; it certainly wasn't a 2.4 millimeter crater. Moreover, a ``postage-stamp-sized'' object would do a LOT more damage than that! Back-of-the-envelope calculations for the larger objects, suggest that the calculated probability of being hit by one is off by several orders of magnitude. Remember, except for when it was being done deliberately, no large object in LEO has ever hit another. None. Ever. There's a LOT of space up there and a vanishingly small probability that two objects will occupy the same part of it at the same time. The orbital spacing requirements even for geosynchronous orbit are mandated by the accuracy of the radio antennas, not by the safety of the spacecraft. I expect better from _Astronomy_'s editorial department. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 87 21:56:16 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: The Rocket Team #2 - V2's in New York? In article <1323@ihlpm.ATT.COM>, dcn@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Dave Newkirk) writes: >
> One project certainly not stopped was proposed in the fall of > 1943. It was suggested that a submarine (the highly advanced Type XXI U-boat, with schnorkel allowing lengthy submerged periods) > could tow as many as five I've read it was a maximum of three, but your source seems highly reliable > A4's in watertight containers to positions off the eastern seaboard of > the United States. There, they would be floated into an upright or angular for more range; the Germans seemed to like the idea of hitting Pittsburg > position and become launchers for the missiles aimed at New York and > other metropolitan areas. > Given the code name Prufstand XII (Test Stand 12), this was also known as the Laffarenz-Projekt > the project was top secret. Only a limited number of engineers was > assigned to it, including the talented Klaus Riedel, Bernhard > Tessmann, Hans Huter, and Georg von Tiesenhausen. The preliminary > design was done in conjunction with the Vulkan-Werft, a shipyard in > Stettin. Each container was about 36 meters long and 5.5 meters in > diameter. It displaced 500 metric tons and contained enough > propellants for the A4 to last for an ocean voyage of four weeks, > including losses because of evaporation. There were also plans to haul the rocket fuel in tanks in the U-boat (the Germans had built several tanker "Milk Cow" U-boats, so they were familiar with the problems of underwater bulk fuel transport) with the fuel to be pumped into the rockets before launch. > In one proposal, the ballast tanks of the container were to be filled > with diesel oil used by the submarine's engines. The novel exhaust > system for the launcher consisted of ducts that turned the flaming > gases 180 degrees and shot them through the top of the container > itself, a feature that would be incorporated into the underground > launchers of intercontinental ballistic missiles of the United States > and the USSR three decades later. > By early 1945, the Vulkan-Werft had completed all drawings, and > plans were made to begin construction in March. But time was against > this project as it was against the Wasserfall and Taifun*. With the > evacuation of Peenemunde in March and the capture of Stettin in > mid-April, Prufstand XII became a part of the history of what might > have been, given more time by better fortunes for Germany on the > battlefield. Supposedly a few containers were actually completed in Elbing, occupied Poland, late in 1944. This doesn't quite jive with your source, which I trust, so I wonder where the Elbing story came from. > [* The Wasserfall and Taifun were surface-to-air anti-aircraft rockets > that were not fully developed or deployed at the end of the war -dcn] The unguided high-speed Taifun (intended to be fired in large groups at once) came in both liquid and solid fuel varieties, and while motors for both were on the assembly lines when the war ended, trials had not been completed. The infra-red homing Wasserfall (basically a small A-4) was fired 45 times with 12 "successes" reported, whatever that may mean. There was a vast kaleidoscope of SAM missles developed by the Germans during the closing stages of the war, including but not limited to the Konrad Enzian, the Feuerlilie F-25 and F-55, the Hecht, the Rheintochter R1, and the highly advanced Hs 117 Schmetterling. > [from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT > Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ] Among other German plans to hit the USA were: the A-9/A-10 rocket, which topped a large first-stage booster (A-10) with a winged version of the A-4 (A-9). The A-9 was to glide through the atmosphere down to the target after reaching a height of 217 miles, following separation form the A-10 at 110 miles. Slightly feasable for bombardment of USA if the war had lasted another year or so; blueprint stage only. the Messerschmitt "New York Bomber" (I forget the Me designation--maybe 328?), a multi-engine heavy bomber designed for extreme long range. Some advanced features but probably inferior to the B-29. Probably of little value as hordes of US fighters would have eaten it alive before it reached the coast. Actually was built and flown, but was never deployed (anybody know anything else? e-mail only, please) an orbiting bomber project (I think never named) that reached advanced theory stage. The one-man vehicle was to be launched into orbit (using a launch vehicle that was never concieved) and would release one bomb each time it passed over New York, Washington, or Pittsburg. There would be 24 1000 kilogram bombs carried. The vehicle--about the size of a contemporary bomber--would glide back to earth just like the Shuttle. The Germans liked the fact that the US would be utterly unable to do anything to stop the bombs from dropping, even though damage would have been minimal. Ludicrously impossible for the Germans to develop even given a many-year timetable. There were undoubtedly many more proposals, some quite bizarre. Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 87 21:03:00 GMT From: wsmith@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Space Debris /* Written Aug 13, 1987 by kenny@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu in uiucdcsb:sci.space */ >[stuff about LEO collisions] >[conflicting stuff about shuttle window being damaged] According to the August 1987 Scientific American, the damage was sufficient for the window to need to be replaced: "In 1984 the space shuttle Challenger returned from a mission with a pit about a centimeter wide in a pane of its windshield. Investigators discovered that the pane, which had to be replaced, had been struck by a paint flake only .2 millimeter wide." (It might be that there was more than one such similar incident to explain the discrepencies in the reports here.) >I expect better from _Astronomy_'s editorial department. You should then also expect better from Scientific American's editorial department too, because they also carried similar information. In addition, the space telescope may not need to be even hit to be damaged: "Sunlit objects that merely flash through the telescope's field of view may also damage its delicate sensors." "Paul Maley proposed in Astrophysical Journal ... optical flashes thought to be from a gamma-ray source outside the solar system were actually caused by a sunlit Soviet satellite." Bill Smith ihnp4!uiucdcs!wsmith wsmith@a.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Aug 87 19:29:34 GMT From: amdcad!amd!intelca!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Michael McNeil) Subject: Re: "Clarke orbit" In article <12325983640.79.SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU> SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU (John Sotos) writes: >Every once in a while on the net someone will make a reference to >"Clarke orbit." What is the advantage of this term over >"geosynchronous" or "geosync" orbit? I can think of at least two >*disadvantages*: > (1) the meaning of the term is not deducible from the term itself; >[...] > >Sure, Clarke is a good man and deserves to be remembered for his >contribution, but not at the cost of obfuscation. Are you saying you have trouble remembering what the Van Allen belts are? Considering Van Allen's opposition to space travel these days, I'd much rather give credit to Arthur Clarke than a Van Allen or even a "Geosync." Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation Santa Clara, California {hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma} !oliveb!3comvax!michaelm There is in all this a bold analogy between the way in which individuals learn, the way in which species adapt themselves, and the way in which science works. But, of course, it is my point that this is not merely an analogy: it is a true and close relation. Jacob Bronowski, *The Common Sense of Science*, 1967 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 87 01:19:56 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: Space Debris > CHRISTOPHER WELTY: A "postage-stamp sized" paint flake struck one of > the windows of the Challenger in 1983, creating a 2.4 millimter wide > crater in the window. > UIUCDCSB!KENNY: The Challenger had its windshield struck by > something MICROSCOPIC that left a 2.4 millimeter LONG track in the > glass. It wouldn't have been noticed at all except for the fact > that the windshields are regularly inspected because a > micrometeoroid impact is a source of a sample of extraterrestrial > material. I'm not even sure that the track was visible to the naked > eye; it certainly wasn't a 2.4 millimeter crater. Moreover, a > ``postage-stamp-sized'' object would do a LOT more damage than that! Sky & Telescope carried an article on that in a recent issue. Included is a photograph of the crater found on the Shuttle windshield. It was indeed a relatively deep, roundish crater, not a mere "scratch", and was caused by a 0.2 millimeter paint flake. > CHRISTOPHER WELTY: I wonder if the Ruskies are having any problems > with this stuff... The article says a similar crater was found on a Soyuz window; the the cosmonauts inside reportedly heard the impact. > UIUCDCSB!KENNY: Paint flakes and dust particles in LEO are going to > get blown out of orbit pretty quickly, between solar charged > particle interactions, light pressure, and upper atmosphere drag > effects. What is the source that replenishes these ``trillions'' of > particles? The article mentions a study of the micrometeoric impact craters on a satellite recorvered after a stay in orbit. It turned out that most impacts were caused by orbiting aluminum oxide dust from solid rocket exhaust. > UIUCDCSB!KENNY: Remember, except for when it was being done > deliberately, no large object in LEO has ever hit another. None. Probably. But the article mentions a couple of unexplained satellite malfunctions and break-ups which might have been caused by collisions with untracked debris. The article includes a nice plot of the position (at some random point in time) of a few thousand tracked debris around the Earth. I recall that a similar picture, showing only debris in low Earth orbit, appeared recently in Science News or Scientific American. The Sky & Telescope plot is more interesting because it extends out to geosynchronous orbit, which stands out quite clearly, marked by a ring of dead satellites. The worst part of the story is not so much that there are a lot of debris up there, but that once they reach a critical density they may start breeding at an exponential rate. When two pieces of debris collide they may generate thousands of smaller fragments, and some fraction of them will remain in orbit. I bet the Challenger window impact left a few dozen 0.2 millimeter glass chips flying up there... The article is sure worth reading. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 87 23:27:07 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: "Clarke orbit" > Are you saying you have trouble remembering what the Van Allen belts > are? Considering Van Allen's opposition to space travel these days, > I'd much rather give credit to Arthur Clarke... As I've said before, I find the attachment of Van Allen's name to deadly hazards to spaceflight highly appropriate. Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 87 22:38:34 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Space Debris Newsgroups: sci.space Catching up-- >>"postage-stamp sized" paint flake struck one of the windows of the >Uh, wait a minute. Paint flakes and dust particles in LEO are going to >get blown out of orbit pretty quickly, between solar charger particle >interactions, light pressure, and upper atmosphere drag effects. What >is the source that replenishes these ``trillions'' of particles? The drag is less than you think. >The Challenger had its windshield struck by something MICROSCOPIC that >left a 2.4 millimeter LONG track in the glass. It wouldn't have been >noticed at all except for the fact that the windshields are regularly >inspected because a micrometeoroid impact is a source of a sample of >extraterrestrial material. I'm not even sure that the track was >visible to the naked eye; it certainly wasn't a 2.4 millimeter crater. >Moreover, a ``postage-stamp-sized'' object would do a LOT more damage >than that! It was smaller than postage size. Not quite microscopic. It cut the mission short 1 day, it was regarded as very serious. They know it was paint because it was spectroscopically analyzed: very high in TiO2 and other things (stuff of white paint). Do you need the real dimensions? I would have to go to the library to look it up. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #323 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Aug 87 17:46:15 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02445; Mon, 24 Aug 87 03:34:14 PDT id AA02445; Mon, 24 Aug 87 03:34:14 PDT Date: Mon, 24 Aug 87 03:34:14 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708241034.AA02445@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #324 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 324 Today's Topics: Re: Space Debris Re: newsletters, AW&ST summaries (was Re: My grouse with L5) Re: Space Debris Re: Repost: A galactic Calendar The Media and Science Re: SDI funding of space research Soviet "successes" Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 87 19:30:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Space Debris [ Don humble&contrite expression; overlay sheepish grin 8-) (baa!) wield fire extinguisher; write on blackboard 100 times, I will not post at 0130 when I'm only marginally sentient... ] Believe it or not, I had completely, in my 1:30AM fog, forgotten about the paint flake crater. I had confused it with earlier incidents where Orbiter windshields were removed to study micrometeoroid tracks. Yes, the Orbiter windshield has been struck, by a PINHEAD (not postage-stamp) sized paint flake, cratering the windshield. Sorry. BTW, I haven't seen anything on that incident in a while. Does anyone have any idea what the paint was from? Perhaps the orbiter's own ET? The rest of the argument stands. Large objects re-enter *regularly*. Smaller objects ought to have their orbits decay even faster; there's a couple orders of magnitude difference in the Reynolds numbers, after all. If all else fails, it is Kevin Kenny always possible to ensure kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU one's immortality by {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny spectacular error. -J. K. Galbraith. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 87 13:56:45 GMT From: mtune!mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.edu (Evelyn C. Leeper) Subject: Re: newsletters, AW&ST summaries (was Re: My grouse with L5) I apparently mis-read or misinterpreted the request for a Postscript version of Henry's summaries to be a request for a *posting* of Postscript versions instead of the current version. It wasn't. My apologies for flaming the person involved. However, my flames hold for all those who do post only Postscript versions--they're not very useful. Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 87 22:19:26 GMT From: imagen!fjd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Drinkwater) Subject: Re: Space Debris I've been following the 'space debris' discussion for a while now, and There's something a bit odd. By now I suppose we can all take it as given that there have been several 'significant' impacts between functioning satellites/shuttles/etc and various bits of orbiting debris. My question is: What orbits were all of these objects and bits of debris in? It seems obvious (uh-oh...) that for there to be a significant delta-v between two objects implies that they are in significantly different orbits (tautological, even...). The orbital differences might include apogee, perigee, inclination, ... (someone who knows can add to the list). Who has information on what the distribution of junk (functioning and otherwise) is among orbits? How much is in various polar orbits? How much in orbits with significant eccentricity? How much in retrograde orbit? :-) It seems clear that there ought not to be significant impacts between, for instance, a satellite and small bits of its terminal booster. (Note that the terms of the discussion change if we are talking about low-relative- velocity impacts between objects of significant mass.) After all, most of the junk launched into LEO from Kennedy was headed in pretty much the same direction Where this gets really interesting is when you think about all the polar orbit surveillance stuff in LEO (launched mostly by USAF?) versus random low-inclination orbit stuff (e.g. old comsats, SOYUZ, Skylab (RIP), etc.) Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing? Anybody have some numbers? Fred Drinkwater ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 87 21:21:54 GMT From: xanth!kent@AMES.ARPA (Kent Paul Dolan) Subject: Re: Repost: A galactic Calendar [In response to a couple of articles about using the galactic year (sun one trip around the galaxy) as a fundamental unit of time.] It's nice to have _no_ idea how to do the math, so I don't have to feel very responsible for my posting ;-) but I was curious: with billions of other suns to perturb the journey, is it reasonable that the (for want of a term) "solar galactic year" would be a fixed value from one time around to the next? It wouldn't startle me much to be told that it varied thirty percent from one trip to the next. This seems to agree in a coarse measure with the differences in the "Nemesis" extinction cycles, if there is some relationship there. Kent, the man from xanth. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 13:22:07 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 August 20 13:22:07 PDT (=GMT-7hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 August 20 13:26:31 PDT (=GMT-7hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: uunet!mnetor!yetti!geac!chris@seismo.css.gov Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: The Media and Science Date: 12 Aug 87 22:34:34 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!yetti!geac!chris@seismo.css.gov (Chris Syed) Subject: The Media and Science The problem with science is that it is mostly a combination of cerebral things and tedious, lengthy, nitpicky analysis of data - neither of which are right for TV. You are thinking of commercial advertisements and sitcoms. But TV also has soap operas, which drag some spicy mystery on and on for over three months before resolving. If science can be molded into a serial, with enough sex to make the average viewer watch it, it could be presented on TV as a fully developed investigation of mystery instead of just a momentary flash. For example, As The World Turns for a while had a computer hacker named "Ernie", boyfriend of one of the regular young gorgeous women. That subplot lasted only a few months. But if Ernie had been a radio astronomer, and the mystery was some signal he received from Tau Ceti which might be from intelligent life there, and he had to keep it quiet to avoid a panic, but more and more friends of friends found out about it and started asking obvious questions, maybe it could have taught somebody something. Ernie could drop tidbits of information about Tau Ceti being a yellow dwarf just a little smaller than our Sun, and an infrared astronomer he chats with could reveal that a Jupiter-sized planet is suspected around Tau Ceti (not stretching the truth much, and the actual radio signal could turn out to be a new kind of Neutron star). Or somebody on the show could just happen to earn a living at something other than hospital/police/entertainment/construction, for example lunar mining via remote control or Martian rovers etc., and could randomly drift conversation into job worries while sweetheart is trying to get something more sexual happening, but the sweetheart gets drawn into the technical conversation, and even though doesn't understand the details, is able to trigger the worred space scientist into a wonderful idea which results in such appreciation as to provoke a very passionate thank-you kiss followed by a passionate fadeout... I once tried to portray astronomy "as it happens" on film. What I got was a bunch of people sitting around in a visually exciting radio observatory, doing boring things. Would you watch a half- hour show of someone looking at squiggles on paper or chewing a pencil? So, don't show the day to day mundane, show the meetings and briefings. I found the 3-day JPL/PBS coverage of (I think) Pioneer 11 to be very exciting. I liked the way the head scientists of each team would immediately present the latest tentative conclusions based on the very latest data and analysis. For example, somebody explained how the strong dips in ion flux means ions drift down very slowly and stabily from high orbit until they reach an orbit of a moonlet or ring at which point they are almost completely swept up, whereas around Jupiter where there's a strong magnetic field the ions are so highly agitated that they can jump across any satellite-barrier simply by passing across the orbit while the satellite isn't there. Of course I'm a scientist-type, who understands elementary physics and thermodynamics, but perhaps there are enough such laymen to make such a program worthwhile. (Maybe the TV audience isn't as stupid as programing usually assumes?) In any case, live presentations of the latest discoveries is more suitable for TV than a video taping of day to day work. Maybe once in a while a scientist could summarize the experimental/analysis method that was used, but mostly just present the conjectures and arguments together with nice graphs of the data that supports it. But more importantly, it would be nice to figure out how to get stuff _regularly_ on computing, space, astronomy, anything scientific or technological, onto prime time network feed. At least, it seems like a reasonable course to me. And I'd hazard a guess that production-value - flashy visuals, something like an unfolding story, would be prime requirements. Re flashing visuals, be sure you do *NOT* use the "multimedia" approach typically used by Foothill College (Los Altos Hills, California), whereby they create a flashy visual effect by sliding various stills past each other, fading stills in and out in a multiple exposure, gradually changing magnification of a still to make it look like we're approaching it, etc. That stuff is utter crap and turns me off so much I reject watching it. If you have a computer simulation of travel through space, fine, but don't try to achieve the same effect by multimedia trickery, it looks too phony and turns people off about science or about your presentation, or if people believe it they get misled about how things would really look. Time lapse sequences of Voyager approaching Jupiter are really neat. Fake approach by taking a single still and gradually making it larger is crap. Hmmm, if toy companies can produce half-hour programs for children that are not much more than half-hour commercials for their toys (is the toy based on the program, or is the program based on the toy?), then why can't we produce half-hour programs for housewives and other soap-operas watchers which are really political advertisements for more funding for space? We hook the viewer on the excitement of space, get the viewer really in favor of some particular project, then drop the sad news that the project might be cut due to lack of funds, if only every viewer would telephone congresscritter's local office ... ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 87 16:19:29 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research > ... (I know the military uses space, but there aren't any major > weapon systems there yet.)... Remember that an absolute ban on weapons in space would ground all ICBMs. (A good idea, too.) Frankly, it strikes me as academic that ICBM warheads are in space only briefly -- it's still a military use of space, and one that is much bigger and more significant than the penny-ante stuff that the current squabbling is about. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 87 13:41 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: Soviet "successes" To: John Unekis Date: 30 Jul 87 18:36:23 GMT From: jplgodo!wlbr!etn-rad!jru@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (John Unekis) This is getting nauseating. Could we please stop flagellating ourselves with the Soviet space accomplishments. They have had more than their share of failures. Remember when one of their cosmonauts accidently opened a valve and let the air out of his capsule ? No, I don't. Are you referring to the Salyut 1 crew reentry, when an accidental decompression (of course, since they didn't have space suits) caused NOT by one of the cosmonauts caused all three of them to die? Remember when they had a retro-rocket failure and their hard-landing was really a hard landing? No, I don't. By retro-rocket I assume you mean one to cushion the landing on earth rather than exit orbit, since a failure of the latter is more spectacular. Just FYI, other failures the Soviets have had include Soyuz 1's reentry, when (according to the official explanation) tangled parachute lines caused a parachute malfunction, causing the Soyuz to crash, killing the pilot (Komarov, the first man to return to space), several (like 5) failures of Soyuz craft to dock with Salyut stations, the world's longest suborbital flight, when a problem separating the 4 booster pods from the first stage prevented the second stage from firing, causing the two cosmonauts to endure a somewhat severe reentry uncomfortably close (from their point of view) to the Chinese border, and a fire on the pad which caused the blockhouse crew to have to fire the escape rockets to save the crew. The only thing that the Soviets do better than the U.S. is to control their press. This is bull, and contradicted by your following comments. I'm really disgusted with everyone blaming "the press" for all problems. When I was growing up, it was "society". It's a cop-out either way. If they blow up a rocket, there is no Congressional Comittee set up to publicly humiliate the Nation for months on end. If you're referring to the Rogers Comission, it was a presidentially appointed commission. I'm also pretty disgusted with knee-jerk Congress bashing. There is no television coverage of the engineers responsible being asked to rat on their superiors and incriminate government officials. What position are you taking here? That the Morton-Thiokol engineers were wrong to restate their positions? That the investigation shouldn't have been carried out? They simply take those responsible for the failure out, shoot them through the kneecaps, and then get on with the business of exploring space. They do get on with the business of exploring space. The first part of the sentence is simply unfounded caricature. We seem to have a national obsession with guilt. We must indulge ourselves in an orgy of accusations and incriminations to clear the national conscience. The net result is that we embarass ourselves in the eyes of the world and learn almost nothing of real value. Still want to stick with your "the only thing the Soviets do better that the U.S. is to control their press" statement? What is the actual result of the Challenger crash? A rocket booster sprang a leak and the ship blew up killing the crew. SO WHAT!!! We kill more people on our highways every day than have died in the entire history of our space program. Why can't we just accept that these are the risks associated with space exploration and get on with it. The more man ventures into space, the more people will eventually die there. These people will be heroes for taking the risks that they do, but our entire space effort shouldn't be brought to its knees every time there is a casualty. I mostly agree with this. However, the *result* of "the Challenger crash" is that we have lost 1/4 of our primary space transportation system, and said system has been exposed to a lot of scrutiny which seems to indicate that the *system* was flawed from the beginning (or at least overrated). Further, the American people (not Congress, not the press) seem to not be terribly concerned about our future in space, as long as we "get the shuttle flying again". ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 87 21:08:10 GMT From: scherzo!lyang@sun.com (Larry Yang) Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands In article <231@etn-rad.UUCP> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis) writes: >In article <8707300454.AA04852@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes: >> The Russian/Syrian space mission ended today (July 29th) when the >>Soyuz TM-2 spacecraft returned to earth. . . . . . . . >> >> They are obviously building up to a constant presence in space. >>I wish we were. > > This is getting nauseating. Could we please stop flagellating > ourselves with the Soviet space accomplishments. I don't think that hearing about things that we cannot get from NASA, our President, or even our media is flagellating ourselves. It's looking at reality. (BTW, I don't read Aviation Week, although I probably should start) Admittedly, Glenn's last statement was a little editorial, but I've found his little summaries very informative. Doesn't it bother people that the Soviets are doing things that we won't be doing until at least 10 years from now? The Soviets probably have acquired more knowledge about long-term human space habitation; I think we should look at their results, rather than ignore them. I think any good scientist will agree. --Larry Yang [lyang@sun.com,{backbone}!sun!lyang] Sun Microsystems, Inc., Mountain View, CA ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #324 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Aug 87 06:19:00 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01355; Tue, 25 Aug 87 03:17:22 PDT id AA01355; Tue, 25 Aug 87 03:17:22 PDT Date: Tue, 25 Aug 87 03:17:22 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708251017.AA01355@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #325 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 325 Today's Topics: Re: Re:Soviet/Syrian comments Re: Pro-Space Publicity Improved rocket technology Re: Why [not] air-breathing boosters? Re: Government in space Re: Phoenix launch vehicle Re: Phoenix launch vehicle Re: Phoenix launch vehicle Re: Phoenix launch vehicle Man-rated boosters ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 87 17:27:26 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Re: Re:Soviet/Syrian comments In Space Digest of Aug6th John Unekis makes the following comment on my posting of the Soviet/Syrian mission: >In article <8707300454.AA04852@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes: > [. . . -Ed] >This is getting nauseating. [. . . -Ed] This posting illustrates well a couple of the reasons why I post the Soviet space results to the net here. The first is to inform people about what they are doing, because the general press gives really bad description of the Russian work. Consider that the "facts" Mr. Unekis are wrong. The Soyuz 11 crew died when the retro rocket firing knocked open a pressure release value that was used on landing, not from opening it themselves (the crew was cranking closed the value when they died - it took longer to close manually than to evacuate the Soyuz). Since then all their crews have had pressure suits in the capsules. Also the retro rocket on Soyuz 1 did not fail giving the cosmonaut a hard landing - the burn can at the wrong time, and the capsule was tumbling. The cosmonaut died when his parachut line became entangled. Ignorance of what the other countries are doing is not going to help our program, only hurt it by making it easy for us to hide our heads in the sand and assume that we are ahead. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 87 04:14:49 GMT From: ecsvax!ruslan@mcnc.org (Robin C. LaPasha) Subject: Re: Pro-Space Publicity In article <131@geovision.UUCP>, alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes: > (BTW, how many people know that "mir" also means "outpost" or "fort"? > The fortified settlements on the Siberian frontier in the last century > (analogous to the old western frontier in North America) were called > mirs.) > Alastair JW Mayer Well, "mir" does have several meanings. World, peace (from two different original words, but I digress...) Mir does mean settlement as well, like settlement/community/village etc., not necessarily a "fortified outpost" affair. Remember, though, the Russian settlements were not only "analogous to the old western frontier in North America," they were over here. Their outposts spread from Siberia to Alaska (1792) and California (1841). They got around. Robin LaPasha ruslan@ecsvax.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 1987 17:44-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Improved rocket technology Andy: It's been said that to every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. I've heard opinions both ways from people who really should know. What is innovative about the design seems to be more the fact that it's actually intended to be built rather than done as an R&D try it and scrap it program. I discussed it sometime back with E. Doug Ward, former President of Astrotech. He worked for the people who tested the aerospike back in the fifties. (Aerojet I think). His opinion is that the specs are too optimistic and the problems will come in the combining of the pieces. His experience is that rockets are not just simple combinations of proven subsystems. They have to be understand and tested as a single entity. Although much of this can now be simulated, his experience is that simulation can also be a false comfort. Maxwell Hunter, a very senior engineer at Lockheed Missiles and Space, has told me "Gary is the only one in the business doing it right". Pick your expert or flip a coin... The bigger question in my own mind is whether he can find sufficient funding even at the 'low' price tag he is claiming. The biggest venture capital deal to date was $50M for Orbital Services Corporation, and I've hard that Wall Street is very unlikely to do it again. The US launch problems have pushed the payback back too far for them, decreasing the ROI relative to other possibilities. However, I have been hearing that there is a good bit of off shore money interested in projects like this, so who knows? ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 87 18:42:01 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Why [not] air-breathing boosters? > What are the technical problems with this approach? Obviously, we > haven't tried an air-breathing first stage on orbital launchers > before... I think the main reason (Dani may correct me on this...) is simply that they look unattractive compared to rockets unless some special virtue like reusability is important. The 8:1 thrust-to-weight ratio of a good modern jet sounds impressive until you look at the T:W ratio for rocket engines! I don't have numbers handy, but I doubt that the F-1 weighed more than a few thousand pounds, and its thrust was slightly over 1.5 *million* pounds. And it was deliberately a low-tech engine in every way except sheer size. Actually, it might be interesting to look at the performance of specialized jet engines, like the old Rolls-Royce lift engines. These were meant for VTOL designs using entirely separate engines for jet lift and normal forward flight. They had some of the characteristics that one would like for a booster application; in particular, they were designed to be light and to spend most of their operating lives at wide-open maximum thrust. One obvious problem is that they probably weren't built for supersonic speeds. Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 87 22:46:28 GMT From: topaz.rutgers.edu!rubin@rutgers.edu (Mike Rubin) Subject: Re: Government in space In article <236204.870801.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: > No government spending on space could ever lead to anything useful. > If a use of space is worth more than it costs, individuals and > companies will voluntarily invest in it. If a use of space is worth > less than it costs, nobody should spend anything. And if there is any > doubt as to whether a use of space is worth as much as it costs, let > only those who consent risk their money on it, by investing in > whatever company. There are three problems inherent to the space business that do seem to suggest a useful role for the government. First, any new enterprise will take several years to start operation. The investors must have reasonable assurances that it won't get wiped out by regulatory changes in the meantime. Second, the startup capital required seems to be so huge that only a government or an Arab oil sheik could put it up. Publicly held corporations (i.e. Big Aerospace) cannot, even if they want to, because they are bound by charter not to gamble large fractions of their net worth on risky projects. Multiple Big Aerospace companies can't team up and share the costs because that would fall under antitrust laws. Third, the foreign competitors are subsidized by their taxpayers. No, the government shouldn't be in the business of designing and flying hardware for civilian use. Hell, they can't even build highways right any more! What they *should* be doing is facilitating private enterprise. This means a guarantee of initial launch business; an insurance setup (fully or quasi-public) that can protect against Acts of Congress and other such external impositions, as well as solve the thorny problem of accident liability; loosening of antitrust and SEC regulations if necessary (and certainly removal of the silly stuff like import duties from orbit); and subsidy in the form of tax breaks only to counter foreign subsidies. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 87 21:51:48 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle > > In addition, the thing is > > supposed to get a higher exhaust velocity by burning an oxygen-rich > > fuel mix. > > Shouldn't this read "hydrogen-rich"? My spies report that "oxygen-rich" is for real. The notion is to squeeze a bit more performance by varying the mixture ratio, sort of a simple version of the more complex dual-fuel engine. I would guess oxygen-rich at takeoff, for greater overall fuel density and (perhaps) higher thrust, changing to hydrogen-rich at altitude for higher exhaust velocity. I would not want to be assigned to developing the combustion-chamber lining, but otherwise it doesn't sound that hard. The performance gain would not be large, but single-stage-to-orbit is so borderline that small gains can be important. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 87 04:49:52 GMT From: jade!web4h!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle I managed to get Gary Hudson's phone number from the person who gave me the _Phoenix_ paper, and I pestered GH at home. Very informative and polite, given that I was being a bit of a jerk by contacting him in this manner. Anyhow, here are my tablets from Mt. Sinai: Yes, it really does burn an oxygen rich mix during the first part of the ascent. According to GH, the idea is to max out "specific density flow as opposed to specific impulse." I think the idea here is that though the exhaust velocity will be lower, the total change in momentum of the expelled fuel will be higher. GH claims that were one to take out the hydrogen tank in the proposed National Aerospace Plane and replace it with a hydrogen/oxygen system (not air-breathing) it would multiply the payload by a factor of two or more. In article <1368@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >Some background: in 1985 Boeing was asked by the Air Force to evaluate >the Phoenix. We understand that Hudson was asking the AF for use of >Vandenberg AFB as a launch site. They asked us if the Phoenix concept >was 'for real'. Hudson claimed that this wasn't quite the way it happened, but that's not relevant to the design. >Our conclusions were: >(1) Hudson's weight growth margin of 5%, given the number of advanced >technologies in the Phoenix, was overly optimistic. It should be in >the 15-25% range. Hudson sez': The numbers for the Phoenix estimates were based on an all-metal craft, while "those guys" typically start with a design using lighter composites. His design has room for mass loss. Also, even with a 25% mass growth, the payload would only be halved. Still a super deal. >(2) The weight statement in their baseline concept underestimates >certain components, such as the passenger door and cargo door. These >are described as similar to airplane doors, but the weights used by >Hudson were much smaller than airline practice. According to Hudson, circular doors can be much lighter than rectangular airplane doors. He made a lot of arguments abouts stresses that I didn't understand. >(3) The advanced technologies (aerospike, slush propellants) are >inconsistent with the idea '$200 million to develop'. We estimated >$2.2 billion total development cost for the Phoenix concept as >described by Hudson. GH pointed to the more complicated $165M SR71, and claimed to be modeling costs along the same lines as the Japanese H2 rocket. Last year Lockheed (sp?) studied the _Phoenix_ as the _Lockheed X-rocket_. They thought they could get better performance than Hudson, but it would run $600Meg to develop. [Me:] The price of two shuttle laaunches seems like quite a bargain. I wonder if it's too good to be true. For those of you who commented about the lack of technology in pumping slush hydrogen, GH claims that the viscosity of slush H2 and liquid H2 are so close that existing LH2 pumps will work. Although, he did say that the tank design is a bit different because the partial pressure of gas H2, when the tank starts draining is substantially lower. Somebody, a week or two ago, in this group, had the bright idea of donating time and available resources to "the cause." Hudson said that, yes indeed, some PROGRAMMING and other chores that might be worth the hassle of dealing with folks, if they were free. Here's how to contact him: Gary Hudson Pacific American Launch Systems 10 Dolphin Drive Redwood City, CA 94065 (415)595-6500 --Adam Adam J. Richter adamj@bartleby.berkeley.edu ...!ucbvax!bartleby!adamj (609)734-6525 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 87 16:38:51 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle I've chatted with Gary Hudson, he knows his stuff. The technology in _Phoenix_ (reusable, ballistic SSTO) has all been demonstrated, if not exactly "off-the-shelf". (A technical paper on this design was presented at the annual AAAS meeting a couple of years ago. Less technical stuff may be available from Pacific-American Launch Systems) From other people who'd know - engineers with many years in the space business and now senior people with co's like Boeing Aerospace - the general consensus is that it'll work, if. The "if's" are limited to the pumping of slush hydrogen already mentioned (this has been demonstrated at the flow rates required, but not yet in rockets); to the use of O2 rich exhaust products (can be handled by appropriate choice of materials for the combustors, etc); and to some slight criticism of the design of the fuel tank and whether weight/stiffness/strength estimates are accurate (considering that the major structural material is aluminum - for low cost - there's room for improvement even if these concerns are valid, but apparently these concerns were based on incomplete structural drawings). For all that, the thing will still fly even without recourse to slush hydrogen, etc. It just won't be able to carry quite as much payload, hence the cost/lb to orbit will be higher. (In his more optimistic moments Hudson claims that he could make a profit at <<$100/lb) As far as non-technical objections go, some people aren't too fond of the vertical landing technique (there was quite a discussion with Rick Cook about this on BIX/space a while back) but that's no worse than Harrier jump-jets or how we landed men on the moon. Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair Let's build a base on the Moon on our way to the asteroids - forget Mars. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 87 23:29:08 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle > ...some people aren't too fond > of the vertical landing technique... but that's no worse > than Harrier jump-jets or how we landed men on the moon. The Harrier pilots are fond of commenting that stopping and then landing is much easier than landing and then trying to stop. Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ From: bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Date: 14 Aug 87 10:40:00 EST Subject: Man-rated boosters Reply-To: One or two simple questions: Can the Big Dumb Boosters currently under discussion be rated to carry people? What does "man-rated" really mean? I assume it is just a higher level of reliability, but can anyone provide some specifics? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #325 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Aug 87 11:24:48 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00980; Wed, 26 Aug 87 03:17:38 PDT id AA00980; Wed, 26 Aug 87 03:17:38 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Aug 87 03:17:38 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708261017.AA00980@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #326 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 326 Today's Topics: space news from July 13 AW&ST Re: SDI funding of space research Re: SDI funding of space research Re: Man-rated boosters ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Aug 87 00:03:03 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from July 13 AW&ST [This one is rather long; there is a lot of news.] A Japenese construction firm is studying an oceangoing launch platform. Harvard Business School report on commercial space, not published yet, says the single biggest obstacle to space commerce is repeated changes in US government policy, with high costs and lack of access to space tied for second. Widespread discontent in NASA and aerospace industry with lack of leadership in civilian space program; Fletcher and Presidential Science Advisor Graham are particularly unpopular. "Numerous veteran NASA managers told AW&ST that Fletcher is regarded as inarticulate and uninformed..." House overwhelmingly approves $9.51G NASA authorization for FY88, after defeating amendments to ban weapons testing on station and to require NASA's top two positions to be held by civilians. Sally Ride's study team, assessing major new space goals, will firmly endorse a Moon base as the next step in manned space exploration. It will also recommend an aggressive Earth-observation program as a major priority for space science. The team's report will go to Fletcher early in August. It proposes return to the Moon by year 2000, with the shuttle, a heavylift launcher, and the space station as necessary tools. Mars is endorsed as a desirable long-term goal, but a manned lunar base should come first. Reviving planetary science will also be stressed, especially with reference to the vigorous Soviet program; CRAF (comet rendezvous asteroid flyby) and Mars sample return are identified as important, but Earth observation -- multiple shuttle and station payloads, plus a number of polar-orbit and Clarke-orbit platforms, some of them built by Europe and Japan -- is given the #1 spot in planetary science. The Clarke-orbit platforms would be assembled at the space station. Michael Collins [Apollo 11], who chaired the NASA Advisory Council group that recommended Mars, disagrees that it is necessary to go back to the Moon before Mars. However, he notes that his group was divided on this issue, and that its final recommendations left open the possibility that the Moon would be a useful intermediate step. Ride: "We do not really have a strategy for human exploration in NASA. We have the shuttle and the station but they are not a strategy for human exploration... the correct approach is to move slowly and responsibly from low Earth orbit and to first explore the Moon. There are a lot of good reasons to go back to the Moon... The US did not finish the job we started during the Apollo project. There is still a lot of lunar exploration, lunar science, and research on advanced technologies to be done..." She says studies are underway on what effects this will have on the space station design. "We need a much more robust space transportation capability than a four-shuttle fleet." A shuttle-derived heavylift launcher would suffice to get things started, although a bigger one might be needed later. The "Pathfinder" technology effort should be started at once to make the necessary new technologies ["Necessary" new technologies? Nonsense. Try "useful". -- HS] available in time; this may take a fight, because the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting is against major Pathfinder funding in FY89. "Starting Pathfinder is something we can do now... It does not require billions of dollars. Until we start Pathfinder and other key technologies we always are going to be 10-20 years from completing these goals." Additional work on closed-cycle life-support and human response to free-fall are particularly important. [HOORAY! For once, a NASA committee says something sensible! -- HS] US and USSR will cooperate in September launch of Soviet Vostok biosat, carrying rats and monkeys to study free-fall and radiation effects. NASA team is in Moscow to straighten out details. US dosimeters will be on board the satellite, and US investigators will participate in dissection and analysis of results. The spacecraft is the same type that Yuri Gagarin rode in 1961. Indonesian delegation to visit Moscow to discuss launching future Indonesian comsats on Soviet boosters. NRC review team raises doubts about NASA's space-station cost estimates. It says that the bill for the phase-one station will be $25G, not $14.5G, including support and launch costs. NASA says this is silly, since other NASA programs do not have support and launch costs charged against their budgets, and that the station cost estimates stand. NRC says the full phase-two station would total $33G; NASA notes that phase two has not been approved and probably won't be. The NRC numbers are going to cause trouble in Congress, though, with Proxmire already taking note. NRC notes several serious uncertainties in costs: the stations's total dependency on the shuttle, the policy of providing minimal backup hardware (there will be spares for on-orbit maintenance, but no real coverage against loss of an entire launch's payload), and complicated and messy management structures. NASA asks Congress to approve use of $3M in station funds for a detailed look at a crew-rescue vehicle, another thing that NRC noted the lack of. Costs for such a vehicle are estimated at $1.5-2G. [Micro-editorial: two billion for a crew-rescue vehicle is ridiculous. What is needed is a couple of Apollo command modules -- the contingency rescue plan for Skylab put five people in an Apollo -- and some minor bits of extra hardware. This would involve some new development, since the leftover Apollo hardware is undoubtedly no longer spaceworthy, but there is no reason to start the design from scratch. -- HS] Japan's Space Activities Commission issues report calling for major funding for various projects, including the Hope spaceplane. Japan's seven largest companies form Pacific Spaceport Group to look at spaceport sites in the Pacific. The Australian state of Queensland is a prime candidate, as is the Japanese island of Hokkaido. Congress gives NASA and USAF $75M more for heavylift launcher work, with a stipulation that it not be used for early SDI deployment in 1993-4. NASA's responsibilities in the ALS project are ill-defined, but its role has been boosted because it got $38M of the $75M. The early-90s interim ALS idea was specifically not funded. Eutelsat confirms order for a fourth Eutelsat 2 comsat from the European consortium that is building the earlier ones. Inmarsat is providing capacity on its Atlantic comsat free for a Canadian experiment in providing reliable communications for air ambulances. Canada approves [at last! -HS] development of the Radarsat remote-sensing satellite, for launch in 1994. It's cut down a bit from the original idea, but remains a synthetic-aperture radar with resolution of 10-100m depending on operating mode. Radarsat has until the end of the year to reaffirm US and British participation, both of which are a bit less than certain due to the delays in starting the program. Britain would provide the spacecraft bus and possibly a couple of experiments, but the muddled situation of the British space plan and changes in British space leadership makes this no longer a sure thing. The US would provide the launch, but NOAA no longer wants to fly an instrument on Radarsat and the aftereffects of Challenger make the US role uncertain too. German participation is a possibility. The new Radarsat plan is for a non-refurbishable satellite (the old one was to be shuttle-serviceable) with a lifetime of five years (was ten) and a launch in 1994 (was 1991). Wide-beam coverage will be a swath of 500km at 100m resolution, narrow-beam will be 55km at 10m, medium-beam will be 100km at 25m. Medium-beam can be pointed anywhere within Radarsat's 700km ground track. The combination will give complete daily coverage of ice conditions in the Canadian Arctic, an important application not possible with Landsat or Spot (even ignoring clouds, which won't bother Radarsat). AW&ST tours Chinese Xichang launch facility, noting new facilities under construction. Three more Long March 3 launches are set for next year, two with US commercial payloads if US government approval can be had. New facilities are a big spacecraft-prep building with clean-room areas (for foreigners, the Chinese don't bother keeping their satellites antiseptic), data relay systems, a spacecraft propellant-loading building, a building for storing and preparing satellite solid-rocket motors, a chilled-X-ray facility for final checkout of solid motors, a clean room at satellite level in the servicing tower on the pad, and other odds and ends. "The scene in the last mile of road leading up to the pad was unlike anything that would ever be viewed at the US, Soviet or European launch sites. Villagers were leading donkeys, young girls strolled with sun umbrellas and water buffalo waded in rice paddies, all within the immediate vicinity of the booster service tower... Two PLA guards were stationed under a multi- colored beach umbrella at the entrance to the pad... Chinese children were swimming near the pad..." The locals *do* get evacuated before an actual launch, and are taken to a nearby town for a movie or equivalent. Things are kept as simple as possible. The water-flood system for the pad is by gravity from a tank on a nearby mountain. The launch pad is set to the proper azimuth using a laser measuring system and hand cranks! [Is it any wonder their launches are half the price of anyone else's? --HS] Germany and Italy are proposing Topas, a recoverable microgravity capsule launched by Scout from the San Marco platform off Kenya, as a way of getting microgravity experiments into space soon, aiming at first flight in 1989. GE's off-the-shelf reentry capsules would be used. Flights would last 2-14 days and would be available every few months. Capacity is 100-120kg. Cost-effectiveness would be secondary to schedule. There is also a tentative agreement to fly European biological microgravity payloads on the Soviet Biocosmos spacecraft, with negotiations underway on materials science. NASA is facing a choice for the FY89 new science start: CRAF or the Advanced X-Ray Astronomy Facility. There is thought to be no hope of getting both. Fletcher is generally pessimistic about major new funding for anything in the near future. Processing of Discovery for STS-26 will start in September and end in March. SRBs will arrive in December and stack in January. Rollout will be in March and the flight-readiness firing in April or May, for launch in June. NASA safety office is starting projects to study microgravity fires, space debris protection, and software error detection and prevention. Miscellaneous quotes from the letters page: "It took 10 years to reach the Moon; it should not take 20 years to return there." "...the Soviet Union has won the space race as far as there has been any such." And the letter of the week, responding to an AW&ST article expressing various reservations about the mediasat idea: "...The article expressed views I expect from Soviet and US intelligence authorities protecting their information turf. The interests of the common man are quite different... "'Satellite images could... deprive US troops of... surprise.' Also, anyone else's troops. Surprise benefits the aggressor... "'News... organizations could... reveal sensitive information about other countries, provoking an attack on the US...' Trans- lated, it would be more difficult for foreign leaders to lie to us. Good. As for the attacks, that's what we pay DOD $300 billion a year to take care of. "'Mediasat images could provide intelligence to countries that do not own reconnaissance satellites.' Good. See the first point. "'Images... could reveal facts about an unfolding crisis...' Again, it's more difficult to lie. Good... "'The news media may misinterpret satellite images in such a way as to precipitate a crisis.' Granted. So could the intelligence community..." "Al Globus, California" -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 87 02:43:56 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research In article <1837@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes: > There are studies that indicate that the Apollo program has paid back > the economy many times over, even if you don't look at spin-off > technologies. What we need is a strong program in basic technologies > which will make working in space routine. If we could only get SDI > funding levels for basic space research. > > Gerry Gleason The SDI program IS funding space research, although not at the 'basic science' level. I am aware of this through my daytime job at Boeing. The SDIO is painfully aware that the present cost of space transportation makes deployment of a defensive system in space prohibitively expensive. Because of this, they are spending $70 million this year and more in the next several years to develop space transportation technology. The stated goal is to develop an 'Advanced Launch System' which will operate at 10% of today's costs. Today's costs are defined as the total cost (including cost of failures) of the Titan 4 rocket, which is estimated at $4,800 per pound (about $10,000 per kilogram). About 25% of the cost is due to failures. The key technologies for a next-generation rocket are: o Reuseable Hydrocarbon Rocket Engine This will raise the specific impulse of a booster from 260 seconds for today's solid boosters to about 350 seconds. o Automated Mission Planning This will reduce the manpower required to plan flights o Recovery Module Technology This will allow precision return to the surface of about 20 ton module with all the valuble parts of a second stage. You also want to incorporate 'redundancy' in your systems, such as having a spare booster engine, and two or three sets of flight electronics. This will reduce the failure rate over today's rockets. In the non-rocket areas of space propulsion, the SDI program is pushing electromagnetic guns and lasers very heavily. Both of these can be used for space launch. The main holdup in these concepts has been their small size relative to what is needed for useful payloads to orbit. In the laser area especially, higher power is a major goal of the program. If we can build lasers big enough to shoot down missiles (100 Megawatt range) we can also launch into orbit. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 87 16:57:18 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research > ... they are spending $70 million this year and more in the next > several years to develop space transportation technology. The stated > goal is to develop an 'Advanced Launch System' which will operate at > 10% of today's costs... Yup, yup, gotta have an *advanced* launch system. Lessee, we need reusable hydrocarbon engines, automated mission planning, recoverable second-stage hardware, fault-tolerant engine clusters and electronics, ... Now, who is this contract being run by? Why, bless my soul, by that eternal paragon of penny-pinching, the US military. And who'll do the work? Those ultra-productive, hyper-efficient defense contractors. Let me get my calculator to figure out how much this is going to cost. Uh oh. My calculator only goes to 8 digits. 10% of today's costs, you say? Haven't I heard that before? The way to make a cheaper launcher is to keep it simple and not too big, and gear up for two launches a *week* instead of two a year. And oh yes, the most vital step is to rigorously exclude anything labelled "advanced". (Barring defense contractors from the bidding and bypassing the standard military procurement procedures would help too...) Such a launch system already exists and is very successful: the Soviet "A" booster. There is no reason why the US couldn't build something similar. The ALS as currently planned will *not* be it, and will *not* be cheap. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 87 18:14:07 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: Man-rated boosters In article <8708171544.AA04173@galileo.s1.gov>, bouldin@CEEE-SED.ARPA writes: > One or two simple questions: Can the Big Dumb Boosters currently under > discussion be rated to carry people? What does "man-rated" really mean? > I assume it is just a higher level of reliability, but can anyone > provide some specifics? The Saturn V/Apollo was considered "man rated" after two successful test flights. These *were* pretty thorough tests, with all three stages live, in-space restart of the S-IVB, etc. to duplicate everything that had to be done on a real manned moon flight. The flights were instrumented to the max (that's where a lot of the stage-separation footage came from), and apparently everything not only worked but worked pretty close to the way it was expected to. At least one of the flights included using the second S-IVB burn to accelerate the spacecraft toward the atmosphere for a return- from-the-moon speed re-entry test. The IB, I believe, also had two unmanned test flights (and the Saturn I had several flights of its own), and the Titan II/Gemini was flown twice before being manned (this is why the "Molly Brown" was officially designated GT-3; GT-1 and GT-2 were the test flights). Of course, the Titan II had been tested as an ICBM many times before that. The Shuttle, of course, flew manned on its very first test flight; indeed, the first time the SRBs had even been fired in a vertical position. They apparently had a lot of confidence. As for the Dumb Booster, keep in mind that the three most critical engines on the Apollo (SM engine, LM descent engine and LM ascent engine) were designed to be extremely Dumb. The much-mentioned issue of Newsweek quotes NASA as specifying that the engines should be "so dumb they couldn't fail." This would seem to imply that man-rating a Big Dumb Booster should be easier than man-rating a shuttle. Side note on the Newsweek article, by the way: they mentioned that McDonnell Douglas (is this the right company?) is talking about strapping seven Deltas (currently our most cost-effective launcher) together to make a big, semi-dumb booster. This sounds an awful lot like the Saturn I, and nobody thought that was a dumb idea at the time... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #326 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Aug 87 06:19:58 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02522; Thu, 27 Aug 87 03:18:27 PDT id AA02522; Thu, 27 Aug 87 03:18:27 PDT Date: Thu, 27 Aug 87 03:18:27 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708271018.AA02522@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #327 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 327 Today's Topics: Funding for Phoenix and other Pacific-American projects Re: Phoenix launch vehicle Re: Phoenix launch vehicle Re: SDI funding of space research Re: Phoenix launch vehicle Re: Phoenix launch vehicle Re: Man-rated boosters Re: FTL and time travel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Aug 87 15:12:46 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Funding for Phoenix and other Pacific-American projects Last time I talked to Gary Hudson - quite a few months ago - he was brushing up on his Japanese.. Phoenix aside, PacAmerican has some other systems on the drawing board - there was an ad for Liberty, a cheap, dumb, expendable booster, in AW&ST and Commercial Space a few months ago. Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair Let's build a base on the Moon on our way to the asteroids - forget Mars. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 87 14:17:27 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle In article <4224@hplabsb.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >In article <4566@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, adamj@web4h.BERKELEY.EDU writes: >> In addition, the thing is supposed to get a higher exhaust velocity >> by burning an oxygen-rich fuel mix. > >Shouldn't this read "hydrogen-rich"? No, "oxygen-rich" is correct, but "higher exhaust velocity" isn't. The stoichometric exhaust product of H2-O2 rockets is of course just water, molecular weight 18. Thrust is proportional to molecular weight of the exhaust products. In the initial boost phase, you want high *thrust*, and the hell with Isp, just to get the thing off the ground. Enriching the exhaust with oxygen (molecular weight 32) instead of hydrogen (mw 2) gives you the added kick you need to get off the pad. Later on you change the mix ratio to give better Isp. -- Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair Let's build a base on the Moon on our way to the asteroids - forget Mars. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 87 14:38:16 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle In article <1368@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: > >Some background: in 1985 Boeing was asked by the Air Force >to evaluate the Phoenix. We understand that Hudson was [...] >Our conclusions were: [..some probably legitimate concerns..] >(3) The advanced technologies (aerospike, slush propellants) are >inconsistent with the idea '$200 million to develop'. We estimated >$2.2 billion total development cost for the Phoenix concept as >described by Hudson. Hmm, I can't help but wonder if that factor of 10 difference has more to do with the Big Aerospace Co With Lots of Juicy Federal Contracts And Deals With Similar Big Aerospace Co's [see the Newsweek report] way of doing things vs. the Lean Startup Company way of doing things, considering the amount of work already done on aerospikes in the 60s. (Slush propellents I'm a bit doubtful of myself) [...] >Now, there are ways to improve the performance of the Phoenix so that >it can be made to work. One way is to get a bunch of fighter engines >(F-100), strap them onto the Phoenix, and use them as boosters up to >about Mach 2.5 in a vertical takeoff mode. The jet engines then peel >off and land as RPVs. A fighter engine can lift 8 times it's own >weight at sea level. Hey, I *like* that. Hadn't seen it suggested before - and it sounds a lot more comfortable than having all that hot, O2-rich exhaust around the launch area. It *does* add to the complexity, upping both unit cost and operations cost, and turnaround time. (Did the Boeing study address the operating cost and turnaround time aspects of Phoenix? I think Hudson was estimating, using automated checkout systems, a 24-48hr turnaround with a ground crew of 12 or so, once the thing was out of prototype stage. *That's* wehere the money is really saved.) [...] >Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder Alastair JW Mayer ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 87 02:25:48 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research In article <8434@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > ... they are spending $70 million this year and more in the next > > several years to develop space transportation technology. The > > stated goal is to develop an 'Advanced Launch System' which will > > operate at 10% of today's costs... > > Yup, yup, gotta have an *advanced* launch system. Lessee, we need > reusable hydrocarbon engines, automated mission planning, recoverable > second-stage hardware, fault-tolerant engine clusters and electronics, > ... Now, who is this contract being run by? Why, bless my soul, by > that eternal paragon of penny-pinching, the US military. And who'll > do the work? Those ultra- productive, hyper-efficient defense > contractors. Let me get my calculator to figure out how much this is > going to cost. Uh oh. My calculator only goes to 8 digits. I take no credit for naming the program. In fact, it has changed at least eight times in the last six years. I neglected to point out in my previous posting that the NASA space research and technology budget is about $150 million per year, thus the ALS funding adds 50% to the national spending level in that area. The goal is $54 million per flight for a vehicle with a 150,000 lb payload flying 82 flights per year in the year 2000. Write those down somewhere and see how close we actually become. > 10% of today's costs, you say? Haven't I heard that before? Yes. That was about the claim for the space shuttle. Then the US put up 50% of the development money required. Then they picked the wrong end of the rocket (the orbiter) to make reuseable. If you actually look at where the savings will come from, most of it is simply economy of scale of payload and higher flight rates. About a factor of 2 is due to better technology. > The way to make a cheaper launcher is to keep it simple and not too > big, and gear up for two launches a *week* instead of two a year. And > oh yes, the most vital step is to rigorously exclude anything labelled > "advanced". (Barring defense contractors from the bidding and > bypassing the standard military procurement procedures would help > too...) Such a launch system already exists and is very successful: > the Soviet "A" booster. There is no reason why the US couldn't build > something similar. The ALS as currently planned will *not* be it, and > will *not* be cheap. But, since the Air Force is the customer, no matter who does the work, they are by definition defense contractors. Your point about high flight rates is correct, that will lower costs. I disagree about what makes a cheaper launcher. The way to lower space transportation costs for chemical rockets is: MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF DOLLARS OF HARDWARE THROWN AWAY PER POUND OF PAYLOAD. The space shuttle throws away the following: 1 ET @ $30 million per flight 1/10 set of Solid Rocket Boosters @ $10 million per flight 1/25 Orbiter @ $84 million per flight = $124 million/50,000 lb = $2480/lb The ALS is designed to throw away: 1 core tank & fairing @ $17 million per flight 1/50 recovery module @ $4 million per flight 1/200 flyback booster @ $4 million per flight = $25 million/150,000 lb = $167/lb even so, that represents about 50% of the total ALS cost per flight. The core tank is similar to the External Tank on the space shuttle in size and function. The fairing is a hollow shell to protect the payload during flight through the atmosphere. The lower unit costs compared to the ET are due to higher production rates and automated production equipment. The recovery module returns the engines and electronics and valves (the expensive parts) of the core stage back to the launch site by parachute. It looks like a tuna can with engines sticking out the bottom. The booster has wings, and flys to a runway landing at the launch site. The key to lowering costs is to make the reuseable elements really reuseable, i.e. don't lose them through accidents. By adding spare units (1 extra booster engine, double and sometimes triple control electronics), the accidental loss rate should be brought way down. Having all liquid engines that are test fired before being put on the vehicle, and running them normally at 90% of design thrust all contribute to safer operation. Don't let my comments on the ALS make you think I believe it is the be all and end all for space transportation. It is a reasonable next step, because it learns from the mistakes of the Space Shuttle. It is close to the best chemical rocket we can expect. It is necessary to execute an agressive 1990's space initiative, be it SDI, lunar base, or mars mission. In the post-2000 era, though, there are lots of new technologies that promise to open space to everyone, but that story is for another day. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 01:22:40 GMT From: s.cc.purdue.edu!ain@h.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White) Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle In article <146@geovision.UUCP> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes: >No, "oxygen-rich" is correct, but "higher exhaust velocity" isn't. >... Thrust is proportional to molecular weight of the exhaust >products. In the initial boost phase, you want high *thrust*, and the >hell with Isp, just to get the thing off the ground. Enriching the >exhaust with oxygen (molecular weight 32) instead of hydrogen (mw 2) >gives you the added kick you need to get off the pad. Wouldn't enriching the mixture with something relatively inert be a better idea than with highly corrosive oxygen? Xe (molecular wt. escapes me right now) would still be fairly inert at the high temperatures invloved, and would add considerable mass to the exhaust. Water, which is cheaper, would also probably do the job. -- Pat White UUCP: k.cc.purdue.edu!ain BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM U.S. Mail: 320 Brown St. apt. 406, West Lafayette, IN 47906 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 20:54:49 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle In article <147@geovision.UUCP>, alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes: > >(3) The advanced technologies (aerospike, slush propellants) are > >inconsistent with the idea '$200 million to develop'. We estimated > >$2.2 billion total development cost for the Phoenix concept as > >described by Hudson. > > Hmm, I can't help but wonder if that factor of 10 difference has more > to do with the Big Aerospace Co With Lots of Juicy Federal Contracts > And Deals With Similar Big Aerospace Co's [see the Newsweek report] > way of doing things vs. the Lean Startup Company way of doing things, > considering the amount of work already done on aerospikes in the 60s. > (Slush propellents I'm a bit doubtful of myself) This is how we estimated the development: There is an organization in my company that specializes in cost estimating of new hardware developments. We have an obvious interest in accurate estimates, as we sometimes bid 'firm fixed price' military contracts, and for all our commercial programs. This organization collects data on what it actually has cost us on prior programs to do development, and has derived 'cost estimating relationships'. These are equations that best fit the historical data. The CERs go by type of hardware (primary structure, tank, secondary structure, liquid rocket engine, solid rocket motor, electronics, batteries, solar array, jet engine, etc.) and are keyed to a parameter such as weight, i.e. $10000 x (weight in pounds)**0.76 There are modifiers for type of material (aluminum, graphite-epoxy, stainless steel, nickel superalloy, etc.). There is also a modifier for the production run length (more automation for higher production runs) and the location where the work is to be done (labor rates). These equations taken together are a mathematical model of what it would cost Boeing to do the project. They do not distinguish between commercial and military programs, since we have a large overlap in them. For example, Boeing Aerospace delivers the AWACS radar plane, but the airplane itself comes from the Commercial Airplane Company. The Commercial Airplane Company, in turn, gets fuselages from the Military Airplane Company in Wichita, KS. If you plug the weights of the parts of a commercial airplane into those equations, you get the correct cost to develop a commercial airplane, because that is a major part of where the data for the equations came from in the first place. As for whether a 'lean startup' could manufacture the Phoenix cheaper than Boeing, I doubt that a company whose sole product were the Phoenix could compete with a company that could amortize it's machine tools over a wide range of products, like we do. Efficient computer-controlled machine tools now run to over a million dollars each, and you have to use them quite a lot to amortize them. You could cut corners on the Phoenix, but it is touted as a passenger carrying vehicle, and we therefore costed it as such. If you did cut corners, you would likely not get the 1000 flight life it is supposed to have. > (Did the Boeing study address the operating cost and turnaround time > aspects of Phoenix? I think Hudson was estimating, using automated > checkout systems, a 24-48hr turnaround with a ground crew of 12 or so, > once the thing was out of prototype stage. *That's* wehere the money > is really saved.) No, we looked only at performance and development cost, since that was what information we were given from Pacific American Launch Systems through the Air Force to us. You are correct that a one piece vehicle would have dramatically lower operations cost. Another way to make the Phoenix concept work, besides a jet engine boost, is to make where it goes closer to the ground. A platform at the bottom of an orbital tether, with a ballast mass at the top end, moves about 1.5 m/s slower than orbital velocity per km of tether length. Thus a 500 km tether would save about 750 m/s, or about 10% of orbital velocity. Taking that much 'off the top' of the velocity required should make the Phoenix workable. This size tether can use existing materials, like Kevlar or carbon fiber. Landing at the platform would be equivalent to landing on the Moon in local acceleration (free fall vs platform). Gravity on the platform would be about 1.8 m/s**2 > Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al > UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair > > Let's build a base on the Moon on our way to the asteroids - forget Mars. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation Company Slogan: Tomorrow, you can be anywhere. Personal Slogan: Building Better Worlds since 1977. Funny Signoff: The Solar System, Dare to have it all! ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 87 00:48:05 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Man-rated boosters > One or two simple questions: Can the Big Dumb Boosters currently under > discussion be rated to carry people? What does "man-rated" really > mean? I assume it is just a higher level of reliability, but can > anyone provide some specifics? Since nobody else has had a try at this one... Basically, yes, man-rated means (theoretically) higher reliability: more redundancy, more thorough monitoring of systems for possible problems, probably more care taken in manufacturing. Whether the BDB concepts are man-rated depends on which concept you are discussing. NASA values reliability very highly even for unmanned launches, because there will seldom be funding to replace a payload after a failure. The USAF is a bit less fussy. This affects their priorities in booster development. A NASA BDB would probably be easy to man-rate, although it might not actually have such a rating, given the presence of the Shuttle. -- Apollo was the doorway to the stars. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Next time, we should open it. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 87 16:52:46 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rahul Dhesi) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel In article <193@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes: >> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) >> I still maintain that the idea that FTL implies time travel is a crock. > >And Alastair is still wrong, too. . . . Under the assumptions of special ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >relativity, traveling faster than light is *equivalent* to traveling >faster than instantly, and *does* imply time travel . . . I think both points of view are defensible. *IF* you assume that the equations of special relativity really are symmetric about the speed of light, FTL speeds do imply time travel. For the sake of argument (though I believe otherwise), let us even assume that travel back in time is impossible because it would create a paradox. However, while we have plenty of evidence that special relativity applies at slower-than-light speeds, equivalent evidence at FTL speeds is sorely lacking. Thus it is by no means certain that special relativity applies at FTL speeds, so we really ought to keep FTL travel as an open possibility. Let's not dismiss it too quickly because: IT'S OUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE FOR INTERGALACTIC TRAVEL. The theory of relativity was just as strange to the scientists who used Newtonian mechanics as the theory of selectavibility (yet to be proposed; choose any name for it that you prefer) will be to the scientists who use relativistic mechanics. No doubt, relativity will be shown to be a limiting case in selectavibility. (Anticipating 85th-century physics, it's also possibile to safely add that selectavibility will itself be shown to be a limiting case of another more general theory.) Miscellaneous quote (author forgotten): When a great scientist says something is possible, he is usually right. When a great scientist says something is impossible, he is frequently wrong. All you great scientists, respond very carefully, else you might be embarrassed within your lifetime. Does anybody remember the person who proposed that the British Patent Office be closed because everything had already been invented? -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #327 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Aug 87 15:38:12 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04326; Fri, 28 Aug 87 03:17:52 PDT id AA04326; Fri, 28 Aug 87 03:17:52 PDT Date: Fri, 28 Aug 87 03:17:52 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708281017.AA04326@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #328 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 328 Today's Topics: Re: The rocky road to the stars Re: FTL and time travel Re: FTL and intergalactic travel Re: FTL and time travel Re: FTL and intergalactic travel Re: FTL and time travel Re: FTL and time travel Re: FTL and time travel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Aug 87 13:51:06 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: The rocky road to the stars I once conjectured that collisions with pebble-sized interstellar grains may be a serious problem for interstellar travel at speeds near the speed of light. In response, Paul Dietz reported on a meteor monitoring experiment which seemed to show that interstellar pebbles are very rare. I objected that > Suppose interstellar pebbles in the neighborhood of the solar system > move at about 1e3 m/s or less. As they fall to the Earth orbit, > their speed will increase at least 70-fold, to some 7e4 m/s. It is > not obvious to me that their density (particles/m^3) will remain > unchanged; offhand, I would expect it to be reduced by about the > same factor. Well, it seems I was sorely wrong here. Indeed, along an unidimensional flow (such as traffic on a freeway) the density of cars per unit length is inversely proportional to their speed. However, in two dimensions and higher this needs not be true. When a stream of particles flows through a gravitational potential well, the flow is stretched along the direction of travel, _but is also compressed laterally_, because the flow lines are ``focused'' by the field. If my algebra is right, in three-space the compression more than compensates for the stretching. Therefore, from dynamics alone we should expect the density of particles in interstellar space to be _smaller_ than what can be detected around Earth orbit. More precisely, if V0 is the particles' speed at infinity, M is the mass of the sun, and R the radius of Earth's orbit, then the density of particles near the Earth is their density at infinity times Vr/V0, where Vr = sqrt(V0^2 + 2GM/R) = the speed which a particle would have if it fell straight towards the Sun from infinity to Earth's orbit. By the way, my algebra also says that if Vr >> V0 then most of the interstellar particles around the Earth (if any) should be moving almost perpendicularly to the Earth-Sun line. Maybe some real astronomer can confirm these conclusions? So, it seems that my original conjecture that space pebbles may be too dense to allow fast interstellar travel now hangs mostly on one supposition: that such pebbles are made of fine dust held together by water ice, and therefore are destroyed by solar heating before they get down to Earth orbit. Now, who can shoot this one down? Jorge Stolfi stolfi@src.dec.com, ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!stolfi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This revelation came like a thunderbolt. Who could have expected such an error in calculation? -- Jules Verne, _Round the Moon_ (1870) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (But if star travel _is_ possible, then WHERE IS EVERYBODY???) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 87 22:54:34 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!lsuc!sq!msb@seismo.css.gov (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel Rahul Dhesi (dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP) writes: > Miscellaneous quote (author forgotten): > > When a great scientist says something is possible, he is usually > right. When a great scientist says something is impossible, he > is frequently wrong. I fear that many people will point out that the author is Arthur C. Clarke, but they will not also correct the misquotation. Clarke's First Law actually refers not to a "great" scientist but to a "distinguished but elderly" scientist. (Clarke then goes on to explain that "elderly" means over 30, more or less, depending on the scientist's field.) The source of the Law is Clarke's essay collection PROFILES OF THE FUTURE. > ... Does anybody remember the person who proposed that the British > Patent Office be closed because everything had already been invented? Sigh, this is wrong also. The actual reference is ... Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb "Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899 ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 87 17:53:52 GMT From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org (Wayne A. Throop) Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel > dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) >> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) > [...] so we really ought to keep FTL travel as an open possibility. > Let's not dismiss it too quickly because: > IT'S OUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE FOR INTERGALACTIC TRAVEL. I disagree strongly. Consider these propositions: "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea of reincarnation, because it's our only realistic hope for eternal life." or "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that water runs uphill sometimes, because it's our only realistic hope of getting this power plant running." or "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that programmers can code 10,000 lines of debugged code per minute, because it's our only realistic hope of getting this job done on schedule." First, FTL is *not* our only realistic hope of intergalactic travel. Life extension, reletavistic travel, or other means of getting around the impracticality of the thing are more realistic, it seems to me. Second, even if it *were* our only hope, that is no justification for thinking it any more possible than if it were not. That said, let me add that I too personally think investigators "ought" to keep FTL open as a possibility. But that's just because investigators "ought" to keep most *everything* open as a possibility. FTL is just a very very very very very unlikely possibility, that's all. > Miscellaneous quote (author forgotten): > When a great scientist says something is possible, he is usually > right. When a great scientist says something is impossible, he > is frequently wrong. This seems to be a misquote of Clarke's Law. I don't have a reference handy, but I can improve the quote to match the original a little more closely from memory, I think: When an elderly and distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is very probably right. When he says that something is impossible, he is quite possibly wrong. Worth noting is the change from "probably" to "possibly", which most folks alter in one way or another. (I may have too, but I recall that shift in emphasis most distinctly). The point I take from this is that the E&DS is *still* probably right that it is impossible... it's just not *very* probable. The "Clarke" involved here is, of course, Arthur C. Clarke. This is his first law, if I remember correctly. His third is the one about magic and technology. I don't remember the second offhand. I think the numbering scheme is somebody elses, BTW. There, have I maundered on enough yet? I suppose so. There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. --- John von Neumann ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 87 19:22:34 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpf!mhw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Marc Weinstein) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel in article <193@xyzzy.UUCP>, throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) says: > If y'all don't understand these points, I suggest reading elementary > texts on relativity, available in most Daltons and Waldens I've been > in, as well as most public libraries. Work it out for yourself. > Assume a spaceprobe departs earth with a Lorentz contraction of > ten-to-one. After ten years, send a message to this probe at ten > times lightspeed. Have the probe reply at ten times lightspeed. Do > the calculations yourself, being careful to do the return calculations > from the point of view of the probe, and not from the point of view of > the earth. You'll see that the message comes back before it left. I'm not so sure you can apply Lorentz transformations to anything which travels faster than the speed of light. Plus, isn't it accepted that "time stands still" at the speed of light?? Take, for instance, the photon. If a photon's speed ever falls below the speed of light, it immediately decays, in a sense, because time passes for the photon. The reason that the photon does not every decay is that it is travelling at the speed of light. The problem with postulating the existence of objects at faster than the speed of light is that it is theoretically impossible to cross the speed of light - from below OR above. If there are such things as tachyons, we cannot detect them because information cannot cross the barrier. Further, each multiple of c represents a new barrier, so there are "infinate potentials" at c, 2c, 3c, etc. So, there could be tachy-developers writing tachy-netnews to each other on their tachy-terminals, but I don't think there's a group which we can post to to find out. Do you think we could develop a network that can cross the barrier of c?? Marc Weinstein Bell Labs - Indian Hill ihnp4!ihlpf!mhw ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 87 16:37:36 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rahul Dhesi) Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel In article <207@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes: > "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea of reincarnation, > because it's our only realistic hope for eternal life." >or > "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that water runs uphill > sometimes, because it's our only realistic hope of getting > this power plant running." >or > "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that programmers can > code 10,000 lines of debugged code per minute, because it's > our only realistic hope of getting this job done on schedule." This was meant to be a parody of my statement that faster-than-light travel is our only realistic hope of intergalactic travel. The examples given violate what we know about physical laws, human physiology, and programming methodology. They seems to imply, by a leap of logic, that we have equally clear evidence that FTL travel is impossible. Further, they assume things that are already happening in the present, while I was assuming things about the future. A naughty debating technique indeed. If he had said We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that a day will come when programmers will be able to produce 10,000 lines of debugged code per minute I might have asked him why he was being so pessimistic. >First, FTL is *not* our only realistic hope of intergalactic travel. >Life extension, reletavistic travel, or other means of getting around >the impracticality of the thing are more realistic, it seems to me. Relativistic travel is no more acceptable for intergalactic journeys than death would be for communication with our ancestors. They are both one-way tickets. Life extension for the space traveller alone comes to the same thing. Life extension for the human race that the space traveller leaves behind has its own problem: the solar system might not last long enough. Again and again, we see skepticism towards fraudulent claims getting transformed into a refusal to believe possibilities outside one's current sphere of knowledge. The first is desirable, the second is not. As Darwin discovered, before you can convince people to believe that the earth and the sun can stay warm for long enough for evolution to occur, you have to wait for nuclear energy to be discovered. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 87 15:23:04 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel In article <962@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > [..discussion on validity of relativity under special cases..] >Miscellaneous quote (author forgotten): > > When a great scientist says something is possible, he is usually > right. When a great scientist says something is impossible, he > is frequently wrong. -- That's one (Arthur C.) Clarke's Laws, I forget which number (I think the original replaced "great" with "distinguished but elderly", and "frequently" with "very probably"). The two are: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. [or a rigged demo :-)] The only way to define the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible. Alastair JW Mayer ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 87 15:05:45 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel In article <193@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes: >> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) >> I still maintain that the idea that FTL implies time travel is a crock. > >And Alastair is still wrong, too. > > [..stuff deleted..] > >If y'all don't understand these points, I suggest reading elementary >texts on relativity, available in most Daltons and Waldens I've been ^ I took a handful of physics courses at university... >spaceprobe departs earth with a Lorentz contraction of ten-to-one. >After ten years, send a message to this probe at ten times lightspeed. >Have the probe reply at ten times lightspeed. Do the calculations >yourself, being careful to do the return calculations from the point of >view of the probe, and not from the point of view of the earth. You'll ^ *BUT*, the two points of view are *not* equally valid. Relativity in terms of the validity of reference frames only holds for unaccelerated frames. That probe accelerated to get to the speed it is travelling at. While it was doing that, would an observer on the probe assume that the universe was accelerating around it in the other direction? Nonsense, where would the energy come from? If the two reference frames are not equally valid - and they are not - then bouncing a signal off the probe, even if the signal travels at 10c, the signal arrives back at Earth some positive time after it left. The so-called "twins paradox" (assume twin brothers. One goes on a long trip at relatvistic speeds. when he returns, who's older?) is a popular myth. Alastair JW Mayer ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 87 21:27:54 GMT From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org (Wayne A. Throop) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel > mhw@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Marc Weinstein) >> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) >> Work it out for yourself. Assume a spaceprobe departs earth with a >> Lorentz contraction of ten-to-one. After ten years, send a message >> to this probe at ten times lightspeed. Have the probe reply at ten >> times lightspeed. Do the calculations yourself, being careful to do >> the return calculations from the point of view of the probe, and not >> from the point of view of the earth. You'll see that the message >> comes back before it left. > I'm not so sure you can apply Lorentz transformations to anything > which travels faster than the speed of light. I'm not so sure of this either. But that's not what I'm recommending doing. The Lorentz transformations are applied to transform from the viewpoint of the spaceprobe to that of the earth, so that one can see what it means to the probe to be sending a message at ten times lightspeed back to earth. The passage of time on the message cylinder (or whatever) scooting along at FTL speeds is never in question. (The standard transforms have it come out "imaginary", whatever that means, but again, that possibly-bogus calculation never enters into it.) Again I stress: Applying the SR equations in the ways they are known to be accurate is what leads to the result of FTL->time-travel. It has nothing to do with the passage of time on an FTL vehicle, just with whether folks *outside* the craft can see it arrive before it left. -- The Heinlein woman to me is sort of this woman who gets out there, she smokes a cigar, she uses a machine gun, she's empress of the galaxy but all she really wants is to stay home and bring her husband his slippers --- Joan D. Vinge ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #328 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Aug 87 08:23:37 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06314; Sat, 29 Aug 87 03:17:05 PDT id AA06314; Sat, 29 Aug 87 03:17:05 PDT Date: Sat, 29 Aug 87 03:17:05 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708291017.AA06314@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #329 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 329 Today's Topics: Re: FTL and time travel Re: FTL and time travel Re: FTL and intergalactic travel Re: FTL and time travel Re: FTL and time travel Re: FTL and time travel Re: Asteroid Collision ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Aug 87 15:34:49 GMT From: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (G.Gleason) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel In article <148@geovision.UUCP> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes: >in terms of the validity of reference frames only holds for >unaccelerated frames. That probe accelerated to get to the speed it is >travelling at. >The so-called "twins paradox" (assume twin brothers. One goes on a >long trip at relatvistic speeds. when he returns, who's older?) is a >popular myth. Can someone who really understands this stuff explain what really happens. If you only take into account the time dialation from traveling at relativistic speeds, it would seem that you can make a trip to the stars in arbitrarily short (well not quite you do have to wait a while to get up to speed) apparent time. But, there is also a relativistic effect of acceleration. Can you get to distance stars in reasonable amounts of time? Or is it prohibited by relativity? Gerry Gleason ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 10:48:21 GMT From: crew@decwrl.dec.com (Roger Crew) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel > I could go on, but you really ought to pick up a book on relativity > (can anyone recommend a good one?). You then get to find out some > neat stuff about everyday things that we take for granted that are > relativistic effects: magnetism, kinetic energy . . . -------------------------------------------------------- --> Space-Time Physics by E.F.Taylor & J.A.Wheeler <-- --> (San Francisco : W.H.Freeman c1966) <-- -------------------------------------------------------- (I believe this is also available from Dover Books...) If you want to get a good feel for what is going on in special relativity without too much pain, this is THE book. It's a somewhat unconventional presentation, but quite clear, readable and entertaining (as one might expect from J.A.Wheeler). Roger (Crew@sushi.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 20:09:38 GMT From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org (Wayne A. Throop) Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel > dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) >> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) >> "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that programmers can code >> 10,000 lines of debugged code per minute, because it's our only >> realistic hope of getting this job done on schedule." > This was meant to be a parody of my statement that faster-than-light > travel is our only realistic hope of intergalactic travel. Well, not a parody exactly. An analogy that preserved certain things about the original statement, but made clear what I felt was wrong with it. I intended it as a serious, thought-provoking tool, not as ridicule. > The examples given violate what we know about physical laws, human > physiology, and programming methodology. Well, the FTL example also violates what we know about physical laws, but Rahul's point is taken: I agree that FTL has *in* *no* *way* (at least, in no conclusive way) been "proven impossible". My point was *not* to insist that we should dismiss FTL now and forever, or that we should dismiss the idea that programmers can code 10,000 lines of debugged code per minute for that matter. These things *should* *not* be dismissed in the broadest sense of "dismissed", and I said as much in my posting. But the justification for non-dismissal Rahul gave strikes me as totally irrelevant. Consider Rahul's restatement of my analogy: > If he had said > We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that a day will come > when programmers will be able to produce 10,000 lines of > debugged code per minute > I might have asked him why he was being so pessimistic. I'm so pessimistic because I expect the "day to come" long after the job and it's schedule has been forgotten. The point is, more realistic solutions to the problem, like getting the schedule changed, should be explored first. What one hopes is no justification for what one expects. Just because one hopes to travel intergalactically is no reason not to dismiss FTL as the method of doing so. Just because one hopes to meet a schedule is no reason not to dismiss scenarios involving unrealistic productivity. >>First, FTL is *not* our only realistic hope of intergalactic travel. >>Life extension, reletavistic travel, or other means of getting around >>the impracticality of the thing are more realistic, it seems to me. > Relativistic travel is no more acceptable for intergalactic journeys > than death would be for communication with our ancestors. I didn't say it was acceptable, I said it was more realistic, and it satisfies what Rahul said he was asking for: intergalactic travel. Further, acceptable to whom? Many people profess to be satisfied to die as the only way to be rejoined with their "ancestors". I have every reason to think that at least some people would be happy with a one-way ticket to the far future. (As an aside, Rahul's objection that > Life extension for the human race that the space traveller leaves > behind has its own problem: the solar system might not last long > enough. seems wrong to me. One could make several multi-megaparsec round trips to several galaxies within the expected lifetime of the solar system. Further, if people are galavanting around intergalactically, why should the stay-at-homes be confined to the solar system?) > Again and again, we see skepticism towards fraudulent claims getting > transformed into a refusal to believe possibilities outside one's > current sphere of knowledge. The first is desirable, the second is > not. I agree entirely. But I still think that if you want to fly, and don't find airplanes acceptable, your next step is ill considered if you take up flapping your arms as the "only realistic possibility". You ought to look into hot-air ballooning first, and keep arm-flapping around on the back burner. (Yes, that was a pun.) -- Somewhere in the future, far away from here Trouble is waiting on the last frontier. Into these worlds of unknown danger they ride. They're the Galaxy Rangers! Heroes in the sky! --- Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 87 00:25:41 GMT From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org (Wayne A. Throop) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel >,>>> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) >> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) >>> I still maintain that the idea that FTL implies time travel is a crock. >>And Alastair is still wrong, too. [...] >> I suggest reading elementary >>texts on relativity, [...which are widely available...] > ^ > I took a handful of physics courses at university... So did I. But somehow, Alastair's half of our mutual credentials is tarnished for me by this comment ... > Relativity in terms of the validity of reference frames only holds for > unaccelerated frames. That probe accelerated to get to the speed it > is travelling at. ... wherein Alastair plainly shows a bit of confusion between an accelerated frame on one hand and an inertial frame "containing" an object which at one time accelerated (and thereby changed inertial frames) on the other. In fact, the space probe is a perfectly fine platform, and is "in" a perfectly valid reference frame, relativistically speaking. Whatever Alaistair is doing, it isn't special relativity. > The so-called "twins paradox" (assume twin brothers. One goes on > a long trip at relatvistic speeds. when he returns, who's older?) > is a popular myth. Of course it is. But that is because there are (at least) three reference frames involved in that situation, not just two symmetric ones. Certainly it is *not* because the traveling twin's point of view is "less valid" than the stay-at-home twin's. I still recommend some reading in relativity for those who still don't follow the reasoning involved in the FTL->time-travel implication (Alastair apparently among them). Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 87 01:26:30 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel > ... Can you get to distance stars in reasonable amounts of > time? Or is it prohibited by relativity? It's possible, given that "reasonable amounts of time" means time as measured aboard ship. Ignoring acceleration time, speeds very close to the speed of light give voyages that cover about one light year per year by Earth time but can be arbitrarily brief by ship time. This takes colossal amounts of energy, and shielding against interstellar dust and gas is not a trivial problem at near-light speeds. Also, acceleration time is not negligible if humans are on board: getting anywhere near the speed of light at one G takes about a year, and getting really close (which is what's needed to exploit time dilation in a big way) would probably take several years. -- Apollo was the doorway to the stars. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Next time, we should open it. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 87 23:43:57 GMT From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ames.arpa (Michael McNeil) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel In article <148@geovision.UUCP> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes: >In article <193@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes: >>> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) >>> I still maintain that the idea that FTL implies time travel is a crock. >> >>And Alastair is still wrong, too. >> >> [..stuff deleted..] >> >>If y'all don't understand these points, I suggest reading elementary >>texts on relativity, available in most Daltons and Waldens I've been in, > ^ > I took a handful of physics courses at university... It's clear it was a *small* handful of physics courses that you took. >>spaceprobe departs earth with a Lorentz contraction of ten-to-one. >>After ten years, send a message to this probe at ten times lightspeed. >>Have the probe reply at ten times lightspeed. Do the calculations >>yourself, being careful to do the return calculations from the point of >>view of the probe, and not from the point of view of the earth. You'll > ^ > *BUT*, the two points of view are *not* equally valid. Relativity in >terms of the validity of reference frames only holds for unaccelerated >frames. That probe accelerated to get to the speed it is travelling at. >While it was doing that, would an observer on the probe assume that the >universe was accelerating around it in the other direction? Nonsense, >where would the energy come from? If the two reference frames are not >equally valid - and they are not - then bouncing a signal off the probe, >even if the signal travels at 10c, the signal arrives back at Earth >some positive time after it left. > The so-called "twins paradox" (assume twin brothers. One goes on >a long trip at relatvistic speeds. when he returns, who's older?) >is a popular myth. ... among people who know a very *little* physics, sigh. The old bugaboo about relativity applying only to unaccelerated reference frames raises its head again. In your dim but arrogant memories of college physics, perhaps you will remember your instructors referring to "special" relativity? Well, for your information there's also a *general* theory of relativity, also by Einstein. It's true that special relativity applies only to unaccelerated reference frames -- you're right about that. General relativity, however, applies to *all* reference frames, accelerated or not. (Why do people who've taken a few college physics courses in which the term "relativity" was mentioned assume they know all about it?) Considering the twin "paradox," where one twin stays home and the other rockets away -- according to general relativity the two cases are not parallel. The twin on the rocket is accelerating not only with respect to his or her twin back on Earth but also with respect to the entire universe. The twin on Earth sees himself stationary (sort of) with respect to the universe as a whole, but accelerated with respect to the rocket. From either point of view, the rocket is accelerating with respect to the universe, and this results in the asynchrony of the venturesome twin returning younger than the stay-at-home. Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation Santa Clara, California {hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma} !oliveb!3comvax!michaelm We arrive at a very satisfactory interpretation of this law of experience, if we assume that the systems K and K' are physically exactly equivalent, that is, if we assume that we may just as well regard the system K as being in a space free from gravitational fields, if we then regard K as uniformly accelerated. This assumption of exact physical equivalence makes it impossible for us to speak of the absolute acceleration of the system of reference, just as the usual theory of relativity forbids us to talk of the absolute velocity of a system; and it makes the equal falling of all bodies in a gravitational field seem a matter of course. Albert Einstein, "Uber den Einfluss der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes," *Ann. Phys. (Germany) 35*, 898-908, 1911, English translation in Lorentz *et al.* 1923 [To Ernst Mach, regarding confirmation at a forthcoming eclipse] ... If so, then your happy investigations on the foundations of mechanics, Planck's unjustified criticism notwithstanding, will receive brilliant confirmation. For it necessarily turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton's pail experiment. The first consequence is on p. 6 of my paper. The following additional points emerge: (1) If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. (2) If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell; that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around (with a practically unmeasurably small angular velocity). Albert Einstein's appreciation to Ernst Mach, written on June 25, 1913, while working hard at arriving at his November 1915 formulation of standard general relativity ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 17:12 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: Asteroid Collision Kerry Stevenson wrote: > In the last couple of days I've read two newspaper articles about an > asteroid named 1983-TV. The first article says that Soviet > astronomers say this body will crash on Earth in 128 years (2115). It seems unlikely to me that they could have determined its orbit accurately enough to make such a prediction. An error of 1.5 millimeters per second in the asteroid's velocity will accumulate to an error of 6000 km in 128 years. More likely, they plotted an orbit with wide error bars that is near the earth in 128 years. Ho hum. > I suspect that it is in fact pap, since it does not seem widely > reported. If there is any truth to this, what schemes might be used > to deflect and/or destroy the object? Should we even bother? Oddly enough, this problem was studied in detail by a class at MIT some years ago. The class was given the problem of deflecting the asteroid Icarus. Their solution was to detonate one or more thermonuclear devices near the asteroid some time before impact. The explosions vaporize material on the asteroid and cause a velocity change. A velocity change of around a meter per second a year before impact is sufficient. In 128 years I expect more elegant techniques would be used. Modest velocity changes could be achieved with mass drivers, or with fusion rockets, or by arranging a collision between the would-be meteorite and a smaller asteroid on a nearly intersecting orbit. In any case, there is no rush. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #329 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Aug 87 06:22:37 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07612; Sun, 30 Aug 87 03:17:53 PDT id AA07612; Sun, 30 Aug 87 03:17:53 PDT Date: Sun, 30 Aug 87 03:17:53 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708301017.AA07612@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #330 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 330 Today's Topics: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract? Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on warpath. Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on warpath. Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on warpath. Life in Space, continued... Re: Space tourism Hubble Space Telescope: already obsolete? Re: Hubble Space Telescope: already obsolete? Infrared Astronomy Re: Asteroid Collision ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 15:03:48 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 August 20 15:03:48 PDT (=GMT-7hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 August 20 15:04:06 PDT (=GMT-7hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract? Does anybody know how to get more info about the space tug being built by TRW (Redondo Beach) under NASA contract? I tried the newspaper where I saw the news story, but the science reporter didn't know about it, probably some news service story they just copied. I tried 800-555-1212 but there is no tollfree number for TRW and I don't like making long distance calls during prime time when I don't even know what number to call. I tried NASA/Ames but nobody there administers this contract or even knows about it. Anybody have actual information or know a good source? I want to know things like (1) what method of propulsion (chemical, ion, or what)?, (2) what capabilities (cis-lunar only, or maybe could push a probe all the way to an asteroid)? If it's an ion rocket with deep space capability, then I'd like to start planning a mission that travels to some tiny asteroid (the smallest chondrite we've ever spotted), attaches a thermonuclear device and baffle plate to one side of it, backs off, triggers detonation, then catches up with the Earthbound asteroid again to attach a smaller thermonuclear device and baffle plate to trim the trajectory, backs off and detonates it too, follows it until it reaches Earth vicinity, then attaches a third device to slow it to be captured into orbit around Earth. Later we can at or leisure go up and take samples and start mining and processing. That may be a faster route to space resource usage than setting up lunar mining bases, and if we promise the rest of the world some fraction of the benefit we may be able to get permission to use the thermonuclear detonation propulsion method in this special case. But if the space tug is chemical, we have to wait for a real deep-space propulsion method to be developed. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 19:52:22 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on warpath. In article <556314018.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > I have recieved word that our old 'friend' William Proxmire has decided > to kill the space station. > [information on how to fight Proxmire on this issue deleted] Sorry, but I for one support Proxmire on this one. I'm not a "space person", but I do support a much more aggressive and widespread role in space. But this space station is such a massive boondoggle it makes the Shuttle look like a Twinkie. I thought we learned from the Shuttle not to put all our space eggs in one basket. Our space program is currently shut down because the shuttle was so expensive it sucked up practically all the space funding that Congress would allow. The station will do the same, only more so. If something goes wrong with the station, we'll be grounded for half a decade. Wouldn't you rather see a more modest station (or none at all), so that more money can be spread over a wide area? We need more funding for things like basic big boosters, unmanned robot exploration, and a slow but un-ending return of Americans to space. Of course, if the station is killed, not all the money will go into the things we'd like. I'm a realist, and I know the Government Black Hole will suck up whatever it gets its fingers on; some money allocated to the station will probably be lost from space purposes. Admittedly, the station gives us a platform upon which to base further experiments and/or explorations. But so would a Mir. And remember that the station is absolutely dependent on and designed around the Shuttle. I think it's time we started thinking beyond the Shuttle. Once it's band-aided, it will serve us for a time, but it's badly flawed and horribly expensive. Why not design a more modest station that could be launched and supported by basic boosters? I'm all in favor of space stations, but this thing is gold-plated, mink-lined, diamond-encrusted, and platinum-fueled. Nobody is particularly happy with it except the contractors. Practically every AW&ST summary that Harry gives us mentions either: a) another increase in expected space station costs, or b) another complaint by the Europeans (or sometimes even the Pentagon) about how the station will be run, or c) more indications of problems in applying the station to a useful role for anybody. If we want to launch a station, fine. Just make it a steel box with some oxy bottles welded on the side. Just think how many Big Dumb Boosters (NOT Advanced Launch Systems--bah!) we could build with the mountain of money that will be needed for one space station. Anybody care to take any bets on the final cost of this monstrosity? -- Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) =-=-=-=-=-=-= UUCP:ihnp4!dartvax!brspyr1!miket BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 . . . .... .........:.::::.:::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::o "By and large, I was only trying to fool Mr. Trout." -Dan Rather ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 87 18:47:41 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on warpath. > Sorry, but I for one support Proxmire on this one. I'm not a "space > person", but I do support a much more aggressive and widespread role > in space. But this space station is such a massive boondoggle... While I am not at all pleased with the current space station, sacrificing it to Proxmire would be a terrible mistake. The space program would *not* benefit from this. We would *not* get cheaper boosters, more planetary science, and a cheaper space station as a result. -- Apollo was the doorway to the stars. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Next time, we should open it. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 87 20:43:01 GMT From: omega@ngp.utexas.edu (Omega.Mosley`) Subject: Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on warpath. In article <8468@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > Sorry, but I for one support Proxmire on this one. I'm not a "space > > person", but I do support a much more aggressive and widespread role > > in space. But this space station is such a massive boondoggle... > > While I am not at all pleased with the current space station, > sacrificing it to Proxmire would be a terrible mistake. The space > program would *not* benefit from this. We would *not* get cheaper > boosters, more planetary science, and a cheaper space station as a > result. This is true. To allow Proxmire to put another nail in NASA's coffin would in effect be a crime against humanity. For what it's worth, I've been sending the Senator letters concerning his stance on the space program since grade school. The fact that in 17 years I've never gotten a response of any sort should tell you how he feels about voter sentiment...especially those voters who CAN'T vote for him... Like Jason, Sen. Proxmire searches for golden fleece. Like Jason, he will hopefully meet a similar tragic and ironic fate. Lord know he deserves it... Omega.Mosley ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 87 01:53:39 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA (MacLeod) Subject: Life in Space, continued... >In article <4130001@hpclla.HP.COM> rak@hpclla.HP.COM (Rajiv Kumar) writes: (Answering the question: Why do you want to head out into space?) >-> Ultimately, to live free of any Earth government, and of the threat >-> of war. >->Keith >- >-Dream on! The moment any Earth Govt sees that its own nationalistic >-and military interests are at risk, it will not allow its citizens to >-go to space and build private colonies. Why do you think a bunch of >-people cannot just claim some land in Antarctica and live free. >-Rajiv In the short run, this is true. Space is very big, though, and the day will come when governments will no longer be able to police all the factionalized microsocieties and will concentrate on matters they can do something about. It took several hundred years, but the USA finally convinced Britain that it was too much trouble to discipline the Yankees. I expect to see, at some point, a kind of bloom of every kind of government and society, followed in 20-50 years by a retrenching around more or less common forms of social organizations. But there will be elbow room for anarchists, never doubt it. I'm amused by the way many people get uptight and flustered by these predictions. It's not enough for them that our society limps along, abandoning its dreams, retreating into political collectivism and societal savagery. No, if somehow a free spirit or two escapes into space, we must chase them from pillar to post with a collar and demand that they put it on. In my most bitter daydreams I imagine an Earth of 2400 AD, where the constant emmigration of men of ability has resulted in a world dominated by chaos and fear for ten generations, and where the standard of living and technology has fallen below metallurgy, leaving a few million wretches in the late Stone Age. I doubt that that will occur, though I don't doubt that it could. As I said, space is >big<, with lots of resources, and if even a fraction of the promise of nanotechnology comes to fruition, there will be abundance undreamed of. I am currently writing a novel in which there is a mature, spacefaring mercantile civilization with a level of technology high enough to evoke Clarke's Law, and a technology/effort level so high that individual members are rich beyond calculation. Rich, in the sense that an individual from this race can purchase a state-of-the-art metallorganic FTL spacecraft implementing "magical" technologies for the equivalent of a few >hours< of labor. In their society, the industrial infrastructure needed to produce such artifacts is so efficient and successful that they can be mass-produced. >NO< amount of our labor will suffice to create such craft, any more than the bushmen of "The Gods Must Be Crazy" could build an automobile; our technology cannot cope with FTL spacecraft any more than the bushmen's with cars. I believe that the great move out into Space will put immense stress on the human race, and that the survivors and their kids will be the better for it. However, it's going to be pretty hairy out there for the first hundred years or so. Mike MacLeod ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 87 23:08:24 GMT From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Re: Space tourism In article <4130001@hpclla.HP.COM>, rak@hpclla.HP.COM (Rajiv Kumar) writes: > > Ultimately, to live free of any Earth government, and of the threat > > of war. > > Dream on! The moment any Earth Govt sees that its own nationalistic > and military interests are at risk, it will not allow its citizens to > go to space and build private colonies. Why do you think a bunch of > people cannot just claim some land in Antarctica and live free. Actually, there is no reason why a bunch of people couldn't do this. The 1956 Antarctic Treaty suspends claims among the signatories, but if a group of people were to get together and set up a country (the People's Republic of Antarctica?) there wouldn't be anyone to stop them. They wouldn't be signatories. Suitably armed (to defend their claim) they could make it not worth any government's while to throw them out. Of course, there are lots of better things to do with Antarctica, like make it the first World Park (which Greenpeace wants to do), but this isn't the place to discuss it (is there a sci.antarctic?). Sorry for the basenote drift, you hit one of my hot buttons... Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 87 20:14:37 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa (MacLeod) Subject: Hubble Space Telescope: already obsolete? In article <354@nysernic> weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes: >These experts estimate a 1% chance that it (the HST) will be struck by >one of the untrackable marble to softball size objects, which would >destroy it during it's 17 year lifetime. There is little doubt that >after a few years the mirrors will become so full of dust that it will >be no better than a ground based telescope. Another problem is the >fact that the telescopre is not steerable, so even an imminent >collision with a trackable object would be unavoidable. There is so much else depressing news about space that I hesitate to bring this up. It's even worse, because the HST has a special place in the hearts of many space enthusiasts and amateur astronomers, and the delay in transporting it to space has been most frustrating for them (and for me). However...if what I read about the advances in multi-cell, multi-mirror visual-light telescopy is correct, the space telescope will no longer be the state-of-the art device it would have been had it been launched when it was ready to go. By no means obsolete, but not as special a project, either. If this is so my fear is that bureaucrats >will< assume "not state-of-art" = "not worth sending up" and ashcan the whole project. I think this becomes more serious the longer it sits in storage. Comments? ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 87 05:54:51 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!lsuc!sq!msb@seismo.css.gov (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope: already obsolete? > >These experts estimate a 1% chance that it (the HST) will be struck > >by one of the untrackable marble to softball size objects, which > >would destroy it during its 17 year lifetime. There is little doubt > >that after a few years the mirrors will become so full of dust that > >it will be no better than a ground based telescope. So, speaking ideally, what WOULD be the best place for an off-earth telescope? Is the debris problem worse in low Earth orbit or on the Moon's surface (down a gravity well but clear of OUR debris)? Should it maybe be in a HIGH orbit around the Earth, if we had a way to do it? I'm assuming here that we want the thing fairly near Earth for ease of control (and perhaps maintenance). There is obvious utility for a telescope much farther from Earth than the Sun is, but that's another matter. Mark Brader ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 18:08:56 GMT From: fluke!logden@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Leonard Ogden) Subject: Infrared Astronomy I am looking for a pointer to information concerning infrared astronomy/astrophotography. I caught the last few minutes of a PBS program that delt with a 'recent' program between the US and Britain. The research project included a satelite that had an infrared sensor that they pointed at different parts of the sky and mapped about 250,000 objects. I did not get the name of the project, program, satelite, universities, etc. but I would love to get a copy of the PBS broadcast and any other information about how this, or other astronomical infrared projects. Thanks. Len (Billions and Billions) Ogden ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 22:02:06 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Asteroid Collision In article <19*kerry@cc.uofm.cdn>, kerry@cc.uofm.CDN (Kerry Stevenson) asks: [The query was in sci.space, but I've cross-posted this reply to sci.astro.] > In the last couple of days I've read two newspaper articles about an > asteroid named 1983-TV. The first article says that Soviet > astronomers say this body will crash on Earth in 128 years (2115). A > couple of days later a followup article (another paragraph) stated > that West German astronomers have dismissed the whole thing as pap. Brian Marsden, director of the IAU Minor Planet Center, says the first report is indeed pap. Here's what happened: In 1983, the IRAS satellite discovered a new asteroid, which was given preliminary designation 1983-TB (not -TV). A preliminary orbit was computed so that new observations could be obtained. Three English astronomers noticed that the preliminary orbit put the object very close to the Earth in 2115 and attempted to publish a letter in Nature to that effect. (Brian is not sure whether the letter ever got published. It was obvious to him at the time that the letter was based on insufficient data, but sometimes things like that slip by the refereeing process.) After more observations, a much better orbit was determined, and the object was given the permanent designation 3200 Phaethon. (Permanent numbers and names are only assigned when the orbit is accurately known.) The better orbit puts Phaeton nowhere near the Earth in 2115 or any other known year. However, the object does cross the Earth's orbit, so it has to hit the Earth some day (presumably millions of years from now, but the orbit is not well enough known to say when). Phaeton is related to the Geminid meteor stream and may be the parent body for these meteors. It's unclear how the Russians got into the act, or even exactly which Russians were involved. Apparently some Russian(s) saw the preliminary report and mentioned it at some meeting without realizing that it was nonsense. Then the press picked it up. Many reporters were careful to call Brian and find out what was going on, and indeed he is still getting occasional calls about this object. Evidently at least one reporter didn't bother to check out the story. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #330 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Aug 87 06:20:26 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09033; Mon, 31 Aug 87 03:18:46 PDT id AA09033; Mon, 31 Aug 87 03:18:46 PDT Date: Mon, 31 Aug 87 03:18:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8708311018.AA09033@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #331 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 331 Today's Topics: Interstellar meme plagues: hiding your head in the planet won't help. Re: Interstellar meme plagues: hiding Cooperation uber alles? Mars Orbiter name - results More on 747 costs Welded SRBs Re: Welded SRBs Re: Welded SRBs Re: Welded SRBs Re: Welded SRBs Re: Welded SRBs Re: Welded SRBs Re: Welded SRBs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Aug 87 22:35:06 GMT From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu (lucius) Subject: Interstellar meme plagues: hiding your head in the planet won't help. To those who have been advocating that a few planets remain isolationist in order to escape interstellar meme plagues, it won't help. What if one of the meme plagues generates berserkers (Saberhagan style), in which case everyone is doomed if they don't know what is going on? And what about illegal listeners/broadcasters, that could transmit the meme plague in spite of isolationist regulation? Some food for thought. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Aug 87 20:31:58 EDT From: Steve Abrams Subject: In SPACE Digest V7 #315, Stephen P. Masticola asks about the current status of "the" SETI project. As he later refers to million channel receivers, I assume he was referring to the Planetary Society's Project META. They just reviewed the current status in their last Planetary Report. After 18 months, the Megachannel ExtraTerrestrial Assay (META) has "sifted through nearly 2 million independent spectra, each consisting of 8.4 million numbers representing the received radio power in those separate channels." They divide the results as follows: 1) Just plain noise, a little louder than usual; 2) Radio interference (which some cite as evidence of intelligent life on Earth); 3) Equipment malfunction (evidence of lack of intelligent life on Earth); and 4) Other signals. Number 1 accounts for 98% of "events" and number 4 accounted for 3 (yes, that's only *three*) events. These 3 events, however, were not reproducible so they were discarded without a good explanation. This summer, META began searching a new wavelength (the old one was the oft-cited 21 cm hydrogen line) -- 2841 MHz, the second harmonic of the 21-cm line. They cite the lack of cosmic background noise, among others, as the reason for shifting the search. Obviously, they still have funding (though, from where I haven't a clue -- I doubt that Spielberg's original $100K has lasted this long). Steve Abrams "I'm still looking for signs of intelligent life in Kentucky -- the few coincidence events are similarly irreproducible...sigh..." ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 87 15:32:00 GMT From: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Interstellar meme plagues: hiding [chiaraviglio@husc4.UUCP ] >To those who have been advocating that a few planets remain iso- >lationist in order to escape interstellar meme plagues, it won't help. >What if one of the meme plagues generates berserkers (Sa- berhagan >style), in which case everyone is doomed if they don't know what is >going on? And what about illegal listeners/broadcasters, that could >transmit the meme plague in spite of isolationist regulation? > Some food for thought. This just shows that the isolationists can't stay stagnant: they must evolve ever better methods of isolation, of hiding, running away, and camouflage. They must project to the universe a facade of perfectly natural, lifeless matter... Isn't that what we ob- serve all around? Isn't that a solution of the Fermi paradox? :-?) Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 22:14:50 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Cooperation uber alles? To: "SEISMO!RELAY.CS.NET!SCUDDER@CS.UMASS.EDU"@ai.ai.mit.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: "Michael J. Scudder" > I was at the Boskone Science Fiction convention in February and > listened to an L5 sponsered panel on a joint US-Soviet mission to > Mars. The Audience was 80+% in favor when polled. Don't read too much into that statistic. I too was at Boskone, and I was aware of that panel, but chose not to attend because cooperation with the USSR is repugnant to me. I suspect many others at Boskone felt the same way. Nothing good can come from cooperation with thieves and murderers. > They want (perhaps mostly for public relations purposes) us to go with > them. Exactly. They crave legitimacy and approval. Lets not play into their schemes. > The effort could divert the super-powers from the arms race. I don't think you understand the reasons for the arms race. They certainly aren't boredom or lack of anything better to do with our time and money. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 87 14:29:01 GMT From: topaz.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (masticol) Subject: Mars Orbiter name - results Well, I think I've gotten about all the responses to the unofficial "Rename the Mars Orbiter" contest that I'm going to get. So here they are, beautiful, plain, offensive, and silly, in alphabetical order. The results are tallied using the "squeaky wheel" method - the total is the number of people who submitted a name, and many people submitted several. - T H E E N V E L O P E, P L E A S E . . . - Ad Astra Per Asperum 1 (Already taken by the Royal Air Force) Arbeit Macht Frei 1 (Most offensive) Argus 1 (See "Imperial Earth", A.C. Clarke) Buggly Spotter 1 (I thought Viking determined: no bugglies!) Challenge 1 (Unfortunate connotations) Cosmos 1 (Costs billions and billions...) Kuiper (Gerard) 1 Hall (Aspah) 1 Holst (Gustav) 1 (4th suite) Lowell (Percival) 4 (Most popular) Peace 1 (Best sentiment - as in "Mir") Pre-Colony Probe 1 (ALL probes fall into this category!) Red-Eye 1 (As in whiskey or antiaircraft missiles?) Renaissance 1 (3 cheers for Annie Haslam!) Schiaparelli 2 (Runner-up for most popular) Shootout at the Fantasy Factory 1 (SDI has a prior claim) Stickney 1 (Sorry - I don't recognize the reference) Venus 1 (Made a wrong [tb]urn somewhere...) Viking 3 1 (Good, but MO won't land anywhere!) Thanks to all who replied. I've turned the results over to our man in MO-town (RCA Astro-Space Mars Orbiter Project Management Office), and will post any further results. - Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 87 13:24:16 PDT From: John Sotos Subject: More on 747 costs Pursuant to the recent discussion of how much a 747 would have cost if only four were built, this week's Aviation Week notes that the USAF's T-46 program (which was to have been the new generation of jet trainer, but was cancelled because of problems at Fairchild) cost $380 million, and resulted in the delivery of three of the aircraft to the USAF. It seems reasonable to believe that a 747 is roughly an order of magnitude more expensive than a T-46. John Sotos Stanford U. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 87 22:04:43 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Subject: Welded SRBs Over lunch a friend and I argued that if NASA really wanted to get back into the manned space flight business, instead of sitting on their collective tails for a few years, that all they would have to do was to weld the SRB segments together and launch. Ya, the SRB's would not be reusable but so what, we could be flying while a real fix was in the works. I suggested that I wouldn't want to be the person that had to do the welding and have the possibility of dealing with a live rocket. But I also know that in arguing I really don't know what I'm talking about, so I though I'd pass the idea to the net. Why can't we weld the suckers together and throw away the parachutes and LAUNCH! Fred Mendenhall ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 87 12:55:15 GMT From: s.cc.purdue.edu!ain@h.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs In article <1083@inuxe.UUCP> fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) writes: > ... Why can't we weld the >suckers together and throw away the parachutes and LAUNCH! A more obvious solution suggests itself to me -- just make sure it is 50+ degrees when launching. Any reason why this wouldn't work? -- Pat White UUCP: k.cc.purdue.edu!ain BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM U.S. Mail: 320 Brown St. apt. 406, West Lafayette, IN 47906 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 16:24:40 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs > I suggested that I wouldn't want to be the person that had to do the > welding and have the possibility of dealing with a live rocket. The idea of welding a solid-rocket casing with live propellant inside is the sort of thing that makes strong men run screaming. I wouldn't want to be in the same state when it was tried. I think this idea is a non- starter. The only way to make it safe would be to weld the casings before the propellant was cast, in which case there's no point: the joints with problems are the field joints (joined after casting), not the factory joints (joined before casting). > ... Why can't we weld the > suckers together and throw away the parachutes and LAUNCH! Despite the above, the suggestion of throwing away the parachutes deserves serious attention. The "Spacefaring Nation" report specifically suggested abandoning booster recovery, on the grounds that it is mostly a PR stunt that saves very little money. -- Apollo was the doorway to the stars. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Next time, we should open it. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 87 03:57:33 GMT From: jwl@ernie.berkeley.edu (James Wilbur Lewis) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs In article <8450@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: -> I suggested that I wouldn't want to be the person that had to do the -> welding and have the possibility of dealing with a live rocket. - -The idea of welding a solid-rocket casing with live propellant inside is -the sort of thing that makes strong men run screaming. Is it really that bad? I was under the impression that the solid propellant is not too explosive until it's pressurized. Would welding the joints be enough to set it off? And if it is too dangerous to be attempted by humans, how about some kind of robotic welding rig? -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 87 20:02:21 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs In article <8450@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > starter. The only way to make it safe would be to weld the casings > before the propellant was cast, in which case there's no point: the > joints with problems are the field joints (joined after casting), not > the factory joints (joined before casting). > > > ... Why can't we weld the > > suckers together and throw away the parachutes and LAUNCH! > > Despite the above, the suggestion of throwing away the parachutes > deserves serious attention. The "Spacefaring Nation" report > specifically suggested abandoning booster recovery, on the grounds > that it is mostly a PR stunt that saves very little money. The reason for joints in the first place: When Thiokol was awarded the contract for the Solid Rocket Motors, there had to be a way to get them from Utah to Florida. Rail was selected. A combination of diameter limits (12 feet) and railroad track limits (320,000 lb on one car) set the size of a segment. It turned out to be 4 segments. The steel case for each segment comes in 2 pieces, 12 ft long each. The alloy used for the case is a very high yield strength one. There is a proprietary processing step used in making the one-piece case section, which is limited by the size of a treatment room the company that does the process has. Hence the case is made from 8 total pieces of steel. There is no place to do post-weld heat treatment. It is slightly cheaper to reuse the solids, about $18 million per solid per use, vs $50 million for a brand new solid. Two things that would help their life a lot would be: (a) retro rockets to reduce the impact speed in the ocean (currently 60 mph), and (b) a recovery barge that could haul the solids out of the water for retrieval. The alloy used in the case is not resistant to seawater. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 87 23:49:04 GMT From: omega@ngp.utexas.edu (Omega.Mosley`) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs ...just one additional comment on the segmented boosters. I believe Thiokol once commented on this during the erly days of the Shuttle program (to Wally Shirah, if my memory is as infallible as caffine allows) as also allowing them to produce either larger or smaller SRB's when the situation demanded. Omega.Mosley ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 87 18:44:18 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs > Is it really that bad? I was under the impression that the solid > propellant is not too explosive until it's pressurized. Would welding > the joints be enough to set it off? Not too explosive, perhaps, but inflammable, yes. I don't know that welding the joints would suffice to ignite it, but I sure wouldn't want to find out. > And if it is too dangerous to be attempted by humans, how about some > kind of robotic welding rig? Being blunt rather than diplomatic, the real hazard is not that technicians might be killed, but that the Vertical Assembly Building might be damaged by the resulting fire and possible explosion(s). Technicians can be replaced, the VAB is unique and vital. NASA used to have an ironclad rule that no fuel was ever allowed inside the VAB; they weren't pleased about having to change this for the SRBs. -- Apollo was the doorway to the stars. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Next time, we should open it. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 87 14:53:02 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!mjohnson@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Mark Johnson) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs In article <1406@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: > >The reason for joints in the first place: When Thiokol was awarded the >contract for the Solid Rocket Motors, there had to be a way to get them >from Utah to Florida. Rail was selected. A combination of diameter >limits (12 feet) and railroad track limits (320,000 lb on one car) >set the size of a segment. It turned out to be 4 segments. The >steel case for each segment comes in 2 pieces, 12 ft long each. >It is slightly cheaper to reuse the solids, about $18 million per >solid per use, vs $50 million for a brand new solid. Two things that >Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation But let us not forget that Aerojet General had a competing bid in for the Shuttle SRM's which was only about $1.5-2 million per unit higher, and involved building one-piece boosters which would have been reusable, and re-cast at a plant to be built down the Florida coast from Canaveral, with delivery to be by barge (about 30 miles worth). The apparent reason their bid was killed was twofold: 1: long term cost higher (debatable in light of the cost of replacing an orbiter and the incalculable human costs we've incurred) and 2: inital cost for first 10-15 units grossly higher since they would be built in Calif. and have to be barged through the Panama Canal until the Florida propellant plant was up and running. My memory on these items may be faulty; if so, please correct me, one and all. Certainly we don't want to try welding those things loaded...the ignition point of aluminum-loaded perchlorate/HTPB propellant is plenty low enough that red-hot steel nearby (plus conduction) could set it off. Not the kind of incident I want to be anywhere even remotely near!!! -- Mark Johnson (mjohnson@ncrwic.UUCP) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #331 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Sep 87 06:18:44 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10888; Tue, 1 Sep 87 03:17:10 PDT id AA10888; Tue, 1 Sep 87 03:17:10 PDT Date: Tue, 1 Sep 87 03:17:10 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709011017.AA10888@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #332 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 332 Today's Topics: Glued SRBs? Re: Welded SRBs Re: Welded SRBs Re: Government in space Re: Government in space Costs of shuttles, 747s Re: Alan Sheperd Re: The Media and Science (interesting!) Re: NASA fraud Re:Apollo Command Module ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Aug 87 12:58:57 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Fred Mendenhall) Subject: Glued SRBs? I've been sharing the responses from the net with my argumentative friend. Seems he is willing to move away from welding the SRBs and now suggests a permanent seal using a ceramic epoxy. I've personally never heard of such a critter although the concept seems to make sense. Comments? Fred Mendenhall ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 87 15:56:32 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs In article <1406@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: > The reason for joints in the first place: When Thiokol was awarded the > contract for the Solid Rocket Motors, there had to be a way to get > them from Utah to Florida. Rail was selected. A combination of > diameter limits (12 feet) and railroad track limits (320,000 lb on one > car) set the size of a segment. It turned out to be 4 segments. This leads to the fundamental question of what is a solid rocket plant doing in the middle of Utah? As far as I can tell, the customers for solid motors are located in Florida (KSC), California (Vandenburg) and central plains (Minuteman silo country). None of these seem to be particularly convenient to reach from Utah. It is true that Utah is rather sparsely populated, so finding a large chunk of land to build the plant (and an adequate safety area) was probably easy, but there is plenty of cheap real estate with barge transportation available in the South and the Mississippi valley (note that the ET is built in Louisiana--which raises the question of how they're planning to get them to Vandenburg...). The only reason I can think of for Thiokol having an SRB plant in Utah is that it was built in anticipation of the mobile-basing scheme for the MX. Does anybody out there have any better information as to how the SRB plant wound up in such an (on the surface) unlikely location? ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 87 21:17:54 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs in article <1083@inuxe.UUCP>, fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) says: > Why can't we weld the suckers together and throw away the parachutes > and LAUNCH! > Fred Mendenhall Why throw away the parachutes? There is a casting pit in Florida more than big enough to handle a full sized SRM. It has been proposed that the SRMs be welded together, cast all in one piece, and shipped by barge to the launch site ( reference AWS&T in the memorable past ). Off course, mixing that much propelant would be an awesome task. Very good question. Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 87 19:11:45 GMT From: decvax!ima!minya!jc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Chambers) Subject: Re: Government in space > Private industry will beat goverment subsidies any day, but > only in a free and open marketplace, and only when there is > enough hope of a return on money invested. You inadvertently gave away the major objection to your free-market ideology. True, private industry will beat government-subsidized companies any DAY, but when the investment is much longer, private industry doesn't make the investment. It has been clear for some time that space exploration is economically viable. The problem is that is viable in the long run, measured in decades. It took about a decade for NASA to become "profitable". Any manager in any private corporation that proposed a wild-eyed future investment like this (especially one with totally unknown payoff) would simply lose his job to someone with more "sense"; someone who looks at the bottom line of the current quarter. Private industry has rarely invested in exploration or research. These have always been paid for by governments (or princes or ...); when the results were in and balance sheets could be drawn up, then private investors rush in. So please stop complaining that private industry hasn't gone into space because of competition from a subsidized NASA. There wasn't any such subsidy before 1957, and where was all the private investment then? C'mon, no excuses; science fiction was a century old by then, astronomy was much older, and it was already obvious that things like asteroid mining were economically feasible. Nobody would make the investment, because the payoff was past the end of the current fiscal year. The US government only got into it because of competition with other governments. This has been hashed out thousasnds of time by people who don't want to take tainted government money. But who else will support anything new? Eventually you have to face the fact, if you want funding, that industry doesn't support research/exploration; it supports development of viable products, and you have to be able to show that a product is viable BEFORE you get the funding. [Isn't it fun to inject politics into newsgroups? :-] John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393) ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 87 18:41:59 GMT From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: Government in space In article <117@minya.UUCP>, jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: > ... True, private industry will beat government-subsidized > companies any DAY, but when the investment is much longer, private > industry doesn't make the investment. The future discount rate of most corporations is tied to the inflation rate, which is in turn affected by government spending. When the government spends money it doesn't have, the short term effect is to please the constituents and the long term effects are ignored ("In the future, we are all dead" - John Maynard Keynes). The discount rate function for the government drops off rapidly, goes to zero in about 4 years, then goes negative (who cares, after the next election?). Industry discounts the future LESS. They are just a little more up-front about the fact that they do so. If something has a BIG payoff in the future, and it is unlikely to get expropriated or overregulated later, you will find plenty of investment. Here in the Northwest, the larger forest product companies plant trees that won't mature for 20 years. Boeing starts aircraft designs years in advance of the peak market. Tektronix has research projects going on that will not reach the market for 10 years. Not the 21st century, sure. But the funding doesn't go away when the headlines disappear. > Private industry has rarely invested in exploration or research. > These have always been paid for by governments (or princes or ...); > when the results were in and balance sheets could be drawn up, then > private investors rush in. The transistor, lasers, integrated circuits, high TC superconductors, high strength materials, what WASN'T discovered and developed by private industry (nuclear bombs?)? Lewis and Clark followed the fur trappers. L&C, Pike, and the rest were there as a demonstration that the fledgling federal government potentially COULD control the Pacific Northwest. > ... There wasn't any such subsidy before 1957, and where was all the > private investment then? On the one hand, Goddard's work was ENTIRELY privately funded (first by a private bequest administered by the Smithsonian, afterwards by a major grant from the Guggenheim foundation). Before NASA, there was enormous government spending through DOD. What did we learn? "Space is expensive". We learned how to do the wrong thing! > The US government only got into it because of competition with other > governments. The government is in the war business. We got into the civilian space program in order to demonstrate "if we can put a man on the moon, what makes you think we can't drop a warhead on your capital?". If direct demonstrations of our missile capabilities were politically acceptable, the federal government wouldn't have BOTHERED with any of the rest. We would have just gone ahead and nuked Havana. The space program has also been a way of guiding bright young folk into aerospace. When they get out of college, they discover that most of the real jobs are working on weapons. There is a tendency in the world to compare the STATED INTENTIONS of some members of the federal government with the REALITY provided by industry. OF COURSE industry never matches people's expectations. But how could anyone come to the conclusion that government HAS met those expectations? Where IS our moon base? Our Mars mission? Our space transportation system? Our planetary exploration program? All we have to show for all that "investment" we made in the 50's and 60's and 70's is a black hole that absorbs billions per year, and some PAST accomplishments. This IS the future. It sucks. Isn't it time to ask WHY? If I felt that the government COULD do what some folks expect it to do in space, I would flush my ethics down the toilet, put on my armband, do the salute, and join the mob marching towards the glorious future. However, history suggests this isn't effective, though there have always been people ready to believe that somehow "it will be different the next time". The future that industry promises is drab, but possible. The future that the government promises is beautiful, and illusory. Which would you rather have? -- Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 13:03:22 CDT From: David Chase Subject: Costs of shuttles, 747s The creation (= design, development, tooling, testing, etc., production) of a commercial airplane requires well over 100 units sold to break even. The shuttle program spreads those same costs over a handful of orbiters. Comparing the cost of a 747 and the cost of an orbiter is a tricky job. Can't get around that cost to launch, though. When the shuttle is designed does anyone care about cost to launch (i.e., seek to minimize it), or is that just not a problem because (1) it is so far away from the initial design and (2) after we've sunk a few $1,000,000,000 into our shuttles we won't just let them sit on the ground because they are too expensive to use; whatever it costs, we'll pay. David ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 87 04:37:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Alan Sheperd /* Written 5:37 pm Aug 16, 1987 by keithl@vice.TEK.COM in uiucdcsp:sci.space */ In article <1837@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes: [...deleted...] > [...] If the money NASA spends had not been extracted from the > economy, it may have done as much or more to help fund technological > growth in private industry (an unanswerable question; it depends on > which economists you believe). [...deleted...] > Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM > MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 /* End of text from uiucdcsp:sci.space */ "Extracted from the economy"? If money was extracted, where did it go? A new engine, perhaps? "NASA announces new booster which burns dollar bills with liquid oxygen -- film at eleven." Excuse the sarcasm -- it's late. But I don't understand your argument. That money was spent here on Earth -- mostly in the good old US of A. -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 87 22:26:18 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: The Media and Science (interesting!) Newsgroups: sci.space In the middle of an excellent posting on the problems of science and the media chris wrote: >Maybe you can't give 'em Buck Rogers all the time - but those Voyager >pix everyone seems to want are rather nice, don't you think? (NASA, by >the way, has reel upon reel of space footage). Actually, when I was working for JPL on Voyager, a group of amateur cinematographers in the JPL Photo did a short film (Super 8 with some sound) of their day to day workings during Encounter (Jupiter, Saturn, and I assume Uranus after I left). This film was shown in von Karmen Aud. at lunch one day. Set to the music like Holst's Planets, guess which?, it was really neat. It was maybe 30 minutes long? It is not NASA footage technically, but you might try getting it, I suspect it is rather fragile (pre-video). Recording can be neat. Consider the deep vent dives. It takes a good eye and understanding. The camera is a tool to both media and science, it can enlighten as well as hide. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya [soon to be ASC again] NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 87 13:09:37 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: NASA fraud Newsgroups: sci.space >In article <2932@mtgzz.UUCP>, dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes: >) fact. Mr. Bowery merely asserts that NASA is guilty of corrupt and >) criminal activities. >OK, so you claim to have knowledge of criminal activities at JSC. >Please tell the rest of us...or are you afraid that your accusations >will not withstand Charges of corruption are quite serious. In recent days, I have had meetings with the Inspector General of NASA and some of his agents. If anybody on the net can make an assertion and help provide evidence, the Agency will provide for anonymity. If you want to see people hang, that can be arranged, just contact me, they can be outside as well as inside the Agency. >but rather at Congress, who continues to piecemeal out its "support" of Piecemeal support is nothing new. It is a decision which every group of scientists, engineers, and the rest of the universe has to face. The Mirror Fusion Facility was completely axed from Livermore's budget as a decision rather than piecemeal LLNL's budget. Programs have been piecemealed and axed in NASA. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 14 Aug 87 21:51:05 GMT From: pt!andrew.cmu.edu!dm3h+@cs.rochester.edu (Dennis Moul) Subject: Re:Apollo Command Module This info may be a little late as you may have already painted your model, but here's what I know: I have seen virtually every official NASA photograph taken during the Apollo program through my own extensive reading on the subject and I've only seen one inconsistant color on the CM itself. That being on the Apollo 9 mission in which the CM appears a gloss black color. (Verifiable on the cover of Aviation Week a week or two after that mission.) The standard color, however, appears to be a high gloss silver, mirror-like in appearance. If you examine almost any exterior photo taken in space from the LM or SOYUZ you will be able to see accurate reflections of the surroundings. I am assuming that you are aware of the fact that the Service Module was always a flat gun-metal gray in appearance. The Service Propulsion System engine bell was black (although during Skylab the CSM models used light brown bells. Don't know what the difference is.) That mirror silver finish was some kind of ablative material that burned off during re-entry to reveal a charred brown layer underneath. Oh, I also recall just now that I have seen a photo of a CSM being readied for mating to a Saturn 5 for the Apollo 10 mission in which the CM was a glossy BLUE color (to further complicate the matter!) Does this help at all, Harley? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #332 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 2 Sep 87 09:13:38 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12608; Wed, 2 Sep 87 03:18:02 PDT id AA12608; Wed, 2 Sep 87 03:18:02 PDT Date: Wed, 2 Sep 87 03:18:02 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709021018.AA12608@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #333 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 333 Today's Topics: Astronaut Candidate Selections NASA spin offs Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands CANOPUS - June 1987 apollo missions Re: apollo missions Re: apollo missions Re: apollo missions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 87 17:10:47 PDT From: John Sotos Subject: Astronaut Candidate Selections I don't want to scoop Henry Spencer, but readers with ambitions of becoming professional space travellers will be interested in an article on pp. 48-49 of the July 27 Aviation Week: "NASA Urged to Broaden Astronaut Base." The urging is coming from Rep. Manuel Lujan (R-N.M.), the ranking Republican member of the House Science, Space, and Technology committee. "In the last three astronaut candidate groups [1987, 1986, 1984], a total of 45 candidates was selected. Of those, only three were not NASA employees or military officers." Of those three, one was a civilian employee of the Army, one was a JPL employee who is also the son of former NASA Deputy Administrator George Low, and the third was a civilian physician who is also the first black woman selected. This is said to reflect a change in selection standards. In 1978, 13 of 35 selected were non-NASA, non-military; in 1980, 3 of 19 selected were non-NASA, non-military. In a letter to NASA administrator Fletcher, written before the June 1987 astronaut candidate selection, Lujan stated: "'I am very concerned that... the selection process [has] become for all intents and purposes a closed process, shutting out qualified non-NASA civilian applicants.... Are we being asked to believe that out of the thousands of applicants that coincidentally the best qualified were all NASA employees or from the military? If the qualifications for astronaut are best met by serving an apprenticeship with NASA, especially Johnson Space enter, you owe it to the American people to state that publicly.'" Fletcher replied that 18 of 84 candidates selected in 1978-86 were non-NASA, non-military and defended NASA's selection of its own employees. Regular Aviation Week readers may remember that in late 1985 a guy named Al Stewart wrote a stinging letter to Aviation Week making essentially the same point as Lujan. This did have an effect in the selection *office*; the astronaut selection manager at JSC said that Stewart had also written to various congressmen and that he (the selection manager) was spending a lot of his time replying to the congressmen (this was November 1985). Lujan has introduced language in the House version of the 1988 NASA authorization bill ordering NASA to send congress a plan that would ensure the inclusion of non-NASA civilians in future selections. The amendment may not survive the upcoming conference on the House and Senate version of the bills. Have any of the Capitol Hill observers out there heard anything? John Sotos Stanford U. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 87 22:37:25 GMT From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: NASA spin offs In article <1837@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes: > Anyone care to speculate where we would be on many basic technologies > without the research prompted by the needs of the Apollo program. I > know that IC's would have come along because they are an obvious > advance on discrete circuits, but it would have taken longer. Apple > II like machines might just be coming out now. 'Taint so. ICs have always been driven by the commercial and military markets. While NASA bought some of the first RTL, so did everyone else. TTL was developed for the Minuteman II ICBM, and the early MOS LSI work was done for the National Security Agency. All the "major" microprocessors were developed for the commercial market; NASA needs special devices (like the RCA 1802) that are low power and radiation hardened. In mainstream electronics, NASA has always been a technology follower; not suprising, considering their small market size and their long lead times. If the money NASA spends had not been extracted from the economy, it may have done as much or more to help fund technological growth in private industry (an unanswerable question; it depends on which economists you believe). I imagine NASA's main electronic contributions have been in communications, image processing, telemetry, and materials, but being less familiar with these areas I may have fallen for some NASA PR hype myself. I am reminded of Russian claims that THEY invented everything. Well, we can still thank NASA for fire, the wheel, and sliced bread... or am I fooled again? Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 87 16:47:33 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!mjohnson@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Mark Johnson) Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands In article <2030@utastro.UUCP> yaron@utastro.UUCP (Wanna C. DeSupernova) writes: >Suborbital "flight" is not serious. Cooper, therefore, was the first to ^^^^^^^^^^^ !!!! If it is "not serious", so how's come Betty Grissom almost became a widow 6 years earlier than history records? ***Anything*** is serious the first few times it's attempted. Granted, the Mercury man-in-a-Spam-can missions look pretty primitive today, but it was risky business in 1961! Just my 2c worth Mark Johnson (mjohnson@ncrwic.UUCP) NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!mjohnson phone: (316)688-8189 (W) US snailnet: 3532 S. 154th E., Wichita, KS 67232 (H) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 87 14:35:48 GMT From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Wanna C. DeSupernova) Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands > >Suborbital "flight" is not serious. Cooper, therefore, was the first to > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > ....***Anything*** is serious the > first few times it's attempted..... > > Mark Johnson Parachuting from an airplane is dangerous too, yet you wouldn't consider that a spaceflight, I hope. Please consider seriousness in a relative context, not as an absolute qualification. Suborbitals just CAN'T reach the glamor of orbital flights, no matter what. Yaron Sheffer ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 87 22:27:56 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: CANOPUS - June 1987 Thanks to all for the feedback on CANOPUS. Since there have already been 19 positive and no negative replies, I'm encouraged to try something. Most of the votes were for summaries, but a few were for full articles. For the time being, I am going to post 1) all titles, 2) most articles in condensed form, and 3) an occasional article in full. I will also attempt to maintain a mailing list; those on it will receive unabridged copies of each month's CANOPUS articles. Send e-mail to me to be added to or deleted from the list; those who requested articles in full are already on it. Postings and mailings of a given month's articles will occur sometime after the end of that month. These postings are an experiment; please send comments (pro or con) or suggestions to me by e-mail. This posting contains the very first on-line CANOPUS article, plus articles from June 1987. June was a particularly long month; expect most postings to be shorter. Comments in [brackets] are mine. CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief letter estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. OBJECTIVES OF CANOPUS January 1987 [condensed] CANOPUS provides an insider's perspective on issues in space science and astronomy. CANOPUS will not attempt to educate the layman or to present research results. It is for scientists, astronomers, astro-physicists, engineers, and managers with space careers. The approval process, whereby the increasingly limited resources for space research are allocated, will receive special attention. [June 1987 - 7 articles by title only] SPACE STATION TO BE ANALYZED -- AGAIN - can6873.txt - 6/9/87 [already posted] NEW Lewis Research Center DIRECTOR: JOHN KLINEBERG - can6875.txt - 6/9/87 SPACE DATA CONSORTIUM - can6876.txt - 6/9/87 [at GSFC] NEXT SHUTTLE LAUNCH - can6878.txt - 6/9/87 [June 1988] SPACE SCIENCE AND ASTRONOMY TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING - can6879.txt - 6/11/87 JPL APPOINTMENTS - can68712.txt - 61487 [new dep. & assoc. directors] NEW CLEAN ROOM - can68713.txt - 6/14/87 [at GSFC] [June 1987 - 8 condensed articles] SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM - can6871.txt - 6/4/87 NASA's SBIR program, with a current budget of $40 million, is the third largest in the federal government. Noting that the U.S. technology base was eroding, and that many innovations were coming from small start-up companies such as Apple rather than large corporations, Congress in 1981 mandated that each major agency spend 1.25 percent of its R&D budget on small business. Solicitations are mailed each year around March to interested companies, about 19,000 copies this year. The solicitation covered 123 subtopics ranging from floor coverings (for spacecraft assembly rooms) to robotics, computer science, information systems, instrumentation and sensors (with 21 subtopics), spacecraft systems, habitability, life sciences, and other areas. The deadline for responses is June 19. Glaab expects about 2,000 replies of which 200 to 300 awards will be made. For infomation, write to: John Glaab, Manager, Small Business Innovation Research Project, NASA -- IR, Washington, DC 20546 NASA ESTABLISHES OFFICE OF EXPLORATION - can6872.txt - 6/9/87 A new Office of Exploration has been established to coordinate agency activities that will "expand the human presence beyond Earth." Administrator James Fletcher says "This office will analyze and define missions proposed to achieve a goal of human expansion off the planet. It will provide central coordination of technical planning studies that will involve the entire agency. In particular, it will focus on studies of potential lunar and Mars initiatives." GAMMA RAY BALLOON FLIGHT - CAN6874.TXT - 6/9/87 Gamma ray burst detection package developed by Marshall Space Flight Center and the Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory made a one-day flight from Alice Springs, Australia, to study the 1987a supernova which is visible only in the southern hemisphere. LIQUID ROCKET BOOSTERS - can6877.txt - 6/9/87 Liquid rocket boosters will be studied under a new design effort at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. The boosters are candidates to replace the Shuttle's solid rocket boosters. Such studies were conducted in the 1970s but no design work followed because of the expected cost. NEW LUNAR BASE SYMPOSIUM SET - can68710.txt - 6/14/87 The Second Symposium on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century has been scheduled for April 5-7, 1988, in Houston's Westin Galleria Hotel. The second symposium will be sponsored by NASA, AIAA, and the Lunar and Planetary Institute. For additional information contact Administrative Chairman Barney Roberts, Code ED13 (phone 713-483-6605) or Program Chairman Wendell Mendell, Code SN3 (phone 713-483-5064), both at Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058. SATURN RATED AS TOP OUTER PLANET FOR EXPLORATION - can68711.txt - 6/14/87 Saturn has the "highest priority for outer planet exploration in the next decade," according to a report issued by the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX) of the Space Science Board. EXPERIMENT SIMULATIONS SOUGHT FOR SPACE ACADEMY - can68714.txt - 6/14/87 The U.S. Space Academy program at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Ala., is soliciting the help of space scientists in developing experiment simulations to be used in programs for students in high school and college. For information please contact: Dave Dooling, Manager, Program Development, U.S. Space Academy, The Space & Rocket Center, 1 Tranquility Base, Huntsville, AL 35807, or call 205-837-3400, ext. 68. SOLAR TELESCOPE ONLY "NEW" PAYLOAD FOR SPACE STATION - CAN68715.TXT - JUNE 23, 1987 [last article - condensed but still long] The High-Resolution Solar Observatory (HRSO) is the only new payload planned for the initial Space Station, according to a report submitted in April by NASA to the House Committees on Appropriations. Adaptation of several existing Spacelab payloads is discussed in "A Space Station Program Plan for Selected Design Parameters." "Among the inventory of existing payloads, and payloads under development for STS (Space Shuttle) and Spacelab deployment," the report reads, "are a number of promising candidates for early Station paylods, requiring modest conversion costs." Several "highly attractive (new) payloads," each requiring $10-$25 million each to develop, also are being considered. [14 payloads existing/under development. All were scheduled for some type of STS mission but are apparently dead until Space Station. 5 possible new payloads listed; none is now funded. In addition] the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility [now in phase B] and Space Infrared Telescope Facility [science instruments now in phase B] are listed as co-orbiting platform payloads; they would be serviced [but not continuously operated from] the Space Station. A "strawman" launch schedule, highlighting space science and applications payloads, was listed in a November 1986 letter from then-Associate Administrator [of OSSA] Burt Edelson. Few of the "low-cost" payloads mentioned above are included in the strawman. [Commentary: If any of the above sounds familiar, it should. We heard the same things about STS and Spacelab. That's where those existing - unflown - payloads come from. --SW] Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner%cfa@harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 87 08:54:21 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!stc!th@seismo.css.gov (Fred Flintstone) Subject: apollo missions We are having a disagreement in the office about how many apollo missions there were. Was there 17 or 18 ? Thanks Tony Hutchinson ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 87 17:50:21 GMT From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu (Keith P. Mancus) Subject: Re: apollo missions In-Reply-To: <1348@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk> The last Apollo mission was Apollo 17. Perhaps you are thinking of the book _Space_ by James Michener, where he makes a fake Apollo 18 to give him a chance to use his characters. However, the only lunar missions were 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. 10 flew to within 50,000 feet of the moon w/out landing, 9 tested out the LM in Earth orbit, 8 was the trip around the moon that read Genesis back on Christmas Day, and 7 was the first test of Apollo in Earth orbit. Does anyone know what missions 1-6 were? ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 87 23:18:53 GMT From: omega@ngp.utexas.edu (Omega.Mosley`) Subject: Re: apollo missions ...Apollo 1 was, tragically, the tragic fire which claimed the lives of Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chafee. There was, essentially, no Apollo's 2 or 3, unless you count the two revised prototypes for the safer version of the Apollo CM that were actually launched on the Little Joe II test boosters. Apollo 4 was the first unmanned flight test of the Saturn V, while Apollo's 5 & 6 tested the LM and the docking procedures by remote control (the Russkies tried this once. The result finally landed in Canada a few years back...). ...again, 7 was the first manned orbital test of the spacecraft. The rest you all probably know... Omega.Mosley ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 87 15:13:43 GMT From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Wanna C. DeSupernova) Subject: Re: apollo missions In article <1348@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk>, th@tcom.stc.co.uk (Fred Flintstone) writes: > We are having a disagreement in the office about how many apollo > missions there were. Was there 17 or 18 ? Even though the last lunar mission was with Apollo 17, it was only the 11th Apollo flight (Dec. 1972). The first of them was Apollo 7 (1967 or 8). BUT, there was actually one more Apollo mission: Apollo-Soyuz, which we can name Apollo 18 (July 1975). Hence, really, there were 12 (TWELVE) missions. Three other missions using Apollo spacecraft during 1973-74 were designated Skylab missions 2 through 4. Yaron Sheffer ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #333 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 3 Sep 87 06:20:20 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14802; Thu, 3 Sep 87 03:18:29 PDT id AA14802; Thu, 3 Sep 87 03:18:29 PDT Date: Thu, 3 Sep 87 03:18:29 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709031018.AA14802@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #334 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 334 Today's Topics: Re: CANOPUS - June 1987 Re: Apollo Command Module Re: apollo missions Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs Re: apollo missions NASA Spin-offs College Level Space Training . Re: apollo missions Re: apollo missions Re: apollo missions Re: apollo missions Shuttle jumpsuits last reminder (short) Re: apollo missions Re: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs Re: apollo missions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Aug 87 12:48:57 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Re: CANOPUS - June 1987 In article <646@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> willner@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Willner) writes: >EXPERIMENT SIMULATIONS SOUGHT FOR SPACE ACADEMY - can68714.txt - >6/14/87 > >The U.S. Space Academy program at the Space & Rocket Center in >Huntsville, Ala., is soliciting the help of space scientists in >developing experiment simulations to be used in programs for students >in high school and college. For information please contact: Dave >Dooling, Manager, Program Development, U.S. Space Academy, The Space >& Rocket Center, 1 Tranquility Base, Huntsville, AL 35807, or call >205-837-3400, ext. 68. > Or TOLL-FREE 800-633-7280 (might as well save a few bucks) Also, although they haven't asked, I will. In there anyone in Huntsville who can give the Center/Camp Usenet access? There's a lot of good work (particularly in the space education field) being done there. I'll be attending the 10 day program (a special adult session) and would be glad to keep the net updated on the program if I can get a guest account somewhere (this isn't connected to getting them some permanent access). ++rich +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+ | Rich Kolker The work goes on... A|W|A | | 8519 White Pine Drive The cause endures... H|T|H | | Manassas Park, VA 22111 The hope still lives... /|||\ | | (703)361-1290 (h) And the dream shall never die. /_|T|_\ | | (703)749-2315 (w) (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker) " W " | +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+ ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 87 06:54:18 GMT From: mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Apollo Command Module >I've only seen one inconsistant color on the CM itself. That being on >the Apollo 9 mission in which the CM appears a gloss black color. >(Verifiable on the cover of Aviation Week a week or two after that >mission.) I am looking at Gumdrop, the Apollo 9 CM, on page 124 of Joe Allens book, "Entering Space", and the surface consistant with all of the others. That is, the CM was covered with a criss/cross pattern of silver mylar tape, abou 3" wide. I even have a piece of it around here somewhere. Ignore the gold color on the large Monogram model. >The standard color, however, appears to be a high gloss silver, >mirror-like in appearance. If you examine almost any exterior photo >taken in space Oh, I also recall just now that I have seen a photo of a >CSM being readied for mating to a Saturn 5 for the Apollo 10 mission in >which the CM was a glossy BLUE color (to further complicate the >matter!) I remember the Apollo 10 picture, and the best answer I have is that either the blue surface was that immediately beneath the mylar stripping, or some protective cover on top of the tape. *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** "ever felt like life was a game, and someone gave you the wrong instruction book?" ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 87 23:20:59 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: apollo missions In article <604@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU>, kpmancus@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes: > However, the only lunar missions were 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. 10 > flew to within 50,000 feet of the moon w/out landing, 9 tested out the > LM in Earth orbit, 8 was the trip around the moon that read Genesis > back on Christmas Day, and 7 was the first test of Apollo in Earth > orbit. Does anyone know what missions 1-6 were? Missions 1-6 included engineering test craft and the Apollo capsule involved in the fire on the pad (Grisson-Chaffee-White). You also skipped over 13, which had the fuel cell (?) explosion and aborted around the moon. (A long, cold, scarey ride!) I don't remember that it took two years before another flight was tried, though. seh ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 87 13:23 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs To: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Eugene Miya: >> what would have happened if we had not had reacted to Sputnik they >> way we did: create NASA, IGY, the temporary trend in education, etc. G. Gleason: > Anyone care to speculate where we would be on many basic technologies > without the research prompted by the needs of the Apollo program. I > know that IC's would have come along because they are an obvious > advance on discrete circuits, but it would have taken longer. Apple > II like machines might just be coming out now. Well, IC's were invented before Sputnik, weren't they? And they are used in military equipment, so even if there never was a civilian space program they would have been developed. I seriously doubt the delay, if any, would have been as long as you suggest. G. Gleason: > There are studies that indicate that the Apollo program has paid back > the economy many times over, even if you don't look at spin-off > technologies. The Apollo program paid the economy back, ignoring spinoffs? Unlikely, unless you assign a very high value to data about lunar geology. Perhaps you are refering to the "multiplier effect" where spending in NASA generates 10x (or whatever) economic activity? But ALL spending has this multiplier effect, including pyramid building, surplus cheese stockpiling and, more to the point, the private spending that was prevented by taxing to fund NASA. Justifying the space program through spinoffs faces a similar problem. How can you tell what would have been discovered and invented (but wasn't) had the scientists and engineers working on the space program instead worked in some other area? Also, how can you tell what is a real spinoff, and what is just a technology that the Apollo program happened to use but wasn't the impetus for? I find it hard to believe that space R&D produces more accidental spinoffs than other areas; indeed, it seems obvious that R&D targeted at specific terrestrial application areas (microelectronics, energy, biotechnology, for example) should have a much higher spinoff potential than R&D targeted at space. One might argue that the space program and the military provide markets for embryonic products like IC's. But the opposite also happens: government contracts can cause industries to lose touch with the civilian market. This has happened in the machine tool industry, where US producers are now being clobbered by imports. The expendable launcher industry is another example. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 15:53:10 GMT From: kodak!dennett@cs.rochester.edu (Charlie Dennett) Subject: Re: apollo missions In article <604@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.UUCP (Keith P. Mancus) writes: > Does anyone know what missions 1-6 were? Wasn't Apollo 1 the one that had the fire that killed Gus Grissom and two others? If so, was it designed to fly? Charlie Dennett ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1987 15:11 EDT From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: NASA Spin-offs Is it really true that NASA was important in developing IC's? I don't remember much about that at the time. In fact I have the impression, undoubtedly wrong, that they weren't qualified for space for a long time - granted that that's not the same as developing them. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 19:32:22 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: College Level Space Training . Some interesting news for those of you still undergraduates in college. I just received some slides from Space Academy/Camp (I'm giving a talk on the program) and among them is one describing "Space Academy Level III'. This is a 2-12 week program aimed at college Sophs, juniors and seniors. It will include classwork at the University of Alabama, Huntsville and training at the training center of the Alabama Space and Rocket Center (Space Academy). That's ALL I KNOW (I'm trying to get a call through to the camp director for more information). Since Space Academy Level II gets you college credit, undoubtedly this will as well. A semester's worth? I don't know. What will it cost? I don't know. When I know more, I'll post it. ++rich +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+ | Rich Kolker The work goes on... A|W|A | | 8519 White Pine Drive The cause endures... H|T|H | | Manassas Park, VA 22111 The hope still lives... /|||\ | | (703)361-1290 (h) And the dream shall never die. /_|T|_\ | | (703)749-2315 (w) (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker) " W " | +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+ ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 09:25:15 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!hwee!hmc@seismo.css.gov (Hugh Conner) Subject: Re: apollo missions In article <1348@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk> th@tcom.stc.co.uk (Fred Flintstone) writes: >We are having a disagreement in the office about how many apollo >missions there were. Was there 17 or 18 ? The last moon flight was Apollo 17. If you count the Apollo/Soyuz mission that makes 18. Am I right in thinking however that they didn't start at 1. Was it in fact Apollo 1 which caught fire on the pad and killed the 3 crew members? What was the number of the first Apollo which was successfully launched? Hugh M. Conner hmc@ee.hw.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 17:24:25 GMT From: jac%tut.cis.ohio-state.edu@OHIO-STATE.ARPA (Jim Clausing) Subject: Re: apollo missions In article <26164@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >You also skipped over 13, which had the fuel cell (?) explosion and >aborted around the moon. (A long, cold, scarey ride!) > >I don't remember that it took two years before another flight was >tried, though. > seh Yes, it did take nearly two years before another MANNED flight took place. The fire on the pad took place in January 1967 (almost 19 years to the day before the Challenger accident), Apollo 7 flew in October or November 1968. Borman, et al's Christmas view of Earthrise was 1968 (and a mere 8 months and 3 Apollo flights later Armstrong & Aldrin were walking on the moon and poor Mike Collins was up there in orbit but had to relay his congrats to A & A via Houston). Jim Clausing ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 87 01:19:09 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: apollo missions The number of Apollo missions depends on how you define an "Apollo mission". The actual mission numbering was a bit confused at first. The crew that died in the fire was calling their mission "Apollo 1" because it was to be the first manned Apollo, while the booster manufacturers were calling it "Apollo 4" because three unmanned tests had gone first. NASA HQ had not officially settled the matter. Afterwards, NASA HQ retroactively named it "Apollo 1" in memory of the astronauts. The first post-fire unmanned test was officially "Apollo 4" because it was the fourth Apollo to fly. This raised the issue of how to reconcile the three previous unmanned tests with the memorial use of "Apollo 1". The eventual decision from NASA HQ was that the old unmanned tests would *not* be renamed, so there never was an "Apollo 2" or "Apollo 3". 5 and 6 were more unmanned tests. 7-17 were the manned missions, of which 7 and 9 were Earth-orbit only and 8, 10, and 13 came near the Moon but did not land. Hardware for Apollos 18-20 was built but never flown; some of it was later used for Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab (and some wasn't: the Lunar Module in the Smithsonian is the real thing, it was meant to fly... sigh). I have heard Apollo-Soyuz called "Apollo 18" but I don't think this ever was official. The manned Skylab flights were Skylab 2-4 (Skylab 1 was the unmanned launch of Skylab itself). There was a Skylab rescue plan that could have resulted in a modified Apollo going up to retrieve a stranded crew; I think this was dubbed Skylab R, but it never flew (although preparations for it were started once, when problems appeared in the mission then in orbit). The best reference on all this is the NASA History Series book "Chariots for Apollo". -- Apollo was the doorway to the stars. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Next time, we should open it. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 87 17:53:33 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Re: apollo missions >>Missions 1-6 included engineering test craft and the Apollo >>capsule involved in the fire on the pad (Grisson-Chaffee-White). >> I believe the official numbering for the Apollo `mission' in which G-C-W died was Apollo 204. I don't know what the designation was intended to mean. -- Bill UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu (or) wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu BITNET: wyatt@cfa2 SPAN: 17410::wyatt (this will change in June) ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 87 14:16:57 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Shuttle jumpsuits last reminder (short) Just a reminder that if you want in on the jumpsuit order I need money and size by this weekend. Email for details. ++rich +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+ | Rich Kolker The work goes on... A|W|A | | 8519 White Pine Drive The cause endures... H|T|H | | Manassas Park, VA 22111 The hope still lives... /|||\ | | (703)361-1290 (h) And the dream shall never die. /_|T|_\ | | (703)749-2315 (w) (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker) " W " | +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+ ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 87 18:50:41 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: apollo missions > I believe the official numbering for the Apollo `mission' in > which G-C-W died was Apollo 204. I don't know what the designation > was intended to mean. This was vaguely along the lines of the "51L" shuttle numbering system. I believe the 200 series were Saturn 1Bs with Block-1 Apollos, and 204 was the fourth such mission (following three unmanned tests). See my other posting for comments on how it became "Apollo 1". All the Apollo missions had multidigit codes for internal planning; I believe the lunar missions had 400-series and 500-series numbers. -- Apollo was the doorway to the stars. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Next time, we should open it. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 87 15:57:14 GMT From: PT!k.gp.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay@cs.rochester.edu (Donald Lindsay) Subject: Re: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs >> Well, IC's were invented before Sputnik, weren't they? No. Computers used tubes when Sputnik went up. People, if you don't know anything, stop proving it to the world. -- Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 87 20:48:34 GMT From: omega@ngp.utexas.edu (Omega.Mosley`) Subject: Re: apollo missions ...according to a source at the JSC in Houston, the 400 series referred to Apollo launches involving the Saturn 5 boosters, yet not involving any sort of TLI. The 500 series referred to all true moon shots (Apollo's 8, 10-17). ...the source was not too certain if the Skylabs were numerated in this manner, but is certain that no real numeric designation was applied to the Apollo-Soyuz test flight due to part of the agreement between the US and the other guys. Note also that the Sov's didn't number that Soyuz either. Omega.Mosley ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #334 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 4 Sep 87 06:20:18 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16459; Fri, 4 Sep 87 03:17:12 PDT id AA16459; Fri, 4 Sep 87 03:17:12 PDT Date: Fri, 4 Sep 87 03:17:12 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709041017.AA16459@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #335 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 335 Today's Topics: NASA Spin-offs Re: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs Re: NASA and IC's Re: Apollo Command Module Re: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Aug 87 01:37:50 GMT From: ucsdhub!jack!man!crash!telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: NASA Spin-offs > Is it really true that NASA was important in developing IC's? I don't > remember much about that at the time. In fact I have the impression, > undoubtedly wrong, that they weren't qualified for space for a long > time - granted that that's not the same as developing them. I don't know if there were other NASA programs that could give some credence to the claim that the space program led to advances in IC technology; the one program that I know something about not only doesn't support the claim very well, but illustrates some of the pitfalls of government sponsored "technology driver" programs that aren't firmly grounded in "real world" requirements. The program that I'm thinking of is the one that developed the Saturn flight control computers. They were built by IBM Federal Systems Division, using a custom developed technology called ASLT ("Advanced Solid Logic Technology"). This was an extrapolation of SLT, used in the early generation IBM 360 systems. It wasn't really an IC technology at all--just an advanced packaging technology for logic built around discrete transistors. In SLT, conductor patterns and resistors were screened and fired onto 16 pin ceramic substrates. Then discrete transistors, in the form of tiny silicon chips with solder pads deposited on their contact points, were positioned face down on the substrates. The substrates were cycled through an oven, where they got hot enough to melt the solder pads without damaging the transistors. Surface tension in the melted solder then automatically aligned the transistor chips. The substrates were removed from the oven and cooled, leaving the transistor chips sitting on little solder balls above the substrates. Metal caps were then crimped around the substrates, and a rubber-like sealant spread on the back to give a hermetic seal. One module typically held half a dozen transistors or so, and implemented the equivalent of one multi-input NAND gate. That was SLT. The ASLT that NASA paid IBM so much to develop was just a slimmed-down version of SLT. The substrates were smaller and thinner, with the pins closer together. I believe there was also a new sealing compound developed, that could be put on thinner and withstand wider temperature limits. All this is not as trivial as it may sound; true to NASA form, they were pushing the limits of the technologies involved. Unfortunately, the technologies they were pushing turned out to be pretty irrelevant to the real world. ASLT was obsolete, or close to it, by the time the first Saturns flew. I don't think it ever saw application outside of the Apollo program. An expensive technological dead end--rather like those marvelous Shuttle thermal tiles are destined to become. - Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Aug 87 00:01:00 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs Newsgroups: sci.space >In article <8708211756.AA06460@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: > >>The Apollo program paid the economy back, ignoring spinoffs? >>Unlikely, unless you assign a very high value to data about lunar >>geology. > >parts of the space program picked up the results. The actual Apollo >results will be VERY valuable when (if? shudder) we get back to the >Moon. Other aspects of the space program have paid off in enough green >and crinkly to make worry about spinoffs an acedemic excercise. The >obvious big two are weather satellites and communications satellites. >Care to estimate the value of satellite communications? > >Improved weather prediction is impossible to put a dollar value on, but >it probably returns more than the entire NASA budget by a long shot. I >have heard satellite tracking of hurricanes saved an estimated 50 000 >lives in the Pass Christian hurricane alone (estimate from Arthur C. >Clarke) Actually the complete value of planetary science as a whole is quite high. Not just lunar science, visit some PS departments. One is tempted to say almost immeasuable as the second corespondent, but I think it is measureable. Just turn off the weather satellites (or let them fall into dis-repair) and let people die. I think Clarke is a bit optimistic, but to quote Joni Mitchell, "You don't know what you got till it's gone." I'm perfectly willing to do this. Comsats are harder to justify, there is the fiber optic debate. As I have stated before, and others, don't try to justify space on the basis of spinoffs. It doesn't fly on the Hill. People dying in the Gulf (Mex) do. We live in The Space Age, but as Feynman points out, we don't have a scientific society. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 87 21:17:37 GMT From: amelia!msf@ames.arpa (Michael S. Fischbein) Subject: Re: NASA and IC's In article <486@telesoft.UUCP> roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: >In SLT, conductor patterns and resistors were screened and fired onto >16 pin ceramic substrates. Then discrete transistors, in the form of >tiny silicon chips with solder pads deposited on their contact points, >were positioned face down on the substrates. The substrates were >cycled through an oven, where they got hot enough to melt the solder >pads without damaging the transistors. Surface tension in the melted >solder then automatically aligned the transistor chips. The substrates >were removed from the oven and cooled, leaving the transistor chips >sitting on little solder balls above the substrates. > >That was SLT. The ASLT that NASA paid IBM so much to develop was just >a slimmed-down version of SLT. stuff elided >I don't think it ever saw application outside of the Apollo program. >An expensive technological dead end--rather like those marvelous >Shuttle thermal tiles are destined to become. The SLT and ASLT sound a lot like the forerunners of the TCM chip assemblies that IBM is using today in their larger commercial boxes. You know, the ones that they claim have NEVER had a failure in the field, the ones that let them get chip densities greater than other manufacturers (that's chips per board or assembly, not components per chip). Now they're soldering chips instead of transistors, but I bet they are direct extrapolations of the ASLT program you described. Is that an application outside of the Apollo program? mike Michael Fischbein msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov ...!seismo!decuac!csmunix!icase!msf These are my opinions and not necessarily official views of any organization. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 87 15:09:20 GMT From: gatech!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay@rutgers.edu (Jay Smith) Subject: Re: Apollo Command Module I've been on vacation, so I'm coming into this a bit late. Please excuse me if I'm going over previously discussed matters. In article <2545@ames.arpa> mike@ames.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: >Ignore the gold color on the large Monogram model. Then why is the CM of the Apollo-Soyuz backup CSM on display at the Air & Space Museum gold? Is my memory failing, or my color vision faulty, or could it be the lighting at the museum? >I remember the Apollo 10 picture, and the best answer I have is that >either the blue surface was that immediately beneath the mylar >stripping, or some protective cover on top of the tape. I think it's the protective cover, since I've also seen it in photos of finished CMs at the plant that built them. Jay Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 87 00:16:39 GMT From: sundc!hadron!cos!smith@seismo.css.gov (Steve Smith) Subject: Re: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs In article <8708211756.AA06460@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >The Apollo program paid the economy back, ignoring spinoffs? Unlikely, >unless you assign a very high value to data about lunar geology. Like most people, you are confusing "NASA" and "the Apollo program". Understandable, because for most of the '60's they were very closely intermingled. Apollo provided most of the driving force, and other parts of the space program picked up the results. The actual Apollo results will be VERY valuable when (if? shudder) we get back to the Moon. Other aspects of the space program have paid off in enough green and crinkly to make worry about spinoffs an acedemic excercise. The obvious big two are weather satellites and communications satellites. Care to estimate the value of satellite communications? Improved weather prediction is impossible to put a dollar value on, but it probably returns more than the entire NASA budget by a long shot. I have heard satellite tracking of hurricanes saved an estimated 50 000 lives in the Pass Christian hurricane alone (estimate from Arthur C. Clarke) >the private spending that was prevented by taxing to fund NASA. Exercise for those using this arguement: 1. Get some graphs of U. S. military and total U. S. government spending for the period 1960 - 1980. 2. Blank out the dates 3. Identify the end of the Viet Nam war. It can't be done. If they don't spend it on one thing, they spend it on another. Note that the war burned the ENTIRE cost of the Apollo program in about 6 months. Politicians always talk about cutting spending, but Pres. Raygun made big waves by trying to let the taxpayers keep some of it. >I find it hard to believe that space R&D produces more accidental >spinoffs than other areas; indeed, it seems obvious that R&D targeted >at specific terrestrial application areas (microelectronics, energy, >biotechnology, for example) should have a much higher spinoff potential >than R&D targeted at space. This is true if you subscribe to the "bean counter" school of research. Research into, say, integrated circuits will produce slightly better integrated circuits with a high enough probability to satisfy the accountants. Its chance of coming up with a real breakthrough (say, something that makes integrated circuits obsolete) is negligable. Note that space research is extremely technology intensive. A solution to a problem usually has to be built from scratch - giving lots more opportunity for inventiveness. REAL research (that with no obvious short or medium term payoff) is the equivalent of seed corn - eat your seed corn and you do just fine - for a while. What will be the next big payoff area? I wish I knew. If it starts raining soup, you have to be outside with a spoon. -- Steve smith@cos.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #335 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 5 Sep 87 06:19:03 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18223; Sat, 5 Sep 87 03:17:03 PDT id AA18223; Sat, 5 Sep 87 03:17:03 PDT Date: Sat, 5 Sep 87 03:17:03 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709051017.AA18223@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #336 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 336 Today's Topics: political support for space colonization costs: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 87 22:53:19 GMT From: xanth!kent@ames.arpa (Kent Paul Dolan) Subject: political support for space colonization Dedicating a couple of days to goofing off reading news, I got all the way down to sci.space. Looks like you guys have a money problem. I hereby propose a (political) solution. I don't want to go to the trouble of going back and extracting comments from 80 odd postings, so I'll just assume you read them all, and that that provides sufficient context for this note. First, some motivating comments. Based on current events (which I do my best to ignore - tossed out the last TV a year ago), I don't expect the human race to make the cut in the survival of the fittest team culling unless we manage to get a sufficient breeding cadre off planet and far away _soon_. Since I have a trio of potential asteroid or Oort cloud dwellers of my own engendering, I feel I have a personal stake in this. There is also a sufficient possibility that if we _do_ manage space-born industry quickly enough, the resultant prosperity will help defuse the ongoing political incompetences, so that some of the less mobile of Earth's species will also have a shot at surviving our ill temper. What seem immediately lacking to achieve the required colonization and industrialization of space are two requisites: will, and capital. As John Kennedy demonstrated, a charismatic leader can provide to the population a clear goal and the will to sacrifice to achieve it. Adolph Hitler provided the same demonstration, so some care is needed in using applied charisma. The launch of Sputnik demonstrated that political events and active participation by the media can provide a similar motivation. The sinking of the Maine provided a similar cautionary tale on misuse of the "power of the press". One correspondent noted here that the membership of the various space societies approximates 1/1000 of the American population. While at first this seems like a small number, it is probably also a quite good estimate of the portion of politically active ("ward worker type") persons in the US population. Approached another way, if the entire membership of these societies took to the political pavement in support of a pro-space candidate, and each talked to three new people each day from now to election day 1988, they would have more than enough time to personally present their candidate to every voter in the country, with enough time left over to cope with overlaps and mild disorganization. It would be necessary that they elect both congresspersons and president dedicated to the concept, to accomplish the funding and implementation of a space program of heroic proportions. Getting all of any group of human beings to cooperate in any project is pretty hopeless when the group membership exceeds three or four, but now we can appeal to the laws covering compound interest and chain letters. Surely among the persons approached, if there is any hope for this project at all, there will be some who will go beyond being persuaded to vote for the chosen candidate, and become enthusiastic participants in the canvassing process, even though not originally members of the pro-space societies. An adequate and dedicated base from the space societies, together with early and continuing attention to recruiting canvassers (preferably from among the young, energetic, and enthusiastic; they don't even have to be of voting age, though it would surely help) would rapidly create a group large enough to cover the voting public as previously noted. Now, given a mechanism by which to elect a suitable Congress and president, (requiring only commitment and lots of work), where in the political process can we find enough funds to get a massive space effort started in January 1989? Several targets immediately present themselves, and reflect back on the need for suitably chosen candidates. First, we are not at war. I propose, as rapidly as possible, changing 99% of our armed forces from active duty to reserves, with 30 days paid training per year. This would reduce the expensive nonsense of fully manned Naval vessels spending most of the year at pierside for lack of fuel money, and similar waste in other services. A requirement to mobilize reserves, rather than just sending in the troups, would also decrease the desirablity and ease of execution of Grenada-like adventures. After all, the next war is either going to be very fast, or give time to get folks to their duty stations. There doesn't seem to be an intermediate speed war that could not be quickly detected in its build-up stages from existing reconnaissance satellites. We do not need more sophisticated nuclear weapons delivery systems for our "strategic defenses"; as Carl Sagen and others have pointed out (not in so many words), we could equally well reduce the Soviet Union to an uninhabited wasteland by exploding our current arsenal of nuclear weapons on our own soil. The only difference compared to dropping them on Soviet cities in response to a Soviet first strike is that the suffering here would be shorter, there longer. There seems little chance that "tactical" nuclear weapons could be used without leading to holocaust, so their deployment could profitably be eliminated. Knowing that its opponent's only available response to use of "tactical" nuclear weapons is use of "strategic" nuclear weapons would probably give an enemy less reason to believe that there could be a limited tactical nuclear exchange, and so probably be stabilizing relative to the present situation. The recent attack on the Stark lends credence to a hypothesis that our development of high technology weapons systems (in this case Phalanx) has outstripped our human capability to manage them in threat situations, so we could profitably turn from investing in ever higher technology, but failure prone weapons systems to lower technology, cheaper, reliable and mass producable weapons systems, at a significantly lower overall cost. Opponents of the SDI software seem strangely quiet on the subject of ever having a workable suite of battle management software, surely an equally massive, ongoing, risk and failure prone endeavor. Leaving DOD reeling, with many more cuts available where those came from, we can turn next to agricultural subsidies. Large portions of the human race go to bed hungry each day, yet we can't find a market for our agricultural productivity. This is nonsense! Let's eliminate all farm subsidies, and spend half the amount building up industry in the poor nations, so they can afford our food, and ships to transport it, and spend the difference on the space program! The industries we encourage can be ones contributing directly to the space effort, a double gain. The educational investment in the underdeveloped nations necessary to make this work will have the side benefits of promoting more rational political systems and sensible governments, contributing to world peace. Prosperity also historically reduces the birth rate, reducing hunger in the long term. Changing focus again, we can eliminate all the pork-barrelers' delight water projects which try to turn naturally arid areas into cropland, at the expense of salinifying and eroding soils not suited to such use, and suck the Colorado river dry to contribute additional housing to a Los Angeles basin already choking to death in the waste products of overpopulation. Why spend money on projects whose long term effects harm the nation? We can spend this money moving polluting industries and replacements for their polluting power sources into near earth orbit. I'm sure further analysis would show savings available in other areas of government; we could probably get by with 10% of the current federal civilian employees by such simple tricks as replacing income tax forms with mark sense OCR forms to save the clerical work of typing them into computers, and similar efficiency oriented measures in other departments. Given the political will to implement (probably modifications of) these and other measures to divert money to a space program, we next need to plan a program that doesn't become an infinite sink for money and a worse source of problems than of solutions. One immediate requisite for a space program is cheap, limited pollution transport of lots of mass to near earth orbit or L5 orbit. Several coherent proposals have been made to achieve this; from my limited perspective, the rail gun and spinning metal band approaches seem to require the least new technology. The current explosion of knowledge in superconduction at high temperatures make an electromagnetic rail gun an ever more attractive proposition, and it merits serious consideration. Next, people transport is needed. The space shuttle gives us a base from which to build, but we need hundreds, or nearly instant recycling, so as to support heavy daily commuter traffic. This poses a pretty severe threat to the ozone layer, so rapid developement of superior alternatives like the continuously circulating metal ribbon, or materials strong enough to build a surface to orbit bridge, is a priority. There needs to be a massive revision of the tax laws to encourage high risk space enterprises, and to guarantee to the investors retention of a large portion of the profits for, say, the first fifty years, to make industrial access to space attractive to venture capital. As noted in many postings, over the short term, government sponsorship of space access is the only way to get the massive funding needed, but over the long term, private enterprise is a more desirable funding source. Large, expensive items like a rail gun up Pikes Peak need to be funded from the public coffers, but they could be turned into public utilities and the cost of operation payed by the corporate users once the initial investment is accomplished and the technology functional. Besides, once it is proven technology with a known profit potential, there would quickly be a second and a third rail gun, from private funds. Compare Comsat, for example. Now, I have gone on here for hundreds of lines, and probably bored you to tears summarizing things everyone reading the group already knows. "But," I hear you telling yourselves, "every educated person knows, only a madman would run for president. Where will we find someone knowledgeable of the issues, favorable to the agenda, yet dumb enough to run for office?" Ahem. Well, had I not spent November 1985 to January 1986 as an unwilling guest of Virginia's Eastern State Hospital, diagnosed "monopolar depressive", and discharged "improved, not cured", I would probably not meet the most important criterion noted above. Since I am certified not right in the head, and (mostly) gainfully unemployed, I hereby, none too humbly, offer myself as the victim. (Federal Election Commission, this constitutes a formal edeclaration of candidacy!) I am tall, homely, cantankerous, possessed of the right number of fingers and toes, meet the Constitutional requirements for candidacy, warm, breathing, highly intelligent (note: != wise, or I wouldn't be doing this) and mostly coherent. Somedays I have trouble finding a reason to get out of bed, but I stay awake through, and pay attention at meetings, can see more than one point of view on an issue, and am willing to accept advice in areas (most of them) where I don't feel myself to be the world class expert. I have the usual assortment of closet skeletons, but I have no fear at all of putting them right up front if this gets off the ground, and defused early, they should offend few voters. Examples: I had exactly one affair during my marriage, begun before it and terminated soon after it. I was retired from service at the convenience of the government for making a big stink about mistreatment of female employees aboard a NOAA vessel (I understand NOAA lost the subsequent lawsuit, anyway), after 17 years, 8 months of service. I have relatives who have been convicted of felonies, relatives who are gay, relatives who have also spent time in mental hospitals. My parents were divorced, both twice, and I am being divorced at present (and over the last three years - reform of the legal system would sure be nice; this is ridiculous!) I have friends of all races, sexes, political orientations (including communist), sexual orientations, and religious persuasions. I have not been in a church except for weddings or to show my children what religion is about for decades, and have my own, probably reasonably unique view of the creation question. My current education is in disarray, with an even division between completed courses with a grade of 'A', and incomplete courses when I run out of steam and spend a month or two in bed. That about covers the list, and it wasn't hard at all. Since my style of talking almost exactly matches my writing style, a speach making campaign would be an absolute guarantee of failure. Instead, if interested, drop me a note of support, then go out and recruit the appropriate space societies into the effort, find or create from your own ranks suitable local candidates. Do not send, and do not take measures to accumulate, political funds. If this cannot be accomplished by informal methods (BBS's, individual pocket money, photocopying, petitions to include candidates not supported by political parties on the ballot, and door to door campaigning) and unpaid, enthusiastic volunteer effort, then there is not sufficient available support for the long term accomplishment of the goal of inhabiting space, and there is no real purpose in engaging ourselves in an ultimately lost cause. If there is enough support to make this a viable effort, then I, for my part, will do the following. Read and study materials sent to me by supporters (poverty is really intense here with child support payments coming out of a NOAA pension, so I'm not going to be doing much funding myself) to learn to speak more knowledgeably about the Federal budget, available off the shelf and near term space technology, international relations and means of diverting funds from strife oriented to space oriented causes, and of keeping the peace at least long enough to export a viable pool of genes, world economics, and anything else you think I ought to know. I'm a fast study, reading about a book a day, sometimes three or four when things get really dreary, so don't fear to overload me. I currently read Scientific American, National Geographic, IEEE Spectrum and Computer, SIGGRAPH, SIGAda, SIGSOFT and SIGPLAN publications, JACM, CACM, Computing Surveys, TOPLAS, TOGS, TODS, TOMS, Computer Languages, Reader's Digest, Analog, Amigaworld, BYTE, and Amazing Computing. I have a collection from 1984 back a few years of L5 News, The Planetary Report, Science Weekly, and NASA Activities to use for reference. Newer materials would be welcome in this area, as would expert commentary and game plans for getting into and _staying_ in space. Make _limited_, brief, political appearances, just so people know what I look and sound like. The thrill will wear off pretty fast, let me tell you, for both me and them! Write and publish here, for further distribution, comment, revision, and so on appropriate position papers. My typing skills are pretty fair, and English and I are comfortable with one another. Open myself to a dialog with supporters concerning goals and means. Lend support and ideas to local candidates who are a part of this effort. Behave myself so as not to give the press ammunition for negative attacks. Do my best to get my boys and girl, and the rest of you who want to go or the kids for whom you wish to provide opportunity, transport and means, out in space where the real action to make the human race a viable experiment of nature must now take place. Once started, I see little purpose to limiting this to an American effort; at base it must be a human effort. It must start with us to succeed, simply because we have, if we choose to use them, the means. If we try to exclude the rest of humanity, we will, I think, quickly doom our efforts. I must return to my small consulting job, and earn a bit of a living doing FORTRAN and assembly. Please consider the above, and decide if you want to talk about getting into space, or do something about it. If the latter, join together, and I will join you, for the political process is the only tool we have available to make this work, sorry a tool as it is in the hands of its usual keepers. [ Hmm. Back into emacs. esc-<; esc->; ctrl-a, ctrl-e. No smiley faces! Could it be he's serious? Could be! Do we commit to him, or just commit him again? Decisions, decisions, all the time decisions. What's a body to do? You decide. ] Kent, the man from xanth. -- Kent Paul Dolan, LCDR, NOAA, Retired; ODU MSCS grad student // Yet UUCP : kent@xanth.UUCP or ...{sun,harvard}!xanth!kent // Another CSNET : kent@odu.csnet ARPA : kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu \\ // Happy USPost: P.O. Box 1559, Norfolk, Virginia 23501-1559 \// Amigan! Voice : (804) 587-7760 -=][> Last one to Ceres is a rotten egg! -=][> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 13:06:19 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: costs: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" Newsgroups: sci.space > Newsweek I have to get around to reading this. >It tells why we spend millions instead of thousands, billions instead >of millions, Permit me to relate a little story of nut and bolts and seats. I heard stories of Government expenses long before working for NASA when I was in college. I took a my first full time job will Ball Aerospace working at JPL (answering an ad in the LA Times). It was working on Synthetic Aperature Radar for SEASAT. My first job was to assemble a PDP-11 (note: I did not name the manufacturer). We needed a little cable to attach an additional VT52 to the PDP, you know RS-232. Government regs typically require competitive procurement on these types of things (first order costs). The manufacturer wanted $120 (1977 dollars) for this cable. In the end, I petty cashed it for $20 (6 feet long) from the Byte Shop [since out of business] on Lake in Pasadena, CA: $20. That is a factor of 6. Free enterprise in action. Recently, I needed a book on parallel processing. It took 8 weeks to get thru procurement. I saw it at Computer Literacy bookstore just three miles away [what baud rate is this?]. I've have given up blaming anybody, everybody is guilty: our procurement officers, the companies, etc., myself. "An indictment of the American system." -- Animal House. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #336 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 6 Sep 87 09:10:07 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19584; Sun, 6 Sep 87 03:17:58 PDT id AA19584; Sun, 6 Sep 87 03:17:58 PDT Date: Sun, 6 Sep 87 03:17:58 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709061017.AA19584@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #337 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 337 Today's Topics: Re: costs: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want want Sally Ride reference Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" Re: Asteroid Collision Re: Asteroid Collision Re: costs: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" Ride report Re: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Aug 87 15:18:08 GMT From: amelia!msf@ames.arpa (Michael S. Fischbein) Subject: Re: costs: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" In article <8708202006.AA04119@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >> Newsweek >I have to get around to reading this. > >>It tells why we spend millions instead of thousands, billions instead >>of millions, > Horror stories of government procurement elided... > >I've have given up blaming anybody, everybody is guilty: our procurement >officers, the companies, etc., myself. > Me too. Not only do the procurement regulations COST far more than they save (although they were well intended), the TIME that must be expended is amazing to anyone not familiar with the process (like >30 MONTHS for a medium sized workstation network). This leads to incredible amounts of frustration for the people involved -- both the companies and the government employees. After starting the maze for a major competitive procurement, one quickly develops the attitude of 'anything to get this over with.' In fairness to some of the companies involved with price 'gouging,' it should be remembered that these extra costs (for the delay) must be recovered somewhere. mike Michael Fischbein msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 87 15:30:39 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 August 21 15:30:39 PDT (=GMT-7hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 August 21 16:08:21 PDT (=GMT-7hr) From: Robert Elton Maas To: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want Date: 18 Aug 87 16:25:14 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want The trouble with this idea is getting everyone to go along with it. Sagan and Van Allen, to name two, have been knocking space projects they don't like for twenty years now. Suppose we start pushing what we want, while Sagan and Van Allen keep knocking what they don't like. What's the result in public perception? Lots of people talking about our projects, pro and con, hardly anybody talking about Mars landing. Which projects get the attention? (Ours) Which projects die from lack of publicity? (Mars) Which people start to sound like they are OPPOSED to space? (Sagan and Van Allen) Like it or not, this *is* an adversary process at the moment. But it isn't stable. Anyone major group that ceases being adversary makes the others seem anti-space. Thus we can take over by unilaterally switching to a non-adversary mode. (It isn't like weapons&war where anybody who unilaterally disarms gets killed.) (I'm not very good at psychology and politics, so I'm sure there's some good rebuttal to my opinion, let's hear it.) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 19:17:29 GMT From: decvax!linus!philabs!sbcs!bnl!allard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (rick allard) Subject: want Sally Ride reference Recently I read something (can't remember where) that referred to an article by (?, perhaps about) Sally Ride about our space goals. It seemed to be an update to something older by a few months. A main point was that we shouldn't race to Mars but get the base well established at Moon. (These were 2 points of an earlier 5 point goal.) I think this was in Aviation Week. Question is: what issue? Please mail, I'll be away 2 wk. Thanx, Rick ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 87 00:53:04 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" I have some reservations about the Newsweek articles -- the reporting is slanted to the point of borderline lying in places -- but on the whole I too recommend them. -- Apollo was the doorway to the stars. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Next time, we should open it. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 87 01:41:41 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Asteroid Collision > > ... If there is any truth to this, what schemes might > > be used to deflect and/or destroy the object? Should we even bother? > > Oddly enough, this problem was studied in detail by a class at MIT some > years ago. The class was given the problem of deflecting the asteroid > Icarus. Their solution was to detonate one or more thermonuclear devices > near the asteroid some time before impact... They didn't have terribly long to work with, actually, because they were assuming a hit at the time of the 1968 (?) encounter, and getting the hardware ready in time wouldn't be easy. I think their first bomb was scheduled for about two months before impact, with three others following in fast succession. The total of four was based on the assumption that a maximum-effort crash project could have six Saturn Vs ready to fly by then, and two would be needed for tests. Been a while since I read their report, but I think those numbers are about right. Note that the whole scheme relied absolutely on a heavylift launcher with interplanetary capability, something the US hasn't had for ten years and won't have again for at *least* another six or seven. -- Apollo was the doorway to the stars. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Next time, we should open it. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 87 22:36:19 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Asteroid Collision > In article <647@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> I wrote: > >[The asteroid] does cross the Earth's orbit, so it has to hit the > >Earth some day (presumably millions of years from now, but the orbit > >is not well enough known to say when). Then in article <3993@osu-eddie.UUCP>, nolan@osu-eddie.UUCP (Michael C. Nolan) replied: > The orbits of asteroids are continually perturbed by the planets etc. Right; that's one reason the orbit is poorly known. > It could hit the Earth, but the probability isn't that large, probably > a few percent. (which isn't really that small either). That's over an > assumed lifetime of about 40 million years before it's gone, either by > running in to something or by being ejected from the solar system by > the perturbations. Perturbations for most Earth-crossing asteroids are not nearly large enough to eject them from the solar system. They stay in orbit until they do "run in to something". That "something" is usually the Earth because 1) Many don't cross the orbits of other planets; 2) The Earth is the biggest inner planet; 3) Most of the time the body is relatively far from the Sun, favoring collisions with Earth or Mars rather than Mercury or Venus. This particular asteroid (3200 Phaethon) crosses the orbits of Mercury and Venus, so it could hit one of them instead, but hitting the Earth is much more likely. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 87 19:30:09 GMT From: adelie!infinet!rhorn@xn.ll.mit.edu (Rob Horn) Subject: Re: costs: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" In article <2557@ames.arpa> msf@amelia.UUCP (Michael S. Fischbein) writes: >In article <8708202006.AA04119@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >>I've have given up blaming anybody, everybody is guilty: our >>procurement officers, the companies, etc., myself. > >Me too. Not only do the procurement regulations COST far more than >they save (although they were well intended), the TIME that must be >expended is amazing to anyone not familiar with the process (like >30 >MONTHS for a medium sized workstation network). This problem affects the contractors as well. They must also suffer all the cost and delays because their purchases must also be made in accordance with government regulations. In the last major government procurement that I helped bid (approx 5x10^7 dollars) over 30% of the labor costs were related to compliance with procurement regs. It upsets a great many of the managers and engineers to see so much money spent on paperwork. I don't know where the right balance is, but at the moment we are spending much more on paperwork than is being saved by catching criminals and poor contracting practices. Rob Horn ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 87 16:53:35 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ivory!mike@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) Subject: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" In article <8456@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >I have some reservations about the Newsweek articles -- the reporting is >slanted to the point of borderline lying in places -- but on the whole >I too recommend them. Let's have some details. I want to know where the articles were slanted or misleading. I thought that they were cynical, but not that biased. Michael Lodman (619) 485-3335 Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 87 22:27:48 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Ride report The following article is from the August 1987 CANOPUS. I have posted it early and in full because of its importance. Material in {brackets} is from me. I'll post the July summaries in about a week and the August summaries about a week after that. This article will go to the mailing list with the rest of the August articles. CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief letter estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. RIDE REPORT STRESSES PLANETARY EXPLORATION - can8873.txt - 8/23/87 Planetary exploration highlights three of four "leadership initiatives" detailed in NASA's report on "Leadership and America's Future in Space." The report was written by ex-astronaut Sally Ride who has left NASA to return to Stanford University. "The United States has clearly lost leadership [in planetary exploration and manned space flight] and is in danger of being surpassed in many others during the next several years," the report notes. The Ride report follows the National Commission on Space Report and the Rogers Commission investigation in the Challenger disaster. "Two fundamental, potentially inconsistent views have emerged," reads the preface to the Ride report. "Many people believe that NASA should adopt a major, visionary goal. They argue that this would galvanize support, focus NASA programs, and generate excitement. Many others believe that NASA is already overcommitted in the 1990s; they argue that the space agency will be struggling to operate the Space Shuttle and build the Space Station and could not handle another major program." The report notes that elements of both must be in the solution since goals are needed to keep the program from floundering, and the agency must not tackle too much. It also notes that "leadership in space does not require that the U.S. be preeminent in all areas of space enterprise." NASA Administrator James Fletcher formed a task group, chaired by Ride, to "define potential U.S. space initiatives, and to evaluate them in the light of the current space program and the nation's desire to regain and retain space leadership." The four initiatives identified by the task force are: o Mission to Planet Earth. This would involve nine platforms, four in polar orbit and five in geostationary orbit, to study the terrestrial environment and how it is shaped. The issues discussed are essentially those raised in the Earth Systems Sciences Committee in 1986. The platforms would be supplied by the U.S., Europe and Japan. o Exploration of the Solar System. In this category the Ride report endorses three missions each to address different aspects of the solar system: the Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby (primitive bodies), the Cassini orbiter/probes to Saturn and Titan (outer planets), and a trio of Mars surface sampler missions (terrestrial planets). o Outpost on the Moon. This would be a three-phase effort starting with an unmanned search for ideal landing sites rich in oxygen-bearing ores. Included would be the Lunar Geoscience Observer, followed by landers and rovers. The second phase would have a series of week-long manned sorties to the surface to set up oxygen refineries. Finally, by the year 2010, the lunar outpost would have a permanent staff of 30. o Humans on Mars. "This bold initiaitive is committed to the human exploration, and eventual habitation, of Mars." The goal would require the Mars surface sample missions, "an aggressive Space Station life sciences program," and development of a fast round-trip capability. Each mission would require two craft, a slow, unmanned cargo craft followed by a 6-man "sprint" ship that would make the whole trip, including a 10- to 20-day stay, in a year. As with many reports since the 1950s, the Ride report notes that transportation is the single tightest bottleneck on our way to space: "From now until the mid-1990s, Earth-to-orbit transportation is NASA's most pressing problem." In addition to a blend of Shuttle and expendables as launchers, the report urges that NASA develop an unmanned cargo version of the Space Shuttle. Such a "request for proposals" for a Phase B study effort was released the same week as the report by Marshall Space Flight Center. Shuttle-C, as it is called, would be able to launch 100,000 to 150,000 pounds into low Earth orbit. Man-rated expendables with capsules also are suggested in the Ride report. The report concludes by noting that its intent was not to develop a single goal for NASA to follow. Indeed, that would cripple other space efforts as the Space Shuttle has done. However, space science will have to take a back seat, the Ride report implies, until the technology and transportation are developed to explore space with a rational, mature strategy. "It would not be good strategy, good science, or good policy for the U.S. to select a single initiative, then pursue it single-mindedly," the report states. "The pursuit of a single initiative to the exclusion of all others results in leadership in only a limited range of space endeavor." ---- Footnotes: An interesting portion of the 63-page Ride report is the listing of "Additional Studies" and references consulted by the task group. Requests for copies should be addressed to the Office Of Exploration, NASA, Washington, DC 20546. Of the 74 workshop participants, reviewers and consultants, the heaviest representation was from NASA headquarters -- 24 members. Goddard Space Flight Center had 7 members, Johnson Space Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory each had 6, other NASA centers had a total of 7. The remainder were from academia and contractors. {I can't tell from the above whether the report endorses all 4 goals, none of them in favor of working on transportation, or something in between. I've asked for clarification and will post if I find out more. --SPW} -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 87 18:38:44 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want > Suppose we start pushing what we want, while Sagan and Van Allen keep > knocking what they don't like. What's the result in public perception? > Lots of people talking about our projects, pro and con, hardly anybody > talking about Mars landing. Which projects get the attention? (Ours) > Which projects die from lack of publicity? (Mars) Which people start > to sound like they are OPPOSED to space? (Sagan and Van Allen) The trouble is that S&VA are also pushing their projects. So we have Mars getting positive press, with the Moon getting both positive and negative. Which will the politicians look more favorably on, other things being equal? "All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Apollo was the doorway to the stars. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Next time, we should open it. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #337 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Sep 87 08:16:07 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21059; Mon, 7 Sep 87 03:17:26 PDT id AA21059; Mon, 7 Sep 87 03:17:26 PDT Date: Mon, 7 Sep 87 03:17:26 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709071017.AA21059@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #338 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 338 Today's Topics: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article Re: Sally Ride's Future-of-Space Report ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Aug 87 07:38:38 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (d.l.skran) Subject: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article Newspeak in Orbit A Review of The Newsweek Article on the Space Program(8/17/87) Copyright 1987 Dale L. Skran Jr. Part I, America Grounded, by Larry Martz Recently an article appeared in Newsweek that appeared to take a hard look at the space program and NASA's current difficult situation. In reality it is typical of the misinformed anti-space views common in media circles, especially the New York Times. In a true Orwellian fashion, these writers are "for" space, of course, a smaller, cheaper, program with less focus on manned fight, with no trips to Mars or the moon, with a few more robots for the scientists, and a few more dollars for the universities. Another variation suggests a massive Apollo style Mars shot, but drawn out over 20 or 30 years to "keep the cost down." These writers do not really believe humanity has a long term future in space. The very first paragraph of the article states that after the Challenger blew up, and "a few ritual resignations", that "the agency has 35 percent more money in its pocket. After 20 years of lessons like that, failure is endemic in the U.S. Space program." This suggests that there have been a long series of major NASA blunders, each followed by an extra boost in funds. It is far more correct to say that NASA functioned extremely well as long as it was funded well, and fairly well even as its funding declined. There is no pattern of blunders followed by rewards. Instead, we see a pattern of enormous success, followed by punishment in the form of budget cuts. As the agency struggled to survive, it was punished still further by additional cuts. Finally, in the wake of the Challenger disaster it is being recognized that(as space advocates have been saying for about 20 years) NASA is dangerously underfunded. I personally never expected the Shuttle program to get as far as it did. As a working engineer, it appeared clear to me that it was under-tested by a large factor, mainly to save funds and cut costs. I expected that one of the first three or four flights would be lost. Consider that the main engines were assembled entire and tested "all at once" to avoid the cost of testing the components. The first ones blew up, of course, at a cost of millions. It is a tribute to the excellence of the engineers that remained at NASA that the shuttle ever got off the pad. First the article berates NASA for continuing to work with Morton Thiokol, a decision made because it "had the tools and could do it quickly," and then lists all the payloads waiting to go, continuing to add to the pressure to rush the shuttles to the pad. If NASA engineers rush to put the shuttle back into service, they are callous and expedient. If they are slow and careful, they are incompetent, overpaid, and lazy. I suggest that Mr. Martz be put in charge of the program, and report back to us in a year on how easy it is to run. Later we are told that in spite of all this, the US is still ahead in space. This is a crucial myth being propagated by the media. The article states that "Except for their undoubted lead edge in manned space flight and biomedical research, the answer is no [the Soviets are not ahead]. If they launch more rockets than we do every year, it is largely because most of their satellites have lives far shorter than the US models. .. But the Soviet technology is improving, .. It is almost as though the writer did not read his own article. An objective writer would have to state that the Soviets are clearly ahead. They are launching ambitious new planetary probes. They operate an LEO station. They have a large heavy lift vehicle. They launch a major flight twice a week. We put up one every two months - if that. After more glowing description of the "backward" Soviets, we are told "The shuttle had no real mission, just a succession of errands; it was a way to keep men in space while we figured out what to do there." This myth has been pounded out so many times I am weary from refuting it. The shuttle (or something like it) is absolutely essential to any large scale orbital activity. It is absolutely unnecessary for a program of robotic probes to the distant planets. It has been justified over and over again. You must have a station if you want to construct, manufacture, re-fuel, etc. in orbit. NASA always knew what the shuttle was supposed to be, and so did the Proxmires and the Mondales. The difference is that the Proxmires and Mondales wanted it to fail, and they may well have gotten their wish. Generally, people who oppose a long term future in space oppose both the shuttle and the station. Martz quotes station enemies repeatedly, including Pike and Alex Roland, while echoing Carl Sagan. To be "fair" he balances his article by saying "The case isn't that clear: the space program is not simply a conspiracy to complicate technology, build bureaucracies, and fatten budgets. But there is no denying that this mind-set exists ..." Never is the pro-station case presented. Not a word. Finally, Martz gets to his own space program, or non-program, as will become clear. First he "talks the talk," saying "the most basic reason for a national program is simply that the Soviets are right: man is evolving into space, and is going to operate there." Wow! A closet L5-er, right? Guess again. First, Mars, "Someday, it will make sense to go to Mars ... But there's no need to set dates, or starting to spend what may amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.." Second, the Moon: "Sometime sooner, we may want to return to the moon, to set up observatories or even factories. But for now, even the scientists have largely lost interest in the moon; Cornell's Carl Sagan, a dedicated Mars man, calls the moon, "a pretty boring place." Third, the space station, which "doesn't make sense." It "doesn't give the scientists what they want, its industrial potential is blue sky, and it can't be justified as a step to future goals." Finally Martz gets around to the long time proposal of the anti-station folks, the extended duration shuttle, saying that "that might make them more useful as laboratories, though Logsdon and many scientists disagree." He's all for robotic probes, of course. Martz concludes by saying that "These suggestions will find few endorsements in the space community. ... In the end, no whipped up frenzies of jingoism or planetary stunts are needed to get America into space - or get Americans behind the space program." Since Martz's program is nothing new, nothing different than what NASA has done for the last five years, plus a few more robotic probes, it certainly will cede the lead in space to the Soviets for the forseeable future. It also would seem likely that the Europeans and Japanese would build their own space stations sometime soon after 2000, and quickly dominate all commercial space applications. Far from presenting a reasonable program, Martz has outlined a method to make American the Portugal of the Space Age. More than Proxmire or Mondale, the Martzs of the world are the reason we have such a pathetic space program. Their little minds are unable to contain a vision of tomorrow larger than today. And they run the so-called "fifth branch of government," the mass media. They are the people who decide every night not to report what the Soviets are doing in space because they have already decided that it cannot be of importance, whatever it is. They are the people that reported that the discovery of a plastic sack in the Mir docking shroud was a disaster comparable to the explosion of the Challenger. This article is typical of their non-vision. Summary of media myths about the space program: 1. The only reason to be in space is science and already developed commercial applications such as weather satellites. 2. The Soviets are behind the US in space. 3. The Shuttle and the Space Station have no purpose and cannot be justified by any long range goals. 4. There need be no sense of urgency about space; it will always be there. 5. NASA is well-funded. 6. The Shuttle's problems were mainly blundering by NASA, and had little to do with the funding cuts NASA got throughout the 70s. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 87 16:19:11 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Sally Ride's Future-of-Space Report Newsgroups: sci.space In article <603@mtuxo.UUCP> Tim writes: >the panel expressed some support for this. Then Howard(?) mentioned >that NASA management was trying to distance themselves from this >report, although I didn't hear any details on how or why. > >Sorry for the (?) and lack of details, but I thought even this sketchy >report would be of some interest. Does anyone have more information on >this? If Ride's report was intended to back some predisposition on the >part of NASA's management toward the megabuck-Mars proposals, I might >understand why they would distance themselves from the report. It was >heartening to hear of a NASA report which backs much of the sentiment >of recent sci.space articles, but disheartening to also hear that it >would probably be ignored by NASA management. >-- Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee Not one for conspiracy theories, you should understand, and the rest of the net, that NASA is just another bureaucracy. Sally Ride, McCulla [noted below], nor I can speak policy. It's not that NASA is distancing for denial, it's trying distancing to give Dr. Ride credit, while saying: "This is not our plan yet." It will not be ignored. It will be cited in more bureacratic reports in the future, and perhaps, some day, this citation will come true. This is how the Viking lander came about, and how Magellan came about, and so on. There are alot of tidal forces forcing acting in different directions for future projects. What happens ten years from now depends on the persistence of those who stick with their projects. There are other messages inside NASA floating around giving her credit and wish her good luck. Don't forget that sci.space does not represent the current thinking of any space Agency: ESA, Soviet, JSA, etc. [How many do you think are working on FTL travel?] >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya (agency puppet?) NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene Attached: Subject: Q & A/Ride Report Approved: telemail Aug. 17, l987 TO: Bill Sheehan Shirley Green FROM: Jim McCulla SUBJECT: Q&A: The Sally Ride Report Here are Q & As concerning the Sally Ride Report. Any further questions should be referred to Alan Ladwig at 202/453.8435. The questions are as follows: Q. For the last year and a half there has been a great deal of talk at conferences and in publications that Mars should be the next big objective. Virtually no one has been talking about the moon. Does Sally's endorsement of going to the moon before Mars that this is the route that NASA wishes to take? Is she speaking for the organization? A. No. She is speaking for herself and her study group. NASA will make recommendations to the President only after we have examined the four initiative areas she has outlined very carefully. We need to know a great deal more about the technology required, interrelationships between initiatives, cost, possible international participation, impact on on-going programs, manpower requirements both in numbers and skills and so on. The chief reason we announced the new Office of Exploration a few weeks ago was to carry on these further studies in the manned flight areas. Other aspects of the initiatives will be examined by other offices in NASA, such as Space Science and Applications and Space Flight. Having said all this, I should note that the recommendations of Sally and her group are based on prolonged study by a largey deserve special consideration. Q. Can you give us some indication as to when you will be ready to go to the President? A. That is difficult to predict. I can assure you, however that these continuing examinations are not back burner projects. They have top priority. It would be hard to keep our people from giving them top priority if we wished otherwise. Our people want to get going. Q. Sally says in this report that although that no one is going to the moon or Mars for a number of years, it is important to start preliminary work now. One thing she recommended is development of a heavy lift launch vehice, and she specifies a Shuttle derived vehicle. Can you brief us on what is happening to this proposal? Doesn't the Air Force oppose it? A. We have taken the first step in this project and the Air Force does not oppose it. Last week, after consultation with the Air Force and the OMB, we announced that we were going ahead with a study to determine whether a Shuttle-derived cargo vehicle - the Shuttle C - would be useful in launching space station elements thus freeing the Shuttle for more manned scientific activity. The information will be melded into another heavy lift study being led by the Air Force with NASA participation which To put this another way, NASA's Shuttle C study will concentrate on a vehicle that could use existing systems and facilities. The Air Force-led ALS study concentrates on systems incorporating advanced technologies. The results of both studies will be integrated to allow a steering group to formulate a national heavy lift vehicle strategy that might best accommodate near-term requirements, such as Space Station assembly, as well as long term. Q. In this report Sally echoes a recommendation already made by a number of organizations - that work begin immediately on advanced technology required for the future missions. In fact, she says that if you delay a start on the technology you can delay human exploration of the moon or Mars for two decades. Do we understand correctly that you have twice proposed a start on a thing called Project Pathfinder and have twice been ordered to pull back the funding request? Do you intend to do it again? A. It is true that we twice sent Pathfinder packages to OMB for inclusion in our budget submission to Congress, and that the proposals did not go beyond that. However, there were other big issues in consideration at those time, like the Space Shuttle recovery and initiation of the mixed fleet. Also, there was growing anticipation of this and other studies of long-term goals and, therefore, Pathfinder did not get the strongest emphasis. Now it will be considered in the context of this and other reports strongly recommending immediate attention to new technology. Q. Aren't you running the danger of disappointing a lot of people by building up expectations of new adventures without any real prospect of getting started? Is the White House going to give you more money for new rockets, artificial intelligence, smart robots, and all that good stuff? Only last week the President said again that reducing the deficit was his number one priority. What would be the effect, for example, if you propose Pathfinder again and it gets turned down? Isn't that a signal that the top policy makers really don't believe in the necessity of giving the space effort greater momentum; that all this current talk is just a lot of smoke and mirrors? A. People have to understand that a major new space project will not be something you accomplish in just a few years. We are talking about huge programs requiring long-term, consistent support from succeeding administrations and congresses. As far as Pathfinder goes, I have no doubt that once everyone is agreed on taking a bold new step in space we will get the start-up funding. And by agreement I don't mean agreement on a specific project involving the moon or mars, but rather agreement that the nation needs to take a big step whatever that turns out to be. Q. Why does the country have to take a big new step? A. Lots of reasons: a. To maintain U.S. leadership in space. b. To drive national economic development based on new technology. c. To advance scientific knowledge in numerous areas. d. To protect global habitability. e. To advance international cooperation and reduce the causes of international conflict. f. To energize our society and avoid intellectual stagnation. Q. What do you personally want NASA to do? Go to the moon? Mars? Do the other things she recommends? A. I agree with her that we have to help preserve the environment and keep up our outstandinge moon or Mars, either place would be a productive undertaking and a great adventure. Let's see how the studies come out. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #338 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Sep 87 00:16:09 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00597; Tue, 8 Sep 87 08:14:32 PDT id AA00597; Tue, 8 Sep 87 08:14:32 PDT Date: Tue, 8 Sep 87 08:14:32 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709081514.AA00597@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #339 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 339 Today's Topics: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article Candidates & space issues (Gore likes Mars) Re: Cooperation uber alles? Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract? Congresscritter committees Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract? Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract? Rocket parts Soviets to compete with Landsat & SPOT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Aug 87 15:55:08 GMT From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article Like the Newsweek article, this rebuttal chose to ignore a couple of things which would have weakened the author's premise that the media is antispace. For example, the $30 billion yearly government subsidy to the aerospace industry. I think the article made a good case that it is unreasonable to expect the development of cheap transport to orbit when aerospace companies are getting paid to do paper studies and develop technology, rather than to put up as much freight as possible. The $5000/lb. lauch cost for the Shuttle v.s. the $750/lb. cost for the Soviet Proton was a result of this emphasis on technology development at the expense of manufacturing and delivery (a trend which, incidently, pervades other areas of the US economy). With the projected commercial market at only a fraction of the subsidized one, it would be poor business for the aerospace companies to do otherwise. The first step to making America competitive is to start paying for delivered, properly functioning *hardware* (well, also the software needed to make it work) and stop paying for paper. The space station is yet another example of this. While it took maybe a year or so to convert the upper stage of a Saturn into Skylab, the projected space station is going to take ten years and be enormously expensive, simply because the intent of the project is not to get up a functioning space station, but to develop technology for putting up a functioning space station. Even though, with minor modifications, something like the shuttle external tank could be used for the purpose. The fact that a functioning space station might result from the exercise is irrelevent. Face it, the Soviets got Big Dumb Booster, we got the MacIntosh. Who's better off? I don't know. The benefits of having a MacIntosh are certainly available to more people. It's hard to justify a space station to the man in the street, unless you take the long view. Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 87 16:27 CDT From: Subject: Candidates & space issues (Gore likes Mars) To all the discussion of Presidential candidates and space, I'd like to add a datum: According to Carl Sagan, Senator Albert Gore is the only Presidential candidate who has endorsed a joint US/Soviet Mars program. Those of you who, like Adam Richter, are itching to do something about making space an issue in campaigns might contact Robert Zimmermann Space Frontier Society of New York City 2819 42nd St. Apt. D-1 Long Island City, NY 11103 I was impressed by the survey Bob conducted during the 1986 campaign. He queried all the candidates for the House in the New York City area about their positions on space issues (National Commission report, new Shuttle orbiter, etc.) and published the results. He is now trying to perform a wider survey including candidates for Congress in other parts of the country and Presidential candidates. I'm sure he'd be pleased to share the results with you, and even more pleased if you volunteered to help collect information on candidates in your area. The project has been conducted by National Space Society members up to now; however, my guess is Bob would welcome help from any interested party. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET HepNet/SPAN: 43011::higgins ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 87 04:35:41 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (d.l.skran) Subject: Re: Cooperation uber alles? I believe that I was also at that Boskone Mars talk, and I believe that the viewpoints presented represent only a particular segment of the pro-space community. A similar panel was held at the Pittsburg Space Development Conference, with a similar pro-Mars tenor, but I read the audience (and the panel) very differently in this case. I think few people really believe that going to Mars is the best next step, even from the point of view of "grabbing $$$." What I heard was a feeling that given the nutty way our system works, a Big One Shot Mars program is already underway, and may be inevitable. NSS/L5 probably can't stop it, so the real question is what our postion should be. Keep it clearly in mind that the great friend of space, Proxmire, endorses a Mars mission. Personally, I think he's just giving us the rope to hang outselves with. Dale Skran ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 87 19:01:36 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract? > For that matter, how did we escape the Moon Treaty? I'm truly > surprised that more of those short-sighted politicians didn't sign > that to mollify those other nations; does anyone (Henry?) know the > story behind that? Thank God *SOMEONE* had some sense! The credit for this one goes 100% to the L5 Society. For this its name will be remembered, if for nothing else. At a time when almost everyone else was either neutral about the Moon Treaty or solidly in favor of it (on the grounds that it was a harmless gesture of international cooperation), the L5 Society came down solidly against it, hired a Washington lobbyist, and managed to generate enough doubts and outright opposition in the relevant Senate committee that the issue of ratifying the thing was shelved permanently. Had L5 not acted, the treaty would almost certainly be US law today. (Well, let me modify the above slightly; it was not the L5 Society, which is/was tax-exempt and thus could not get involved in such things, but an utterly unrelated :-) organization that just happened :-) to involve a lot of the same people.) -- Apollo was the doorway to the stars. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Next time, we should open it. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 87 14:56:55 EDT From: purtill@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU Subject: Congresscritter committees Someone asked for the names of the congresscrittern on the committees that do space related stuff. According to the "1987 Congressional Staff Directory" (Charles B. Brownson (ed), published by Congressional Staff Directory, Ltd., Mount Vernon, VA, 22121-0062), here they are: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space Sen. Donald W. Riegle (D-MI) (chair) Majority: Sens. John F. Kerry (D-MA); Albert Gore (D-TN); Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX); Brock Adams (D-WA); and John D. Rockeffeller (D-WV). Minority: Sens. Pete Wilson (R-CA); Nancy L. Kassbaum (R-KS); Larry Pressler (R-SD); and Paul S. Trible (R-VA). [To write a senator, address your letter to: The Honorable (name) Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 and start the letter "Dear Senator (name)".] House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology * =member Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications (Bill Nelson (D FL 11) chair) which covers most of NASA; # =member Subcommittee on International Scientific Cooperation (Ralph Hall (D TX 4) chair) which has oversight on the Space Station. Rep. Robert Roe (D NJ 8) (chair) [That's 8th Congressional district.] Majority (all D's): Reps. Norman Mineta* (CA 13); George E. Brown* (CA 36); David E. Skaggs (CO 2); Buddy McKay*# (FL 6); Bill Nelson* (FL 11); David R. Nagle* (IA 3); Richard Stallings# (ID 2); Terry L. Bruce (IL 19); Lee Hamilton (IN 9); Dan Glickman (KS 4); Carl C. (Chris) Perkins* (KY 7); Jimmy Hayes* (LA 7); Tom McMillen* (MD 4); Harold Volkmer* (MO 9); Tim Valentine (NC 2); David E. Price (NC 4); Robert Torricelli*# (NJ 9); James H. Scheuer*# (NY 8); Henry J. Nowak (NY 33); James A. Traficant, Jr.* (OH 17); Dave McCurdy (OK 4); Doug Wlagren (PA 18); Marilyn Lloyd# (TN 3); Jim Chapman* (TX 1); Ralph Hall*# (TX 4); and Frederick Boucher (VA 9). Minority (all R's): Reps. Ron Packard*# (CA 43); Ernest L. Konnyu* (CA 12); Joel Hefley* (CO 5); Tow Lewis* (FL 12); Harris W. Fawell# (IL 13); Robert Smith (NH 1); Constance A. Morella* (MD 8). Paul B. Henry (MI 5); Jack Buechner* (MO 2); Manueal Lujan, Jr (NM 1); Sherwood L. Boehlert# (NY 25); Don Ritter (PA 15); Robert S. Wlaker* (PA 16); Claudine Schneider (RI 2); Lamar Smith (TX 21); D. French Slaughter, Jr.* (VA 7); Sid Morrison (WA 4); and James Sensenbrenner# (WI 9). [To write to a representative, address your letter to: The Honorable (name) House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 and begin the letter "Dear Congressman (name)".] There is also the "Space Caucus". All that's listed are the co-chairs, Reps. George E. Brown (D CA 36) and Herbert H. Bateman (R VA 1). NOTE: There very well may be transcription errors here, especially in the spellings of names. Please check (e.g. in the phone book) to make sure you don't misspell your congresscritters' names. Also, just because your critter(s) aren't on these committees dosn't mean they don't have influence on space policy. +---+ /^.-.^\ Mark Purtill \(("))/ purtill@math.mit.edu | purtill@multics.mit.edu ===== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Aug 87 00:35:25 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article Newsgroups: sci.space Keywords: Free speech Re: Mike's followup to Dale. I sent a letter to Dale on this. It was based on impressions before reading (only the masthead) and after read it. While I don't always agree with Dale, I strongly recommended cleaning it up and sending it as an Editorial to a magazine or newspaper (clean == too much like Usenet writing style). Upon occasion, people on this net do produce little gems. Some of you readers should consider the same: send hardcopy letters to papers rather than post to the net. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 87 01:34:56 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract? > I want to know things like (1) what method of propulsion (chemical, > ion, or what)?, (2) what capabilities (cis-lunar only, or maybe could > push a probe all the way to an asteroid)? If it's the TRW OMV you're thinking of, it's chemical and its capabilities are pretty limited. Basically meant as a LEO-only vehicle. I don't know of any other such project that actually has real funding. > If it's an ion rocket with deep space capability, then I'd like to > start planning a mission that travels to some tiny asteroid (the > smallest chondrite we've ever spotted), attaches a thermonuclear > device and baffle plate to one side of it, backs off, triggers > detonation, then catches up with the Earthbound asteroid again... To avoid splitting the thing with the shock, it would probably be necessary to use many bombs rather than a few big ones. (Also, don't forget that nuclear explosions in space violate one of the test-ban treaties, which was ratified by the Senate and hence has the force of law in the US. As I recall it there's a clause that says "peaceful uses are subject to negotiation", but the problems of trying to get that done boggle the mind. Until then, you are *breaking the law* if you try to launch such a mission from the US.) > ...if we promise the rest of the world some fraction of the benefit we > may be able to get permission to use the thermonuclear detonation > propulsion method in this special case. I'd bet a modest sum that signing the Moon Treaty would be the first non-negotiable demand from the rest of the world. Forget it, not worth it! -- Apollo was the doorway to the stars. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Next time, we should open it. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 87 20:16:06 GMT From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu (Keith P. Mancus) Subject: Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract? In article <8459@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >(Also, don't forget that nuclear explosions in space violate one of the >test-ban treaties, which was ratified by the Senate and hence has the >force of law in the US. As I recall it there's a clause that says >"peaceful uses are subject to negotiation", but the problems of trying >to get that done boggle the mind. Until then, you are *breaking the >law* if you try to launch such a mission from the US.) > >> ...if we promise the rest of the world some fraction of the benefit >> we may be able to get permission to use the thermonuclear detonation >> propulsion method in this special case. > >I'd bet a modest sum that signing the Moon Treaty would be the first >non-negotiable demand from the rest of the world. Forget it, not worth >it! Still, isn't it obvious that the U.S. will have to abrogate this treaty sooner or later? It was signed at a time when the Congress did not take space resources seriously; they killed the Orion project completely (which p*ssed me off very much!). When they wake up and desire to have regular traffic back and forth to the Belt or anywhere else outside the Earth-Moon system, they'll *have* to kill it. (Can you see us waiting for an open-end fusion system--I think that would be the minimum non-bomb process to move an asteroid in a reasonable time. Any comments?) Of course, somebody else will probably get there first (did Japan sign the Moon Treaty or that no-nukes-in-space treaty?) and make this discussion null. Frankly, people nowadays are far too paranoid about *The Bomb*, and they ignore its peaceful uses. For that matter, how did we escape the Moon Treaty? I'm truly surprised that more of those short-sighted politicians didn't sign that to mollify those other nations; does anyone (Henry?) know the story behind that? Thank God *SOMEONE* had some sense! Keith Mancus <6106728@PUCC> ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 16:37:55 GMT From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!brett@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Brett Van Steenwyk) Subject: Rocket parts TITLE: Use Shuttle Components? It occurred to me the other day that while many people were talking about "better" rocket designs, and what a tragedy that the tooling for the Saturn V was destroyed, etc., that several viable rocket components are still lying around. If one could use existing components from the shuttle and other relatively recent rocket designs, one should come out ahead on development costs (especially if that enabled assembly line style production of these components). If I remember right, the orbiter main engines have one of the best specific impulse ratings around, and are re-usable (though that may be better once one is in space). I would never consider solid fuel boosters on any man-rated design (except for maybe an escape system :-), but those shuttle boosters should be the basis for getting a good-sized payload into orbit as they pack a few million pounds of thrust. My belief is that the components of the Shuttle were designed fairly well. However, the overall system is dismal and should never be flown again--you just don't do certain things like mix solid and liquid fueled systems on a manned flight. Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury all had means for the astronauts to escape if something went wrong during boost phase. The Shuttle doesn't. The system is a crock, and it doesn't matter how hard the engineers at the subsystem level try to make their respective parts reliable--something will break sometime. Its just that a failure should not be so catastrophic, and that is a responsibililty of the overall system. The shuttle system concept was conceived of by a bunch of lawyers (Congress) and it shows. I can still hear John Tunney (Senator from California at that time) brag about how they selected the best and cheapest design. How cheap is it now? Is it possible to design another launch system using these components? I hope they don't have: U.S. Government Property, Don't Touch! stamped on them. --Brett Van Steenwyk brett@nsr.acs.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 87 07:36:56 GMT From: mcvax!enea!erix!howard@seismo.css.gov (Howard Gayle) Subject: Soviets to compete with Landsat & SPOT According to an article in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter of 21 August, the Soviet Union, via a company named Sojuzoarta, is going into the commercial remote sensing business. They will sell 5 m resolution imagery of anywhere outside the Eastern bloc at lower prices than Landsat and SPOT charge. Several different kinds of image processing will be available. The information comes from the Swedish Technical Attache in Moscow, Per Olof Sj|stedt. I have no other information about this. TN/ETX/TX/UMG Howard Gayle UUCP : seismo!enea!erix!howard Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson Phone: +46 8 719 55 65 Ericsson Telecom Telex: 14910 ERIC S S-126 25 Stockholm FAX : +46 8 719 64 82 Sweden ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #339 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Sep 87 12:47:11 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02295; Wed, 9 Sep 87 03:18:42 PDT id AA02295; Wed, 9 Sep 87 03:18:42 PDT Date: Wed, 9 Sep 87 03:18:42 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709091018.AA02295@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #340 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 340 Today's Topics: Re: SDI funding of space research Re: Space Debris international cooperation, share launch capability? The Rocket Team #4 - A4's Underground Re: The Rocket Team #4 - A4's Underground space weapons Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 87 14:35:50 GMT From: sundc!hadron!inco!mack@seismo.css.gov (Dave Mack) Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research In article <1864@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes: > In article <1400@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: > >The SDIO is painfully aware that the present cost of space > >transportation makes deployment of a defensive system in space > >prohibitively expensive. Because of this, they are spending $70 > >million this year and more in the next several years to develop space > >transportation technology. The > > This is a joke, right? $70 million out of a several billion dollar > budget is hardly significant. You mention other activities that "may" > be usefull for space transportation, they are not really relavent to > my point. $70 million *per year* for research (not hardware) is pretty significant. The fact that the entire SDI budget is in the billions is irrelevant. > I admit that I don't have access to references on this, so any input > from those more knowledgable is welcome. Millitary research is > notoriously inefficiant, in a large part because the results are often > classified. I don't think the SDI money will be very effective in > furthering space research or access to space. It may come as a bit of a surprise to you to find out that NASA can get access to classified information. Remember the snafu in the first shuttle launch where NASA inadvertently gave away classified information by asking the Air Force to use their cameras at Science City in Hawaii to count the number of tiles lost during the launch? Also, not all of the results of SDI research will necessarily be classified. If the SDI people come up with a cheap workable HLV, it won't be significant? Bull! > What really disturbs me about the "Star Wars" program is that we are > bringing the same stupid arms race mentality to space, the one place > it isn't yet. (I know the military uses space, but there aren't any > major weapon systems there yet.) I might be interested in working in > a space colony some day, and I don't like the idea of a large military > presence there. Unless you consider Soviet ASATs as weapon systems. Grow up, Gerry. The military is going to go into space if anyone else does. A military presence in space is inevitable. If you don't like it, stay here. These Utopian fantasies about space colonies (communes, actually) achieve nothing and actually hurt the effort to establish a human presence in space. No one is going to spend tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars to put you in space just because you want to go. Viable space colonies will be there primarily for economic or military reasons. > Gerry Gleason Dave Mack ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 87 16:19:49 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Debris > ...most of the junk launched into LEO from Kennedy was headed > in pretty much the same direction With respect to the Earth at launch time. But don't forget that it was launched at different times of the day (and year). The orbits are all at pretty much the same angle of tilt, but they are tilted in different directions. So relative velocities can be substantial. -- Apollo was the doorway to the stars. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Next time, we should open it. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Aug 87 01:24:35 From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: international cooperation, share launch capability? Date: 31 Jul 87 17:44:55 GMT From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: Cheap ways into space please. ... michaelm@3Com.COM (Michael McNeil) writes: > ... launching cheap vehicles to orbital altitude, but with much, much > less than orbital velocity, and then *catching* them into a space > station using a "reverse mass driver." "The Spaceport" in the November and December 1979 Analog. This, like most low cost systems, is premature to build if you launch 6 missions a year. As Roger and others have argued on the net, you have to get the launch rate up to get the costs down. When the market is large enough to support large scale launch systems, they will appear. It seems to me part of the problem is each nation (USA USSR Japan China) or consortium (ESA) is trying to invent their own launch methods to achieve complete launch capability without putting any payloads on the launch vehicles of the other nations. Why does the USSR need both a shuttle and a heavy launch vehicle, and USA both, and Japan both, and ESA both, etc.? Why can't there be a total of two shuttle systems in the world (for redundancy in case one is grounded), two heavy launch vehicle systems (ditto), etc., with nations (usage here and below includes ESA) sharing launch capability? There must be some way around export restrictions that say we can't launch our satellite on their vehicle because that's like exporting our technology to them during the time the satellite is on their launch pad. If the whole world bought launch capability from the one or two suppliers of a given launch technology which was optimal for a particular weight and safety class of payload, maybe there'd be enough market to make the unit-launch cost reasonable? But if each of five nations insists on duplicating the effort of the four others, no one nation has the market to make it properly inexpensive. Date: 5 Aug 87 15:00:07 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css. gov (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Still more infighting We [USA] need assembly lines, computer-integrated manufacturing, the production methods of the 80's, not the 50's. Or maybe just buy launch vehicles from other nations, such as the USSR, if we can't do a good enough job ourselves? Date: 10 Aug 87 23:09:06 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from June 29 AW&ST The White House might balk at funding two different heavylift launchers with different objectives and design philosophies; the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting might balk at funding SDV on top of the shuttle and the space station. Why all this duplication? Just buy vehicles from USSR, then we don't need to develop the technology again even once? James Beggs, ex-NASA admin, cleared of fraud charges related to his prior employment with General Dynamics. He now feels free to speak out about the Challenger accident. In particular, he says he would fly on a shuttle tomorrow with the old boosters, provided the temperature was above 50F. (:- Let's take him up on it; advance launch date to 1987.Oct :-) ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 87 00:08:52 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: The Rocket Team #4 - A4's Underground Missile assembly at Mittelwerk was accomplished in a facility possessing approximately 1,200,000 square feet of usable floor area, consisting principally of two long main tunnels (Fahrstollen) some 35 feet wide, 25 feet high, and about 500 feet apart. Extending over a mile beneath the overlying hill, they were connected by 47 cross tunnels or `Hallen', each approximately 30 feet wide and 22 feet high. The soft mountain rock above ranged from 140 to 200 feet thick. ... Physically, the huge underground plant seemed ideal for the task established by the Munitions Ministry. But the human conditions in it were not. When Speer visited Niedersachswerfen on December 10 [1943], he was shocked at the state of what were euphemistically called East workers. "The conditions of these prisoners," he later recalled, "were in fact barbarous, and a sense of profound involvement and personal guilt seizes me whenever I think of them." He immediately ordered that food, living and sanitary conditions be improved. Conditions in the tunnels were described by Hannelore Bannasch, who from November 1939 to the time she reported to Mittelwerk had worked first as a secretary to von Braun at Peenemunde and then with A4 contractors at Weilheim and the Rax-Werke in Wiener-Neustadt: There was much hard work. We all labored for 12 hours a day, and occasionally for stretches up to 72 hours virtually without stopping. Most of the time we didn't see daylight. We lived in a hotel named Netzkater near Ilfeld. At first the laborers slept in the tunnels - Germans and foreigners alike. Because of the dampness, many died of pneumonia. Actually, as time went on we got to work quite well with the foreigners - it was a veritable melting pot. But they often fought amongst themselves. Remember, many had become prisoners for criminal and homosexual reasons as well as for their political and religious beliefs. We needed the laborers, so we tried not to mistreat them. It [Mittelwerk] was a top secret operation, so once you were in you stayed. As the nearby Dora concentration camp was built up, conditions did improve to an extent. Control was absolute over the prisoners, and their German co-workers could only communicate with them in the presence of SS guards. Rudolph recalls that many were highly intelligent indivi- duals who had formerly occupied distinguished positions in their own countries. A French university professor, for example, was assigned to check out electrical equipment. As time went on, the number of forced laborers was reduced, since they became more inefficient in their work. [from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ] -- Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 87 15:04:35 GMT From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Re: The Rocket Team #4 - A4's Underground In article <1343@ihlpm.ATT.COM>, dcn@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Dave Newkirk) writes: > Physically, the huge underground plant seemed ideal for the task > established by the Munitions Ministry. But the human conditions in it > were not. When Speer visited Niedersachswerfen on December 10 [1943], > he was shocked at the state of what were euphemistically called East > workers. "The conditions of these prisoners," he later recalled, > "were in fact barbarous, and a sense of profound involvement and > personal guilt seizes me whenever I think of them." He immediately > ordered that food, living and sanitary conditions be improved. This statement seems to indicate some compassion on the part of Speer and the Nazi hierarchy in general for conditions of workers in forced labor camps, which, according to other sources I've seen is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. There was an article in West magazine (supplement to the Sunday San Jose Mercury News) about 6 months ago describing the conditions at Doria and Mittelwerk. According to this report, prisoners who violated even the smallest rule were hung from the high ceiling of the tunnels by meathooks. The actual tunnels themselves were carved out of the rock by the prisoners, without breathing apparatus, so that they were forced to inhale dust. According to the West article, one of the Peenemunde team (I think it was Dornberger(?)) was fully aware of conditions in Mittelwerk, visiting periodically. In fact, the only reason conditions improved was that the V2's being produced at Mittelwerk were so poorly built. Dornberger and the others thought that by improving working conditions, they might be able to improve the quality of the resulting rockets. So the real reason conditions improved had nothing at all to do with Speer's compassion. Dornberger actually had retired in San Jose, but was expelled by the US Government when the extent of his knowledge of conditions at Mittelwerk and involvment in the prison came to light. He was heavily involved in the Apollo program, and was responsible for co-ordinating the assembly of the Saturn rocket among the various subcontractors. Supposedly, he did a pretty good job at it too, and was awarded some kind of Congressional medal. Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 87 16:54:53 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space weapons > Do you really think that banning space weapons would lead to a ban on ICBMs? No, because a "ban" on space weapons will inevitably be phrased in such a way as to exclude ballistic missiles. This is irrational but unavoidable. > Despite the fact that their only conceivable use would be illegal, they would > still exist. After all, the UN ruled that war was illegal. That is why > countries never officially declare war anymore... UN rulings do not have the force of law in most countries. This makes a difference. Treaties signed by the US and ratified by the US Senate do have the force of law in the US, and similar rules apply in most other nations. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 87 17:19:56 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ivory!mike@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article In article <3005@mtgzz.UUCP> dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes: | In reality it is typical of the | misinformed anti-space views common in media circles, | especially the New York Times. In a true Orwellian fashion, | these writers are "for" space, of course, a smaller, | cheaper, program with less focus on manned fight, with no | trips to Mars or the moon, with a few more robots for the | scientists, and a few more dollars for the universities. What I see is a difference in opinion with the "let's spend all the taxpayer's money on blue sky adventures" approach to the space program. I see an emphasis on scientific gathering of data and military intelligence, rather than support for commercial ventures. The technolgy exists for commercial launchs of commercial payloads at a resonable price. | These writers do not really believe humanity has a long term | future in space. Maybe they just don't think the government should pay for it. | in the wake of the Challenger disaster it is being | recognized that(as space advocates have been saying for | about 20 years) NASA is dangerously underfunded. Or maybe it is correct to say that NASA is under-focused. It has no business launching commercial payloads with the taxpayer's money underwriting everything. | As a working engineer, it appeared clear to me | that it was under-tested by a large factor, mainly to save | funds and cut costs. I expected that one of the first three | or four flights would be lost. As a working engineer, it is clear to me that it isn't even economical to adequetely test a design of something as complex as the shuttle to the level that we wouldn't expect a few failures "in the field". For this reason, I too, expected a failure early on. | It is a tribute to the excellence of the engineers that | remained at NASA that the shuttle ever got off the pad. Given an idiotic assignment, I think that all of the engineers involved did a commendable job. | and could do it quickly," and then lists all the payloads | waiting to go, continuing to add to the pressure to rush the | shuttles to the pad. Most of which shouldn't even be launched by the shuttle. I'm tired of replying to this for now. Maybe more later. -- Michael Lodman (619) 485-3335 Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM {sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!ivory!lodman When you die, if you've been very, very good, you'll go to ... Montana. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #340 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Sep 87 23:20:22 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03600; Wed, 9 Sep 87 20:17:34 PDT id AA03600; Wed, 9 Sep 87 20:17:34 PDT Date: Wed, 9 Sep 87 20:17:34 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709100317.AA03600@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #341 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 341 Today's Topics: UCLA Course - Power and Propulsion for Access to Space Mir Orbital Elements, 25 Aug 87 Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on "responding carefully" Re: FTL and time travel Sub Launched A4 info? Cuisine out of this world Re: Cuisine out of this world ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Aug 87 20:49:56 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (T.EBERSOLE) Subject: UCLA Course - Power and Propulsion for Access to Space I thought sci.space readers might be interested in the following, even if, like me, they won't be able to attend this course. The following is plagiarized without permission. I hope they won't mind. This article is rather long. I hope you don't mind. I just received notice of a UCLA Extension Short Course being offered by the UCLA Dept. of Eng. (which I have no association with, although I pretend to be an engineer and I have been to LA-Disneyland). The course is on "Power and Propulsion for Access to Space," and it will be taught November 3-5, 1987 at Embassy Suites, El Segundo, CA (near LAX). Cost is $895 (and includes as the text "Space Nuclear Power" by Joseph A. Angelo, Jr., and David Buden, Orbit Books, 1985). It's worth 1.8 CEU. Those involved: Coordinator: Kenneth Moore - Assistant Vice President and Manager, Program Development, Strategic Defense Program Office, Science Applications International Corporation, Hermosa Beach, CA -"He currently manages programs at SAIC which support the design of cost-effective, survivable, autonomous future space systems." Lecturers: Joseph Angelo, Jr. - chairman of Space Technology Program, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Fla. and Chief of Electro-Optics Branch, Advanced Technology Center, Patrick Air Force Base,Fla. "Most recently developed and operated the Space Experimentation Center at Cape Canaveral." "........" He is about to retire from the Air Force to "assume the position of Director of Advanced Technology for EG&G, Inc." Robert Salkeld - consultant, Phoenix, AZ, he has worked for NASA, System Development Corporation, Aerojet-General Corporation, United Aircraft Corporation, and the Aerospace Corporation. He wrote the book "War and Space," a "pioneering treatment of new aerospace technologies as they affect political and military doctrine." UCLA Faculty Rep: Cornelius T. Leondes - professor, Mechanical, Aerospace, and Nuclear Eng., School of Eng. and Applied Sciences. For technical information, call Kenneth Moore at (213) 318-2611. For registration information, call the Short Course Program Office at (213) 825-3344. Course Overview (with minor editing-TE): This course focuses on the power and propulsion subsystems concepts being developed for future commercial and gov't activities in space. An intro summarizes the forecast needs of the DoD for SDI and improved communications and surveillance platforms. Fundamentals of technologies relevant to powering the emerging space infrastructure are discussed. NASA's projected power needs for space stations, lunar and Mars settlements, asteroid mining, and planetary exploration are reviewed. Commercial power requirements for manufacturing in space and large communications platforms are considered. For each technology area, fundamental principles of prime heat sources (solar, chemical, and nuclear) as well as secondary storage devices (batteries, fuel cells, and flywheels) are analyzed. The course evaluates the status of these technologies and the operation of various power plant elements, including heat source, power conversion, and thermal management. Significant technology gains are forecast for solar photovoltaics and radioisotope thermoelectric generators. Fundamentals of pulsed-power options, including chemical and nuclear power sources, are presented. Since practical access to space and maintenance of on-orbit control is the first prerequisite to realizing our goals there, technologies underlying earth-based vehicle launch and on-orbit propulsion are examined. A view of trades and methodologies for selecting specific or integrated spacecraft propulsion subsystems is discussed. System architectures, the type and number of engines to use, tank configurations, and materials are also covered. (Sounds good, huh! No prerequisites are mentioned, either. #:O) ) Daily Schedule Tuesday Morning -Emerging Needs for Space Power (Angelo) -NASA, DoD, Civilian -Thermophysics of Power Subsystems (Angelo) -Power Sources -Thermal energy transport -Energy conversion techniques -Heat rejection techniques Tuesday Afternoon -Solar-Photovoltaics (Angelo) -Fundamentals of solar cells -Solar cell technology -Solar panels -Historical performance -Use of concentrators -Solar-Thermal (Angelo) -Fundamentals of solar thermal design -Dynamic systems with thermal storage Wednesday Morning -Energy Storage Devices (Angelo) -Batteries, fuel cells, flywheels -Radioisotope Generators (Angelo) -Fundamentals -Radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs) -Historical performance -Dynamic isotope power subsystems (DIPs) -Safety Considerations Wednesday Afternoon -Nuclear Reactors (Angelo) -Fundamentals -Historical performance -SP-100 program for 1 MW system -Multimegawatt technology -Safety considerations -Trends in Power Technology (Angelo) -Power projections -Candidate power technologies for emerging needs Thursday Morning -Earth-Based Propulsion for Access to Space: Status (Salkeld) -Traffic (Earth-to-orbit and beyond) -Transportation economics -Dependability and risk -Advanced Propulsion Technologies (Salkeld) -Technical tools (in-hand and foreseeable, terrestrial and beyond) -Airbreathing propulsion -Rocket propulsion Thursday Afternoon -Operational Considerations (salkeld) -Design for effectiveness (vehicles, propulsion, cargos, turnaround) -Resource management (propellants, materials, human) -Environmental factors -General Considerations (Salkeld) -Harnessing technologies to challenges-a propulsion strategy -Space access fleet optimization -International factors, politics, planning and commitment ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a lot of material to cover in three 8-hour days, but if any of it is worthwhile, it might be worth a second mortgage to go. If any of you are going, I would appreciate some sort of summary of what is presented. Maybe we could take up a net.collection to send someone who reports back to us. I'll make the sacrifice and volunteer. Send lots of money to me, quickly. #:O) Thanks. Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 87 05:22:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir Orbital Elements, 25 Aug 87 Are the readers of this group sufficiently interested in observing Mir for me to post its orbital elements periodically? The latest set (25 Aug): Epoch day: 1987 236.84174199 Inclination: 51.6310 AR of ascending node: 163.9797 Eccentricity: 0.0037757 Argument of periapsis: 57.9236 Mean anomaly: 302.5475 Mean motion: 15.79270649 Mean motion acceleration*: 0.00017745 Source: NASA Goddard via Henry Vanderbilt of NSS * ``Falling, yes I am falling....'' -Beatles Kevin Kenny - {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny - kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 87 15:10:00 GMT From: irwin@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on According to an article in the local paper last night, Proxmire is going to retire, he is not going to run for another term. Let's hope he does not put many more "nails in NASA's coffin" before the retirement time arrives. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Aug 87 06:10:13 PDT From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa Subject: "responding carefully" Comment: From ATTENBERGER@ORN.MFENET on 28-AUG-1987 09:11:29.02 EDT >>All you great scientists, respond very carefully, else you might be >>embarrassed within your lifetime. Does anybody remember the person >>who proposed that the British Patent Office be closed because >>everything had already been invented? >>-- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi Speaking of responding carefully, it was Charles H. Duell of the ** U. S. ** patent office in 1899, who said, "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Stan Attenberger ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 87 00:06:33 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Re: FTL and time travel In article <649@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> dleigh@hplabsz.UUCP (Darren Leigh) writes: >Simultaneity? Just say no! > >I could go on, but you really ought to pick up a book on relativity >(can anyone recommend a good one?). For the basic ideas, I found Einstein's book (I believe it was just titled "Relativity") quite readable even when I was young. I don't offhand know where it is, or I could tell you more (I haven't actually read it five years or more). Also Feynman's Lectures on Physics has a good discussion, but I can't remember which volume. --Rod ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 1987 22:15-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Sub Launched A4 info? Mike Trout: Could you send me source info on the German project and them being interested in hitting Pittsburgh with a submarine launched A4? I'm sure some of the Pittsburgh L5 chapter people would get a hoot out of it! ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 87 09:15:41 GMT From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!bruno@seismo.css.gov (Bruno Poterie) Subject: Cuisine out of this world [This is a bit long (~~90 lines) - i promise not to do so every day!] This is an [unauthorised] reproduction of an article in the International Weekly edition of "The Guardian/Le Monde/The Washington Post" (vol. 137 nb. 8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CUISINE OUT OF THIS WORLD By Paul Webster in Paris Soviet cosmonauts have again beaten the Americans to new heights. >From next year they will be eating three-star gourmet meals in space while the Americans are still struggling with hamburgers in tubes and Coca Cola pills. Instead of the traditional Soviet cosmic diet, which the French astronaut Jean-Loup Chre'tien described as tasting like rancid almonds, the Russians will be eating Canard a` la cuiller aux artichauts, or Compo^te de pigeon aux dattes - duck in artichockes, or pigeon with dates. The gourmet meals have been developed by two French chefs from Toulouse, Pierre Roudge and Lucien Vanel, whose haute cuisine is considered among the best in France. The meals will be packed in small 80-gramme tins to fit into space microwave ovens. Instructions will be in both Russian and French, as the food is destined for a 1988 flight when a French scientist will join three Russians in a 38-day trip to the Mir space station. The French National Centre for Space Studies [CNES] was behind the project, intended to produce at least 10 possible gourmet meals to break the routine Russian diet that Chre'tien, who went on a space mission with the Russians, found almost uneatable. According to him it consisted of whitened balls of meat [Hi Robert Crumb: Meatballs!] in vacuum packs and "energy pastilles" wrapped in aluminium. It needed months of testing to meet the special demands of space dinners and the fussiness of the Russians, who ruled out red meat or offal. Even some of the final choices, recently presented to delegations from the Soviet health and agricultural ministries in Toulouse, were ruled out either because there was too much sauce which flew about in zero gravity or because they were considered too dry, like the lobster. The Russians were particularly attracted by the fondue de queue de boeuf (oxtail fondue) and the Magret de canard. They took hundreds of tins of the six most appreciated recipes home for further testing after being satisfied, among other things that they had extra salt - a key element of all orbital diets. The Russians also wanted to be sure there were no stray chicken bones to cause problems and say they needed time to invent new eating ustensils, to deal with zero gravity. Meanwhile, a factory which has been involved in the development has decided to market the space food complete with Russian instructions from October [;-)]. Each tin will carry the slogan "Gastronomy is the empress of the world". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A few comments: - few investments, visible results (and appreciable, too) - bringing profit back to earth (in 1 or 2 fiscal term - yes Sir) - space will definitely be decimal - no chance for ft. and oz. - good news for tired language students: you don't need to learn *both* French *and* Russian for space - one is enough, instructions come bilinguals! - somebody said recently there: [...no cooperation with murderers and thieves...] (speaking of the S.U.) Well... cooperation does works, and will be the key for the space future. Join the movement, don't stay alone in your small corner. For Yankees mostly (I don't include all in the same box, though): Quite al lot of you yankees speak alot about millions / billions of bucks, regaining the leadership in space, building an AmericaInc-alike space civilisation, planting 6 stations around Earth, with maybe few of them sub-contracted to Europe and Japan... Be realistic for a while! Stop all that dogmatic, look at the real life. Europe and Russia are already in space, and Asia Co. will soon come too. So please, be less arrogant, participate to the global task instead of trying to rule everything under your own rules. We plainly know here the fantastic lead and impulse that is due to America, and clearly rekon that we couldn't have made it ourselves then. But past is past, and the fact is that Europe will almost be obliged to build its own space station, instead of doing a common one with the United States, because of your political/military intransigence. It will be wasted time and money, and create unnecessary wounds. I could never insist enough. Cooperation, Equality, Good Will. These are the keys. It is the only sensible way. Don't spoil your chances! Otherwise, we will end up with a compartimented, military dominated, unfriendly Weltraum. It is nice to be able to do things alone, but it is even nicer to be able to do the same with the others. Bruno Poterie # ... une vie, c'est bien peu, compare' a un chat ... ECRC GmbH # tel: (49)89/92699-161 Arabellastrasse 17 # Tx: 5 216 910 D-8000 MUNICH 81 # mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!bruno West Germany # bruno%ecrcvax.UUCP@Germany.CSNET ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 87 20:44:58 GMT From: daemon@cs.rochester.edu (Brad Miller) Subject: Re: Cuisine out of this world Date: 27 Aug 87 09:15:41 GMT From: bruno@ecrcvax.UUCP (Bruno Poterie) Be realistic for a while! Stop all that dogmatic, look at the real life. Europe and Russia are already in space, and Asia Co. will soon come too. So please, be less arrogant, participate to the global task instead of trying to rule everything under your own rules. . . . I agree with you. Pity we can't seem to get out of the role of world policeman either, which is proceeding to bankrupt our country at a rapid rate, and creating unending friction with other autonomous entities on this planet. We don't need to export that to other planets. miller@cs.rochester.edu {...[allegra|seismo]!rochester!miller} ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #341 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Sep 87 06:20:52 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04554; Thu, 10 Sep 87 03:17:13 PDT id AA04554; Thu, 10 Sep 87 03:17:13 PDT Date: Thu, 10 Sep 87 03:17:13 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709101017.AA04554@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #342 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 342 Today's Topics: space news from July 20 AW&ST space news from July 27 AW&ST Re: FTL Space Telescopes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 87 00:40:21 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from July 20 AW&ST [This one will be particularly terse, I'm about to leave for a short vacation. -- HS] JPL is using Voyager 1 to try out attitude-control software meant for Voyager 2's Neptune flyby. After NASA spent weeks trying to get a Soviet-space-program briefing on Reagan's calendar, the President's science advisor cancelled it. Fletcher is not pleased. For the second year in a row, Senate approves NASA authorization bill calling for a National Aeronautics and Space Council to get space decision-making done properly. Sen. Donald Riegle: "It has become painfully clear that there is no one in charge of space policy within the Administration." Latest interesting Spot pictures, this time of a Soviet missile-sub base on the Kola peninsula. Dept of Commerce's final rules on US commercial remote-sensing satellites give secretaries of State and Defense veto power over licensing applications and the power to suspend operations of licensees. The government will also have the power to seize "any object, record, or report" from a private satellite operator, given "probable cause to believe" that it was being used in violation of the rules. Interestingly, this won't apply to Spot Image, because DoC has deemed Spot to be a "public system" because of its French government backing. [THIS is the administration that favors free enterprise over government involvement?!? Coulda fooled me. -- HS] US/French lightning-study project starts at KSC. Fifth in a series, not related to recent events. Ball Aerospace gets DARPA contract for satellite "to detect and inspect nuclear material in space". [It's not clear what this means.] McDonnell-Douglas gets first firm order for commercial Deltas, from Hughes aircraft on behalf of British Satellite Broadcasting. First launch mid-89. Hughes signed with BSB last week, a contract calling for delivery in orbit rather than on the pad. Japan to develop new modest-sized three-stage solid-fuel launcher, to succeed the MU-3S-2 for modest science payloads and small planetary missions. Payload 4400 lbs into low orbit. Possibility of international customers also mentioned. USAF awards contracts for Phase 1 of the Awesomely Lucrative Spacelauncher, er excuse me the Advanced Launch System. Interestingly, one item required in the contracts is a look at the possibility of volume production of simple expendables rather than reusability. [Maybe there's hope for ALS.] Titan SRB successfully fired at Edwards, clearing Titan 34D to fly again. Yet more mess: access platform ruins Centaur hydrogen tank of Atlas-Centaur being prepared for DoD comsat launch. This isn't just a little hole -- in the picture, the tank looks like a crumpled beercan. General Dynamics says the tank is a writeoff. There will be no new tanks until mid-1989, and there are no spares; however, there is a Centaur test unit that might be cannibalized to launch late this year. Three more test firings of the redesigned shuttle SRB have been added to the test program, although it is not vital that they precede STS-26. NASA microgravity task force recommends major shakeup in NASA microgravity program, to eliminate waste and make it more competitive with other nations. One embarrassing problem is that foreign Spacelab flights have priority over US ones (because foreign users pay for theirs); the task force recommends a dedicated US materials-processing Spacelab flight in 1990. Eosat to market Landsat data from Chinese ground station. Lots of interest, because there has been poor coverage in the region. Eosat and Hughes evaluate putting a "mediasat" sensor for newsgathering on a future Landsat; seems feasible. It would have pointing capability for same-day coverage anywhere on Earth. Cost and weight depend on the resolution. NASA DepAdmin Myers approves new commercial space policy directives. Alas, they raise more questions than they answer. They *still* haven't settled the vital issue of priorities for secondary shuttle payloads, in particular. The new policy on joint ventures with industry also has warts: it gives more bureaucrats veto power. ESA selects Aeritalia to develop new microgravity facility for Spacelab, aimed at fluid dynamics in particular. Pictures of the interior of the Mir mockup the Soviets displayed at the Paris Air Show. Looks like a space station, all right. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 87 00:40:07 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from July 27 AW&ST [Minor note on format: in the interest of saving keystrokes, I'm going to stop signing all of my interjections with "-- HS"; material in brackets henceforth should be assumed to be from me unless otherwise marked. --HS] Editorial titled "Space Leadership Void". "...the sad truth is the US space program, most notably the NASA portion, is foundering under the worst management crisis it has faced since the agency was formed in 1958." Theme is that Fletcher should either stand up for the agency or resign. Shuttle-escape engineers are looking at a fire-pole scheme as an alternative to the tractor-rocket scheme. The idea is to just stick out a guide rod to carry escaping crew downward clear of the wing. [This is a fine idea, simple, reliable, and without the safety problems of the rocket method. I give it a 50-50 chance of being adopted, assuming that it does turn out to be as superior as it looks. (He who believes that superior ideas automatically get adopted is dreaming.)] China will buy comsat components from Germany for the next Chinese comsat. Hughes is looking at Palmyra Island in the Pacific as a launch site for the ALS. It is privately-owned US territory near the equator. House subcommittee slams White House for doing nothing about the space program in general and the National Commission on Space report in particular. US and European delegations to meet to work towards a trade agreement on commercial launch operations. The hope is that other nations might join in. For example, the Europeans are expected to protest the US-only clause in a recent Commerce launch procurement. NASA receives space-station proposals from six bidders. Evaluation board will report to Fletcher late Oct, final decision Nov. Rockwell and McDonnell-Douglas are bidding on structure and distributed systems (plus propulsion and EVA gear); Martin Marietta and Boeing are fighting over the pressurized modules; Rocketdyne is sole bidder on power; GE Astro Space [formerly RCA space div. as I recall] is sole bidder for free-flying platforms and payload-attach hardware. Two or three pages of detail on who's doing what within the various bids; these are all complex teams. White House begins a complete reassessment of US space policy. Reaction from space-related agencies is basically "AGAIN?!?". This just might lead to major action on space for the FY89 budget, Reagan's last. USAF-NASA squabble over new boosters worsens. NASA wants to move ahead on a shuttle-derived study, the USAF sees this as competition for ALS and opposes it. More comments on the Ride report. Ride emphasizes the need to build infrastructure, and the risk of a Mars mission turning into a one-shot. NASA vs. the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting again. [Yes, I know that's not its real name...] OMB criticizes NASA for a statement about buying expendables, on the grounds that it undercuts presidential decision- making. NASA says this is ridiculous because existing presidential policy already calls for more expendables. NASA will try to get $11.9G budget past OMB for FY89. (FY88 is $9.5G.) Fletcher calls for firm future $12G budgets, also wants $100M supplemental in FY88 for buying expendables. Soyuz launched to Mir, two Soviet cosmonauts and one Syrian guest. It will dock to the rear port, on Kvant. Progress 30, which docked in May, was jettisoned and reentered July 19. Arianespace sets Sept 11 as tentative launch date for next Ariane. Aerojet fires first full test of Titan 4 first-stage engine; successful. Color pictures of the multi-port docking hub on the Mir mockup shown at Paris. Leningrad conference on satellite systems yields surprise: Soviets fail to discuss their Glonass (Navstar lookalike) navsat, prompting speculations on why. One possibility is that they want to improve Glonass to match Navstar accuracy, so a receiver built for both would not make Glonass look inferior. Another very good possibility is that the Soviet military may want to keep Glonass for their own; the Pentagon wanted to keep Navstar until it decided that civil users should help pay the bills, a problem the Soviet military may not have. Large article on technological advances going into the space station; of note is oxyhydrogen propulsion for station-keeping. The [small] organization representing Europe's astronauts calls for an interim expendable manned capsule, partly to get manned work going before Hermes and partly as an escape system for a European space station. One awkward issue is that Ariane 5 will be over-sized for just the capsule, while the smaller Arianes are not man-rated. Piggybacking on another payload is a possibility. Rep. Manuel Lujan criticizes NASA's astronaut-selection procedure, noting that of the last 45 astronaut candidates selected, only three were neither military officers nor NASA employees... and those three were an Army civilian employee, a JPL employee who is also son of a former NASA DepAdmin, and the first female black astronaut. "Are we being asked to believe that out of the thousands of applicants that coincidentally the best qualified were all NASA employees or from the military?" "If the qualifications for astronaut are best met by serving an apprenticeship with NASA... you owe it to the American people to state that publicly." [Personally, I think that (a) there is little doubt that NASA has several silly prejudices, including this one, about astronaut selection, and (b) it really doesn't matter very much, because the problem remains one of finding ways to *eliminate* most of the well-qualified people. As long as there are far more amply-qualified applicants than positions, irrelevant and silly selection criteria are inevitable. The right fix for this is not to change from one silly set of rules to another. -- HS] Another big spread on Chinese aerospace. McDonnell-Douglas is about to start talking to China about putting the PAM upper stage on the Long March. McD-D recently got permission from the State Dept to discuss the matter (!). A formal export license will be needed to pursue it in depth. There is foreign interest, notably from Australia's Aussat. AW&ST visits Chinese booster factory. "...a continual stream of horse-drawn carts passed the facility's security wall next to small peasant cottages with chickens running in the street..." A movie about the plant showed a wind tunnel test plainly involving an ICBM prototype, although the Chinese will not confirm ICBM work at the plant. They are getting ready for a stretched version of Long March 2, preferably with a PAM as third stage. The movie also showed as many as four boosters in checkout simultaneously. Another interesting story of how *competent* people respond to a failure. The first flight of the oxyhydrogen upper stage on Long March 3 was a partial failure, with premature shutdown during the second burn. The factory diagnosed the problem as bubbles in propellant lines, developed and tested fixed components, ran four ground firings, and then flew the new hardware carrying China's first Clarke-orbit comsat -- SEVENTY DAYS AFTER THE FAILURE! More indications that the Chinese are not fussy about clean-room procedures except where it really matters. The first-stage engines of Long March 2 run at less than 85% of their rated maximum thrust, to provide a safety margin. The same engines will be used in the strap-on boosters for the L.M. 2-4L version. China is preparing to launch another photographic spysat, the same type they are marketing for civilian payloads. AW&ST saw it being readied. The most remarkable thing is that it uses a *wood* heatshield. They say that they tested various fancy materials, but concluded that a thick layer of oak worked well and was good enough. US State Dept. openly and loudly refuses to grant export licenses for shipment of satellites to the Soviet Union for launch on Proton. At least one test-case application has been denied (the companies by and large expected this, but wanted firm responses rather than the waffling that they got when they asked). Everyone is waiting to see whether European nations will allow satellites built there onto Proton. State says that even if the Administration were interested in changing its policy, which it is not, it would take several years before results would be seen. An "Aerospace Forum" article by a fellow named Eugene Meyers, strongly pushing a space station based on the shuttle external tanks. [Frankly, the guy comes off as a flake, although he has some interesting ideas.] Much more detailed Halley-nucleus photos, obtained by processing and compositing of Giotto images. The increase in detail is fairly striking. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Aug 87 20:49:39 PDT From: Richard Petkiewicz Subject: Re: FTL With all of this discussion about whether or not it will ever be possible to travel faster than light, something we should not overlook is that there may be alternate solutions. It seems to me that the real problem is how to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible, from the point of view of Earth. Earlier this year, I attended a lecture series on astronomy at UCLA. One of the speakers was Dr. Kip Thorne, who was introduced as the world's leading living expert on General Relativity. One of the things that he pointed out in his lecture was that worm holes are a valid solution to Einstein's equations. A worm hole is a warp or tunnel in space that would allow two arbitrary points in space to be connected. Dr. Thorne pointed out that worm holes are inherently unstable, and are unlikely to be found in nature. He did say, though, that it may be possible to artificially create and maintain a worm hole. Something he wasn't sure of was if it is physically possible to create a material with a high enough tensile strength to keep the worm hole from collapsing. Even if worm holes turn out to be a dead end (so to speak) there may be another as yet undiscovered solution to the problem. I suspect that at some point it will become important enough that we will have to find a solution. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 87 20:15 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Space Telescopes MacLeod made a comment about the HST being overtaken by ground based instruments, and the possibility that it wouldn't be launched. I find that hard to swallow. I don't think the techniques for getting rid of atmospheric distortion are panaceas. Moreover, the cost of launching the telescope is a small fraction (even with the shuttle) of the cost of building it. I might believe they wouldn't service the thing, just leave it in space while it slowly degrades. Mark Brader asked where the best place for a space telescope would be. Since most of the debris the scope will encounter is anthropogenic, you'd like to place it above low earth orbit. However, you don't want to put it in the radiation belts, since that messes up the detectors. You'd also want to put it far enough away so that debris in geosynchronous orbit does not drift into the field of view. The advantage of putting something on the moon would be the possibility of anchoring the scope to something large and steady. I suppose it would also be easier to have a manned scope on the moon rather than in high earth orbit, since shielding and building materials are available on the moon. In the nearer future it will be much easier to put an unmanned scope in high earth orbit. There's one kind of "telescope" that would work on the moon but not by itself in space: a neutrino detector. Neutrino detectors must be shielded by thousands of feet of rock to screen out cosmic rays. On the earth, cosmic ray nuclei interacting in the upper atmosphere produce pions that decay to neutrinos and muons, both of which cause background activity in the detector. On the moon, more pions will collide with nuclei in the regolith rather than decay, so the background activity will be lower. For this reason the moon will also be a good place to put a nucleon decay experiment (probably using liquid oxygen rather than water). An asteroid would also work, and the low gravity would make it easier to dig large caverns. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #342 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Sep 87 23:20:01 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06050; Thu, 10 Sep 87 20:17:31 PDT id AA06050; Thu, 10 Sep 87 20:17:31 PDT Date: Thu, 10 Sep 87 20:17:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709110317.AA06050@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #343 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 343 Today's Topics: Two space talks Mir Elements, 3 Sep 1987 Newsweek Article Re: Space Telescopes Space Telescope-proposals deadline extended SN1987A pulsar already observed via neutrinos? Re: Mars Orbiter name - results Shuttle TPS Re: Welded SRBs Re: Welded SRBs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 87 11:20:42 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Two space talks >From IEEE Grid: Redwood Empire Section Barney Oliver SETI Tues. Sept. 15 730pm H-P, 1400 Fountaingrove Parkway, Santa Rosa, CA No reservations Key words: multichannel spectrum analyzer, hydrogen, Drake equation, SCV Antennas and Propagation Society Dan Held (JPL) Earth Observation with Spaceborne Imaging Radar Wed. Sept. 23 Cocktails 6pm dinner 630pm talk 8pm Columbus Street Restaurant 4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA Reservations (408)-247-6301 Keywords (geez, I know these off the top of my head, he's one of my old group sups): SEASAT-A, SIR-B, Magellan [lesser degree], PRF, side-lobes, azimuth ambiguity, range ambigity, oceanography, radar geology, remote sensing, L-band, X-band, dielectrics, --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 87 18:42:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir Elements, 3 Sep 1987 Satellite: Mir Catalog ID: 16609 Epoch day: 87245.82572306 Inclination: 51.6299 degrees Right ascension of node: 117.4562 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0036501 Argument of periapsis: 92.1879 degrees Mean anomaly at epoch: 268.3426 degrees Mean motion at epoch: 15.79658282 revs / day Acceleration of mean motion: 0.00020303 revs / day**2 Source: NASA Goddard via Henry Vanderbilt of NSS ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Sep 87 13:24:31 PDT From: pplace!waterworks!taw@sun.com (Tom Wadlow) Subject: Newsweek Article Some comments on Dale Skran's Newsweek review (Excerpts from him indented): In a true Orwellian fashion, these writers are "for" space, of course, a smaller, cheaper, program with less focus on manned fight, with no trips to Mars or the moon, with a few more robots for the scientists, and a few more dollars for the universities. Another variation suggests a massive Apollo style Mars shot, but drawn out over 20 or 30 years to "keep the cost down." These writers do not really believe humanity has a long term future in space. That's not the impression the articles left with me. I felt that the authors were generally in favor of much more space activity, but were expressing a deep dissatisfaction with the way that current and past spaceflight costs have been inflated because of the way NASA (as a government agency) procures hardware. The very first paragraph of the article states that after the Challenger blew up, and "a few ritual resignations", that "the agency has 35 percent more money in its pocket. After 20 years of lessons like that, failure is endemic in the U.S. Space program." This suggests that there have been a long series of major NASA blunders, each followed by an extra boost in funds. "This suggests" nothing of the sort. If you'd bothered to read the entire article before commenting, you'd realize that the additional money was money budgeted for missions that didn't take place. NASA was given a 1986 budget for N missions at X million dollars per mission. Most of those N didn't fly so the money is still around for other uses. This is a gross oversimplification, of course, but I believe the same thing happened with Apollo 1 and Apollo 13. Please note that I am *not* proposing a conspiracy, just pointing out a fact of government budgeting. It is almost as though the writer did not read his own article. An objective writer would have to state that the Soviets are clearly ahead. Being "ahead" in the spaceflight game is like MIPS in the computer field. It is a term that means whatever the writer thinks/hopes/wants you to believe that it means. I usually take the extended use of either expression as an indicator that the user is hand-waving. After more glowing description of the "backward" Soviets, we are told "The shuttle had no real mission, just a succession of errands; it was a way to keep men in space while we figured out what to do there." This myth has been pounded out so many times I am weary from refuting it. The shuttle (or something like it) is absolutely essential to any large scale orbital activity. It is not surprising that you are worn out from "refuting" the claim that the Shuttle is a compromise vehicle, because it is difficult to refute the truth. The original NASA concept was: "We need a space station to do anything useful in orbit. Oh, and it'll be permanent, so we'll also need some kind of truck to get stuff up there. We'd like that truck to be re-usable, so it'll be cheaper to run." The Nixon administration took this, and the cost estimate for it, and when the dust settled, all that was left was the truck. The truck was modified to do some space-station-like things, and when the money got tight, the DoD was persuaded to step in, and the truck was compromised again. You are absolutely correct when you say that something similar the Shuttle is necessary for large-scale orbital activity. In a perfect world, that something sure wouldn't be a bastard vehicle like Shuttle, but that's all we got, right now. The Newsweek articles pointed out a lot of very valuable things, all of which seem to have been lost on you. It asked the question: "Why is spaceflight so expensive?" which seems like one that should never be far from the thoughts of anyone dedicated to getting humanity into space. Sure, spaceflight costs because of physics, but the cost because of poor design, or hidden political agendas is much, much greater. That is a fortunate state of affairs for you, because while it is unlikely (but not impossible) that you, or I or anyone reading this can squeeze many orders of magnitude out of the physical costs, there is a fairly good chance that something can be done about the political costs of space travel. If you want to get people into space, wouldn't it be better to work on those problems? The Newsweek series was a potential opportunity that you missed. For a few minutes, during one week, every Newsweek subscriber in the world actually thought about spaceflight. If you alone had been extrodinarily ambitious, you might have extended that time. If you, and all your friends, and all their freinds had been only moderately ambitious, you might have had the same effect. Would it have done any good? Perhaps. Who knows? If you create a demand for cheap spaceflight in a capitalist society, then you might actually find a supply. One of the disturbing things about the "space movement" is that most of the activity of it's membership is directed toward arguing with each other about trivial issues, rather than convincing people who can have some effect. I have been to meetings where a Fortune 500 executive sat, bewildered and alone on the sidelines, while the "activists" argued with each other about whether to call the Earth's major satellite the moon, or the Moon. Regardless of your political or economic leanings, I claim that if you convince the CEO of each and every Fortune 500 company that "Space is Good", you will have cheap spaceflight within a decade. But I don't think anyone in the "space movement" has ever even given it a try..... --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 87 14:03:12 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Re: Space Telescopes in article <8708310414.AA08396@angband.s1.gov>, DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") says: > MacLeod made a comment about the HST being overtaken by ground based > instruments, and the possibility that it wouldn't be launched. I find > that hard to swallow. I don't think the techniques for getting rid of > atmospheric distortion are panaceas. [...] They are potentially very interesting, but you're right. Most of the ones I've heard about require a bright star to guide on. The technique is not proven yet, either (except maybe in a DoD installation, where they have megabucks to throw at it to keep them working). I'm guessing the techniques will be difficult in practice. There is some early work on using a laser to scatter off the sodium layer in the atmosphere and create your guide star to order. > There's one kind of "telescope" that would work on the moon but not by > itself in space: a neutrino detector. Neutrino detectors must be > shielded by thousands of feet of rock to screen out cosmic rays. On > the earth, cosmic ray nuclei interacting in the upper atmosphere > produce pions that decay to neutrinos and muons, both of which cause > background activity in the detector. On the moon, more pions will > collide with nuclei in the regolith rather than decay, so the > background activity will be lower. For this reason the moon will also > be a good place to put a nucleon decay experiment (probably using > liquid oxygen rather than water). An asteroid would also work, and the > low gravity would make it easier to dig large caverns. I don't understand - are you saying pions are produced only by an atmospheric interaction? This I doubt. Or that, once produced in the rock, they will produce fewer neutrinos because of the higher local density and chance of collision? This I also doubt. Given the large detection masses and depth of the cavern required, it'll be impractical, and probably unnecessary for a very long time to come. Even the Earth's natural radioactivity is pretty easy to exclude from the counted events. -- Bill UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu (or) wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu BITNET: wyatt@cfa2 SPAN: 17410::wyatt (this will change in June) ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 87 23:05:03 GMT From: amdcad!cae780!leadsv!meri@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ernie Meri) Subject: Space Telescope-proposals deadline extended (Excerpts from the Lockheed MSC Star) The deadline for amateur astronomers to submit proposals for observing time on the NASA/LMSC Hubble Space Telescope has been extended from 1987 to June 1988. Amateurs are invited to compete for two to three hours of observing time annually on this telescope. "Linking the deadline to the resumption of Space Shuttle operations - now scheduled for June 1988 - will give amateur astronomers extra time to submit their proposals," said Stephen Edberg, chairman of the Hubble Space Telescope Amateur Astronomer Working Group. Edberg also stated that "response from the amateur astronomer community on this project has been very enthusiastic. We've received more than 450 unquires and all show lots of imagination." "Serious amateur astronomers deserve a chance to use the most powerful of astronomical instruments....it is likely that amateur projects will yield important contributions to the field and amateurs would ask refreshing new questions," said Riccardo Giacconi, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute. For more information about submitting a viewing time proposal, send an inquiry to: American Association of Variable Star Observers 25 Birch Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Sep 87 15:11:06 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 September 06 15:11:06 PDT (=GMT-7hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 September 06 15:20:55 PDT (=GMT-7hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: SN1987A pulsar already observed via neutrinos? According to an article in Science News (1987.Aug.22), the neutrionos observed earlier this year from SN1987A seem to have occurred at intervals consistent with a period of 8.9 MS, such as would occur if they were mostly generated from a hot spot on the surface of a neutron star rotating with that period. In a few months the gas around the supernova may thin enough to see the supernova remnant, predicted to be a neutron star rotating at a similar rate, and we may receive optical or other EM pulses and be able to compare that rotation rate (pulse rate) with the earlier possibly-observed neutrino pulse rate (it should have slowed slightly by then). Too bad we don't have more kinds of space telescopes up there now to get better observations. Good thing we DO have some up now. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 87 23:42:58 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Mars Orbiter name - results > Stickney 1 (Sorry - I don't recognize the reference) If I recall correctly -- it's been a long time since I read about this -- Asaph Hall, the discoverer of the Martian moons, almost gave up at one point. The moons are small and close in, not easy to see, and of course he didn't know whether there were any or not. His wife encouraged him to persevere, which he did, successfully. Her name was Stickney. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 87 03:47:49 GMT From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Shuttle TPS In response to my posting on ICs and NASA, where I also referred to the Shuttle tiles as a dead-end technology, Eugene Miya writes: > While I have no qualms about ICs (NASA really deserves no credit), and > tiles have been replaced to a degree with some new technologies. Back > in the 1970s, I wonder what you would have suggested to keep a big > flying rock cool? > > We were given histories of our Center recently. The tiles were > developed at Ames (not the glue). But what would you have suggested? > Circulating fluids was proposed and rejected as too complex during the > design. I'm just trying to find out if you have a better way or > whether you are being critical for argument's sake. > > eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA If I were faced with the requirement to keep a big flying rock cool, I doubt that I could have come up with anything as good as--much less better than--the tiles. When I referred to them as "marvelous", I wasn't being sarcastic. They represent a brilliant technological solution to a specific set of difficult requirements. They are a dead-end technology nonetheless, because the requirements they were designed to address were not grounded in reality. They were imposed by managers and bureaucrats operating more from considerations of politics, image, and territorial interest, than engineering sense. Achieving economical space transportation in no way required a vehicle with the specifications of the Shuttle. What it mainly required is what we are still sorely lacking, 15 years later--a reusable booster. There is nothing as frustratingly unproductive as working hard to solve the wrong problem. - Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 87 13:17:26 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utcsri!hogg@rutgers.edu (John Hogg) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs In article <502@uop.UUCP> robert@uop.UUCP (Glen Fiddich) writes: >now if they could put the propellant into a big cardboard tube, like >in a model rocket...and stuff it up into the booster!! ;-) Is that smiley face necessary? Would it be possible to weld the SRBs together empty, then lower cast segments of pure fuel (sans cardboard) down from the top? (That end's much easier to deal with.) The immediately obvious problem with this is the necessary clearance between the booster wall and the fuel. How critical would that be? Would the fuel start burning ``from both sides'' in an unpredictable and unpleasant manner? If so, would it be practical to inject some sort of sealant around each segment to avoid that problem? I somehow doubt that nobody at NASA has ever thought of this, so what are the technical difficulties? John Hogg ...!{seismo,utzoo}!csri.toronto.edu!hogg ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 87 21:29:00 GMT From: irwin@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Welded SRBs It would seem that if they can move the shuttle piggy back on a 747, that they could haul the one piece boosters in the same fashion. Or else, strap on some wings and tow them glider style, how much does one of them weigh anyway? Now there is a use for the "Spruce Goose" which I saw recently while on the west coast. :-) (320' wingspan) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #343 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Sep 87 06:20:04 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06988; Fri, 11 Sep 87 03:17:50 PDT id AA06988; Fri, 11 Sep 87 03:17:50 PDT Date: Fri, 11 Sep 87 03:17:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709111017.AA06988@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #344 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 344 Today's Topics: Re: Welded SRBs Re: Rocket parts Re: Welded SRBs Re: Welded SRBs Re: Welded SRBs The SRB lives again! Re: The SRB lives again! Re: More on Shuttle (Parts Don't bother) Re: More on Shuttle Parts Re: Things aint so bad commercial space incentive, good idea but work out details now commercial space incentive, good idea but work out details now Re: space news from July 20 AW&ST NASA spinoffs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Aug 87 15:42:18 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs in article <5227@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, animal@ihlpa.ATT.COM (D. Starr) says: > In article <1406@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >> >> The reason for joints in the first place: When Thiokol was awarded >> the contract for the Solid Rocket Motors, there had to be a way to >> get them from Utah to Florida. > > This leads to the fundamental question of what is a solid rocket plant > doing in the middle of Utah? Well, I live in Utah, and I know several people who work for Thiokol and Hercules (another major solid rocket motor manufacturer based in Utah). I know a lot more about the history of Hercules than I do about Thiokol, I used to work for Hercules. Utah has a lot of mineral deposits. Mineral deposits attract the mining and chemical industries. Mining needs explosives. Chemical companies make explosives. The military needs explosives. Chemical companies start making explosives packed in the kinds of containers that the military wants them in, things like shells and bombs and rocket motors. Thiokol did not build an SRB plant in Utah. They added a little tooling to the existing HUGE plant they already had that had been built up over at least 40 years. My office is on the east bench of the Salt lake valley. If I walk over to the southwest corner of my office and look west northwest, I can see the Hercules plant and the Kennecott copper mine. I can see the mine all the time, but a corner of the next building north cuts of the view of the Hercules plant. Hercules started out making blasting powder for the miners, then rifle powder for WWI, then... Industrial plants of the size needed to build major rocket motors (or anything else for that matter) are not created out of whole cloth for a single project. They grow over time. The rocket plants in Utah have their roots in a hundred years of history. FYI: Thiokol manufactures the first stage for MX, Hercules has the third stage, I think the second and fourth stages are built in california. The MX stages are not very big, especially when compared to the SRB. If you haven't stood next to an SRB segment, you have no idea how big they really are. Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 87 23:45:05 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Rocket parts > ... If I remember right, the orbiter main engines have one of the > best specific impulse ratings around, and are re-usable (though that > may be better once one is in space)... Unfortunately, they are also extremely expensive, and not nearly as reusable as they were originally supposed to be. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 87 23:49:53 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs > Is that smiley face necessary? Would it be possible to weld the SRBs > together empty, then lower cast segments of pure fuel (sans cardboard) > down from the top? (That end's much easier to deal with.) > > The immediately obvious problem with this is the necessary clearance > between the booster wall and the fuel. How critical would that be? > ... Pretty critical. Solid fuel has to be pretty thoroughly bonded to the wall, not just close to it. A modest bonding failure is thought to have been the cause of the fireworks over Vandenberg early in 1986 that grounded the big Titans for a year and a half. (The photos in AW&ST did indeed look like an enormous fireworks display -- that thing really *blew*!) I don't know a lot about the fine points of solid-rocket design, but I doubt that it's workable. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 87 16:18:00 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utcsri!hogg@rutgers.edu (John Hogg) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs In article <163400021@uiucdcsb> irwin@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >It would seem that if they can move the shuttle piggy back on a 747, >that they could haul the one piece boosters in the same fashion. Or >else, strap on some wings and tow them glider style, how much does one >of them weigh anyway? >From ``The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual'', essential reading for the Space Cadets of tomorrow: Orbiter weight (empty): 75 000 kg. SRB weight (at launch): 590 000 kg. Nice idea, but I think that Dani Eder will turn thumbs down. The real answer is to build or refurbish the SRBs adjacent to a convenient body of navigable water, and pay off Utah campaign contributors from some other pork barrel. The hard problems aren't technical. John Hogg ...!{seismo,utzoo}!csri.toronto.edu!hogg ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 87 03:07:44 GMT From: lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@AMES.ARPA (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Welded SRBs Senator Jake Garn of Utah. Who was originally planned to go up on 51L, apparently, with Christie McAuliffe going up on the shuttle he went up on. Luckily for him, he was in a hurry. It would have been superb irony if he'd been on 51L as planned. Peter da Silva ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 87 00:31:23 GMT From: amdahl!kim@ames.arpa (Kim DeVaughn) Subject: The SRB lives again! Congratulations and thanks to all the Engineers, Scientists, and other contributors from Morton-Thiokol, NASA, and elsewhere for the seemingly successful 2-minute test firing of an SRB in Utah earlier today! It was really GREAT to see one of those monsters roaring again! /kim ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 87 21:23:03 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: The SRB lives again! Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space >Congratulations and thanks to all the Engineers, Scientists, and other >contributors from Morton-Thiokol, NASA, and elsewhere for the seemingly >successful 2-minute test firing of an SRB in Utah earlier today! >It was really GREAT to see one of those monsters roaring again! Just to let it be known (again). Some of us are not happy with just a horizontal test. I work in the aero codes neither had any thing to do with this or any say. But I can pass this on. My suggestion is use hard copy next time, since most don't read this. >[ just say NO! ] >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Sep 87 18:58:27 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: More on Shuttle (Parts Don't bother) Newsgroups: sci.space Brett writes: > I was suggesting the use of the shuttle main engines in other >rocket designs when Henry Spencer made note that they were too >expensive for the performance. I have one thing to let you and the net know about SSME use in other vehicles. Don't bother. Don't ask me for details, I am not allowed to mention it beyond that (the issue is sensitive). There may be some AIAA papers from the yearly Reno Conference, but that's all I should say. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 87 15:21:20 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: More on Shuttle Parts in article <1114@uw-nsr.UUCP>, brett@uw-nsr.UUCP (Brett Van Steenwyk) says: > I was suggesting the use of the shuttle main engines in other rocket > designs when Henry Spencer made note that they were too expensive for > the performance. Henry is right. If you really want to build a cheap booster based on Space Shuttle technology you are looking at the wrong engines. Start with the SRBs. Design two motors based on a single SRB segment case and forward dome. Design a fast burning high thrust grain and nozzle to match, and a long burning low thrust grain and nozzle to match. To keep nozzle assemblies simple and cheap use gas injection for thrust vectoring. Design an interstage assembly that supports clustering. What do you have? A set of motors that can be clustered and stacked to make up boosters with a wide range of payloads and reasonable control over max g loads. Also, existing handling, check out, transportation systems, and tooling can be used with little or no modification. > brett@nsr.acs.washington.edu Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 87 19:10:16 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad > Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else > presently has anything nearly as zippy... Anything nearly as zippy, no. This has nothing much to do with usefulness, though. The Soviet hardware consistently does almost everything better than the Shuttle does it, albeit less glamorously. Almost the only thing the Shuttle does better is return of payloads from orbit -- something that it does only occasionally and which is no longer seen as a major use for it. (By the way, the Soviet shuttle is apparently on the pad at Baikonur.) > ... Come on now, we know how to build expendable lift vehicles; there > is no fundamental problem stamping out more Titans and designing a new > heavy-lift vehicle. A few years and a few billion dollars, and our > short-term problems will be solved. However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost too much and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way. This is a big, nasty, serious problem in both the short term and the long term. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Sep 87 14:48:44 From: Robert Elton Maas To: topaz.rutgers.edu!rubin@rutgers.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject:commercial space incentive, good idea but work out details now Date: 11 Aug 87 22:46:28 GMT From: topaz.rutgers.edu!rubin@rutgers.edu (Mike Rubin) Subject: Re: Government in space ... the government ... What they *should* be doing is facilitating private enterprise. This means a guarantee of initial launch business; an insurance setup (fully or quasi-public) that can protect against Acts of Congress and other such external impositions, as well as solve the thorny problem of accident liability; loosening of antitrust and SEC regulations if necessary (and certainly removal of the silly stuff like import duties from orbit); and subsidy in the form of tax breaks only to counter foreign subsidies. This is a good start, you are on the right track, now we need to work out the details. Do you like the "commercial space incentive act" or whatever that was proposed a couple months ago, for the basic guaranteed launch business? I pointed out the "thorny problem of accident liability" and I see you agree it needs to be added to the basic incentive, but we need a specific proposal for how the Government can pick up the tab without being sucker for random fly-by-night company that puts a payload on a worthless piece of junk and then gets paid when it blows up as it always will, but without forcing a good-intentionned company to take all the risk. Would Lloyds of London be willing to provide insurance if they can inspect the technology being used? Would the federal government be willing to provide the insurance if they get to regulate the technology (or would that simply allow DoD and NASA to effectively veto all private launch facilities like they do now?)? What answer do you propose?? I agree with tax breaks, although the launch subsidy would seem to subsume that, i.e. if the guaranteed launch subsidy is large enough they don't need any additional assistance such as tax breaks, unless you mean that for launching non-government payloads the guaranteed launch subsidy is not applicable so the tax break would be needed? ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 87 17:24:17 GMT From: ihnp4!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dennis Grittner) Subject: commercial space incentive, good idea but work out details now If the government facilitates 'private enterprise' through guarantees, subsidies, insurance, etc. it isn't 'private enterprise'. Why even make such a silly proposal? Let's work toward having a good program without guarnateeing any privateers their profits. If they want to take risk, let them - that's 'private enterprise'. Dennis Grittner City of Saint Paul, Minnesota (612) 298-4402 Room 700, 25 W. 4th St. 55102 "Let's just put Ollie, Ronnie, and the rest in jail!" ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 87 00:23:27 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: space news from July 20 AW&ST > Dept of Commerce's final rules on US commercial remote-sensing > satellites give secretaries of State and Defense veto power over > licensing applications and the power to suspend operations of > licensees. The government will also have the power to seize "any > object, record, or report" from a private satellite operator, given > "probable cause to believe" that it was being used in violation of the > rules. The US government's incredibly asinine, myopic and ultimately futile stand on this issue is one of the many reasons I'm so glad there are Western space programs and launch facilities that are completely independent of the US. Just who are they keeping secrets from? The Soviets? Phil ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 87 15:07:23 GMT From: PT!k.gp.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay@cs.rochester.edu (Donald Lindsay) Subject: NASA spinoffs >They were build by IBM Federal Systems Division, using a custom >developed technology called ASLT ("Advanced Solid Logic Technology"). >ASLT was obsolete, or close to it, by the time the first Saturns flew. >I don't think it ever saw application outside of the Apollo program. >An expensive technological dead end--rather like those marvelous >Shuttle thermal tiles are destined to become. >- Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger IBM currently uses TCMs - Thermal Conduction Modules - in all its big and midsize toys. They are a reasonably amazing interconnect/ packaging technology, and I was under the impression that they grew out of ASLT. The differences: - now they interconnect VLSI instead of whatever-it-was. - now they use 30-35 metal layers baked into a single ceramic, instead of one metal layer on each of 2 or 3 ceramic pieces. Gee, the little sandwich was cute. - now the ceramic is hundreds of cm**2 instead of 1 cm**2. - now they try (hard) to extract heat. The similarities: - screening conductors onto ceramic - coping with the shinkage of green ceramic when fired - materials issues - flip-bonding issues - ovens, solder bumping, solder alloys Sounds to me like ASLT was an attempt to push a mainstream technology. Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #344 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Sep 87 23:36:18 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00994; Fri, 11 Sep 87 20:17:05 PDT id AA00994; Fri, 11 Sep 87 20:17:05 PDT Date: Fri, 11 Sep 87 20:17:05 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709120317.AA00994@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #345 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 345 Today's Topics: NASA spinoffs CANOPUS Excerpts - July 1987 NASA spin offs Space Technology Spinoffs NASA Spin-offs Hybrid IC's Spinoffs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Aug 87 06:52:58 GMT From: ece-csc!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!telesoft!roger@mcnc.org (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: NASA spinoffs > >ASLT was obsolete, or close to it, by the time the first Saturns > >flew. I don't think it ever saw application outside of the Apollo > >program. An expensive technological dead end--rather like those > >marvelous Shuttle thermal tiles are destined to become. > > IBM currently uses TCMs - Thermal Conduction Modules - in all its big > and midsize toys. They are a reasonably amazing interconnect/ > packaging technology, and I was under the impression that they grew > out of ASLT.. > > [description of differences and similarities elided] > > Sounds to me like ASLT was an attempt to push a mainstream technology. > Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science Hmm. It would take more of a historian of IBM technology than I am to say how much of TCM technology grew out of FSD's ASLT work and how much came from independent development on the commercial components side. The flip chip bonding was in use prior to ASLT, and the R&D on the commercial components side was well funded by IBM itself, independent of FSD. But it's hard to imagine that the ASLT developments in materials and tolerances didn't have an impact on the commercial side. My original point was that ASLT focused on packaging technology, and not on the technologies that were central to development of IC chips. For that program, at least, NASA deserves no credit for development of ICs. But your point is well taken--the technology developed was almost certainly NOT wasted, and it was inappropriate to label it a "dead end" technology. Hell, if we're lucky, maybe I'll be wrong about the Shutle tiles, too. --- Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 87 13:44:02 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: CANOPUS Excerpts - July 1987 This is a posting of articles from CANOPUS for July 1987. Three articles are given by title only, and six in condensed form. Material in {braces} is from me. I still regard these postings as experimental; please e-mail any comments to me. The complete CANOPUS is available from me by e-mail; please specify which month you want and/or if you want to be added to the regular mailing list. Those on the mailing list should receive the unabridged July issue very shortly; if not, please let me know. CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. {3 articles by title only.} PERSONNEL: Bartoe, Hinners, Townsend, Luest, Grage - can7872.txt - 7/7/87 STOFAN DEFENDS SPACE STATION COST ESTIMATES - can7874.txt - 7/13/87 {previously posted} PERSONNEL - can7878.txt - 7/28/87 {JPL asst. lab. directors} {6 condensed articles} PLANETARY ASTRONOMY RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT - CAN7871.TXT - 7/7/87 NASA has issued a "Research Announcement" for a planetary astronomy program. A total of 100 investigators will be selected under the $8 million program. For funding evaluation in August proposals must be submitted by July 31 to: Jurgen Rahe, NASA -- EL, Washington, DC 20546 (phone 205-453-1597). Other deadlines are Dec. 31 for evaluation in February 1988 and July 31, 1988, for evaluation in August 1988. PUBLICATIONS - can7873.txt - 7/7/87 Jet Propulsion Laboratory Annual Report for 1986. TRW 1986 "Space Log." Copies may be obtained by writing on letterhead to: Editor, TRW Space Log, MS 135/1477, TRW Space & Technology Group, One Space Park, Redondo Beach, CA 90278. SIXTEENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON SPACE TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE The Sixteenth Symposium on Space Technology and Science (ISTS) will be held at the Hokkaido University Conference Hall, Sapporo, Hokkaido, May 22-27, 1988. This time, a special session will be held to present and discuss emerging expectations for Hokkaido as Japan's new space port. Inquiries regarding the Symposium should be addressed to: Ms. H. Sakurai, 16th ISTS Secretariat c/o Institute of Space and Astronautical Science 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 JAPAN Telephone: 03-467-1111,Telex: J24550 (SPACE TKY), Facsimile: 03-485-6872 SHUTTLE NEWS Recovery of the Space Shuttle booster design is "right on target," according to Design Team Manager John Thomas of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. The next development motor firing is scheduled for August at the Morton-Thiokol plant in Ogden, Utah. Meanwhile, the first of three new main engines to be used in the STS-26 launch has been received at the National Space Technology Laboratories in Bay St. Louis, Miss., for acceptance testing. A separate engine has been test fired in a single 1,000- second run, the longest ever for the main engine. Shuttle launches are to resume in June 1988. ELECTRON BEAM OBSERVATION OPPORTUNITY - can7876.txt - 7/21/87 Ionospheric researchers will have the opportunity to conduct coordinated radio, radar, and optical observations in conjunction with other space-based electron beam experiments as part of the upcoming Cooperative High- Altitude Rocket Gun Experiments (CHARGE) 3 rocket flight in November 1988 at White Sands Missile Range. The flight will be particularly interesting because of the high power planned for the electron gun (3.5 kV at 5 A). Interested investigators may contact Brian Gilchrist, STAR Laboratory/SEL, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4055 (SPAN:STAR::GILCHRIST, telephone:415-725- 1637 or leave a message at 415-723-3687). RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS - can7877.txt - 7/28/87 {last article} The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has issued two "Research Announcements" for activities in the planetary sciences. The first is the Planetary Instrument Definition and Development Program (PIDDP). Its purpose "is to define and develop a variety of measurement techniques and spacecraft instruments for remote sensing, in situ analysis, and radio science investigations in order to prepare for planetary missions that may take place between the present and the year 2000," according to the PIDDP Announcement. The NRA recommends the Solar System Exploration Committee reports, "Planetary Exploration Through the Year 2000, A Core Program" and "Planetary Exploration Through the Year 2000, An Augmented Program," as references. Although instruments for the Magellan, Mars Observer, and Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby missions have been selected, the NRA suggests that other "proposals to define or develop instruments for [other missions outlined in the reports] would be appropriate." The Lunar Observer, Cassini Saturn Orbiter/Titan Probe, Mars Soil Sample Return/Rover, Comet Nucleus Sample Return missions are suggested as possible front runners. The NRA also directed attention to a report on "Trajectory Determination and Collection of Micrometeroids on the Space Station, Lunar and Planetary Institute Report 86-05. The second NRA is for work in the planetary geology and geophysics program, and includes cartography, and geologic mapping. Work may include laboratory, theoretical, and Earth analog studies of the surfaces and interiors of planets and of their evolution. Work may cover laboratory experimentation, photointerpretation, theoretical, analytical, field and comparative studies. Included is the Mars 1:500,000 mapping project. "Modest" requests for imaging and non-imaging data will be supported. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Sep 87 11:20:04 EDT From: Al Lester Subject: NASA spin offs COSMIC is the NASA Software Management and Information Center located at the University of Georgia. At this time we have almost 1200 programs developed by NASA. We have programs dealing with expert systems, image processing, control systems and robotics, structural analysis and CAD/CAM just to mention a few. Feel free to contact me for additional information or help. Phone: 404-542-3265 ------------------------------ Date: 4 September 1987, 10:42:30 EDT From: Joshua Knight Subject: Space Technology Spinoffs amelia!msf@ames.arpa (Michael S. Fischbein) writes: > > roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: > >In SLT, conductor patterns and resistors were screened and fired onto > > > >An expensive technological dead end--rather like those marvelous > >Shuttle thermal tiles are destined to become. > (1. > The SLT and ASLT sound a lot like the forerunners of the TCM chip > (2. > Is that an application outside of the Apollo program? > (1. Indeed and (2. Yes. For a review of IBM packaging technology see: IBM J R&D Vol. 27, No. 1, January 1983, "Manufacturing Technology - Packaging" is the topic for the entire issue. IBM J R&D Vol. 26, No. 3, May 1982, "Packing Technology" is the topic for the entire issue. IBM J R&D Vol. 26, No. 1, January 1982, "IBM 3081 System Development Technology" is the topic fof the entire issue, in particular: "Thermal Conduction Module: A High-Performance Multilayer Ceramic Package" by A.J. Blodgett and D.R. Barbour, pp. 30-36. IBM J R&D Vol. 25, No. 5, September 1981, 25th Anniversary Issue, in particular: "Electronic Packaging Evolution in IBM" by D.P. Seraphim and I. Feinberg, pp. 617-629. Although there is no specific mention of ASLT in any of these articles, it is clear from these and other articles that the technology for C4 (controlled collapse chip connection) is constantly being refined and the ASLT work no doubt contributed to the further development of the technology. This chip mounting technique is used not only in the "high end" TCMs but also in all MCMs (multi-chip ceramic modules) that are used in the manufacture of mid-range systems, e.g. the 4381. As others have mentioned, development of special products, often from scratch, causes people to think in ways that they might not for more "standard" products. This can lead to innovations that would otherwise probably not have been developed. However, this type of "spinoff" is very difficult to evaluate. Sorry this is so long and marginally space related. Josh Knight (josh@ibm.com josh@yktvmh.bitnet) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Sep 87 14:40:03 EDT From: Al Lester Subject: NASA Spin-offs COSMIC Presents a NASTRAN Beginners Workshop COSMIC announces the one-week NASTRAN Beginners Workshop, taught by Myles Hurwitz, lecturer and consultant. He has been involved with NASTRAN since 1970 and has taught more that 30 introductory and advanced classes. The workshop is scheduled for November 2-6, 1987 on the University of Georgia campus in Athens. The course is designed to allow participants as much hands-on experence with NASTRAN as possible; one-third of the sessions are devoted to workshops with participants setting up and solving problems. For additional information please contact Nan Hull at COSMIC, the NASA Software Management and Information Center. Phone: 404-542-3265 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Sep 87 15:22:00 PDT From: Dana Myers Subject: Hybrid IC's Hybrid IC's are very popular these days. Many Analog to Digital (ADC) products are made using hybrid technology. I know that the ignition control units in all of the modern Japanese motorcyles use a big hybrid to set the parameters. Some circuit board assemblies are constructed using "reflow" soldering, which is the method those "SLT" and "ASLT" circuits were built with. A PS/2 mother board is built this way... Though NASA may have developed some obsolete technology, the generic technology involved in making hybrid IC's is not obsolete or useless. Dana H. Myers ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Sep 87 13:52 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Spinoffs To: sundc!hadron!cos!smith@seismo.css.gov, space@angband.s1.gov I said: >>The Apollo program paid the economy back, ignoring spinoffs? >>Unlikely, unless you assign a very high value to data about lunar >>geology. Steve Smith said: > Like most people, you are confusing "NASA" and "the Apollo program". No, I'm not. If I had meant the space program as a whole, I would have said that. The message I was responding to (from G. Gleason) talked about "research prompted by the needs of the Apollo program". >>it seems obvious that R&D targeted at specific terrestrial application >>areas (microelectronics, energy, biotechnology, for example) should >>have a much higher spinoff potential than R&D targeted at space. >This is true if you subscribe to the "bean counter" school of research. >Research into, say, integrated circuits will produce slightly better >integrated circuits with a high enough probability to satisfy the >accountants. Its chance of coming up with a real breakthrough (say, >something that makes integrated circuits obsolete) is negligable. Bean counters can be harder to snow, which makes them unpopular. Is NASA research is going to accidently discover something that could make ICs obsolete (or something similarly impressive)? I seriously doubt it. I know of no evidence they've done anything of the sort. >Note that space research is extremely technology intensive. A solution >to a problem usually has to be built from scratch - giving lots more >opportunity for inventiveness. (What does "extremely technology intensive" mean: very expensive?) Space research also gives you lots of opportunities for inventing technologies that are so specialized they are only useful in space. Can you give me some examples of breakthrough technologies that were invented exclusively for the space program? >REAL research (that with no obvious short or medium term payoff) is the >equivalent of seed corn - eat your seed corn and you do just fine - for >a while. What will be the next big payoff area? I wish I knew. Of course I support basic research. But NASA spends only a small fraction of its budget on this (an increasing fraction, I hope). Running a trucking service to orbit is not basic research. > Other aspects of the space program have paid off in enough green and > crinkly to make worry about spinoffs an acedemic excercise. The > obvious big two are weather satellites and communications satellites. > Care to estimate the value of satellite communications? You are trying to slip under the door the assumption that comsats would not have happened, or would have been delayed, without the Apollo program. I don't buy that. The first comsat was privately built. The ability to launch unmanned payloads into space would have been developed even if Kennedy hadn't wanted to land men on the moon. We might have had cheaper boosters sooner if so much engineering talent and resources had not been consumed by the Apollo program. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #345 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Sep 87 07:06:02 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01653; Sat, 12 Sep 87 03:16:58 PDT id AA01653; Sat, 12 Sep 87 03:16:58 PDT Date: Sat, 12 Sep 87 03:16:58 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709121016.AA01653@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #346 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 346 Today's Topics: CANOPUS Excerpts - August 1987 NASA 'Tethers in Space Handbook' Storage costs for the Hubble Space Telescope Re: Storage costs for the Hubble Space Telescope Re: Apollo Command Module Memo for Kremvax Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Sep 87 15:48:27 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: CANOPUS Excerpts - August 1987 This is a condensation of CANOPUS for August 1987. Two articles are given by title only, four in condensed form, and one short one in full. Material in {braces} is from me. The unabridged CANOPUS is available from me by e-mail; please specify which month you want and/or if you want to be added to the regular mailing list. Those on the mailing list should receive the August issue very shortly; if not, please let me know. Expect the September excerpts to be posted early in October. A few responses to these postings have shown confusion over who is responsibe for items reported. Please note that neither the CANOPUS editors nor I am responsible for statements quoted from reports or from other individuals. The editors of CANOPUS are responsible for choosing items to cover and for the accuracy of quotations and summaries. I am responsible for choosing lengths of condensed articles and for errors in the (sometimes drastic) condensations. By all means let's have discussion and criticism, but please try to keep straight who is responsible for what. CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. {Two articles by title only} CHANGE OF LOCATION OF CANOPUS STORIES FOR COPYING - can8871.txt - 8/3/87 RIDE REPORT STRESSES PLANETARY EXPLORATION - can8873.txt - 8/23/87 {This article already posted in full. I've requested a copy of the full Ride report and will post my own summary if that seems worthwhile.} {Four condensed articles plus short one in full} SPACE STATION AUTOMATION CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT - can8872.txt - 8/7/87 {condensed - speakers' names omitted} Announcement: Space Station Automation III conference will be held at Cambridge, MA on Nov 1-6, 1987 in conjunction with SPIE Advances In Intelligent Robotics System Symposium and IECON '87. The Space Station Automation III cooperating organizations are: American Association for Artificial Intelligence, IEEE Robotics and Automation Council, and NASA. HINNERS NAMED NASA CHIEF SCIENTIST - can8875.txt - 8/24/87 {condensed} Effective Aug. 24, Noel Hinners will serve as the NASA chief scientist in addition to his responsibilities as associate deputy administrator/institutions. Frank McDonald, who has been chief scientist since September 1982, will return to the Goddard Space Flight Center as associate director/chief scientist. SUBORBITAL ACTIVITIES - can8876.txt - 8/25/87 {condensed} Goddard Space Flight Center has selected New Mexico State University's Physical Science Laboratory at Las Cruces for negotiations on a contract to operate the National Scientific Ballooning Facility in Palestine, Texas. The contract comprises a $26.1 million, 3-year base plus two 1-year options worth $9.5 and $9.9 million each. The contract had been held by the University Center for Atmospheric Research. Recent sounding rocket launches at White Sands, N.M., include {Nike-Orion for ionosphere probe, Nike-Black Brant VC for solar wind studies, and Black Brant IX for X-ray imaging of the solar corona.} A series of three rockets and two balloons was launched July 26- 27 at Wallops (Island, Va.) Flight Facility for the Wave Induced Particle Precipitation (WIPP) campaign studying natural and manmade plasma waves and their effects on the ionosphere. MARS STUDIES - can8877.txt - 8/25/87 {unabridged but short} Martin Marietta Corp. and FMC have been selected by CalTech/JPL for final negotiation of parallel $250,000 studies of Mars surface rover mobility and rendezvous. The one-year studies are to start in September. A team to be selected by Johnson Space Center will address aerocapture of the carrier spacecraft and landing. Martin Marietta built the Viking landers and orbiters. FMC is best known as a builder of military assault vehicles. SPACE TELESCOPE AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS RECEIVE PROPOSAL EXTENSION - can8874.txt - 8/24/87 {condensed but long; last article} Deadline for amateur astronomers to submit proposals for observing time on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has been extended from 1987 to June 1988, according to Stephen J. Edberg, Chairman of the Hubble Space Telescope Amateur Astronomer Working Group. Edberg said that "response from the amateur astronomer community on this project has been enthusiastic. We've received more than 450 inquiries about the amateur astronomer participation project, and the proposals we are getting show lots of imagination." Amateur astronomers were invited to compete for 2 to 3 hours observing time annually on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope last year by NASA officials and Space Telescope Science Institute's Director, Riccardo Giacconi. Giacconi believes serious amateur astronomers "deserve a chance to use the most powerful of astronomical instruments," and emphasized that "it is likely amateur projects will yield important contributions to the field and amateurs would ask refreshing new questions". Inquiries about how amateurs submit proposals for viewing time on Hubble Space Telescope should be sent to: American Association of Variable Star Observers, 25 Birch Street, Cambridge, Mass., 02138 The association is one of seven amateur astronomical organizations that make up the Hubble Space Telescope Amateur Astronomers Working Group. The others are: Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers, Astronomical League, Independent Space Research Group, International Amateur-Professional Photoelectric Photometry, International Occultation Timing Association, and Western Amateur Astronomers. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 87 14:51:42 GMT From: eagle!csw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (C.S.Welch) Subject: NASA 'Tethers in Space Handbook' I'm interested in obtaining a copy of the NASA 'Tethers in Space Handbook'. I'd be greatful if someone out there could tell me the correct place in the U.S. to write to, and what price the book itself and the postage are. This would save me having to wait for two way transatlantic communications to take place before I could actually order said tome. I'll say thanks now as I can't mail the USA, only post to newsgroups. Cheers, Chris Welch, Cranfield Institute, U.K. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 87 23:52:03 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Storage costs for the Hubble Space Telescope I have read in a recent Sky & Telescope and other places that it costs about $7,000,000 a month to keep the Hubble Space Telescope in storage. Is this just for storage (as the references seem to imply), or does this include the costs of keeping alive other pieces of the project, such as the Space Telescope Institute? If it is just for storage, then why does it cost so much? I can believe the HST requires a controlled environment and periodic care, but $7,000,000 a month seem a bit too much. Maybe they scrub the mirror three times a day with diamond-encrusted gold scouring pads? :-) Jorge Stolfi stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decvax!decwrl!stolfi Usual claimers and disclaimers implied. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "There's a lot more to do in space than sending people to Mars." --Bova "There's a lot more to do in space than sending people." --Me ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 87 13:23:39 GMT From: fritz@astro.as.utexas.edu (Fritz Benedict) Subject: Re: Storage costs for the Hubble Space Telescope In article <922@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: > I have read in a recent Sky & Telescope and other places that it costs > about $7,000,000 a month to keep the Hubble Space Telescope in > storage. The storage itself is not that much. Paying the hundreds of experts who are necessary for the safe awakening and final testing of HST before it is shipped to Canaveral for launch is the major cost factor. If NASA doesn't keep these people on the payroll, they go work someplace else. Their expertise is lost. The probability of HST scientific success drops. Finally, we scientist types begin to rend our garments and make the lives of NASA managers not worth living ( 8-) ). The HST Science Institute budget is not part of the $7M. Fritz Benedict ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 87 22:53:25 GMT From: mike@AMES.ARPA (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Apollo Command Module In article <369@ncspm.ncsu.edu> jay@ncspm.UUCP (Jay Smith) writes: >In article <2545@ames.arpa> mike@ames.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: >>Ignore the gold color on the large Monogram model. > >Then why is the CM of the Apollo-Soyuz backup CSM on display at the Air >& Space Museum gold? Is my memory failing, or my color vision faulty, >or could it be the lighting at the museum? I was at the A/S museum a couple of years ago, but don't remember the gold on the CM. I saw one of the ASTP CSM trainers at the Hutcheson Cosmosphere in Kansas about 5 years ago, and it was the appropriate silver mylar. My guess is that perhaps the silver was merely dirty (not surpising, considering the lack of care those things recieve once on display) or possibly discolored due to the sunlight from those awful windows next to it. But the REAL color of the Apollo lunar CSMs is in fact silver. The Skylab versions had some sort of white insulation over the back part of the craft. Cheers! ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 87 00:17:32 GMT From: jaw@AMES-AURORA.ARPA (James A. Woods) Subject: Memo for Kremvax The circular below has gotten a few snickers in our workplace ... National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center Office of the Associate Director August 26, 1987 TO: All Organizational Directors Dr. Shapley, Associate Administrator-Policy at Headquarters, has notified the International Relations Division that, reportedly, invitations from the Soviet Union are being sent to Key Individuals at various NASA Centers, asking that these individuals participate in the "30th Anniversary of the First Sputnik". The catch... at the time of this celebration there will also be a Forum to discuss future Space Science Technology". Staff members at Ames are *not to accept* any invitations pending further guidance from the State Department. In addition...anyone receiving an invitation should submit their name, title, and office affiliation to their respective Directorate Offices, who, in turn, will report it to me. (signed) Jack D. Stanley ... I think I'm safe, never having had the chance to give away (or sell) space secrets to Big Brothers of any stripe. To belabor the point, talking to Ivan would be a bit like like telling Yehudi Menuhin how to play violin. For a real sneaky public relations turnaround, though, the U.S.S.R. ought to train ace pilot Mathias Rust as a cosmonaut, in lieu of him serving a sentence. That positive-think countercoup would surely get us back! -- James Alien (ames!jaw, or jaw@ames-aurora.arpa) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 87 19:43:06 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article In article <3005@mtgzz.UUCP>, dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes: > Newspeak in Orbit > A Review of The Newsweek Article on the Space Program(8/17/87) > Copyright 1987 Dale L. Skran Jr. > Part I, America Grounded, by Larry Martz > When I first started reading Dale's article, I was delighted. I was hoping for some careful analysis of the _Newsweek_ articles in sci.space. I found some things in the _Newsweek_ article I thought were incorrect or badly presented--not to mention some questionable theories--and wanted to see what the sci.space experts had to say about all this. Dale did a terrific job of analyzing the article. He pointed out quite a number of goofs--some considerable--and many lapses in logic presented in Martz' _Newsweek_ article. I commend his exceptional work in finding the errors, inconsistencies, and bad ideas. Unfortunately, as I read further, he lost all my support. He begins using the same tactics of which he accuses the media. His basic conclusion is that it's all the media's fault. This is a sweeping generalization that is so over-simplistic it appears Dale is looking for an easy target to blame things on. The explanation as to why things are wrong is not a simple one. Many things have gone wrong and continue to go wrong. There's plenty of fault to go around. NASA, the Congress, the contractors, the beancounters, the engineers, the fund-cutters, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the space freaks, the public, the voters, AND the media; we are all are to blame. Dale tells us what Martz' opinions about space REALLY are. I wasn't aware that Dale had mastered the art of remote psychoanalysis. I believe what Dale tells me about Dale's opinions, but I don't think he's an expert on anybody else's--particularly when his thoughts on Martz' opinions are in direct contradiction to what Martz says Martz' opinions are. Dale also extrapolates his ideas about Martz to ALL journalists. Why doesn't he just ask them for their opinions, rather than presenting his own ideas about what they are? I don't want anybody speaking for me--I can present my own opinions, thank you, and I am offended when I see Dale telling me what my opinions REALLY are. Dale gives us the REAL motivation behind those who oppose the Shuttle and/or Station; again, an unsubstantiated theory arrived at through the "guilt by association" method. Something akin to "they're against vanilla, therefore they must be against ice cream". Dale accuses the media of having "little minds". Well, we're all human, and we sometimes act that way. Sometimes I have a "little mind", and sometimes Dale does too. Dale then rattles off the reasons why the media reports space the way they do. From considerable experience, I know that his ideas about this are turned 180 degrees from reality. Dale has given us his opinion about how editing decisions are made, and then expects us to accept his opinion simply based on face value. He gives no evidence whatsoever to support his claims--exactly what he bitterly accuses Martz of doing. Editing decisions within the media are made in a very complex framework and involve incredibly painful value judgements. After being involved with the process for many years, I have nothing but respect for the men and women journalists who struggle with these overwhelming decisions every day. Of course, bad decisions are often made, and there are many bad editors/reporters/etc. in the field. In general, I'd agree that the media has often done a fair-to-poor job of covering space, but there are many exceptions. The news media is doing a job the best way they know how. When they make mistakes, it's the responsibility of those who discover the mistakes to make sure that those responsible are aware of the errors. I always do. The media doesn't want to make mistakes or distort information, but they're humans and sometimes it happens. A lot of time they're just not aware of their errors, but people like Dale would rather spout venom than try to work to deal with the situation. Journalists appreciate constructive criticism and suggestions (in general, of course--not ALL do). And like other human beings, they don't lend much credence to inflammatory personal attacks on their philosophies or motivations. Any editor of a major news organization will tell you about the thousands and thousands of readers/viewers that complain about the "waste of time/ink" anytime ANY space story is run. Many news people (Cronkite, Bergman, to name just a couple) have had to wage a never-ending battle with producers (who answer "only" to the public's opinions as reflected in ratings) to get any space coverage at all. Dale ends with a list of six myths about space perpetuated by the news media. He neglects to mention that this list is entirely his personal concoction, and he supplies no evidence whatsoever to back the validity of his list. I kept saying "huh?" each time I read an item on the list. Now I will grant that Dale is far more qualified than I to discuss the details of the space program. I will further grant that he is also more qualified to find mistakes made by the news media concerning space. But he has no special qualifications to "tell" us what the media has REALLY been telling us. I found no evidence whatsoever within my personal experience to substantiate his list; if anything, I would probably come to six opposite conclusions. I'm sorry, but if you accuse someone of having ulterior motives, you'd better be prepared with some ammunition for your charges. Further, it's my opinion that, despite the errors, the _Newsweek_ article will have an overall positive effect. The average man in the street couldn't care less about space, and this article will help to wake some folks up. The mainstream opinion is "we went to the moon--so there!"; the general public needs to be informed that there's more to the story than that. The general idea presented by _Newsweek_ is that things are not good. This is new information to the average person, and the article's errors will not have a major impact on the public, who doesn't bother to let the text sink in anyway. The cover of the magazine, with the bold "Lost in Space" typeface, will have far greater impact than the text inside. Isn't that the message that we're all trying to present--that things are not good and that something needs to be done? Exactly what it is that needs to be done is not as important as getting people to realize the basics. I notice quite an argument within sci.space about our next steps in space. But doesn't everybody at least agree that if everybody in the US read sci.space--even with all the arguments--that the general result would be positive? I feel that this _Newsweek_ article will create greater interest in the subject within the media itself as well. This could lead to more stories, more interest, more correction of errors, more discussion, and so on. Contrary to Dale's opinion, I believe that this _Newsweek_ article could very well be the shot in the arm that space needs. SOMETHING will get the ball rolling again, and it certainly won't be Dale's anti-media diatribe. I apologize for the length of this posting, as well as its semi-relevance to sci.space (something I have been guilty of before). But I refuse to allow Dale's charges to go unanswered. His work at pointing out the _Newsweek_ errors was fine. But when he launches his political opinions on how the media are a bunch of devious little idiots, I must speak out. Neither engineers nor journalists are perfect, but they must work together if we are to explore space. Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) =-=-=-=-=-=-= UUCP:ihnp4!dartvax!brspyr1!miket BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #346 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Sep 87 23:18:01 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02583; Sat, 12 Sep 87 20:16:24 PDT id AA02583; Sat, 12 Sep 87 20:16:24 PDT Date: Sat, 12 Sep 87 20:16:24 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709130316.AA02583@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #347 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 347 Today's Topics: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" Things aint so bad Re: Things aint so bad (and Government in space) Re: Things aint so bad (and Government in space) CANOPUS, office of exploration, why just Moon&Mars emphasis?? Ride report on NASA priorities Dale Skran's "newspeak in orbit" Moon Colony ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Aug 87 06:49:29 GMT From: ihnp4!cuae2!killer!elg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Green) Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article in article <1714@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) says: > Unfortunately, as I read further, he lost all my support. He begins > . . . Well, there were bad things about the Newsweek articles. And there were good things about the article. For example, it pointed out the absolute ridiculousness of trying to supply a space station of the scale proposed with a fleet of only 4 or 5 shuttles, and the expense involved. And eventually proposed a cheaper method of getting all that stuff into space, and basically relegate the shuttle to passenger-carrier duties. By which I refer to the "Big Dumb Booster" concept. Off-hand, it sounds reasonable. I have always been irritated with applying complex solutions to simple problems, of which building a functioning rocket certainly is simple (see Henry Spencer's description of the Chinese "Long March" system in the last AWS&T summary, the ultimate in "crude and simple"). The question is whether the cost reductions envisioned really are possible. My initial reaction is "Yes". We don't need all those exotic alloys and super-thin skins just to improve the efficiency of the rocket, if a bigger but less efficient rocket could be built for much less. The savings in process costs (no problem welding aluminum & steel, like there is with "exotics", auto industry does it all the time!) would far offset the increase in raw materials needed to build a bigger lower stage to offset the increased weight of the "skin". After all, when you're talking aluminum and steel, you're talking about a very minor part of the cost of the rocket. The manpower to turn them out, test them, service them, and launch them is the main cost. The "build-it-simple" approach reduces testing and servicing costs, as well as manufacturing costs, simply because there's less to go wrong! If we can advocate KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) when it comes to computer software, why not with rocketry? Whenever I hear stories about how complex the Shuttle is, I really get quite perturbed, because there really isn't all that much involved in building a simple functional rocket. Even control systems can be made fairly simply nowadays, with today's microprocessor technology controlling whatever your favorite system is (swivelling engines, course-correction rockets, or what have you). Of course, any people-carrying vehicle will HAVE to be more complex in design than a cargo-carrying one, because of life-support considerations, but still, there's really no excuse for the current Shuttle design, which basically is a two-stage rocket (counting boosters and fuel tank as a "stage", which is really stretching things), with (horror of horrors) the main engine cluster being carried all the way into orbit (thus the need for the main engines to be small, light, and ultra-high efficiency, and thus complex and hard to manufacture). In other words, we need the simplest possible working solution, amortized over 90 launches per year (a' la' USSR), instead of all the hi-tech "Shuttle-derived" technologies that are being pushed by the aerospace industries. Flying a Shuttle to deliver communications satellites to orbit is like buying a Cray ][ for word processing. A does the job just as well, for a heckuva lot less money. And flying a Shuttle to deliver the massive quantities of raw material needed for a sizable space station, is about as rational as chartering a Concorde to fly 50 tones of food to the starving in Ethopia... you're gonna be making a helluva lot of trips to deliver an amount of food that would have gotten there much faster and cheaper on any old tramp freighter that happened to be lying around. Eric Green elg@usl.CSNET ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 87 23:39:30 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL" > >I have some reservations about the Newsweek articles -- the reporting > >is slanted to the point of borderline lying in places -- but on the > >whole I too recommend them. > > Let's have some details. I want to know where the articles were > slanted or misleading. I thought that they were cynical, but not that > biased. I was thinking more of the second article (about the Big Dumb Booster) than the first one. I pretty much agree with Dale Skran's comments on the first one. In the second one, basically the reporting was quite one-sided. In places this did indeed reach the point of borderline lying. Case in point: the F-1 main engines of the Saturn V were *not* super- sophisticated by mid-1960s standards. They were fancy compared to the BDB concept's engines, but the F-1 was a very ordinary, almost obsolete, engine by the normal standards of the time. This was deliberate; Del Tischler and the others involved in setting the specs felt (correctly) that the sheer size of the engine was ample challenge and that trying to push the state of the art in other ways would be a mistake. This was the grossest case, but there were several other places where I said "now wait a minute, that point is open to debate". (I would be more specific but the article isn't handy right now.) I would say that the article's technical pronouncements should be taken with a grain of salt, but otherwise I think it's okay. "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 87 17:49:26 GMT From: craig@think.com (Craig Stanfill) Subject: Things aint so bad Bashing the U.S. space program seems to be very much in vogue these days. Our long-term position, it has been claimed, has badly deteriorated, this being a result of short-sighted policy making. I beg to disagree. The problems in our current space program are not the result of short-sightedness so much as long-sightedness on the part of NASA coupled with blindness on the part of Congress; our problems are not so much long-term as short-term. What do I mean? Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else presently has anything nearly as zippy. This is an important long-term asset. The problem is that it is not as good in the short-term as had been billed; NASA oversold the STS as the sole solution to our near-term orbital needs. This led to the disasterous policy of scrapping our expendible launch capability. I speculate that this happened because of NASA's judgement that, a re-usable space transport is, in the long term, essential. The problem came about when NASA's vision came into collision with Congress's blindness with respect to funding the space program; to get the shuttle at all, they had to oversell it. This also led to the Challenger accident; NASA got out onto a limb in overselling the shuttle initially; they were under intense pressure to deliver on their promises. So, when technical problems kept causing schedule slip, NASA got sloppy. So where are we left? We have some serious short-term (the next 5 years) problems; U.S. space activity has ground to a halt, and will not recover for a while. However, recovery is certain, provided sufficient money is forthcoming. Come on now, we know how to build expendable lift vehicles; there is no fundamental problem stamping out more Titans and designing a new heavy-lift vehicle. A few years and a few billion dollars, and our short-term problems will be solved. The real long-term problem is Congress: they have to realize that space is the growth industry of the 21'st century; that we have certain short term needs, but that if they don't provide enough money to solve both short-term and long-term problems, one or the other will suffer. Fortunately (or we would be in fundamentally bigger trouble than we are now), NASA succeeded (in the 1970's) in keeping the focus on the long term problems with the Shuttle program. If congress forces NASA to focus on our short-term problems, but does not provide sufficient money to attack both the short-term and long-term, we are doomed to lose, and all our 30-year old space program will have done is to have created yet another industry for the Japanese to come in and kick our butts in. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 87 14:03:33 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Things aint so bad (and Government in space) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space > Posting by some people on Governments in space and Privae Industry. > Second posting about the "vision of NASA" and the short-sightedness of > Congress. Governments will (hopefully) always "be in space." [Figurative and literally.] This is because we can't rely on private industry to do everything. My principal interest is exploration (as I am certain many readers are interested), but for the purposes of research rather than, say colonization. That's fine to a degree. Both communities will have shady dealings, but the purpose of private industry is, by and large profit. It has to survive in the short-term. This is where it would be hoped that governments provide long-term continuity (at least longer than an elected term). Government runs for the welfare of all, and their are both good and bad bureacracies: USGS, NOAA, NSF, NIH, DOE, DOE, DARPA, HHS, DOEd, etc. There are similarly, good and bad companies. It's amazing that we have Good as well as bad monopolies: a surprisingly good one was probably AT&T before break-up, bad one are the concessionaires to National Parks. Competition is not alway good, we still have problems with some fire departments on boundary areas. A friend, a Branch chief, bemoaned there are no real leaders, only managers in this country. (A leader is defined as a person who would get you to do something you might otherwise not, from Time). If there is any place where we may lack vision and a lack of a sense of direction, it must be the American public. The USA has to realign itself, put its future in perspective with its present. Space is just one concern, and it must be balanced with the other concerns. Federal Government must get out of some areas in order work on real areas for the future [no comment on which areas]. Anyway, I blab too much you guys have to stop me.. The net is seductive, the dark side..... Last comment. Yes, Promire is gone, but I wish someone at least get rid of the $500 T-seats flying past my window every five minutes. It's not what he did was wrong, it was how he directed attention, maybe he was really a DOD pawn.....;-) >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 87 01:13:28 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad (and Government in space) > [..] > Last comment. Yes, Promire is gone, but [..] > > --eugene miya Uhm, announcing that one will not be running for reelection is not quite the same as being "gone". His term runs for almost another year and a half, if I recall, and he's announced that for that period, he intends to keep working. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Sep 87 00:27:06 From: Robert Elton Maas To: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: CANOPUS, office of exploration, why just Moon&Mars emphasis?? Date: 19 Aug 87 22:27:56 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: CANOPUS - June 1987 NASA ESTABLISHES OFFICE OF EXPLORATION - can6872.txt - 6/9/87 A new Office of Exploration has been established to coordinate agency activities that will "expand the human presence beyond Earth." Administrator James Fletcher says "This office will analyze and define missions proposed to achieve a goal of human expansion off the planet. It will provide central coordination of technical planning studies that will involve the entire agency. In particular, it will focus on studies of potential lunar and Mars initiatives." Why Moon and Mars?? Why not freefloating habitat in LEO or GEO or L-4/L-5 or LLO or Earth/Mars transfer orbit or LMO or in asteroid belt, or mini-gravity habitat on surface of Demos or Phobos or some asteroid? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Sep 87 15:52:50 From: Robert Elton Maas To: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Ride report on NASA priorities Date: 24 Aug 87 22:27:48 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Ride report o Outpost on the Moon. This would be a three-phase effort starting with an unmanned search for ideal landing sites rich in oxygen-bearing ores. Am I missing something? The Apollo samples showed every kind of rock and dirt to be about 50% Oxygen. Generally, Oxygen will be a waste product of just about any mineral processing we do on the Moon or in space from lunar materials. So just throw a dart at a map of the Moon and there's a landing site with lots of Oxygen. Surveying for Hydrogen would seem to be more urgent. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Sep 87 18:02 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Dale Skran's "newspeak in orbit" To: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Dale Skran recently posted a review of the Newsweek "Lost in Space" article. The level of invective and ad hominem argument in his posting was surprising, even to me. Dale implied that those who oppose the shuttle and the space station are opposed to long term human activity in space. As a person who thinks the shuttle a dismal failure and opposes the current plans for a station, and is also convinced that human movement into space is inevitable (although apparently not at the pace Dale would predict), I wonder how he came to this conclusion. Lack of a space station, especially the current design, is not the most important obstacle to large scale space activity. Lack of cheap, reliable launchers is. This was true when NASA was justifying the shuttle, and it's still true. We should delay the station and use finite NASA budget to develop a better way to get to orbit. Simultaneous development of cheaper launchers and the space station doesn't seem possible unless one accepts a tight budget for both projects, which is probably a bad idea. Dale repeats the excuse about lack of funding causing the shuttle mess. While this certainly played an important part in the tragedy, I have little sympathy for the NASA managers that assured congress the funding was sufficient, that choose a flawed design then issued glowing projections of the shuttle's capabilities, that misinformed the President about the need for backup expendable boosters, and that ultimately, to meet those outrageous promises, operated the program in a way that made 51-L inevitable. An honest statement by NASA administrators about the performance of the shuttle, even a few years ago, would have done much to prevent the current mess. Of course, they couldn't have gotten Reagan to promise them a space station if they had done that. Dale's comments about the "little minds" of the "Martzs of the world" and about the "fifth branch of the government" are ad hominem arguments of the lowest sort. I suppose it's natural to get upset when the media start attacking your fundamental beliefs. In a situation like that I'd at least entertain the possibility that my belief system is imperfect, and that honest people can disagree, instead of assuming that journalism has become the domain of idiots and scoundrels. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 87 22:56:22 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!des@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Moon Colony Would it be practical to build a space port on the Moon, where we actually manufacture interplanetary spacecraft? The advantages would be: * Lower launch escape velocity * Gravity assist off the Earth (I think) * Easier to move big things around in lower gravity, and it seems manned interplanetary spacecraft will be big things. Drawbacks: * Where would the fuel come from (Oxygen plentiful, but what about hydrogen? Or perhaps something new-cue-lar? * Who would really want to live on the moon? * Water??? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #347 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Sep 87 06:32:16 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03222; Sun, 13 Sep 87 03:16:55 PDT id AA03222; Sun, 13 Sep 87 03:16:55 PDT Date: Sun, 13 Sep 87 03:16:55 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709131016.AA03222@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #348 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 348 Today's Topics: Re: Space tourism Space vs. Defense? Re: Space vs. Defense? Lower the flame, please (Was: Newspeak in Orbit) Re: Cuisine out of this world Re: Moon Colony Space Magazines Political can of worms space discussion issue ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Sep 87 21:41:04 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Space tourism To: sundc!hadron!inco!mack@seismo.css.gov Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov, Poli-Sci@red.rutgers.edu > From: sundc!hadron!inco!mack@seismo.css.gov (Dave Mack) >> Ultimately, to live free of any Earth government, and of the threat >> of war. > Unless, of course, the government of the L4 colony decides to attack > the L5 colony, etc. There is no group of people on Earth who do not > have a de facto government. This is because the vast majority of > people *want* to be lead. The people who migrate into space will be > no different. Space colonies will not change the fundamentals of > human nature. I said, free of any *EARTH* government. I am not an anarchist. I do have very different ideas as to the role of a proper government than are embodied in any government on Earth. Many people agree with these ideas, but not enough that we can change any government, at least not yet. And it is no longer possible to go out to the frontier and start a new nation. Not on Earth, anyway. In space there is room for any number of new nations. And plenty of room for true anarchists as well. While every GROUP of people on Earth has a de facto government, some INDIVIDUALS don't. Hermits and the like. Fewer than in the past. In space, there may be more. There is plenty of room. Antarctica? While easier to get to, it is much more hostile than space, actually. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Sep 87 21:45:40 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Space vs. Defense? To: umnd-cs!umn-cs!ems!rosevax!pwcs!dennisg@crys.wisc.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!ems!rosevax!pwcs!dennisg@speedy.wisc.edu (Dennis Grittner) > I think that it is admirable to have the GOAL of the US and the USSR > devoting more of their money and energy to spaceflight than to weapons > and other military expenditures. Sounds good to me. We can start converting as soon as the Soviets do. No space exploration is of any value if it means losing our freedom. And if we were to dismantle our military, we WOULD lose our freedom. In any case, the funding source for one government program is NOT the shrinkage of another government program - it is the taxpayer. If less was spent on defense, this wouldn't do anything for space exploration. And if it would, it isn't defense you should be attacking. It consumes less than 20% of the tax dollar. Attack social spending instead. Can you imagine what kind of space program we could have for the cost of the social security program? > I, for one, think that the goal of having MORE money spent on space > and less wasted on military trash is a wonderful one. So do I. It really pains me that some governments are so evil and aggressive that it is necessary for us to spend so much on bombs and bullets when it could be spent on much nicer things. Unlike you, the much nicer things I am thinking of are private uses, by the owners and creators of the wealth, rather than huge government programs, but we agree that it would be nice if military expenditures didn't have to be so large. It's like having locks on your doors. People could save a lot of money if they just didn't buy locks. And if everyone behaved reasonably, locks wouldn't be needed. But not everyone does, so they are needed. > A move toward JOINT, peaceful exploration of space with the USSR > wouldn't bother me either. Would you advocate joint peaceful missions with Nazi Germany if they were still around? Why or why not? Instead of you buying locks to protect from burglars, why not get together with the man who wants to burglarize your house, and who has successfully burglarized your neighbor's houses and killed many of your neighbors, and work on some joint peaceful project? > I'm just not ready to accept the reality that almost none of the > electorate is ready to STOP wasting money, and start having vision. Why don't you stop locking your door - so what if your neighbors have been robbed and killed? - and start having visions? There is also the question of what do we do if partway through the cooperation for a Mars mission or whatever, the Soviet government does something really brutal again, like Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, flight KAL 007, etc, etc? Either the whole project gets tossed, or we have to grit our teeth and continue, which sends the message that we don't really mind their brutality. Boys will be boys, right? > "Let's just put Ollie, Ronnie, and the rest in jail!" Then who will fight to keep YOU out of the communist's jails? ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 87 04:03:54 GMT From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: Space vs. Defense? KFL: Instead of you buying locks to protect from burglars, why not get together with the man who wants to burglarize your house, and who has successfully burglarized your neighbor's houses and killed many of your neighbors, and work on some joint peaceful project? I've seen at least two SF stories where the Mafia gets into the space business (and in both, does better than NASA...). (Stories by Sheffield and Reynolds resp.) To tell you the truth, I would rather ship with the Mafia than the municipal govt of New York-- at least the Mafioso have a sense of personal honor. Is there enough money in crime to warrant Mafia Station, the Duty-Free Port (Cash Only, No Questions Asked)? Totally beyond the current reach of U.S. authorities... --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 9 September 1987 10:00:50 CDT From: Subject: Lower the flame, please (Was: Newspeak in Orbit) Eugene Miya suggested that you publish this in the conventional media. Unless you want to make the pro-space position look silly I urge you to at least *CONSIDERABLY* tone it down. In particular, you must not make accusations before you have laid a basis for them; it alienates people, me included. For instace: [Header deleted] > Recently an article appeared in Newsweek that appeared to take a > hard look at the space program and NASA's current difficult > situation. In reality it is typical of the misinformed > anti-space views common in media circles, especially the New York "Media circles" covers so much ground that is amounts to inuendo. Even the Times shows a fair diversity. If you want to say such things, you must cite some examples, and argue that they are typical. Acutally, I think it is better deleted. Argue your own case; don't take on the world. > Times. In a true Orwellian fashion, these writers are "for" This is not only inflammatory but wrong. The fact that someone disagress with you about the emphasis of the space program, and where men fit in, dosen't mean they rank with Big Brother. An unmaned space program is not a contradiction in terms. > space, of course, a smaller, cheaper, program with less focus on > manned fight, with no trips to Mars or the moon, with a few more > robots for the scientists, and a few more dollars for the > universities. Another variation suggests a massive Apollo style > Mars shot, but drawn out over 20 or 30 years to "keep the cost > down." These writers do not really believe humanity has a long > term future in space. Maybe the just disagree about when, and perhaps who should pay. > The very first paragraph of the article states that after the > Challenger blew up, and "a few ritual resignations", that "the > agency has 35 percent more money in its pocket. After 20 years > of lessons like that, failure is endemic in the U.S. Space > program." This suggests that there have been a long series of This seems (I havn't read the Newsweek article, as I assumed that it would be as uninformative about this as usual) well taken, and is the sort of point you should try to make. > major NASA blunders, each followed by an extra boost in funds. It > is far more correct to say that NASA functioned extremely well as > long as it was funded well, and fairly well even as its funding > declined. There is no pattern of blunders followed by rewards. > Instead, we see a pattern of enormous success, followed by > punishment in the form of budget cuts. As the agency struggled to There is no merit to a government agency surviving in the absence of any function. In the 60s, it was axiomatic that NASAs mission was to go to the moon. The reason for doing this was to best the Russians and garner prestige. The fact that YOU want NASA to have another mission, to wit, put lots of men in space just to have them there, won't convince anyone else. It cannot be assumed, it must be argued for. Remember, the rest of the world dosen't share this priority as a matter of course. > survive, it was punished still further by additional cuts. > Finally, in the wake of the Challenger disaster it is being > recognized that(as space advocates have been saying for about 20 [Stuff about NASAs engineering deleted] > First the article berates NASA for continuing to work with Morton > Thiokol, a decision made because it "had the tools and could do > it quickly," and then lists all the payloads waiting to go, > continuing to add to the pressure to rush the shuttles to the > pad. If NASA engineers rush to put the shuttle back into service, > they are callous and expedient. If they are slow and careful, > they are incompetent, overpaid, and lazy. I suggest that Mr. There is perhaps some justice to this but the personality is unnecessary. > Martz be put in charge of the program, and report back to us in a > year on how easy it is to run. > > Later we are told that in spite of all this, the US is still > ahead in space. This is a crucial myth being propagated by the Once again, it depends on priorities. If you try to impose yours by unstated fiat, you will annoy the gentiles. > media. . . . > After more glowing description of the "backward" Soviets, we are > told "The shuttle had no real mission, just a succession of > errands; it was a way to keep men in space while we figured out > what to do there." This myth has been pounded out so many times > I am weary from refuting it. The shuttle (or something like it) But you must. > is absolutely essential to any large scale orbital activity. It > is absolutely unnecessary for a program of robotic probes to the > distant planets. It has been justified over and over again. You > must have a station if you want to construct, manufacture, > re-fuel, etc. in orbit. NASA always knew what the shuttle was Remember, you are talking to those who don't particularly want to. The commercial advantages are at this point promissory notes. > supposed to be, and so did the Proxmires and the Mondales. The > difference is that the Proxmires and Mondales wanted it to fail, > and they may well have gotten their wish. > > Generally, people who oppose a long term future in space oppose When? It will be cheaper and easier in 20 years. Why not let someone else pay the pioneer charges for once? > both the shuttle and the station. Martz quotes station enemies > repeatedly, including Pike and Alex Roland, while echoing Carl > Sagan. To be "fair" he balances his article by saying "The case > isn't that clear: the space program is not simply a conspiracy to > complicate technology, build bureaucracies, and fatten budgets. > But there is no denying that this mind-set exists ..." Never is > the pro-station case presented. Not a word. Once again, here you have a point. > . . . > reason we have such a pathetic space program. Their little minds Calling your opponents idiots requires much more basis than you have laid. Also, it isn't nice. > are unable to contain a vision of tomorrow larger than today. Remember, you are trying to justify a lot of money, which has alternate uses, for you vision. This seems what he objects to. He has a right to that without being vituperated. What you should emphesize is the lack of balance in the arguement. > . . . I ran out of enery and time. But I repeat: this stuff in the mass media will make pro-spacers look like fools. And I admit, it tires me out, too. I would prefer a higher ratio of light to heat. Jonathan Goldberg ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 1987 23:50-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Cuisine out of this world Personally Bruno, I'd rather we (US) dropped out of NATO, removed all of our nuclear weapons from Europe, left Japan's defense up to Japan and dropped the $100B thus saved from our federal budget. I really see no reason why we should pay to defend any borders but our own. With the drop in taxes after such a cut, I expect the domestic economy would start growing so fast that we'd have CORPORATE space stations up before anyone else got moving. Governments just muck everything up. I much PREFER the private route. (EVERYONE ELSE: But I'll take what I can get!) I'd be happy to drop by and visit you on your MBB station! ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 87 23:13:40 GMT From: uwmcsd1!bbn!clsib21!blblbl!zonker@unix.macc.wisc.edu (Little Zonker) Subject: Re: Moon Colony In article <343@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) writes: > Would it be practical to build a space port on the Moon... (insert advantages) > Drawbacks: (etc) > * Who would really want to live on the moon? Me!!!! (And my boss thinks when I talk about being "Electricians to the Stars" I mean working in the homes of famous people....) --zonker the feline covered electrician ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 87 00:02:21 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpf!mhw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Marc Weinstein) Subject: Space Magazines I'm a space enthusiast and I love to read about advancements in space exploration, advancements in space technology, future plans, etc. My question is this: Is there a decent magazine out there that is entirely devoted to the space program?? I'm already a member of the planetary society, so I'm looking more for a broad coverage magazine. Any feedback would be appreciated. Response by mail is prefered. -- Marc Weinstein AT&T Bell Labs - Indian Hill Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihlpf!mhw ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Sep 87 11:37:29 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Political can of worms space discussion issue While editing the 13000 questions you guys have asked (I do 100 or so at a time as a break from work), I was wondering what people would do if we elected a President who abolished the US space program as certain candidates would do? I know you can't break down a bureacracy as Reagan tried (Energy, Education, EPA all still exist although reduced form). I know most L5er's would certainly vote against such a person (man or woman), and I know about the positive polls, but candidates are not elected by single issues (or at least I don't vote for them on single issues). This assumes a lot of proposterous things, but humor me. What would you do? Just a general topic for discussion. I don't have time to follow up on this one, so post your own opinions. Analyze the problem problem for multiple ways such a Jackson-type candidate doing for "the poor" versus a more conservative `consolidate with military space' type candidate. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #348 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Sep 87 23:18:23 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04272; Sun, 13 Sep 87 20:16:41 PDT id AA04272; Sun, 13 Sep 87 20:16:41 PDT Date: Sun, 13 Sep 87 20:16:41 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709140316.AA04272@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #349 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 349 Today's Topics: The Rocket Team #5 - Last V-2's ? The Rocket Team #6 - Backfire at Cuxhaven Re: Government in space Re: Cooperation uber alles? Bovanomics 101 Woomera back in Action Re: Government in space Re: Woomera back in Action ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 87 14:27:50 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: The Rocket Team #5 - Last V-2's ? Dornberger and his supply staff had observed for some time that V-2 components suffered from a rather short storage life, and that electrical equipment and pipes would often deteriorate well before the V-2 could be moved to the front. A plan known as the "Hot Cakes System," devised late in October [1944], required that the missiles henceforth travel by rail from the assembly plant at Nordhausen straight to the firing area, with only a short en route stop at an outfitting station where warheads, fuses, vanes, etc. were loaded aboard for later installation at the front-line technical battery testing and assembly point. From there, the V-2's were transported by truck to the firing position. On-site rejection rates were reduced from 12 to 2 percent as a result of this new system. Meanwhile, some five hundred partially defective rockets located in dumps around Germany were cannibalized for their parts, which were returned to Mittelwerk. The last V-2 of the war was fired on March 29, 1945. The following day, Himmler ordered all of Kammler's rocket troops to be released from their respective units and to become part of the Provisional Army Blumentritt. Even as the war's end approached, as Dornberger related in his book `V-2': Kammler refused to believe in an immenent collapse. He dashed to and fro between the Dutch and Rhineland fronts and Thuringia and Berlin. He was on the move day and night. Conferences were called for 1:00 in the morning somehwere in the Harz Mountains, ow we would meet at midnight somwhere on the Autobahn and then, after a brief exchange of views, drive back to work again. We were prey to terrific nervous tension. Irritable and overworked as we were, we didn't mince words. Kammler, if he got impatient and wanted to drive on, would wake the slumbering officers of his suite with a burst from his tommy gun. "No need for THEM to sleep! I can't either!" Fixed working hours and leisure had long been things of the past... Kammler still believed that he alone, with his Army Corps and weapons over which he had absolute authority, would prevent the imminent collapse, postpone a decision, and even turn the scales. [from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ] Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 87 19:31:13 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: The Rocket Team #6 - Backfire at Cuxhaven Eisenhower issued SHAEF Backfire Instruction No. 1 on June 22 [1945], stating in broad terms the objectives of the operation: The primary object of this operation is to ascertain the German technique of launching long-range rockets and to prove it by actual launch. ... In addition to the primary object, the operation will therefore provide opportunities to study certain subsidiary matters such as the preparation of the rocket and ancillary equipment, the handling of fuel, and controls in flight. ... The third and final launch, designated Operation Clitterhouse, provided a grand finale for an elite group of observers from the Britishm French, American and Soviet armed forces and the press. ... Most fretful among the visitors were the Russians. Present officially were Colonel Yuri Pobedonestsev and Colonel Valentin P. Glushko. The former was currently leader of the Special Technical Commission (rocket) in Berlin. The latter was directing the test firing of V-2 engines at Lehesten. ... Additionally two more Russians showed up unannounced. One of them was Colonel Sergei P. Korolev, disguised as a captain, who was deputy to General Gaidukov, chief of the Soviet Special Commission at the recently reopened V-2 facility at Nordhausen. Korolev at the time was active in extending the capabilities of the V-2 (In the mid-1950s, he became the mysterious "Chief Designer of Spacecraft," who developed the Vostok, Voskhod and Soyuz manned spacecraft for the USSR). Korolev and his fellow officer were not permitted into the launching despite a great deal of arm waving and shouting. Cameron stood fast, and the two were eventually escorted just outside the gates, from which place they saw the launching. ... The Russians as well as the other observers had been restricted to a fenced-off area during the launch. They could have binoculars but not cameras. During the prelaunching activities, Lieutenant Hochmuth, one of the observers, engaged Pobedonestsev in conversation. Later he recalled to the authors: He knew my name and that I had been there [Mittelwerk]. He told me the stuff [the material removed by Hamill] was going to White Sands (this was supposed to be a secret). We began to discuss engineering. I asked him how things were at Nordhausen, and he said he was having a hell of a time because we had cleaned the place out. He was a very technical guy and said if they were able to see White Sands, we could see Peenemunde. Hochmuth dutifully reported this offer to his superiors, who immediately turned it down. What a chance the US Army missed! The Russians would have seen hundreds of square miles of barren desert and a few dilapidated wooden buildings. In turn, the Americans would have seen the remains of their late enemy's most sophisticated rocket research center. [from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ] Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 87 15:05:17 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Government in space In article <117@minya.UUCP> jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: Quoting me. >> Private industry will beat goverment subsidies any day, but only in a >> free and open marketplace, and only when there is enough hope of a >> return on money invested. >You inadvertently gave away the major objection to your free-market >ideology. True, private industry will beat government-subsidized >companies any DAY, but when the investment is much longer, private >industry doesn't make the investment. If you must Quote me, Please do so in properly. The above lines were only a small part of what I said and I went on to say that until companies could see emough of an immediate return on investment, Goverments would have to provide the money, and that this present goverment wasn't interested in doing that. Well I was wrong, sort of. The Goverment have just allocated four million pounds to keep current projects going until the ESA meeting in November. I suppose everything will be shut down then, but with the TV and newspapers starting to take an interest perhaps something might happen. The Times had a feature which showed how accurate the press usually are with this subject. The soviet plan for the domination of the world's economy in the 21St Century calls for a massive space industrialisation effort (By the soviets). The figures given amount to a fully loaded Energia booster (250 tons ?) being launched every eight hours 365 days a year. Even the soviets don't have that ability. (I hope :-)). Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 87 15:10:26 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Cooperation uber alles? In article <244694.870820.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: >> From: "Michael J. Scudder" >> I was at the Boskone Science Fiction convention in February and >> listened to an L5 sponsered panel on a joint US-Soviet mission to >> Mars. The Audience was 80+% in favor when polled. > >Don't read too much into that statistic. I too was at Boskone, and I >was aware of that panel, but chose not to attend because cooperation >with the USSR is repugnant to me. I suspect many others at Boskone >felt the same way. Nothing good can come from cooperation with thieves >and murderers. I guess this must be the reason why so many ESA member countries are are so reluctant to have the US military running the space station, even the european parts. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Sep 87 10:12 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Bovanomics 101 Keith Lofstrom said: >> [...] If the money NASA spends had not been extracted from the >> economy, it may have done as much or more to help fund technological >> growth in private industry (an unanswerable question; it depends on >> which economists you believe). Ken Jenks replied: > "Extracted from the economy"? If money was extracted, where did it > go? A new engine, perhaps? "NASA announces new booster which burns > dollar bills with liquid oxygen -- film at eleven." Let's see... is Ken saying that unless an activity physically consumes dollar bills, it's free? No, that can't be right. Maybe he's saying that since the money spent on an activity gets spent again in the economy, it doesn't matter what that activity is -- building rockets, or stockpiling cheese, or painting the Grand Canyon purple. I've seen this bit of economic idiocy several times, most recently being espoused by Ben Bova. Let me explain some freshman economics: dollar bills are not wealth, they are placeholders for wealth. What the space program consumes is not physical dollar bills, but some a whole lot of capital, labor, management expertise, and engineering talent. > Excuse the sarcasm -- it's late. Very late, apparently. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 87 12:50:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1!seefromline@seismo.css.gov Subject: Woomera back in Action There have been several short (ap/reuters type) articles in the guardian lately about resumed launches at Woomera, and plans for more tracking stations in N. Queensland. these have mentioned: + successful launches for comet observation. + localised opposition from Aborigine Community to flights over their land + suggestions of a generalised increase in funding of Australian Space Research. A few general comments/questions: (1) Why do these satellite launches rate such low publicity? Ariane launches get mucho headlines, failed *test* work Stateside gets megayawned to death in these groups. Am I missing something here? Is there some sub-class of lanches regarded as "boring" or "trivial" that dont count? (2) How seriously does the space community take local issues into account? I think these people have a right to object to flight plans over their turf, have similar issues cropped up at Edwards or other launch/test sites? (3) Common opinion UK-wide is that blue streak was the last major effort made at Woomera. Apparently not true. How much is it being used as a launch site these days? Advantages over Arianes location? Is the Monitoring Station yet another arm of the DoD? G Michaelson, University College London (apologies, I'm not space/astro science 'fluent') JANET: george@uk.ac.ucl.cs UUCP: {...!mcvax}!ukc!ucl-cs!george OTHERS: george@cs.ucl.ac.uk via your favourite local gobbledygook ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 87 14:22:00 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Government in space in article <608@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) says: > The figures given amount to a fully loaded Energia booster > (250 tons ?) being launched every eight hours 365 days a year. > > Even the soviets don't have that ability. (I hope :-)). > Bob. Given ten to twenty years to build launch pads and assembly lines, I see no reason to believe that Soviets could not achieve this launch rate if they decide to do so. But then, given twenty years they could be into the second or third generation of Energia follow on launchers. So they might be able to launch the same tonnage with one launch every other day. Remember, the Soviets current launch rate is close to 2 orbital missions per week, right now. Personally I hope they do it. Such a large Soviet space presence should be enough to get the U.S. interested in space again. -- Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 87 12:14:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1!seefromline@seismo.css.gov Subject: Re: Woomera back in Action From: ray@oz.su.cs.basser Subject: Re: Woomera In the past, I've tried posting sci.space internationally to tell people about this. However, it seems my postings don't get out of Australia. If you like this response, perhaps you could post it to sci.space for me. ============================= In sci.space Message-ID: <44600001@pyr1>, you raised a number of issues: recent "comet" observation launces from Woomera, the status of woomera, proposals for a new "tracking station" in Queensland, Aboriginal objections to flights, increased Australian space funding, why recent Oz launches don't rate talking about, the long arm of DOD. The launches are to observe the recently discovered super-nova. The rockets used are very small - going 200 miles straight up rather than into orbit. Each flight gives about 4 minutes of the sort of thing that brings a smile to the face of James van Allen. I don't believe they rate much mention outside of Australia. The proposed installation is not a tracking station but a full blown spaceport! I expect that it will remain nothing but talk - the proposal is to build it without any government money. Given the size of the investment and the long pay back time, I doubt that too many companies will be interested. The proposed site is on the Western side of Cape York - the long pointy bit on the top right hand side of Australia. This is very close to the equator, and it enjoys particularly reliable weather all year round. I have not read of any aboriginal objections. The cynical foreigner will probably conclude that rigid racial censorship is practised in Australia. I don't believe so, and I can't see how anyone can object to a rocket passing "overhead" when it is practically in space. Increased funding of Australian Space Research: If only it was true. The Australian Government remains luke warm about space research. Some small projects building instruments to fly on foreign launch vehicles are doing well. Australia is nowhere near having its own launch capability. These super-nova flights are funded and are being conducted by West Germany - we merely supply the Real Estate. Blue Streak remains the last genuine space project that Australia was involved in. The DOD, or some American intelligence organization, run 2 other satellite ground stations (in conjunction with Australian forces) in addition to the one near Woomera. I won't comment any further, as I don't want to get flamed by sabre-rattling Americans. Raymond Lister Basser Department of Computer Science University of Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA ARPANET: munnari!basser.cs.su.oz!ray@seismo.css.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #349 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Sep 87 06:53:25 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05122; Mon, 14 Sep 87 03:17:57 PDT id AA05122; Mon, 14 Sep 87 03:17:57 PDT Date: Mon, 14 Sep 87 03:17:57 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709141017.AA05122@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #350 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 350 Today's Topics: Re: Woomera back in Action Operational Missles? Operational Missles? new Space Studies program Re: Woomera back in Action Operational Missles? Inappropriate use of the network More on Shuttle Parts High altitude lauch sites Can somebody confirm seemingly-brilliant Phoenix design? Re: More on Shuttle Parts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Sep 87 12:13:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1!seefromline@seismo.css.gov Subject: Re: Woomera back in Action >Newsgroups: sci.space >Organization: Dept of Comp Sci, Uni of Sydney, Australia Just some quick comments from the colonies. In article <44600001@pyr1> you write: >There have been several short (ap/reuters type) articles in the >guardian lately about resumed launches at Woomera, and plans for more >tracking stations in N. Queensland. > >these have mentioned: > > + successful launches for comet observation. Actually, it was to observe the supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud. It was a joint project with a German team of astronomers. The first couple of launch attempts were scrubbed, due to adverse winds. The real launch was highly successful. It was only a sounding probe - we didn't put anything into orbit, just high enough to perform the observations above the atmosphere. The probe was recovered, as it parachuted down to a point a few miles from the launch site. The Germans were very happy with the results, as were the Australian team. The local space community hopes it will be repeated soon. > + localised opposition from Aborigine Community > to flights over their land This didn't rate much mention in the local media. However, you may be aware of an increase in demands for Aboriginal land rights, as Aus approaches its bicentennial year (1988). Also, the local Aborigines are understandably sceptical about scientific `experiments' in their back yard, given the recent revelations about the UK-Aus Maralinga nuclear tests of the 1950's. I would certainly hope that the opposition of the local Aborigines are not ignored, as has been the previous practice. I'm sure, though, that a comprimise can be reached. > + suggestions of a generalised increase in funding > of Australian Space Research. There has been an increase in interest. Ken McKracken (sp?) of the gov't research organisation CSIRO has managed to convince the Gov't that Aus should get more involved in space research, particularly given our preeminence in the field in the 50's. Like many hi-tech areas, we let it slide, favouring digging up rocks instead. The Gov't has established a CSIRO Division of Space Research, and provided a few million dollars of funding to get it started. Only time will tell if it will come to anything. >A few general comments/questions: > > (3) Common opinion UK-wide is that blue streak was the last > major effort made at Woomera. Apparently not true. How much > is it being used as a launch site these days? Advantages > over Arianes location? To my knowledge, Woomera is not be used regularly as a launch site. Even the recent activity was not an orbital launch. As Woomera is a Defence establishment, most of its activities are not well reported, so I can only guess what they have been up to the last twenty years. > Is the [Q'ld] Monitoring Station yet another arm of the DoD? > The Queensland state government wishes to establish a full scale launch facility at the tip of Cape York, in far north Q'ld. The supporters of this project point to the increased space activity in our local region (particularly comsat and remote imaging requirements of Indonesia, Phillipines, India, China, et.al.) which we should cash in on, its proximity to the equator, its almost complete lack of population centres in the immediate area, with launches either being over water or the interior of the continent, the availablity of a large port (Weipa) and international air terminals within reasonable distance, the fact that the Gov't is friendly, stable and Western, etc. At the moment, I believe that a full scale feasibility study is being undertaken. Obviously it will be an expensive undertaking, but a worthwhile one. Again, only time will tell if we decide to take up the challenge. Hope this gives you some idea what is happening in space down under. ------------------------------ Date: Sat 5 Sep 87 21:09:50-PDT From: MOBERLY%THOR@hplabs.hp.com Subject: Operational Missles? Cc: MOBERLY@thor.hpl.hp.com Greetings: In the book "Star Warriors" by William Broad, a comment is made which I would like to better understand, namely (page 137) "By contrast, the U.S. Air Force has never successfully launched a solid-fuel rocket out of an operational silo. During the 1960s, four attempts took place. Three missiles failed to ignite, while the fourth blew up a few seconds after liftoff. From that point on rocket tests were conducted much more carefully. Engineers would take the designated missile out of its operational silo, ship it to a special facility at the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, give it a careful going over, and then fire it toward a test range in the South Pacific." Is this accurate? David Moberly Hewlett-Packard ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 87 23:37:13 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Operational Missles? > "By contrast, the U.S. Air Force has never successfully launched > a solid-fuel rocket out of an operational silo. I also noticed the passage when reading Broad's book (which I highly recommend, by the way). Actually, this seems rather plausible, considering that American ICBMs are deployed mostly in the middle of the continent to make them somewhat less vulnerable to a surprise counterforce attack by Soviet submarine-launched missiles. Launching from the center of the continent requires you to drop spent boosters on land -- a trivial matter in a full scale thermonuclear war but a major factor in routine orbital launches or peacetime ICBM testing, especially when the possibility of a launch failure is considered. The Soviets can test missiles out of operational silos for the same reason they can launch satellites from the center of the continent -- their spent booster stages land in the uninhabited arctic terrain of Siberia. And they can always ignore or shoot whoever complains about a spent booster landing on his or her house. As for American tests, I forget the name of the politician who said that he was now absolutely convinced that the United States was perfectly capable, should it ever become necessary, to attack Kwajalein Island with ICBMs from Vandenburg Air Force Base. There's another good reason not to test ICBMs from operational silos -- the possibility that the other side may misinterpret it as an actual attack and react rashly. I would like to see a treaty between all spacefaring nations that also possess nuclear weapons that provides for advance notice of all launches (suborbital ICBM tests, orbital space shots, etc). Phil ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 87 07:05:23 GMT From: cunyvm!ndsuvm1.bitnet!ud140469%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: new Space Studies program implemented a new Space Studies program. The program consists of an undergraduate minor and Masters in Space Studies. The chairman of the new department is Dr. David Webb, member of the National Commission on Space. If you'd like more information, send a note to: Dr. Dick Parker University of North Dakota Aerospace Sciences Box 8216 University Station Grand Forks, ND 58202-8216 or call (701) 777-2791, or send me a note over the net with your address (which I'll pass along to Dr. Parker). Scott Udell UD140469@NDSUVM1.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 87 23:24:15 GMT From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Woomera back in Action > (1) Why do these satellite launches rate such low publicity? Probably because they aren't satellite launches, just sounding-rocket launches. As far as I know, there have been no satellite launches from Woomera since the British launcher program died. > (2) How seriously does the space community take local issues > into account? I think these people have a right to object > to flight plans over their turf, have similar issues cropped > up at Edwards or other launch/test sites? By and large, the other major sites all launch over water, which largely avoids this problem. (The Japanese do have to observe some restrictions on launch dates to placate the offshore fishermen.) As for whether they have the right to object to launches, do they also have the right to object to aircraft flying over? If not, why not? "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 87 17:34:11 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!weyj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Yoder) Subject: Operational Missles? In article <12332347818.19.MOBERLY@THOR.HPL.HP.COM>, MOBERLY%THOR@HPLABS.HP.COM writes: > . . . "By contrast, the U.S. Air Force has never successfully > launched a solid-fuel rocket out of an operational silo. . . . I was stationed at VAFB, Ca in the mid 70's. I was in the instrumentation section, installing and checking out instrumentation, command destruct, and beacon systems on Titan II and Minuteman missiles. These birds would be chosen ad random and brought to VAFB, along with their launch crews. The above mentioned systems were installed and placed in the silos, just like at their operational bases. The only additional work done to these missiles were the case when they were to be used for special projects, along with their test shots. They were launched on a trajectory that landed at Kwajaleen island in the Pacific. Most of these launches were successful, but the failures were the most memorable ones. Occasionally, they had to be destroyed after launch and pieces of solid fuel landed on the beach. This made for some interesting bonfires at parties!! As far as I know, there were no launches from operational bases. There was a project to launch about four Minuteman missles from operational bases, but the political climate cancelled the project. Farmers in the Northwest didn't want pieces of the missiles falling on their cows. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 87 10:22:07 PDT From: ota@galileo.s1.gov To: UD140469%NDSUVM1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Cc: ota@galileo.s1.gov, space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Inappropriate use of the network I'd like to strongly discourage people from sending messages that start like this: right now I'm to lazy to look it up for myself, soooo..... Although, an important aspect of the network's usefulness is to function as an information source it does not make a very good library. If you have a question that can be answered by consulting your old physics text and your friend's of the CRC, please do that rather than ask 1000 people you don't know to do it for you. Thanks, Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 87 16:58:40 GMT From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!brett@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Brett Van Steenwyk) Subject: More on Shuttle Parts I was suggesting the use of the shuttle main engines in other rocket designs when Henry Spencer made note that they were too expensive for the performance. My original impression will not go away easily, so I now ask for more details--it seemed that these engines did indeed have a very rocky development, but now, while they are reasonably mature, they seemed to be doing well. If I remember right, a destruct test of one of these showed it could run to around 180% before it lost it. (The test was run sometime just before 51L.) I still argue that people are going off in a LOT of different directions in terms of implementing their favorite design to get into space. This suggests that: 1. We are still not taking a mature approach to this matter. 2. The whole field has not matured to the point were some consensus is possible--which may reflect in the shambles our space program is in. 3. Your reason. (#3 is the most important--I WANT to get more discussion going). If Henry's argument wins out, then what about the old J2 engine? It has some desirable characteristics: it has served on main booster stages (Saturn 1-B), burns LH2/LOX, and even has been restarted (third stage of the Saturn V). Is the tooling for this around? Can one build a big dumb booster with this engine? My personal preference for some sort of flyback booster with AIR-breathing engines. A rocket burns a lot of its fuel pushing against dynamic pressure. Why not haul the thing up into the upper atmosphere where it works much better? I have no numbers to make this specific, but a stage to take one to 70,000 ft and Mach 3 will allow one to relax the constraints on a rocket design (thinking mostly weight and form factor) enough to make it safer and cheaper. I believe that this sort of booster can be done with existing technology, though the size of it will in itself push things some. We could even get a supersonic passenger plane out of the deal. This sort of approach would also grow up with the jet engine technology if hybrid engines and SCRAMjets become available (though still no loss if they don't). The atmosphere is a good thing to use, not fight. Pushing a rocket through it is like an acolyte with a welding torch. If some of you are interested in the politics of the situation may I suggest the following political reform: allow the taxpayers, on their 1040 forms, to mark just where their tax money is to be spent. Just as one can allocate a dollar of their tax money to the Federal Election Commission with a simple check mark, one should also be able to decide where the rest of the money goes. I would earmark most of it for space work (assuming that most people won't do the same thing--we are a science-fearing culture). I don't claim to be the author of such an idea, I just want to see it enacted, and will take every opportunity to spread it around. (So far, I have not gotten much response.) --Brett Van Steenwyk brett@nsr.acs.washington.edu uw-beaver!uw-nsr!brett ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 87 23:18:01 GMT From: jade!thoth5!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: High altitude lauch sites Q: How much of a fuel savings due to reduced atmospheric drag could be had by using a high altitude (mountain) launch site? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 87 18:33:40 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 September 03 18:33:40 PDT (=GMT-7hr) X-Date-Posted: 1987 September 03 19:36:01 PDT (=GMT-7hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Can somebody confirm seemingly-brilliant Phoenix design? Date: 12 Aug 87 04:49:52 GMT From: jade!web4h!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle Yes, it really does burn an oxygen rich mix during the first part of the ascent. According to GH, the idea is to max out "specific density flow as opposed to specific impulse." I think the idea here is that though the exhaust velocity will be lower, the total change in momentum of the expelled fuel will be higher. My physics isn't good enough to say for sure whether that is correct or not, but it seems reasonable. Can somebody who is really expert on thermodynamics and chemistry etc. work out the math and give a definitive confirmation or refutation of that claim? If it is confirmed, it sounds like the Phoenix designers are really onto something that NASA may have missed, something that will reduce first-stage weight by perhaps 10%, and since first-stage is most of the total weight of a launch vehicle that one item all by itself should reduce launch cost by a respectable amount. Five more innovations like that and we've halved launch cost, even ignoring major items like gold-plated goverment contractors vs. simple private work. I.e. even compared to other private enterprise, the Phoenix may be only half the cost if it has lots of such good ideas. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 87 17:16:00 GMT From: ihnp4!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dennis Grittner) Subject: Re: More on Shuttle Parts In article <1114@uw-nsr.UUCP> brett@nsr.acs.washington.edu.UUCP (Brett van Steenwyk 3-5417) writes: > If some of you are interested in the politics of the situation may I >suggest the following political reform: allow the taxpayers, on their 1040 >forms, to mark just where their tax money is to be spent. Just as one can >allocate a dollar of their tax money to the Federal Election Commission with >a simple check mark, one should also be able to decide where the rest of the >money goes. I would earmark most of it for space work (assuming that most >people won't do the same thing--we are a science-fearing culture). I don't >claim to be the author of such an idea, I just want to see it enacted, and >will take every opportunity to spread it around. (So far, I have not gotten >much response.) I was chastised recently ( and correctly so ) for bringing in clearly political discussion into this newsgroup. I doubt that we should treat the collection and distribution of taxes as a 'United Way' selection or anything else as frivolous. I don't really know what newsgroup this belongs in - but probably not this one. Dennis Grittner City of Saint Paul, Minnesota (612) 298-4402 Room 700, 25 W. 4th St. 55102 "Let's just put Ollie, Ronnie, and the rest in jail!" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #350 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Sep 87 23:21:56 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06488; Mon, 14 Sep 87 20:17:31 PDT id AA06488; Mon, 14 Sep 87 20:17:31 PDT Date: Mon, 14 Sep 87 20:17:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709150317.AA06488@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #351 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 351 Today's Topics: notice of job posting in another newsgroup The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Etc. Re: FTL Re: FTL Re: FTL Re: FTL Re: FTL and causality. Re: FTL Re: FTL and intergalactic travel Re: FTL and intergalactic travel Re: Shuttle TPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Sep 87 01:52:21 GMT From: pixar!good@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Good sky you've got here, McIntyre. Well done.) Subject: notice of job posting in another newsgroup A job offer relating to the Mars Observer Camera has been posted to misc.jobs.offered. If, and only if, your site does not recieve that newsgroup you may contact me for a copy. I posted it for Mike Malin because his site does not have a news connection. --Craig ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good ------------------------------ Posted-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 87 15:19:59 PDT From: Craig Milo Rogers Subject: The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Etc. Date: Sun, 13 Sep 87 15:19:59 PDT Sender: rogers@venera.isi.edu Dr. Thomas McDonough will present a lecture on the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) at 7:00 PM on Saturday, September 26th, in the Von Karmen Auditorium at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive in Pasadena. SETI is a world-wide astronomical research program which checks signals from distant stars for signs of purposeful communication. Dr. McDonough is a Lecturer in Engineering at Caltech, and is Coordinator of the SETI program of the Planetary Society. He is active as a lecturer, science consultant, and author, with two popular science books on space and a science fiction novel published this year ("The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence", "Space: The Next 25 Years", and "The Architects of Hyperspace", respectively). This lecture is one of many activities sponsored by the Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and Settlement (OASIS). The organization is a non-profit educational group which promotes space development. It is the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the National Space Society (NSS). The public is invited; there is no admission charge. For more information about this lecture or other OASIS activities call the OASIS Message Machine at (213) 374-1381 or contact Craig Milo Rogers (ARPANet). -------------- In October OASIS will participate in the California Space Activists' Workshop, an annual meeting of individuals from the NSS chapters in California. It will be held in Lake Tajoe, October 9-11. Further details will be posted soon. -------------- The November OASIS lecture will be Friday the 13th at 8:00 PM in Chatsworth. The speaker will be Jim Bennett of AMROC. We expect to learn more about his company's launch vehicle, and the politics / economics of entering the private launch service market. For advance details contact Craig Milo Rogers (ARPANet). ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 87 12:31:22 GMT From: mtune!codas!novavax!augusta!bs@rutgers.edu (Burch Seymour) Subject: Re: FTL in article <8708300353.AA07222@angband.s1.gov>, bilbo.rick@CS.UCLA.EDU.UUCP says: > One of the speakers was Dr. Kip Thorne, who was introduced as the > world's leading living expert on General Relativity. One of the > things that he pointed out in his lecture was that worm holes are a > valid solution to Einstein's equations. A worm hole is a warp or > tunnel in space that would allow two arbitrary points in space to be > connected. For an interesting analysis of this, hunt down _The_Iron_Sun_ (at least I think that's the name of it) by Adrian Desmond. It's a speculative science book wherein he describes how we could go about building black holes and using them to generate the worm holes needed to tunnel across the universes. For the most part it seems pretty far fetched, but all in all it makes a good read and is worth thinking about. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 87 21:02:54 GMT From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andre Guirard) Subject: Re: FTL >In article <8708300353.AA07222@angband.s1.gov>, bilbo.rick@CS.UCLA.EDU.UUCP says: > ... Dr. Kip Thorne [says] that worm holes are a valid solution to > Einstein's equations... Um... Does that mean that FTL information transfer _is_ probably possible, after all, or does it take just as long to "go" through a wormhole as it does to go around? Any physicists care to comment? Andre Guirard ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 87 16:41:17 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: FTL In article <1423@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes: >>In article <8708300353.AA07222@angband.s1.gov>, bilbo.rick@CS.UCLA.EDU.UUCP says: >> ... Dr. Kip Thorne [says] that worm holes are a valid >> solution to Einstein's equations... > >Um... Does that mean that FTL information transfer _is_ probably >possible, after all, or does it take just as long to "go" through a >wormhole as it does to go around? > >Any physicists care to comment? Another valid solution to Einstein's equations is the following: Take a large (infinitely long, radius large enough (hundred of miles or more) to prevent tidal effects from ripping your ship apart) dense (neutron-star material might do, if you can find some way to hold it into shape) cylinder, and spin it about its axis so that the surface is travelling at a good fraction of the speed of light. According to Einstein's equations, the metric for the space around this beast includes "closed timelike contours", i.e. you follow such a path and you come back to when-where you started. Slightly different paths allow you to come back before you started. I don't know if anybody knows whether this metric is stable to small perturbations (wormholes are not, for instance) and I haven't tried this myself, but the equations work out. I think that the only thing standing in the way of time-travel is causality, or the grandfather paradox. (In the same way that the only thing standing in the way of perpetual motion machines is the law of conservaiton of energy.) Nevertheless, I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. Maybe before then :-) David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer The opinions expressed are those of an 8000 year old Atlantuan priestess named Mrla, and not necessarily those of her channel. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 87 22:49:02 GMT From: iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi@rutgers.edu (Rahul Dhesi) Subject: Re: FTL In article <3888@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (David Palmer) writes: >I think that the only thing standing in the way of time-travel is >causality, or the grandfather paradox. (In the same way that the only >thing standing in the way of perpetual motion machines is the law of >conservaiton of energy.) At the risk of having some of you anti-FTLers descend on me again, I will differ. We cannot be certain that causality is what's preventing time-travel. The common kill-your-grandfather paradox arises only because we believe that there is one unique dimension of time. This may be seem to be locally true, but I see no reason why higher time-like dimensions can't exist. My favorite analogy of this a typical audio amplifier that uses negative feedback to keep distortion down. A naive viewpoint might be that negative feedback is impossible, because if you are feeding back an output of +n volts into an input that is at -m volts, then how could that output of +n volts exist at all? (It can exist if there is a propagation delay of some kind in the application of the negative feedback and/or if there is a potential drop along the feedback loop.) Time travel back in time is analogous to the negative or positive feedback in an amplifier. If the feedback is of wrong polarity, or if the phase is wrong (Nyquist theorem etc.), you can get oscillations. You still think of the signal as travelling from the input to the output, but there's also a signal going back causing the oscillation. What you need to do is realize that the path of an electron from the input of the amp to the ouput is analogous to the way we travel through time, and the dimension of time in which the oscillations take place is analogous to a *higher* dimension of time for us. So if you went back in time and killed your grandfather, you would eliminate yourself, which would mean that you didn't kill your grandfather after all, etc. A localized region of space-time would simply be in oscillation, though an individual at a specific point in that space-time may not realize it. Who knows, there may be even some sort of spacial damping, forcing the oscillations to die out very quickly, so even if your grandfather recognized you as his grandson, he would soon forget as space-time stabilized and the incident got wiped out from his mind. The theme of how the past can change was used in "The Lathe of Heaven" (also made into a film shown on PBS). (Not sure of author; possibly Ursula Le Guinn.) The possibility of a higher dimension of time was not explicitly discussed, but the story involved a man who could change not just the present and future, but also the past, by dreaming it. Rahul Dhesi UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 87 09:25:11 GMT From: lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arpa (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: FTL and causality. Larry Niven has a bee in his bonnet about causality. Seems to think it's some fundamental law of physics. Hates to violate it by travelling in time, though for some reason FTL never bothered him. A universe that will react in a purposeful manner to prevent time travel? Give me a break. I can deal with Niven's law (in any universe in which time travel is possible it will "eventually" settle down into a state in which time travel was never invented), though I think it's horsehockey... there are plenty of examples of systems that never damp down (oscillating systems being the simplest case, though it's more likely that a TT universe would end up following a strange attractor). But a universe with volition? That's a bigger violation of causality than anything Tipler could come up with. The basic problem is that causality is just a rule of the game. It's easier to study systems if you can assume that every effect happens after its cause. But if it looks like it's possible to violate a rule of the game, go ahead. After all, the rules have been changed before. It's just a matter of redefining time. Peter da Silva ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 87 00:46:18 GMT From: lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!splut!jay@ames.arpa (Jay Maynard) Subject: Re: FTL In article <3888@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes: ) Another valid solution to Einstein's equations is the following: Take ) a large (infinitely long, radius large enough (hundred of miles or ) more) . . . This made a good story, too. Larry Niven took the title of Frank J. Tipler's paper on the subject - _Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation_ and wrote a short story about an interstellar war which was ended by such a device. It's in his _Convergent Series_ collection. (Crossposted to rec.arts.sf-lovers...if I don't get flamed to death over there!) Jay Maynard, K5ZC ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 87 03:08:45 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!steve@LLL-LCC.ARPA (Steve Nuchia) Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel In article <493@uop.UUCP>, exodus@uop.UUCP (Freddy Kreuger) writes: > I just read a recent SciFi novel and it raised a few good questions > (?). First off, if you are travelling at the speed of light or even > .5c, what happens if you hit a fist-sized meteorite? A speck of dust? > A cloud of dust? Coliding with a fist sized marshmallow at .9c, .5c, or even .001c (.093 million miles/sec) would ruin your whole day. I suppose that there is some chance that relativistic collisions with microscopic particles would actually be less dangerous than slower colisions with the same object, much as high velocity bullets punch cleaner holes than slow ones. Nevertheless, there is no sense in limiting one's velocity for colision safety - collisions in space are unsafe at any speed. > Are speeds apporaching c even remotely feasible in travelling to the > stars assuming we _could_ accelerate to those velocities? It can be fun to work through the calculations for, say, a 1.5G constant acceleration/deceleration trip. If you could get the reaction mass from somewhere you could see some pretty sights in your lifetime (if you don't hit any marshmallows!). But the sun isn't likely to be here when you get back. It's hard to see financing such a trip, unless the people who would be going were the ones with the bucks. Steve Nuchia ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 87 02:09:27 GMT From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel An interesting point on the "fist-sized rock" bit: If you would like to release as much energy as released in the detonation of a modest tactical nuclear weapon (say, 20 Kilotons), you can (1) Detonate a modest tactical nuclear weapon; (2) Detonate a freight train several miles long, full of TNT (400 50-ton capacity box cars); (3) Throw a DIME at the target area at eighty-seven percent of the speed of light. (Eighty-seven percent of c -- actually, the fraction is half the square root of three -- is the speed at which rest mass energy and kinetic energy are equal.) See, maybe they really will fight world war four with rocks ... :-) (At least, I hope that was a :-) .) Another interesting point: Given a nominal interstellar medium (and there are several to choose from), the heat-dissipation problem of a starship traveling at a speed such that gamma = 10 (that is, such that 1.0/sqrt(1 - v**2 / c**2) = 10 -- so that time dilation and all the other stuff is a factor of ten), is comparable to that of an Apollo spacecraft DURING REENTRY. That's just for interstellar gas, no rocks at all. Who said space is a vacuum, anyway ... :-) -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 87 01:04:36 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: Shuttle TPS > >Achieving economical space transportation in no way required a vehicle > >with the specifications of the Shuttle. What it mainly required is > >what we are still sorely lacking, 15 years later--a reusable booster. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Excuse me for interupting, but it seem to me that to be able to reuse > booster rockets, one must get them back from orbit in a condition that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (If they reach orbit, they're by definition orbiters--not a boosters) > would allow them to be reused. What better way than to put Wings on > them and Fly them back down. Gee, I just described the Shuttle. Also > one of the reasons the shuttle was designed (as far as my memory > serves me) was to bring back satelites for refurbishing/refitting. > That is one thing that plain booster rockets cannot do. > > Andy Monka The advantage of a reusable booster over a reusable orbiter is that it's so much easier (perhaps I should say "possible") to build one that really delivers on "reusability". I.e., one that can be turned around between missions without making a six month, cast-of-thousands production out of it. Which is what we have with our "reusable" shuttle orbiters. The booster is easier, in part, because it doesn't reach the kind of speeds where thermal protection is a big problem. It doesn't have to squeeze every last bit of performance out of its engines, nor every last bit of excess weight out of its structure. You can make it sturdy enough to last for a few hundred missions, because it's not going far enough for the extra mass to matter all that much. By contrast, to keep weight down, the structure of the orbiters had to be shaved to the point that _Columbia_, if I recall reports correctly, is already showing early signs of metal fatigue. I don't recall how many more missions it is projected to be good for, but I believe it's less than a dozen. Then it will have to be retired--which is the real reason NASA was able to win approval for a replacement for _Challenger_. The capability of the Shuttle to bring back satellites for repair is a good example of a "requirement" that never made much hard sense, but warped the direction of the whole program. Sure, it would have been a nice capability, had the Shuttle lived up to its NASA hype as a "space truck". That was predicated on a marginal cost of maybe $10 million per launch--but what's an order of magnitude or so, between friends? - Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #351 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Sep 87 06:19:32 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07307; Tue, 15 Sep 87 03:16:46 PDT id AA07307; Tue, 15 Sep 87 03:16:46 PDT Date: Tue, 15 Sep 87 03:16:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709151016.AA07307@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #352 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 352 Today's Topics: Re: High altitude launch sites Re: More on Shuttle Parts Re: Phoenix launch vehicle Space Station orbital` inclination Re: Space Station orbital` inclination Re: Space Station orbital` inclination McD Space Station Commercial.... Re: Space Station orbital inclination Re: Space Station orbital inclination Lunar Nucleon Decay & Neutrino Detector More on Lunar Nucleon Decay Experiment New evidence for 5th force ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Sep 87 01:26:32 GMT From: gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!telesoft!roger@mcnc.org (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: High altitude launch sites > Q: How much of a fuel savings due to reduced atmospheric drag could be > had by using a high altitude (mountain) launch site? There's no simple answer to this. If you just take an existing launch vehicle and figure out how much payload it could orbit if launched from a high altitude site, you'll find that it's more than it would be for a sea level launch, but not enough to get excited about. I don't have the data (or software) handy to give out real numbers, but I'm pretty sure that the payload gain would invariably come to less than 10%. This doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of potential in high altitude launch sites. (Oops, pun not intended, but perhaps appropriate to the gravity of this reply? I think it must be Friday. Anyway..) If you start from scratch and design a system optimized for a high altitude launch site, you'll find that it can beat the pants off the sea level competition. Small, cheap, pressure fed expendables (shades of Percheron!) become a lot more practical, mostly because they don't need as much internal tank pressure to achieve a good expansion ratio in the exhaust gas (and, hence, good engine performance). Less tank pressure means lighter, cheaper tanks, and higher payload. I have this fantasy of a Columbian Joe Kennedy, who, having made his fortune in the manner that great fortunes often seem to get started, wants to become respectable and leave a legacy. So he builds a rocket factory and launch site in the high Andes near the equator, founding what will grow to become the world's premier space port in the 21st century. Sounds like grist for a good SF story, anyway. - Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger P.S. - But if my Columbian Kennedy wants to hire me to help design his rockets, he'll have to be REAL SINCERE about putting his past behind him. I wouldn't want to find myself looking down the barrel of a tommy gun because I had to slip a schedule. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 87 18:41:53 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: More on Shuttle Parts > ... My original impression will not go away easily, so I now ask for > more details--it seemed that these engines did indeed have a very > rocky development, but now, while they are reasonably mature, they > seemed to be doing well. If I remember right, a destruct test of one > of these showed it could run to around 180% before it lost it... Unfortunately, they are still complex and expensive, and they still need major overhauls far more frequently than the original specs called for. There is now some hope that improved components will mean that the pumps won't need to be rebuilt after every single flight; this is seen as a major accomplishment! > ... what about the old J2 engine? It has some desirable > characteristics: it has served on main booster stages (Saturn 1-B)... Not so, the Saturn 1B first-stage engines burned LOX and kerosene. The J-2 was strictly an upper-stage engine. I don't remember the numbers, but I suspect its thrust was a bit low to make an attractive main engine. > Is the tooling for this around? Can one build a big dumb booster with > this engine? The tooling will certainly be gone, like the rest of the Saturn tooling. And this was not a particularly simple or cheap engine; it would be suitable for a big dumb booster only with some, uh, reinterpretation of the word "dumb". > My personal preference for some sort of flyback booster with > AIR-breathing engines... The idea has merit, although one must bear in mind that jet engines are much, much heavier for their thrust output than rockets, and the need for intakes that are efficient at supersonic speeds is a non-trivial constraint. It would certainly seem that fighter engines would make an attractive alternative to the current strap-ons for launchers like Delta, at the very least. > ... a stage to take one to 70,000 ft and Mach 3 will allow one to > relax the constraints on a rocket design... ... can be done with > existing technology, though the size of it will in itself push things > some. If you're willing to use rockets for the upward leg of the flight and use the jets only for return, note that this type of booster almost made it into the Shuttle design: Boeing proposed to add wings and jets to the Saturn V first stage as a flyback booster for the shuttle. Unfortunately, it cost a little too much. > We could even get a supersonic passenger plane out of the deal... Not likely, I'm afraid, given the very different mission requirements, especially in regard to range. (This is non-trivial because nearly the only thing wrong with Concorde is that it lacks the range for transPacific operations.) -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 87 16:15:53 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle In article <794@s.cc.purdue.edu> ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Patrick White) writes: >Wouldn't enriching the mixture with something relatively inert be a >better idea than with highly corrosive oxygen? [suggestions elided..] >-- Pat White In terms of avoiding the problems with dealing with a hot, O2-rich exhaust, yes. (It ain't *corrosion* you worry about, its *fire*). However, that would greatly complicate and add weight to the vehicle. The advantage (and reason behind) using O2 richening is that that can be achieved simply by playing with the flow rates of the existing propellants (H2 and O2). To inject xenon (which ain't cheap, and will cause anaethesthesia if inhaled at significant partial pressures) or even CO2 or H2O requires extra tankage, extra plumbing and injector mechanisms, etc. There are ways of handling the hot O2-rich exhaust, there are also ways of providing the extra 'kick' needed without it. (Dani Eder's suggestion of drop-off turbojet boosters, for example). -- Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair Let's build a base on the Moon on our way to the asteroids - forget Mars. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 87 19:48:48 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Space Station orbital` inclination Current plans are to have the US space station put into an orbit with an inclination to the equator of 32 degrees. The space station will be the largest object in orbit and will be very bright to a ground observer. But at this inclination it will not be seen well north (or south) of latitude 38 degrees. Does anyone know why this inclination was chosen? Does it have to do with resupply? MIR and the Salyuts have a 51.5 inclination and this is the latitude of Baikonur. The Spacelab missions had an inclination of 50 degrees. Can someone be pursuaded to change the inclination to a higher one if it is not critical to the mission? ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 87 08:22:06 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Space Station orbital` inclination High inclination orbits are much more costly to reach, especially from near-equatorial launch sites. The optimum inclination (in terms of maximum payload for a given launcher) is equal to the latitude of the launch site, and this occurs for a due east launch. Higher inclinations are of course used if the extra earth coverage is worth the lost payload capacity. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 87 13:27:41 GMT From: fritz@astro.as.utexas.edu (Fritz Benedict) Subject: Re: Space Station orbital` inclination As an observational astronomer, I vote for zero degrees inclination. There are very few (no?) major observatories along the equator. Fritz Benedict (512)471-3448 arpa: fritz@ut-ngp.arpa snail: Astronomy, U of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Aug 87 08:28:26 PDT From: "William J. Fulco" To: wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov, kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu, poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu Subject: McD Space Station Commercial.... > From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI > ABC and CBS refused to air a McDonnell Douglas-sponsored ad, prepared > by J. Walter Thompson, in favor of the development of the US Space > Station ... > ABC and CBS turned it down, said it was 'too controversial'." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SoapBox=0; I hate to get political on space, but when talking about government spending tax money for things, it just sort-of fits in... SoapBox++; The problem with Television/Radio lobbying of people via "commercials" is a problem of the (, I believe unconstitutional,) "Fairness Doctrine". If a TV/Radio station runs some form of government lobbying program or commercial, then by the fairness doctrine, the opponents of that position get "equal time" - even if they can't pay!! Soooo.... McD pays for an add, to help convince people that the govt should spend tax money on a space station program that they build. Then.... some anti-space group comes in an says "I want equal time, or I'll sue". After all the media is "so powerfull" they'll say. Without this "right" to free time, the government will come under the control of "rich and powerfull" because they'll "brainwash" the poor people that really are no more than "sheep" and are always "victims" of commercials like this..... Then some pro-space, anti-manned-space, robot-explorer group want's their share of "equal time".... And then some..... Of course ABC and CBS didn't want to take a chance, NBC read RCA/GE may have another view about this subject. It's very easy to flip a TV knob if you see something you don't like (I do it constantly :-) and as long as the other guy is getting any "pro-space" benifits in attracting advertising, then why risk any "anti-space" backlash/suit/equal-time during your prime-time bread and butter programming??? There is no meaningful political debate for the masses in this country, because of things like the fairness doctrine "protect" their right to hear all sides regardless of how many people would put up money/time for them to be aired.... (or no sides at all, as the case may be). This is another reason a private launch economy will be much better in the long run.... --SoapBox; (bill) lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 87 04:46:48 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: Space Station orbital inclination > One poster (an astronomer obviously) 0 deg. inclination. I'll speak for some earth sensing types and say, how about 95 degs? ;-) I can see the infighting now. That ain't the half of it. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 87 15:35:25 GMT From: unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Space Station orbital inclination In article <2744@ames.arpa> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >> One poster (an astronomer obviously) 0 deg. inclination. > >I'll speak for some earth sensing types and say, how about 95 degs? ;-) > >I can see the infighting now. That ain't the half of it. I thought the Station was supposed to include a polar orbiting platform for just that purpose. Has that been chopped out too? -- Jon Leech (leech@dopey.cs.unc.edu) __@/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 87 08:56 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Lunar Nucleon Decay & Neutrino Detector To: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Bill Wyatt, asking about lunar neutrino detectors, asked: > I don't understand - are you saying pions are produced only by an > atmospheric interaction? This I doubt. Or that, once produced in the > rock, they will produce fewer neutrinos because of the higher local > density and chance of collision? This I also doubt. The second. The half life of a charged pion is 2.6E-8 seconds. At moderately relativistic energies the pion will travel about ten meters, on average, before decaying. The nuclear collision length in concrete is less than thirty centimeters. In the rarefied upper atmosphere, the collision length is four or five orders of magnitude longer, so most charged pions will decay before they collide. I should point out that I didn't originate this idea. A paper was published last year (the reference escapes me; I think Salam was one of the authors; look in Ref. Mod. Phys. for a review article that references it) that proposed a nucleon decay experiment on the moon. My estimate of thousands of feet of rock is perhaps too large, since that paper proposed putting the experiment in a tunnel in the wall of a large crater. > Given the large detection masses and depth of the cavern required, > it'll be impractical, and probably unnecessary for a very long time to > come. Even the Earth's natural radioactivity is pretty easy to exclude > from the counted events. For neutrino telescopes, perhaps, but not for nucleon decay experiments. Cosmic ray generated neutrinos produce background events that can't be distinguished from nucleon decay. The lunar experiment reduces the neutrino background by a factor of 200. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 87 09:40 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: More on Lunar Nucleon Decay Experiment To: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Some more details on the lunar nucleon decay experiment: The paper appeared in Int. J. of Mod. Phys., A1, p. 147. The authors propose digging a 300x15x7 meter tunnel into the wall of a crater. The tunnel is 100 m beneath the surface. In the tunnel are placed 25 to 50 modules. Each module consists of a 10x5x5 meter sandwich of eighty layers of lunar soil (total of 400 tonnes) separated by gaseous discharge tubes (2 tonnes). This low tech approach is similar to a nucleon decay experiment currently being conducted in a gold mine in India, where the discharge tubes were manufactured at the site out of ordinary pipe. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 1987 14:25-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: New evidence for 5th force Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force. Two seperate borehole measurements of G, one by a team in Australia and one by a team in Michigan, have found roughly the same 1-2% deviation from theory. This is in the range of Fishbach's findings of discrepencies with the Eotvos data. Work by the Michigan group is discussed in: Science, 21-Aug-87, "Borehole Measurements of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant", A T Hsui pp881-883. The issue is by no means proven, but what we all thought was another fun but short lived hypothesis is now very much alive. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #352 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Sep 87 23:21:34 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08590; Tue, 15 Sep 87 20:18:10 PDT id AA08590; Tue, 15 Sep 87 20:18:10 PDT Date: Tue, 15 Sep 87 20:18:10 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709160318.AA08590@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #353 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 353 Today's Topics: Proxmire for Mars mission? Challange him why! Re: Things aint so bad Re: Things aint so bad Re: Things aint so bad Re: Rocket parts Re: Things aint so bad Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle Private Spaces... (130+ lines) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Sep 87 00:37:04 From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Proxmire for Mars mission? Challange him why! Date: 23 Aug 87 04:35:41 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (d.l.skran) Subject: Re: Cooperation uber alles? ... Proxmire endorses a Mars mission. Personally, I think he's just giving us the rope to hang outselves with. I think we should send letters to Proxmire asking why he favors such a mission, pointing out how it would be a great waste of money compared to other things we might do in space in the near future, listing at least ten such alternatives that we favor. Tell him we could do all ten of the alternatives for less than the cost of the manned-Mars mission. (The ten include mining the Moon and asteroids by robotics, and building space-based manufacturing somewhere in cislunar space, leading to major habitat in space.) Explain how after those other missions are done, a mission to Mars will be a lot cheaper due to the space-based industry and materials that can build it, as well as the experience with long-term cislunar habitat in space. Challenge him to come true to his money-saving penchant and endorse the alternatives instead of the manned-Mars mission. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 87 13:25:48 GMT From: uunet!eplrx7!lad@seismo.css.gov (Lawrence Dziegielewski) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <8561@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else > > presently has anything nearly as zippy... > > Anything nearly as zippy, no. This has nothing much to do with > usefulness, though. The Soviet hardware consistently does almost > everything better than the Shuttle does it, albeit less glamorously. I don't know where you're getting your information, but the Soviets have NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle. There is nothing on the pad anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the shuttle. And there's no way you can get me to beleive that ANY Russian hardware performs better than the shuttle. And 'glitz' or 'zippiness' has nothing to do with it. The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space and returing with other payloads. They do not have the capability of sending teams of scientists and technicians into space all at once like we can with the shuttle. > However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost too > much and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way. This is a Cost too much? Maybe, but if flown like they were in '85 and '86 the cost comes way down. The cost of flying the shuttle will remian high until we get them going regularly again (soon, I hope). Besides, high technology is expensive, and the shuttle is probably the most advanced space vehicle in the world today. IT'S WORTH IT. Get on the stick and get with the program, man. Or at least get the right information. Lawrence A. Dziegielewski | E.I. Dupont Co. {uunet!dgis!psuvax1}!eplrx7!lad | Engineering Physics Lab Cash-We-Serve 76127,104 | Wilmington, Delaware 19891 MABELL: (302) 695-1311 | Mail Stop: E357-318 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 87 16:17:53 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad >The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into >space and returing with other payloads. They do not have the >capability of sending teams of scientists and technicians into space >all at once like we can with the shuttle. I hate to state the obvious but: We, on the other hand, do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space. We do not have the capability of sending scientists and technicians into space. And we don't have anyplace to keep them for a few months so that they can get some work done. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer The opinions expressed are those of an 8000 year old Atlantuan priestess named Mrla, and not necessarily those of her channel. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 87 19:01:34 GMT From: panda!teddy!rdp@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard D. Pierce) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <474@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: >> > Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else >> > presently has anything nearly as zippy... >> >> Anything nearly as zippy, no. This has nothing much to do with >> usefulness, though. The Soviet hardware consistently does almost >> everything better than the Shuttle does it, albeit less glamorously. >> Almost the only thing the >> >I don't know where you're getting your information, but the Soviets >have NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle. There is nothing on the >pad anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the >shuttle. And there's no way you can get me to beleive that ANY Russian >hardware performs better than the shuttle. And 'glitz' or 'zippiness' >has nothing to do with it. Your absolutely right. The Soviets DO NOT have anything anywhere near as advanced as a high-tech shuttle that won't fly. All they have is old, low-tech stuff that does fly. A lot. >The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into >space and returing with other payloads. They do not have the >capability of sending teams of scientists and technicians into space >all at once like we can with the shuttle. You're almost right. The Soviets do not have the cabability of flying lots of people into space all at once. This is compared to the US, which has the highest-tech method in the world which can't fly anyone into space. The Soviets, while they do have the ability to transport payloads into space on a weekly basis, do not have the ability to return large payloads from space. We, on the other hand, having a paltry ability at best to send payloads into space, probably don't need to have an ability to return what we can't get up there to begin with, so the shuttle, being the high-tech grounded solution that it is, is admirably suited to NOT carrying payloads into space, and NOT returning them when they're not their to begin with. >Cost too much? Maybe, but if flown like they were in '85 and '86 the >cost comes way down. The cost of flying the shuttle will remian high >until we get them going regularly again (soon, I hope). Besides, high >technology is expensive, and the shuttle is probably the most advanced >space vehicle in the world today. IT'S WORTH IT. Especially if they are flown the way they were in '86. After a while, we'll loose the three remaining shuttles (they way we did in '86) and the cost will eventually reach zero, it might be argued. (Let's see, we flew 2 shuttle missions in '86, right?, one blew up at a replacement cost of 1 billion plus, let's ignore the operating costs, it will simply perturb the last few digits anyway, that means than that each flight cost about 500 million plus. Such a deal, I should live so long.) >Get on the stick and get with the program, man. Or at least get the >right information. Et tu... Dick Pierce ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 87 20:10:25 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Rocket parts See "Shuttle Derived Cargo Launch Vehicle Concept Evaluation Study, Final Report and Extension,Final Report." Contract NAS-8-34599, by Boeing Aerospace Company for NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. Sept. 1982 and July 1983. Write To: Charles R. Darwin, Director Program Development Mail Code PA01 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Alabama, 35812 for copies. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing Member:Olympus Mons Alpine Society Member:Sea of Tranquility Yacht Club ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 87 20:05:48 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad > (By the way, the Soviet shuttle is apparently on the pad at Baikonur.) > -- > "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Please keep us informed on what you know. Unlike our shuttle the soviet one will go overhead at my location at every launch. I'd like to see this one. Thanks, Bruce Watson (scicom, Denver, Co) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Aug 87 11:56:08 PDT From: "William J. Fulco" To: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu Cc: jon@oddhack.caltech.edu, space@angband.s1.gov, kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle > From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) >> jon@oddhack.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes: >> How expensive would 747s be if Boeing had only built 4 of them > In today's dollars at least $1 billion apiece if we had only built 4. > It is not correct that a 747 is comparable to a Space Shuttle in cost. > According to the "Boeing News" of July 24, 1987:(page 1) > "China Airlines will acquire six 747-400 superjets valued at about $1 > billion...". These are the new version coming out next year. > According to NASA's 1988 budget estimate, the replacement orbiter will > cost $2.1 billion in 1987 dollars. The cost of new 747's is not the point. From my reading of semiconductor production rags, and from a friend at a startup manufacturing firm a typical manufacturing "learning curve" is: a 15% reduction in the unit production costs for each doubling of the total amount produced to date. The First 4 747's would have cost a hugh amount if Boeing hadn't expected to sell a bunch and invested in the capital to move them down the learning curve faster. soapBox++; NASA should go back to the old NACA model that helped the development of comercial aircraft in this country (and the world). NACA explored the technology, did some basic research, sometimes built "technology" demos. Meanwhile - the aircraft companies built airplanes, based on incremental "safe" changes to existing designs or new designs based on known and predictable manufacturing techniques. As Boeing, McD, Hughes et al. learned, success was not in the fantastic unknown of airframes, it was incremental evolution of airplanes. Airplanes that were way off the evolution trends (C5A, SpruceGoose, B70) never became commercially viable (without tax money). Today NASA competes using tax subsities with the development of a comercial space program. Get NASA out of the way. Let them run the shuttle, for Shuttle specific payloads ONLY. All others can go "hunting" for the best launch deal available. The Govt should purchase, and not make launch services. The Shuttle is not an evolution, it is a revolution and with only 4 of them it is never going to be economical. The new Deltas, Titans and Arian are evolving and will be the future of satellite launches. We had a heavy lift launch vehicle, the Saturn, and if NASA hadn't thrown it and our space-station away (Skylab) for "the latest technology" we'd know a lot more about manufacturing/living in space today. --soapBox; (bill) lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 18:42:14 PDT From: "William J. Fulco" Cc: kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu Subject: Private Spaces... (130+ lines) > mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: > > Mr Roy Gibson handed in his notice two weeks after the government > turned down a request to fund a 300 million pound space technology > project. > > The BNSC said the funding would enable Britan to participate in > international space ventures as well as home projects. > ... > This should be a warning to those in the USA who want the US > Government out of space exploration, leaving everything to be done by > industry. Wrong-o. Your quoted article is exactly the reason to get government out of running the space launch and development industry! It was GOVERNMENT that turned down the #300 million. As long as government is running the show - politics, will be the name of the game. You see, it is not a matter of getting the "right people" to pull the strings of the system. The strings in a system of government directed programs ARE the problem. No election of the "correct" person(s) will ever fix this. Power, like profit, has its own logic and it's own rewards. To be profitable one must cuts costs and sell more (at as high a price as the competition will permit). To be powerful one must gain control of more people, control bigger empires, build bigger budgets, spend more money.... It is not a PEOPLE problem it's is a PROCESS problem. Basic political-economy relation: Politicians hand out favors and "solve" problems to the extent that the "Marginal benefit" of supporting a positions (in votes, publicity, etc.) equals or just outweighs the "Marginal cost" of doing so. THIS IS A FACT THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE! The question is not if or if not the government should be involved in providing the "infra-structure" for space, but how should it involve itself. If the space "program" is to be run like a public works project, then we'll get a system that looks like the public works projects on earth - decaying, inefficient, maladapted to user's needs, costing 10x too much, managed by political pork-barrel and politics-of-empire-building, not value to users. I'm not advocating getting government out of space and space exploration. I'm saying that the government needs to do things that are in harmony with the way the (political and economics) world works, and the goals of large scale man-in-space. One of the most effective ways of doing this is to purchase launch services in the marketplace. Currently, the government is THE biggest customer for space. There are many things that the government wants in space: weather, spy, communication, and exploration satellites, weapons (flames > /dev/null), manned medical, construction, expermental orbit missions (even moon bases!). > It looks like HOTOL is going to be yet another missed opportunity. We > will be watching the Japanese launching their HOTOL look-alike in 2007 > and thinking if only... Yea, if only I could buy a good American or British ride into orbit! I would hate to ride in some small japanese launcher (you know, they never put enough leg room for the Americans :-) Enough angry negatives, now some suggestions for government policies: 1) Get out of the way - stop restricting private space activities in the name of "national security", this includes not allowing domestic users to purchase space launches from other countries, (If I want my payload in space, I really don't care if the launch vehicle is Japanese). More competition is preferable to drive down costs, and improve service. Stop trying to kill things like private remote sensing satellites. 2) Stop competing with private launchers via a subsidized shuttle when the payloads can be launched on another vehicle. This will provide profits for companies that develop alternative launch capability. 3) Turn NASA back into an NACA type operation (like it's aeronautics branch still is, I think). It could mount some basic space research efforts with things like planetary exploration, manned flight research, space structures, new launch vehicle technologies etc. These are areas of science, that might not pose an immediate "economic" return, but the wide availability of the knowledge will greatly speed the use of space. 3) The shuttle is a money looser. NASA should provide NO SUBSIDIZED LAUNCHES. Each user (govt included) should be charged what it "really costs" including pro-rated construction costs and ABSOLUTELY NO FINANCIAL FUNNY BUSINESS by shifting expenses to other departments so as to make the shuttle appear less expensive. This will provide incentive for users to look elsewhere for launches, thereby providing market demand. If a payload can "only" go on the shuttle, then fine. What should we do with current STS bookings? This needs to be negotiated with users. 4) ALL (this means THE MILITARY too) govt payloads should go with "off the shelf" launchers. The NBS should establish a set of STANDARD payload specifications for GOVERNMENT payloads ONLY. This way industry would know how to anticipate govt requirements for launch vehicles. No designing payloads for roll-your-own launchers! 5) If govt payloads meet NBS specs (which they should), then they MUST BE launched on the most inexpensive vehicle/system (figuring in cost of insurance too). The insurance costs aspect would encourage / reward builders of reliable launchers. Multiple launch contracts (for volume discount) should be o.k., BUT contracts lengths should be limited, to avoid "the old-boy network" and "revolving door" from getting a hold of the govt space purchasing arm and to give a cheaper launch systems and companies an incentive to exist. 6) Work towards agreement (via GATT?) on eliminating other countries subsidities of their launch systems. If the U.S. govt really presses and gives up it's own subsitities on shuttle, real "market" conditions may prevail. This is going to be tough, but we have some clout if we use it. Look, the future could look much more like today's airline & freight business: NASA does some basic research, "pushes the envelope" as it were. Private companies can build crafts and beat the living daylights out of each other to get the next big order for hardware. Companies can purchase these aircraft for use in providing whatever their users are willing to pay for. (bill) #include lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU "Federal Express - When It absolutely, positively has to be in orbit tomorrow" P.S. Everyone should read the August 17, 1987 _Newsweek_ (cover story) articles on the state of the U.S. space program. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #353 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Sep 87 06:34:52 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09475; Wed, 16 Sep 87 03:17:17 PDT id AA09475; Wed, 16 Sep 87 03:17:17 PDT Date: Wed, 16 Sep 87 03:17:17 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709161017.AA09475@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #354 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 354 Today's Topics: Private Space Program HST ASLT Re: High altitude lauch sites Re: Moon Colony Re: Special Newsweek Report: "Lost in Space" Re: High altitude lauch sites Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites) Re: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites) cheap transport to space, space station waste? Re: Newsweek article Re: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites) Brazil in space (was: Re: High altitude lauch sites) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Sep 87 07:53:11 GMT From: ihnp4!upba!eecae!conklin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Terry Conklin) Subject: Private Space Program If anyone has any information on any commercial space directives, I would appreciate a tabulation either here or reply via email. Forgive me if I've lost faith in NASA, but their lack of funding, bizarre hiring procedures, and lack of respect (from others) kinda kills what was once a dream. After much work looking into just how "real" the Enterprise (as a working model) could be, I have to assume that there are private operations working on their own programs. I suppose the money giveaway is over, so please point me towards the nearest up and coming spaceport. Terry Conklin ihnp4!msudoc!conklin conklin@cps.msu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 87 07:30:14 GMT From: cartan!web@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) Subject: HST I heard tonight (at least third hand) that the Hubble Space Telescope was just dropped from the shuttle manifest. Can anyone confirm or (I hope) deny this? The "reasons" given were a decision to delay the start of the tug needed to boost it in 1992, and the failure to dedicate shuttle space to a booster specifically for the HST. William Baxter ARPA: web@bosco.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {cbosgd,sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,ihnp4,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!bosco!web ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Sep 87 18:11:52 EDT From: Ben Yalow Subject: ASLT The ASLT technology was used by IBM for the 360/91, the first 360 type of "supercomputer", first shipped in the late 60's. The 91 was a major speed improvement over earlier machines, with a high level of parallel processing, etc. ASLT was considered to be a major advance that helped make the machine possible. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 87 17:58:31 GMT From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: High altitude lauch sites In article <499@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: > I have this fantasy of a Columbian Joe Kennedy, who, having made his > . . . Sounds like grist for a good SF story, anyway. I have heard, a couple of times, about a sci-fi novel that postulates that the big space power of the future will be BRAZIL. Although this seems ludicrous at first, supposedly it's a very good, well-theorized novel. I wish I'd written down the title and author. Does anybody know of this? If so, please e-mail details. Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 87 17:32:22 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: Moon Colony (David Smyth) writes: > Would it be practical to build a space port on the Moon ... > ..... > * Where would the fuel come from (Oxygen plentiful, but what about > hydrogen? Or perhaps something new-cue-lar? Rocks. Crystaline rock contains considerable "water of crystalization" which can be liberated by, among other techniques, solar-heating. > * Who would really want to live on the moon? ME! (at least for a "tour of duty"), just tell me where to sign up! John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 87 09:18:48 PDT From: Todd Johnson To: DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Special Newsweek Report: "Lost in Space" I think you want to be careful about the message you're giving Ronnie and congresscritters. If you think back, the shuttle was touted AND sold to Congress and Richard Nixon as a cheap method of doing things. NASA was struggling to maintain some sort of space presence in the Nixon era of big Vietnam spending and budget cuts on everything else. I think the shuttle's failings are a direct result of the "make it cheap" mentality at the time. It had, as I recall, been originally billed as part of a triad of lift vehicles: heavy lift (based on Saturn V) expendable, medium lift expendable (I believe they were talking Saturn 1C) and crewed special (the shuttle). Congress and Nixon moaned that that was too much, NASA could only have one toy so NASA plonked for the newer technology with hopes of getting funding for the rest of the triad. The situation deteriorated significantly beyond that and we got the current shuttle. If you try to sell Congress on the idea that we can make Big Dumb Rockets they'll decide that we're talking cheap and think they can make it cheaper. What will probably result is an overweight machine that costs more because of the fixes required to fix the design that Congress was willing to fund. I am not saying that you shouldn't tell Congress that you think this is the way to go (I see a lot potential there and I think the basic idea displays good engineering principals) but you DO want to be careful about the message you give them or they'll give you "Big Dumb Government Spec'd Overweight Underpowered Failure-prone Rockets" which defeats the whole purpose. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 87 19:18:01 GMT From: hao!boulder!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cmaag@husc6.harvard.edu (Christopher N Maag) Subject: Re: High altitude lauch sites In article <1787@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: >I have heard, a couple of times, about a sci-fi novel that postulates >that the big space power of the future will be BRAZIL. Although this >seems ludicrous at first, supposedly it's a very good, well-theorized >novel. I wish I'd written down the title and author. Does anybody >know of this? If so, please e-mail details. > >Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) Could this be "The Man Who Sold the Moon", by R.A.Heinlein? No flames if I'm wrong; I musta read this one about 8 years ago... Chris. Path: uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cmaag From: cmaag@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Christopher Maag) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 87 04:50:38 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites) [...] > +I have heard, a couple of times, about a sci-fi novel that postulates > +that the big space power of the future will be BRAZIL.... [...] > I just finished Pohl's Heechee tetralogy. In it the Earth is Brazil > is certainly a center of activity and power. Somebody jog my memory. I think it was Poul Anderson who (also) wrote such a future history, several stories collectively known as `Tales of the Viagens' (Port. for voyagers). BUT I'm sitting here with my books all around AND I CAN'T FIND THEM! Bill UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu (or) wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 87 05:26:34 GMT From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard Harter) Subject: Re: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites) In article <669@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> wyatt@cfa.harvard.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: >> +I have heard, a couple of times, about a sci-fi novel that >> +postulates that the big space power of the future will be BRAZIL.... >> I just finished Pohl's Heechee tetralogy. In it the Earth is Brazil >> is certainly a center of activity and power. >Somebody jog my memory. I think it was Poul Anderson who (also) wrote >such a future history, several stories collectively known as `Tales of >the Viagens' (Port. for voyagers). BUT I'm sitting here with my books >all around AND I CAN'T FIND THEM! I don't which, of several possible novels, the original poster was thinking of, but the Viagens Interplanetarias novels are by L. Sprague de Camp. There are a number of them, mostly written during the 1945-1955 time period, although he has used the setting since then. The novels are light adventure. In the series it was assumed that Brazil was the major political and economic power on Earth. [A reasonable assumption, given Brazil's natural resources, territory, and population. The standard line about Brazil is that it has had a great future, has a great future, and always will have a great future.] De Camp did not believe it was legitimate to use FTL as an SF device, so all interstellar travel is STL, even though the stories use an interstellar setting. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 87 00:35:33 From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: cheap transport to space, space station waste? Date: 26 Aug 87 15:55:08 GMT From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article ... it is unreasonable to expect the development of cheap transport to orbit when aerospace companies are getting paid to do paper studies and develop technology, rather than to put up as much freight as possible. Good point, except wasn't STS supposed to be that way anyway? I.e. government says it wants cheap access to space, hires aerospace firms and NASA internal committees to work out the cheapest best way within current and easily-developed technology, and the result is STS, with various contractors submitting lowest bids for actually doing the work. Then, assuming the bids and estimates of performance are correct, we proceed to have STS built. The problem may have been that all up-front money came from government, so the aerospace companies accepted none of the capital risk, therefore had no incentive to absorb cost overruns (both in contracted building of orbiters and SRBs, and in operating cost and replacement of "lost" equipment) since they can simply refuse to complete the contract after being already paid up-front, and the government can have a dandy time trying to take them to court when cost overruns are forgiven elsewhere. The incentive is for government to grant the overruns to avoid having all the already-spent money go to waste and an additional ten years getting STS flying. Hence, STS costing more than estimated, paid by government. Would it be feasible to do the contracting completely different, with the contractor taking all the risk for cost overruns, borrowing or issuing new stock to finance the construction, while the goverment merely signs a contract guaranteeing a certain amount of launch business at a certain price? Problem is that's an awful big gamble for a company to take. What if, after 6 years developing the STS, it was ready, but the government was in a penney pinching mode so abrogated its agreement due to lack of funds available in the current budget? How could the company possibly sue the federal government for breach of contract?? (This also applies to the proposed commercial space incentive act. It's one thing to pass a law guaranteeing launch business. It's another thing to actually include the money in each year's budget years after the law has been passed and some other President is in the White House and several Congressional elections have occurred.) So, what do the rest of you think? Should we, for the next launch vehicle, simply guarantee launch business (except the guarantee is subject to funding in yearly budgets), and expect private companies to take all the capital risk? Or should we stick with the current system, but be more tight about cost overruns and performance failures? The $5000/lb. lauch cost for the Shuttle v.s. the $750/lb. cost for the Soviet Proton was a result of this emphasis on technology development at the expense of manufacturing and delivery (a trend which, incidently, pervades other areas of the US economy). Technology development increases the cost of the current project, but if it is truly useful general technology it is an investment in the future which will pay back many times its cost in the future. The problem isn't development of technology, it is development of technology that has no use except for this one project. Such one-project technology must pay itself back during the lifetime of that one project, or be a bad investment. (why space station will take so long and cost so much) ... the intent of the project is not to get up a functioning space station, but to develop technology for putting up a functioning space station. ... The fact that a functioning space station might result from the exercise is irrelevent. Interesting insight. Is JK right?? Shall we confront our Congresscritters with this way of looking at it, and ask them to please get some damn station up there in two years even if it isn't our pride and joy of technological innovation? ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 1987 19:27-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Newsweek article I figure I'll confuse everyone by adding myself (the OTHER Dale, not to be confused with the other Dale debating this issue) to the discussion. I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable on many of the issues of space development and I found this article to be the best researched and most accurate picture that I've seen in mass media since I was a teenager. I am discounting such things as National Geographic articles since they are not quite the same as a feature in Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, Life, etc. No, their information was not perfect. I do not necessarily agree with all of their conclusions. But compared to the other garbage I've read in such magazines, this was refreshing. I am usually left wondering about the one sidedness, failure to even FIND the real issues, failure to identify important opinion leaders, failure to recognize the existance of a huge soviet program or a significant American PRIVATE program; those have the hallmarks of mass media. I agree with them that we need big dumb boosters to haul cargo cheaply into orbit. I have high hopes that AMROC will show the superiority of this 'simple is beautiful' approach over that of using remodeled versions of obsolete ICBM's. I likewise agree that a name like 'Advanced Launch System' makes me want to throw out caution flags and put my hand on my wallet. (Why not a system called 'Dirt Cheap Simple Minded Commercial Launch System"?) We do need a passenger ferry like the shuttle, but we would have been much better off with something considerably smaller but with more seats. However, we have the shuttle and are unlikely to get anything else for at least a decade, so that part of the debate belongs to the historian, not the activist. This was the first time I've seen any of the REAL issues debated in mass media in many, many years. I hope I see a great deal more. Dale Amon ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 87 10:38:33 GMT From: tektronix!reed!omen!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites) Thank you! The keyword was "Viagens". The Stories are by L.Sprague deCamp. Just about any deCamp book with a Z in the title is part of this series as are "Rogue Queen" and the clloection someone thought was by Anderson "The Continent Makers and other tales of the Viagens". This series is notable for assuming that you _can't_ get around relativity and going on from there. In fact at least one story depends on the "twin paradox" for its final plot twist. I recommend Rogue Queen for its rather interesting viewpoint. It is told from the point of view of a "worker" of a humanoid race that has strong resemblance to the social insects (workers, drones, queens). The effects of the visit of the Terrans are rather interesting... Leonard Erickson ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 87 16:43:42 GMT From: cca!svh@husc6.harvard.edu (Susan Hammond) Subject: Brazil in space (was: Re: High altitude lauch sites) In article <1787@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: >I have heard, a couple of times, about a sci-fi novel that postulates >that the big space power of the future will be BRAZIL. Although this >seems ludicrous at first, supposedly it's a very good, well-theorized >novel. I wish I'd written down the title and author. Does anybody >know of this? If so, please e-mail details. One novel that has BRAZIL as _A_ (not _the_) major space power is "THE DESCENT OF ANANZI" (I know that's probably spelled wrong, no flames please, I don't have the book handy). I believe it was a Niven/Barnes collaboration of about 5 years back. Major focus is on "Falling Angel", a moon-based group, that tries to break of from the U.S. and become independent. A Brazillian company sabotages one of their shuttles and cargo and then tries to take it as salvage with some of their own shuttle fleet, capatained by an ex-US astronaut who went to Brazil to get more flying time than he could in the US fleet. I think this book (or part of it) was in ANALOG. I remember liking it--not GREAT fiction but certainly good. Susan Hammond svh@CCA.CCA.COM {decvax,linus,mirror}!cca!svh ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #354 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Sep 87 06:19:32 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11382; Thu, 17 Sep 87 03:17:48 PDT id AA11382; Thu, 17 Sep 87 03:17:48 PDT Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 03:17:48 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709171017.AA11382@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #355 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 355 Today's Topics: US interests and Govt Spending Govt Spending Gov't spending Re: Brazil in space (was: Re: High altitude lauch sites) Congresscritter Committees Space Exploration Day Re: Shuttle TPS Re: More on Shuttle Parts Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Sep 1987 18:02-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: US interests and Govt Spending I'm replying once publicly. Any others who wish to discuss this, please mail it to me privately (amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu on arpa net) because this gets into very non space areas. I would make the point that such defense for Europe and Japan may have made sense in 1947 when both areas were in cinders. However, the GNP, population and standard of living of both areas are now comparable to that of the US. Japan, for example, will probably surpass the US economically by the middle of the next decade. Europe, taken as a continent, is practically an equal. Europe is probably capable of handling the USSR all by itself. They are approximately equal in population and wealth, and are probably technologically superior to the soviets. Given the above, if they don't want to pick up the tab for their own freedom, why should I? In 1947 the case was made that we should help them until they could get on their feet and help themselves. I'm only saying that they are on their feet. Europe ain't'a'gonna fall if we pull out. They'll just have to take up the slack themselves. An extra $50B out of their economy will do less harm to them than it does to us. The same goes for the Japanese. Not to mention the fact that if they have to pull $50B from their economy instead of getting subsidized by us, we may find ourselves more competitive in consumer electronics. The US is not going to be able to even pay to defend it's OWN shores if we keep going at the rate we are. Many would make the case that the very high expenditures in defense are wrecking the US economy. Deficits are handled by governments by printing more money or (even MORE sneakily) by increasing the ratio of loans to deposits, ie, telling banks that they can now loan 5.5x their actual worth instead of 5x. (This IS the way the Fedreal Reserve works, I'm not kidding, and the multiplier is around 4 or 5). This inflates the money supply, undermines savings, undermines capital expansion, decreases exports... and if it is kept up long enough, it leads to economic collapse and hyperinflation. AND NO SPACE PROGRAM, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE. WE cannot afford to defend the world. However, the world is no longer incapable of defending itself. It just hasn't had to because as long as the American taxpayer is willing to foot the bill, why should the Japanese taxpayer? or the German? or the ? If they want to, they will; if they feel they are already secure, they will leave status quo. In either case, we should mind our own business and borders. The extension of our power around the world unnecessarily extends the definition of what our 'interests' are, and makes it more likely we will get sucked into every idiotic little war, revolt and crisis on Earth. Like, WHY are WE in the Gulf? We aren't dependent on Gulf oil, at least not critically so. The Japanese ARE critically dependent on it. The European's ARE critically dependent on it. So let THEM make the choice whether to protect it or put their cars in gasoline queues. I'm sure they will make an intelligent decision about their own interests. As to how the gulf (and the whole middle east) affects me, as Rhet Butler said, "Frankly madam, I don't give a damn." ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 1987 18:45-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Govt Spending Just in case this wasn't posted also. The points and question he brings up are reasonable and I felt they needed responding to: From: ucbcad!cad.Berkeley.EDU!boulder.UUCP!qetzal!rcw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU To: upba!CS.CMU.EDU!Dale.Amon Subject: Re: Cuisine out of this world Date: 14 Sep 87 00:53:17 MDT (Mon) > Personally Bruno, I'd rather we (US) dropped out of NATO, removed all > of our nuclear weapons from Europe, left Japan's defense up to Japan > and dropped the $100B thus saved from our federal budget. I really see > no reason why we should pay to defend any borders but our own. With That would be nice. Unfortunately, I think there are countries in the world that would seize this opportunity to export their form of government which 1> might not be so bad 2> might be terrible. Guess it depends on what viewpoint you take and what your values are. Personally, I think we have a good thing going here in the USA, (I can be part owner of a software company). I feel I have a vested interest in protecting America's interests around the globe, but do take issue with the large amount of mula spent on an excess of out-of-date or nuclear weapons. > drop in taxes after such a cut, I expect the domestic economy would > start growing so fast that we'd have CORPORATE space stations up I tend to believe that the excess money would get sucked up by congress for other silly projects. Call me a cynic. Last thing you want to do is give the government even *more* money. Let them feel guilty about the deficit, and hope they will restrain themselves somewhat. Imagine what would happend if they felt they were in the black! > anyone else got moving. Governments just muck everything up. I much > PREFER the private route. (EVERYONE ELSE: But I'll take what I can > get!) I'd be happy to drop by and visit you on your MBB station! Sorry to butt in on your conversation. The spirit moved me. Robert C. White, Jr *---- ----* MENTOR SOFTWARE, INC. 1-303-252-9090 ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 87 02:30:01 GMT From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Gov't spending In article <558655360.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU writes: > I'm replying once publicly. Any others who wish to discuss this, > please mail it to me privately (amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu on arpa net) > because this gets into very non space areas. Sorry, Dale. I couldn't resist. But I'll limit myself to just this reply. > I would make the point that such defense for Europe and Japan may have > made sense in 1947 when both areas were in cinders. > > However, the GNP, population and standard of living of both areas are > now comparable to that of the US. Japan, for example, will probably > surpass the US economically by the middle of the next decade. Europe, > taken as a continent, is practically an equal. You may want to check out Pat Shroeder as a presidential candidate. She has an undeserved reputation as being an ultraliberal, even thought she has a deeper knowledge of the Pentagon than any of the candidates, Democrat or Republican, and recently endorsed hazardous duty pay for the servicemen in the Gulf. One of her proposals is that the U.S. tell Europe and Japan that they should start spending more on their own defense, and, if they don't, impose a "service charge" on imports to finance that defense. This sounds like about the most sensible approach I've heard, even though it would result in an increase in cost to the American consumer. But it makes more sense than trying to manipulate the exchange rates, which is also going to increase costs, which is currently what's going on. I don't know how she stands on space, but I wouldn't be suprised if she knew considerably more about it than any of the other candidates. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. I've seen Schroeder flamed here before for being too liberal, and so I wanted to pass this along. Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 87 14:57:54 GMT From: rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) Subject: Re: Brazil in space (was: Re: High altitude lauch sites) In article <19781@cca.CCA.COM> svh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Susan Hammond) writes: >In article <1787@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: >>I have heard, a couple of times, about a sci-fi novel that >>postulates that the big space power of the future will be BRAZIL. >>Although this seems ludicrous at...... L. Sprague DeCamp (LEST DARKNESS FALL, AN ELEPHANT FOR ARISTOTLE, etc., etc.) wrote such a book back in the late 1950's. Can't remember the title at the moment. I think it was an Ace paperback, but probably first published in one the SF magazines of the day, perhaps one of the minor ones. As for the idea being ridiculous, you never know. What if we had another ice age that essentially destroyed northern Europe and North America? Or a war that did more or less the same? Somebody would be left to take over world leadership, and Brazil is a large country with lots of resources. I somewhat doubt *anybody* would be venturing into space under those conditions, however. Not for a long time, but then, SF novels usually take place "after a long time," and in that type of scenario, lots of things are conceivable. Bill ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 87 06:39:09 GMT From: cartan!web@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) Subject: Congresscritter Committees In <8708261856.AA19669@banach.mit.edu>, purtill@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU (Mark Purtill) said: > [To write a senator, address your letter to: > > The Honorable (name) > Senate Office Bldg. > Washington, DC 20510 > > and start the letter "Dear Senator (name)".] >(And the same for Representatives.) In writing to Senators and Representatives other than your own, the letter should be addressed to them as a member of the committee. Otherwise it will be sent on to your Congressman. William Baxter ARPA: web@bosco.Berkeley.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 1987 17:16-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Space Exploration Day Senate S1288 introduced by Jake Garn would officially declare July 20 of every year a national Space Exploration Day. There are currently 39 cosponsors. Ask your senator to consponsor this legislation. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 87 20:59:53 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Shuttle TPS > >what we are still sorely lacking, 15 years later--a reusable booster. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Excuse me for interupting, but it seem to me that to be able to reuse > booster rockets, one must get them back from orbit in a condition that > would allow them to be reused. What better way than to put Wings . . . > Andy Monka There seems to be some confusion over the meaning of 'booster'. That is understandable, as the term is used in different senses by the two posters. A booster sometimes refers to the entire rocket used to get to Earth orbit, and sometimes to just the first stage of such. The more precise terms are: First Stage Launch Vehicle A reuseable first stage would not have to return from orbit. It typically reaches 0.12 to 0.3 times orbit velocity. Since the engines and tanks are not taken all the way to orbit, the penalty for making them reuseable (heavier hardware, plus heat shield, wings, landing gear) is much lower than for an orbital stage. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 87 12:16:08 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: More on Shuttle Parts In article <8559@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> We could even get a supersonic passenger plane out of the deal... > >Not likely, I'm afraid, given the very different mission requirements, >especially in regard to range. (This is non-trivial because nearly the >only thing wrong with Concorde is that it lacks the range for >transPacific operations.) A longer range Concorde was originally planned, but with the lack of sales of the aircraft all further development was abandoned. The same company responsible for the Concorde engines has designed the HOTOL engines. In the pasanger carrying version of this machine, if it ever gets built, up to sixty passangers could be carried in a sub-orbital ballistic flight from Britain to Australia in 45 mins. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 1987 14:45-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies I wish to publicly state my utter condemnation of the United States Departments of Commerce, Defense and State on their assumption of veto power over private remote sensing systems. I urge civil disobedience by anyone in a position to do so. This needs to be tested in the Supreme Court while the court is still a pseudo-legitimate body. If we cannot defend the constitution without ignoring it, we deserve to be discarded into the history books. There are no National Security Interests higher than individual liberty as partially outlined in the Bill of Rights. I suggest to any member of the military reading this who does not agree that they may find the policies of the other super power more to their liking. I heartily endorse the efforts of other groups, such as Spot Image to bypass this monopolistic effort of American Defense interests. I encourage the Chinese Peoples Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to commercialize remote sensing and to sell on demand photos of any portion of the United States that any media outlet wishes to purchase. It is rumored the Soviets may make 5 meter resolution available in this way. I applaud this suggestion. I encourage American media to purchase and publish the most damning of these photos and to turn over every rock under which the lying scoundrels who are undermining the constitution of the United States are hiding. Let these fearful slugs shrivel in the light of truth. I'm sure the Soviets would be more than happen to point out areas of inconsistancy. It is sad indeed that we have to rely on the Communist powers to enforce the freedom of the skies which American policy has falsely claimed as a goal for 25 years. It is time we decided whether we are going accept fascist control rather than the free market society our founders intended. Were they alive today, I'm sure Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and the other founding patriots would concur. Freedom WORKS, Freedom is RIGHT Dale Amon ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 87 03:00:22 GMT From: sunybcs!kitty!larry@ames.arpa (Larry Lippman) Subject: Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies In article <558297940.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU writes: > I wish to publicly state my utter condemnation of the United States > Departments of Commerce, Defense and State on their assumption of veto > power over private remote sensing systems. > > I urge civil disobedience by anyone in a position to do so. This needs > to be tested in the Supreme Court while the court is still a > pseudo-legitimate body. You are advocating CRIMINAL disobedience, as in violation of U.S. Code Title 18 Sections 793 to 799, which are federal crimes petaining to espionage. > If we cannot defend the constitution without ignoring it, we deserve to > be discarded into the history books. There are no National Security > Interests higher than individual liberty as partially outlined in the > Bill of Rights. I suggest to any member of the military reading this > who does not agree that they may find the policies of the other super > power more to their liking. > > [ more drivel deleted] > > I encourage American media to purchase and publish the most damning of > these photos and to turn over every rock under which the lying > scoundrels who are undermining the constitution of the United States > are hiding. Let these fearful slugs shrivel in the light of truth. I'm > sure the Soviets would be more than happen to point out areas of > inconsistancy. Congratulations! You have specifically advocated committing a federal crime in violation of U.S. Code Title 18 Section 797, which pertains to "Publication and sale of photographs of defense installations". In the pursuit of your goal of "freedom", be sure to advocate: 1. Repeal all laws pertaining to espionage. 2. Open all U.S. military installations to the public for unrestricted passage. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #355 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Sep 87 06:19:28 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13061; Fri, 18 Sep 87 03:17:39 PDT id AA13061; Fri, 18 Sep 87 03:17:39 PDT Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 03:17:39 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709181017.AA13061@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #356 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 356 Today's Topics: Ariane up, up, and away again Spy sat resoultion computation Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies Re: Condemnation of remote sensing Re: SPACE Digest V7 #331 TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons Political Can of - Octopi? Re: SPACE Digest V7 #348 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Sep 87 19:18:00 GMT From: necntc!frog!john@husc6.harvard.edu (John Woods, Software) Subject: Ariane up, up, and away again (From September 16, 1987 Boston Globe) Ariane rocket launched from Guiana spaceport (From Wire Services) Kourou, French Guiana - The 15-story Ariane rocket blasted off almost two hours late yesterday from a French spaceport carved out of the South American jungle on the first flight of a Western European rocket since an abortive liftoff 15 months ago. The Ariane 3, carrying two satellites, soared into partly cloudy skies at 8:45pm from the Guiana Space Center, the giant white flames of its rocket visible in the tropical night from an observation site 8 miles away. The liftoff came during the second of two launch windows. Technicians of the European Space Agency and its commercial arm, Arianespace, temporarily delayed the launch due to problems with a pressure sensor that measures leakage in the third stage. The third stage ignited correctly 4 minutes and 36 seconds after liftoff. Four of the previous 18 Arianne attempts have failed, three of them because of problems in the third stage. The Ariane rocket placed the Australian Aussat K3 satellite into geostationary orbit 22,500 miles over the Earth on schedule 18 minutes and 27 seconds after liftoff. The European EUTELSAT ECS4 satellite followed at 22 minutes and 2 seconds. The mission, from liftoff to depositing the satellites in orbit, took less than 25 minutes. A malfunction of the ignition system forced ground technicians to destroy the last Ariane rocket shortly after liftoff May 31, 1986. About $83 million was spent to solve the problem and triple the power of the ignition system. "We are like students who have prepared well for an exam," said Frederic d'Allest, president of Arianespace, at a news conference earlier yesterday. Riding of the success of the launch are $2.45 billion worth of contracts for Arianespace. There are 46 satellites waiting to be launched. Arianespace has two more launches scheduled for this year, eight next year and nine in 1989. If successful, the Europeans will control the launch services market in the West, at least until next summer when the US space shuttle may resume operation. But even then, the shuttle will give priority to military and scientific payloads. Space shuttle missions were cancelled following the January 1986 Challenger disaster in which seven astronauts died. Beside the Arianespace, Western space companies can place orders with three US companies commercializing the United States' Titan, Delta and Atlas-Centaur rockets: Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics. It also is possible to launch satellites using Soviet or Chinese rockets [for SOME countries... -jfw]. None of the American rockets will be able to meet demand before 1989 at the earliest. The Ariane 3 rocket is 160 feet high and weighs 240 tons. The Aussat K3 weighs 1,430 pounds and the ECS4 weighs 1,540 pounds. The European Space Agency is made up of France, West Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria and Norway. John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Maybe it's the sound of a WET RAG hitting a smooth WEASEL! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 87 10:37:14 PDT From: "William J. Fulco" To: clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Spy sat resoultion computation > From: newton.physics.purdue.edu!clt@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Carrick Talmadge) > Subject: Re: SPOT & maximum resolution > Lessee... The diffraction limitation for a circular lens using... > ===> diameter = 3.8 meters = 150 inches <==== > Conclusion: You need a pretty dern hefty lens to get anything near this > resolution. Not a LENS - a MIRROR.... A few meter mirror abord a DOD bird??? I have no trouble believing it... (KH-11's are pretty BIG) (bill) lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 87 11:53:50 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies In article <558297940.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU writes: >I encourage the Chinese Peoples Republic and the Union of Soviet >Socialist Republics to commercialize remote sensing and to sell on >demand photos of any portion of the United States that any media outlet >wishes to purchase. It is rumored the Soviets may make 5 meter >resolution available in this way. The Russians have already set up a commercial agency to sell high resolition photographs of any part of the earth's surface outside the eastern block. Resolution is said to be slightly better than SPOT. The french will sell you the images to fill in the missing areas. With all these images available, restricting their use seems very odd, but some goverments are paranoid about "National Security" to the extent of trying to build brick walls in the stable door long after the horse has strolled out. (I am not only talking about the US goverment, the goverment here is just as bad. The "Spycatcher" saga is still going on) Bob ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 87 02:25:56 GMT From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies > In article <558297940.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU writes: > > I wish to publicly state my utter condemnation of the United States > > . . . > > You are advocating CRIMINAL disobedience, as in violation of > . . . > <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York Larry Lippman accounts for a remarkable fraction of the "signal" part in the signal to noise ratio in the newsgroups to which he contributes. I have tremendous respect for him in that regard. (Beside's, how can you say anything bad about a guy whose .signature asks if you've hugged your cat today? ;-) But I think he blew it in the way he choose to respond to Dale's article. I think it is safe to assume that Dale realized that what he was advocating was in violation of the law. Is it really meaningful to draw a distinction between civil disobedience and criminal diobedience? Oops, nobody answer that, please; it's a side issue we don't need. The point is that just identifying which laws would be broken hardly establishes that Dale's posting is merely a "crock of shit", as Larry summarized it. Breaking the law, for appropriate cause, is honored in western political philosophy. And at Nuremburg, we executed Nazi war criminals on the grounds that obedience to orders, in accordance with the laws of their country, was no defense for crimes against humanity. At a time when political revolution has come to be associated mostly with those we take to be enemies, it's easy to forget that OUR government is a revolutionary government, and that revolutionary defense of liberty is as American as you can get. None of which establishes that Dale's posting ISN'T a crock of shit, either. I don't want to debate that here. I just want to request that Larry and Dale, and any others who choose to enter the fray, try to confine themselves to substantitive issues. There's too much heat in this issue already. It deserves more light. - Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 87 16:16:53 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies In article <1995@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > In article <558297940.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU writes: > > I wish to publicly state my utter condemnation of the United States > > . . . > > You are advocating CRIMINAL disobedience, as in violation of > . . . If I buy these high resolution images from the French or Russian agencies selling them, then publish a book with these images in it, how can this possibly be a Federal crime? I don't even live in the country. If I use material freely available in this country (breaking none of this country's laws) to produce the book, then someone wants to take a copy of the book back to the USA, what law has been broken? who has broken it? Me, for breaking the laws of annother country? or some unsuspecting tourist for importing material dangerous to "National security". Or is this yet annother case of "the rest of the world must obey American laws". Even more peculiar is that the people I could buy the images from are the same people that the laws are are mainly designed to keep these photographs from. i.e. the Russians The only people in the west not allowed to handle these images seems to be the American people. At the very least the USA should have the same policy towards these images as the USSR... Sell images of anywhere outside national boundaries. It is these cases of banning something which is freely available to the rest of the world on the grounds of "national secutity" which makes laughing stocks of Goverments and security agencies. Did someone say "Spycatcher" :-) Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 1987 16:38-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Condemnation of remote sensing I recieved several replies, most to the effect of how could secret military actions be carried out. My answer is that they will no longer be possible for any nation on earth to carry out without the entirety of the world watching on their TV screens. The old cry, "The whole world's watching" will soon become literally true. I welcome it and see it as a goal worth working for. It would mean that no Khadify, Khomeini, Hussein, Ortega, Castro, Gorbachev or Reagan could get away with intervention any where in the world without being held under the light of full world wide public inquiry. I think the soviets may have just realized (from the effect on themselves of published pictures of the illegal Krasnoyarsk radar and other defense locations) what a wonderful tool this could be against the West (the claimed home of the 'free' press). If the West likewise uses it against the East, there will be a competition in which WE, the cannon fodder of the world, can only win. After all, we are not talking about information that is not available to the military leaders on both sides of any conflict. They have far better systems than the media is likely to get it's hands on any time soon, except when such damning information is passed out from the military of one side or the other to score a propaganda coup. We can be sure that if we can see it on the evening news, the relevant parties knew it many hours before and have much better detail and interpretation. The soviets assure that their client states are informed, as do we with our client states. My wish is to insure that the people who are going to be called upon to support the 'noble' actions are fully aware of what is really happening. If they support the action, fine. If not, tough. No government, whether obviously totalitarian or not, wants its citizens to be aware of the facts requisite to an enlightened decisions on support or rejection of the use of military force. It is the very nature of the modern nation state to believe its people incapable of defining the value of their own lives. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 87 22:15:05 GMT From: tolerant!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #331 In article <12332347818.19.MOBERLY@THOR.HPL.HP.COM>, MOBERLY%THOR@HPLABS.HP.COM writes: > Greetings: > > In the book "Star Warriors" by William Broad, a comment is made which I > would like to better understand, namely (page 137) > > "By contrast, the U.S. Air Force has never successfully launched > a solid-fuel rocket out of an operational silo... I'd heard something like this in college. I don't remember at all well the numbers, but it was something along the lines of a test of the Minuteman missiles. Ten missiles were scheduled to be tested, but they had a 100% failure rate in the first four missiles fired, and scrubbed the rest of the test. david rickel decwrl!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 87 00:38:34 From: Robert Elton Maas To: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons Date: 23 Aug 87 01:34:56 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract? If it's the TRW OMV you're thinking of, it's chemical and its capabilities are pretty limited. Basically meant as a LEO-only vehicle. I don't know of any other such project that actually has real funding. Sigh. When oh when will work really start on ion rocket and other deep-space propulsion? Sigh, I thought the OMV was supposed to be operational shortly after the STS, after all the STS was designed to depend on the OMV for delivering anything higher than very-low-earth orbit, wasn't it? I guess my mind is blown away thinking the OMV is just starting and won't be ready until ten years after the STS first flew. (But then we were supposed to have a fully operational space station in 1975 with hundreds of resident astronauts scientists and technicians, or at least so I thought in 1965, sigh sigh.) (re using thermonuclear detonations to move asteroid...) (Also, don't forget that nuclear explosions in space violate one of the test-ban treaties, ...) I thought the treaty referred to "weapons of mass destruction"? If Reagan can test long-range directed-energy weapons in LEO, why can't we explode some tiny bombs in the asteroid belt? What mass of humans is going to be destroyed way out there?? ------------------------------ Date: Sunday 13 Sep 87 1:44 PM CT From: Jacob Hugart To: Subject: Political Can of - Octopi? It would seem to me that such a President would be quite controversial. I am not aware of any candidate for the office who holds such views, however. The programs of space travel and exploration, social support and welfare, military spending and foreign policy, etc., are all inter-related. You can't address military spending without touching upon space exploration (especially with SDI rearing its [ugly?] head), and you can't talk about space exploration and the costs involved without someone mentioning how many social programs would benefit from reducing our space efforts, or vice-versa. Since almost all of our nation's programs are interrelated in this way - or at least people will make such relationships - it seems that we have a balance of bureaucracies, and any attempt to dismantale any one bureaucracy would upset the balance enough to upset a lot of people. As Eugene Miya said, Energy, Education, and the EPA all still exist although in reduced form. Realizing the tentacles of the octopus, Jacob Hugart University of Iowa, Database Consulting Group, Weeg Computing Center ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 87 21:26:20 EDT From: Steve Abrams Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #348 To: Dale Amon Dale Amon, someone whose opinion I usually respect, states in SPACE Digest V7 #348: "I really see no reason why we should pay to defend any borders but our own." Well, Dale, the point to be made here is that those countries we support *are* our borders. Perhaps not geographically (with ICBMs/SLBMs/etc., geographical borders matter little), but economically, socially, and culturally. I guess we support them because, if we don't someone else (the USSR is usually the anticipated villain here) will. What really gripes me is that we provide the support and assistance to some countries who have never read Heinlein -- they need to learn about TANSTAAFL (for non-sci-fi readers, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"). Example: All those countries for whom we forgave their war debts, provided assistance after natural disasters and now snub the US. Example: Japanese graduate students who study in the U.S., supported wholly or in part by the American taxpayer, who, upon completion of studies, return to Japan and improve upon the design of something. The kicker is that neither the universities that educated these students, nor the companies that provided some of them with jobs, nor the government that paid some of their bills are given access to the improved design. We, as a people, are altogether too charitable and forgiving. Practically speaking, the situation should be that we should be scratching each other's backs. Instead, the US seems to be doing the vast majority of scratching. This may not sound like it belongs in this netgroup, but the same feelings apply to many proposed ventures in space. TANSTAAFL should rule instead of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" (tenet of communism). Ironically, the latter view seems to prevail in America's dealings with other countries. Steve Abrams P.S. MultiPerson Pantheistic Solipsism is beginning to look real good ... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #356 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Sep 87 06:20:29 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14467; Sat, 19 Sep 87 03:17:41 PDT id AA14467; Sat, 19 Sep 87 03:17:41 PDT Date: Sat, 19 Sep 87 03:17:41 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709191017.AA14467@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #357 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 357 Today's Topics: Launch Site Problems Space Digest more international Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons Re: SDI funding of space research Re: Things aint so bad Re: Japanese space Launch Notification Treaty Re: Ariane up, up, and away again Things aint so bad Re: Things aint so bad Re: Things aint so bad Re: Things aint so bad Re: Space Digest more international Re: Things aint so bad ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Sep 1987 23:27-EDT From: Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Launch Site Problems The Japanese have been limited to launching only at certain times of the year because of the fishing fleets (I'm not certain if this is still true today), so does that count as problems with the locals? ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 1987 23:29-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Space Digest more international I've been noticing lately that Space Digest is getting much more international and I applaud it. I hope this keeps up, because if we all argue and bitch at each other over the net for a few years, we may end up friends and have respect for each others views and opinions. Wish we had a few russkies on line too. I'd LOVE to argue with them!!!! Maybe the way to world peace is to get everyone arguing on the net. We'll all spend so much time typing responses that we'll never have any time to do anything REALLY dangerous... ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 87 19:19:35 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons > Sigh. When oh when will work really start on ion rocket and other > deep-space propulsion? As soon as there's a mission for it. And of course, nobody will plan missions around unproven technologies, since NASA cannot afford failures. Can you say "vicious circle"? Sure you can. > Sign, I thought the OMV was supposed to be operational shortly after > the STS, after all the STS was designed to depend on the OMV for > delivering anything higher than very-low-earth orbit, wasn't it? That's the way it was supposed to work in the beginning, but the Space Tug was the first thing to die. Can you say "budget cuts"? > (Also, don't forget that nuclear explosions in space violate one > of the test-ban treaties, ...) > > I thought the treaty referred to "weapons of mass destruction"? ... Different treaty; you're thinking of the one that bans mass-destruction weapons from places like space and the seabed. The Test Ban Treaty bars nuclear explosions in space, period -- it was what finally killed Project Orion. There is a clause in it, as I recall, that provides for negotiation about peaceful uses, but rotsa ruck trying to get results that way. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Sep 87 23:21:26 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research To: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) > Remember that an absolute ban on weapons in space would ground all > ICBMs. (A good idea, too.) I see. What do you propose be done when thousands of ICBMs are sent flying, in contradiction to the treaty? Call the police? ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Sep 87 09:00:05 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. To: ames!husc6!linus!utzoo!henry Subject: Re: Things aint so bad Interesting points. Sometimes I wonder if it would not be better (for the sake of a better space program) to have a totalitarian society, at least it would make the launches run on time. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Sep 87 09:49:09 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Japanese space Newsgroups: sci.space > Proposals for Japanese defense and space. Trout notes J. constitution. The proposal to annex part of Australia to Japan sounds really neat, not that I think that it would ever happen, but if all the Pacific rim nations got together like the Common market (eventually), they will clearly be the dominant economic force. My contact with the JSA has pretty much been limited to job offers, but it is not something to shake a stick at. You can call the offices of AW&ST to find out their special issues of Japanese and Chinese space they had a year ago or so. You also have to take into account what US posture is toward the Pacific Rim. There are people in the US (Remember Bataan and Pearl Harbor) who don't want a large Japanese military. I would hope the JSA would expand its program, maybe even person'ed space. ;-) ;-) [the first for language, second for the manned/unmanned (oops!) debate]. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 87 23:09:53 GMT From: phri!bc-cis!pluto!dasys1!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!splut!stu@nyu.arpa (Stewart Cobb) Subject: Launch Notification Treaty In article <1367@faline.bellcore.com>, karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > There's another good reason not to test ICBMs from operational silos > -- the possibility that the other side may misinterpret it as an > actual attack and react rashly. I would like to see a treaty between > all spacefaring nations that also possess nuclear weapons that > provides for advance notice of all launches (suborbital ICBM tests, > orbital space shots, etc). When/if we (or anyone else) get the capability to shoot down ICBM's, that will provide the technical capability to shoot down any space launch as well. Due to the reaction times involved, and the consequences of _not_ killing an ICBM, any unnanounced launch probably _will_ get shot down. Such a treaty will become a necessity in the very near future. Stewart Cobb ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 19:57:22 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: Ariane up, up, and away again In article <1625@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) writes: >From September 16, 1987 Boston Globe > >Ariane rocket launched from Guiana spaceport > >From Wire Services > >The Ariane rocket placed the Australian Aussat K3 satellite into >geostationary orbit 22,500 miles over the Earth on schedule 18 minutes >and 27 seconds after liftoff. The European EUTELSAT ECS4 satellite >followed at 22 minutes and 2 seconds. Those times must be wrong, that corresponds to an average speed of over 20 miles per second from Earth to GEO, and even faster between the two orbital stations. Getting to/from GEO should take hours, not minutes. What are the real numbers? David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Sep 87 07:22:36 edt From: Mike Stalnaker To: uunet!eplrx7!lad@seismo.css.gov Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Things aint so bad Yes, the Soviets *DO* have the capability to send whole teams into space at once. They have enough launch/mission control capacity to fly at least 3 missions at once. All they need to do is send everybody up to Mir. While the don't have the capability to return large payloads to earth, they bloody well do have the capability to put almost 200,000 pounds into orbit at once (Energia) and to put 40 or 50,000 lbs up practically weekly! (Proton/Progress) --Mike Stalnaker mike@nrl-ssd.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 87 17:42:20 GMT From: ukma!uunet!eplrx7!lad@rutgers.edu (Lawrence Dziegielewski) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <8583@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > I don't know where you're getting your information... > > Aviation Week, Flight International, Spaceflight, JBIS, Space World, You mean Avaition Leak. > Quite true: they have *no* launch systems that are grounded for 2+1/2 > years after a single failure. After the last Proton failure, the delay The shuttle was grounded for a good reason, and when it flies again I'd send my own grandmother up on one, with me sitting right next to her. > before the next Proton launch was (as I recall) a whole 11 days. The > Soviet hardware indeed cannot compare to the shuttle; when it comes to What does that prove? That the Soviets are more advanced than we are? Hardly. > on the Soviet program, there is an Energia with a shuttle on its back on > the pad at Baikonur as we speak. (Doesn't mean a launch will happen soon, So? When will it fly. Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup, a non-working hoax. I think you're years away from a launch. Years. > Net shuttle performance for the last year and a half: zero. Or negative > if you count all the money going into it. There have been 15 or so Proton No kidding. And I beleive there's good reasons for it. But when it flies again, we'll see regular shuttle launches and a VERY reliable system. > > The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into > > space and returing with other payloads. > They don't have the capability -- until the Energia-shuttle goes up -- > of *returning* major payloads to Earth. But even the US shuttle > didn't do a whole lot of that. You might as well hope for the Second Coming, becuase it'll happen before the Soviet Shuttle flies. > > > However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost > > > too much and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way... > > > > Cost too much? Maybe, but if flown like they were in '85 and '86 > > the cost comes way down. The cost of flying the shuttle will remian > > high until we get them going regularly again (soon, I hope)... Lawrence A. Dziegielewski | E.I. Dupont Co. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 05:04:54 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <477@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: >In article <8583@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Quite true: they have *no* launch systems that are grounded for 2+1/2 >> years after a single failure. After the last Proton failure, the delay > >The shuttle was grounded for a good reason, and when it flies again I'd >send my own grandmother up on one, with me sitting right next to her. Sorry, there is no room for your grandmother or you. There is no room for new comercial satellites, not enough room to put up the space station, no room for Galileo, no room for Mars Observer. We've got only a few shuttles and it takes a long time to get them ready. I doubt that your Grandmother could afford to go up on the shuttle, Proton is much cheaper. >> on the Soviet program, there is an Energia with a shuttle on its back on >> the pad at Baikonur as we speak. (Doesn't mean a launch will happen soon, >So? When will it fly. Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup, a >non-working hoax. I think you're years away from a launch. Years. Why do you think that? Are the Russians too primitive to create a zippy machine? Remember that shuttle technology is designed for high efficiency, light weight, and high financial return to the main contractors. When you have a booster that can put up a hundred tonnes or so (I don't know the exact number) and when the company financing the launch is the same as the company building the machine (and has almost unlimited free labor) these considerations fall by the wayside. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 87 17:47:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Things aint so bad > Please keep us informed on what you know. Unlike our shuttle the > soviet one will go overhead at my location at every launch. I'd like > to see this one. > > Thanks, Bruce Watson (scicom, Denver, Co) Unless their new policy of openness continues, the Soviets are rather tight-lipped about announcing their launce dates/times beforehand. It's unlikely that anybody will be able to tell you exactly when to set up your telescope. -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks "For I dipt into the Future, far as human eye could see Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be; Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails, Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales." -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 87 18:39:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Space Digest more international [...deleted...] > Wish we had a few russkies on line too. I'd LOVE to argue with them!!!! Unfortunately, possession of a personal computer is illegal in the USSR. As is possession of a photocopier or mimeograph. You see, Russians are afraid that free speech would lead to critiism of the government and the spread of radical ideas. From the evidence of this file, they're obviously wrong. Nobody HERE would ever do anything like that. -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 21:18:57 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!awr@csvax.caltech.edu (Bruce Rossiter) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <477@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: >In article <8583@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Quite true: they have *no* launch systems that are grounded for 2+1/2 >> years after a single failure. After the last Proton failure, the delay > >The shuttle was grounded for a good reason, and when it flies again I'd >send my own grandmother up on one, with me sitting right next to her. The chance that you will ever get a chance to fly in the shuttle, even if you *could* afford the cost, is very, very slight. The costs now are prohibitive, and show *no* sign at all of going down. And the flights are backed up with missions to keep the Shuttle full for years, even with a launch every month!! The Space telescope, the Mars Observer, the Galileo mission.....all waiting on the ground (at immense cost, I might add) beause the US space program is locked up. >> before the next Proton launch was (as I recall) a whole 11 days. The >> Soviet hardware indeed cannot compare to the shuttle; when it comes to >What does that prove? That the Soviets are more advanced than we are? >Hardly. Right. Everybody know that communists can't have any technology. Please ignore the propaganda from both Soviet and US sources that the Soviets are launching satellites that work into orbits that are stable while the US is sitting on the ground doing none of that. It's all lies. >> on the Soviet program, there is an Energia with a shuttle on its back on >> the pad at Baikonur as we speak. (Doesn't mean a launch will happen soon, >So? When will it fly. Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup, >a non-working hoax. I think you're years away from a launch. Years. Years, huh? I think I've heard that word before...let me look. Oh yes, here it is: US Space Shuttle has been grounded for over 2 *years*. I don't see what good our Shuttle does, if it doesn't fly..... But this must all be propaganda, too. Damn Communists. >> Net shuttle performance for the last year and a half: zero. Or negative >> if you count all the money going into it. There have been 15 or so Proton >No kidding. And I beleive there's good reasons for it. But when it >flies again, we'll see regular shuttle launches and a VERY reliable >system. Oh goody. Does "regular shuttle launches" mean that we will: 1) Get all the backedup payloads launched 2) Have enough space to provide launch capability to European countries and our own country as well? and how long until this schedule starts? And will the European community ever trust our space program again? >> > The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads >> > into space and returing with other payloads. >> They don't have the capability -- until the Energia-shuttle goes up >> -- of *returning* major payloads to Earth. But even the US shuttle >> didn't do a whole lot of that. >You might as well hope for the Second Coming, becuase it'll happen >before the Soviet Shuttle flies. Thank you, Jerry Falwell. I think I saw the article you got this fact from -- oh yes, page 3 of last weeks National Inquirer. "Christ to return before Soviet Shuttle Launch" > Lawrence A. Dziegielewski | E.I. Dupont Co. -Bruce ARPAnet awr@tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #357 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Sep 87 06:21:04 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15685; Sun, 20 Sep 87 03:18:31 PDT id AA15685; Sun, 20 Sep 87 03:18:31 PDT Date: Sun, 20 Sep 87 03:18:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709201018.AA15685@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #358 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 358 Today's Topics: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel Re: FTL and intergalactic travel Fate of Earth-Crossing Asteroids Re: Space Station orbital inclination Re: New evidence for 5th force Re: New evidence for 5th force Re: New evidence for 5th force The Universe Is Astronomical... Newspaper article: NASA commissions new booster studies Re: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites) Re: Can somebody confirm seemingly-brilliant Phoenix design? Re: New evidence for 5th force Re: SPACE Digest V7 #331 Re: New evidence for 5th force ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Sep 87 14:25:36 GMT From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu (Ethan Vishniac) Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel Just a brief comment, running into a "fist-sized" (about 100 gram) marshmellow at 0.001c is equivalent to having a car hit you at about 10 km/sec (roughly 22,000 mph). This figure can be obtained assuming that the relevant number is the collision energy in the center of momentum frame. In the former case this is your frame, and in the latter case it is that of the car. Try it some time. :-) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 87 11:51:08 GMT From: pyramid!fmsrl7!eecae!crlt!russ@decwrl.dec.com (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel In article <845@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM>, freeman@spar (Jay Freeman) writes: [Fist-sized rock data omitted - thanks, Jay!] >Another interesting point: Given a nominal interstellar medium (and >there are several to choose from), the heat-dissipation problem of a >starship traveling at a speed such that gamma = 10 (that is, such that >1.0/sqrt(1 - v**2 / c**2) = 10 -- so that time dilation and all the >other stuff is a factor of ten), is comparable to that of an Apollo >spacecraft DURING REENTRY. That's just for interstellar gas, no rocks >at all. Okay, Jay, this assumes that you're absorbing the incoming gas, rather than deflecting it. An ionized medium can be deflected by a magnetic field (and we're getting *very* good at making powerful magnetic fields); further, atoms and molecules (and likely larger objects, like dust grains) can be made into ions by subjecting them to a sufficiently powerful electric field (as they would experience by crossing a magnetic field at a goodly fraction of c). This means that, *in principle*, one could use magnetic fields to: 1.) Deflect (or concentrate, to use as reaction mass) the ionized portion of the interstellar medium (ramscoop!). 2.) Ionize, using the v x B electric field created by the relative motion, the incoming un-ionized gas, and deflect or concentrate it as well. 3.) Cause incoming dust grains (or rocks) to flash into plasma by causing dielectric breakdown of their mass, using the same v x B electric field. Deflecting the incoming gas would eliminate the heat-load problem, and being able to flash incoming solid particles into plasma would deal with the dust-motes-as-bombs problem. (The momentum of a milligram dust grain travelling at .5 c is only about 17 kg-m/sec; this could be absorbed much more easily than the energy, which is 1.4e10 joules. [Correct me if I goofed my figures here.]) Now, for the questions I can't answer (can anyone on the net?): a.) What E-field strength is required to ionize neutral hydrogen? How about helium? (In other words, are we talking about unrealisticly high field strengths to do the job at speeds of, say, .2 c and up? A 1 Tesla field gives 6e7 volts/meter at .2c; is this enough?) b.) What E-field strength is required to break down, say, a grain of SiO2? (Same question as above; my CRC Handbook of Tables for Applied Engineering Science [2nd Ed.] lists 400 volts/mil as a peak value for the dielectric strength of porcelain. This is about 1.6e7 volts/meter. I would imagine that small grains might be tougher nuts to crack, but I have no idea how *much* tougher.) If the interstellar medium and its solid contaminants can be handled using magnetic fields, then relativistic interstellar travel may be much less hazardous than some people think. > -- Jay Freeman Russ Cage ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 87 20:35:38 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Fate of Earth-Crossing Asteroids In an earlier posting, in reference to the asteroid 3200 Phaethon, I wrote: > However, the object does cross the Earth's orbit, so it has to hit > the Earth some day (presumably millions of years from now... At least two people (One was Paul Dietz; sorry, but I've lost the name of the other one.) questioned this statement. My original source was Brian Marsden, director of the IAU Minor Planet Center, but apparently my statement was an over-interpretation of Brian's casual remark. Dan Green, also of the MPC, explains: The problem is not very straightforward; some of these objects are in temporary resonances (quasi-stable), and perhaps most objects will have their orbits drastically changed due to close planetary approaches over the life of the solar system. Some will be ejected, some will hit major planets. It's impossible to give really decent figures on this, though. Upon discussing this with Brian, his statement is that several people (starting with Oort or Opik) have done calculations showing that most will probably hit the major planets (especially Earth) on a timescale of perhaps 1 per million years. But anything of this type should not be called "fact" but "educated scientific theory and guessing". Dan also suggested some reading; one particularly good source is an article by Shoemaker et al. in _Asteroids_ (1979, ed. T. Gehrels, Univ. Arizona Press). Shoemaker et al. estimate the time scale for a typical Earth-crossing asteroid either to hit a planet or to be ejected as tens of millions of years but with considerable uncertainty. With regard to the asteroid that started the discussion, Dan also writes: I did some calculations for Irwin Shapiro a year or two ago concerning (3200) Phaethon and its close approaches to the earth. I integrated the orbit of (3200) forward to the year 2135, finding the closest approaches to Earth being in 2017 (0.07 AU) and 2093 (0.02 AU) --- nothing closer showed up. These are indeed close approaches as astronomical distances go, but they are certainly not collisions. My thanks to several people who sent more information on press reports of the purported collision, to those whose doubts prodded me to look into the ejection question more carefully, and to Dan Green for providing the answers. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 87 19:21:20 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Station orbital inclination > I thought the Station was supposed to include a polar orbiting > platform for just that purpose. Has that been chopped out too? I'm not sure; it's not very prominent, at least, in recent discussion of the Station. Actually, attaching that project to the space station was always kind of dumb, since it had nothing to do with the station per se. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 87 18:14:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force > Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force. Two seperate > borehole measurements of G, one by a team in Australia and one by a > team in Michigan, have found roughly the same 1-2% deviation from > theory. This is in the range of Fishbach's findings of discrepencies > with the Eotvos data. How significant is 1-2%? I thought that G was one of the least-accuratly know physical constants. I have different Orbital Mechanics texts that give values which differ by 0.1% -- these were undoubtedly published on the same planet. -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 17:26:10 GMT From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu (Keith P. Mancus) Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force In article <14801@topaz.rutgers.edu> josh@topaz.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes: >>Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force. Two seperate >>borehole measurements of G, one by a team in Australia and one by a >>team in Michigan, have found roughly the same 1-2% deviation from >>theory. ... ^ > | > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >If this true it is fundamentally amazing. >--- Does anyone know if the math of the "fifth force" is at all >consistent with the "Davis mechanics" Harry Stine writes about? An even more amusing thing to note: this fifth force is awfully similiar to the one Pournelle needs for his Alderson drive. (Dan, are you out there?) The Alderson drive postulated a fifth force, far weaker than the other four, which was repulsive and was created as some kind of function of binding energy changes in thermonuclear reactions in stars. Coupled with another universe in point-to-point congruence with our own, in which quantum and relativistic effects did not exist, it provided an FTL drive. If anybody knows any details about the postulated fifth force, I'd like to hear them. Now look at this "discovered" 5th force. It's supposed to be a weak repulsive force whose strength is determind by the binding energy of the nucleus of the atom on which the force acts. Cute, eh? Now all we need is the non-relativistic universe next door..... :-) Keith Mancus ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 20:59:48 GMT From: clash.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force In article <558383109.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU writes: > Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force. Two seperate > borehole measurements of G, one by a team in Australia and one by a > team in Michigan, have found roughly the same 1-2% deviation from > theory. Any chance that the anomaly could be due to the net-zero gravitational attraction of the atmosphere at the Earth's surface? (Or is the deviation in the direction of force toward the earth's center than expected?) - Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 19:01:15 CDT From: "Skott L. Underwood" Subject: The Universe Is Astronomical... Instant Astronomy; circa 1969 --- Twinkle, twinkle little star, We know exactly what you are: Nuclear furnace in the sky, You'll burn to ashes by and by. --- But tick, tick, tick pulsating star, Now we wonder what you are: Magneto-nucleo-gravity ball, Making monkeys of us all! --- And twinkle, twinkle quasi-star, You're the limit, yes you are: With such indecent energy, Did God say you couldn't be? --- -anonymous * VIOLENT UNIVERSE The Viking Press,Inc. 1969 ---the universe is astronomical... Acknowledge-To: ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 87 20:00:00 GMT From: necntc!frog!john@husc6.harvard.edu (John Woods, Software) Subject: Newspaper article: NASA commissions new booster studies (From the Boston Globe, 16 September 1987) NASA commissions new booster studies CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - The National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded two companies contracts to study designs for a liquid fuel rocket that could replace the solid fuel booster that caused the space shuttle Challenger explosion. The contracts, worth $2.5 million each, went to General Dynamics of San Diego and Martin Marietta of New Orleans. The studies will examine pressure-fed and pump-fed liquid fuel rockets. John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Maybe it's the sound of a WET RAG hitting a smooth WEASEL! ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 16:04:37 GMT From: rti!xyzzy!goudreau@mcnc.org (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites) In article <1008@homxb.UUCP> roger@homxb.UUCP (R.TAIT) writes: >Joe and Jack C. Haldeman, in _There_Is_No_Darkness_ talk about the >Confederacion which is an interplanetary outgrowth of a Terran >civilization that only took to space after the economic collapse of the >Northern Hemisphere. The aristocrats of the Confederacion are natives >of planets that were colonized by Brazilians or East Africans. Actually, the two dominant languages of the Confederacion were Pan-Swahili and Spanish; Brazil speaks Portuguese. Also, the collapse of the First and Second worlds was apparently more than just economic, since _T_I_N_D_ has one of its episodes set in (I believe) Oklahoma City, a port on the shore of the large nuclear crater known as the Houston Sea. Bob Goudreau ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 87 22:49:09 GMT From: phri!bc-cis!pluto!dasys1!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!splut!stu@nyu.arpa (Stewart Cobb) Subject: Re: Can somebody confirm seemingly-brilliant Phoenix design? My understanding is that current-technology rocket engines all run over on the fuel-rich side of stoichometric because of materials limitations: 1) a stoichometric flame is hotter (which is good from a theoretical point of view, but tends to melt your engine), and 2) an oxygen-rich flame will literally burn the walls off your combustion chamber. Backyard welders routinely cut thick steel with a oxy-acetelene torch running oxygen-rich. I have trouble believing Phoenix has invented a material which can stand up to this environment. Stewart Cobb ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 23:13:10 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force > How significant is 1-2%? I thought that G was one of the least-accuratly > know physical constants. I have different Orbital Mechanics texts that > give values which differ by 0.1% -- these were undoubtedly published on > the same planet. You're right, G isn't known very accurately. My Casio calculator has it in rom as 6.672e-11 Nm^2/kg^2. On the other hand, Gm, the product of G and the mass of the earth, is known much more accurately (10 digits or so) from precise observations of earth satellites. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 23:17:07 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #331 > When/if we (or anyone else) get the capability to shoot down ICBM's, > that will provide the technical capability to shoot down any space launch > as well. Due to the reaction times involved, and the consequences of > _not_ killing an ICBM, any unnanounced launch probably _will_ get shot > down. Such a treaty will become a necessity in the very near future. How do you know it hasn't already happened? Remember the Atlas Centaur that supposedly got hit by lightning earlier this year? Well, nobody actually *saw* the thing get hit, and charged particle beam weapons are basically artificial lightning machines... :-) Yours in paranoia, Phil ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 23:23:23 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force >Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force... I thought there were only three known fundamental forces: 1. Strong nuclear force 2. Electroweak force 3. Gravity I thought the former electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces have been shown to be manifestations of the same fundamental force. Phil ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #358 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Sep 87 06:22:54 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17076; Mon, 21 Sep 87 03:20:41 PDT id AA17076; Mon, 21 Sep 87 03:20:41 PDT Date: Mon, 21 Sep 87 03:20:41 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709211020.AA17076@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #359 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 359 Today's Topics: Lectures-NJ Area-Lunar Geoscience Observer and Living Off Lunar Land Re: FTL and intergalactic travel Re: Life in Space, continued... Plagues Re: Life in Space, continued... Re: Things aint so bad Proposed Commercial Space Incentives Act World satellite launch sites Re: World satellite launch sites ICs before Sputnik? Re: Apollo Command Module Re: Things aint so bad The Rocket Team #7 - America attacks Mexico ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Sep 87 14:49:44 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (T.EBERSOLE) Subject: Lectures-NJ Area-Lunar Geoscience Observer and Living Off Lunar Land The AIAA will present two lectures on Lunar exploration: The Lunar Geoscience Observer Spacecraft by Ronald Maehl (Program Manager for Mars Observer Spacecraft) and Living Off the Lunar Land by Gregg Maryniak (Executive VP at Space Studies Institute) Monday, September 21 , 5pm to 7:30 pm Auditorium, RCA Astro-Space Division Open to all AIAA members and Astro-Space Employees. Call Sue Hubert (609) 426-2710 or Rick Kocinski (609) 426-3345 for further information. RCA Astro-Space Division is on Route 571, the more or less east-west road which goes through Princeton, less than a mile east of US 1. Non-AIAA members can probably go as guests, or give Rich or Sue a call. -- Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 22:24:33 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel To: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov, Physics@unix.sri.com How would one go about researching FTL? I'm not saying FTL is impossible, but I AM saying it has nothing to do with anything we know about any science today. All that researchers could do is sit on their hands while rockets rust, waiting for someone to invent FTL. For now, it makes more sense to research things we KNOW can be done, and that we have some idea HOW they can be done. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 22:31:43 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Life in Space, continued... To: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, SPace@angband.s1.gov, SF-Lovers@red.rutgers.edu > From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA (MacLeod) > I am currently writing a novel in which there is a mature, spacefaring > mercantile civilization ... an individual from this race can purchase > a state-of-the-art metallorganic FTL spacecraft implementing "magical" > technologies for the equivalent of a few >hours< of labor. Sounds good! I will keep my eyes peeled for it. Will it be published under your own name? Have you read _Marooned in Realtime_ by Vernor Vinge? It is something like what you describe. > ... our technology cannot cope with FTL spacecraft any more than the > bushmen's with cars. I am not so sure that FTL is even possible, for any technology. If I were writing a book like this, I would try to avoid FTL. And if FTL *WERE* possible, how do you know it wouldn't be easy? There was a story in Analog, sorry but I forget when or where, about a society with a 1600s techology that attempts to invade Earth, using FTL spacecraft - the idea is that FTL is SIMPLE, but we just haven't happened to stumble on the secret. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 22:37:48 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Plagues > From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu (lucius) > To those who have been advocating that a few planets remain > isolationist in order to escape interstellar meme plagues, it won't > help. What if one of the meme plagues generates berserkers > (Saberhagan style), in which case everyone is doomed if they don't > know what is going on? Those aren't a MEME plague (I don't really believe in any such thing) but a REAL plague. Space is big. Perhaps a planet couldn't hide, at least not one in a solar system, but an asteroid could easily hide indefinitely, especially one outside any solar system. And asteroids can support far more people than planets in the long run anyway. On a planet, most of the mass is used for nothing but gravity. In an asteroid, ALL the mass can be used. A single 10 km asteroid can comfortably support Earth's whole population. And it can be moved out of the solar system (slowly) without fantastic amounts of energy. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 87 10:32:15 GMT From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard Harter) Subject: Re: Life in Space, continued... In article <256496.870917.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: >There was a story in Analog, sorry but I forget when or where, about a >society with a 1600s techology that attempts to invade Earth, using FTL >spacecraft - the idea is that FTL is SIMPLE, but we just haven't >happened to stumble on the secret. "The road less traveled" by Henry Turtledove. The idea is cute but not credible. FTL may or may not be simple (the null set is very simple) but life support systems are not. This would actually make a very good exercise for one of those "stretch your minds in technology" courses: "Ladies and Gentlemen. You are given a magic black box space drive. It is the size of a bread basket. It applies a unidirectional force to everything in a sphere 100 meters in radius about it. The strength of the force is controlled by a simple knob. At full strength the gismo will accelerate 1000000 tonnes with a force of 1G. Part I: Assume that this gismo was available on Earth in the year 1800. Design a space ship using this gismo and the technology available at that time. The ship must be capable of sustained interplanetary flight. Include specifications for navigation, take off and landing procedure, and a life support system capable of supporting life for one year in space. Part II: Given the ship, design a space station, using only pre 1800's technology. Part III: Assume that the gismo also has a 'jump' button. When the button is pressed everything in the sphere will 'jump' in the direction of the force. The length of the jump is is proportional to the force. The maximum jump is one parsec. Describe a viable scheme for interstellar navigation using pre 1800's technology. Extra Credit: Replace 1800 by 1650." I don't think I could pass the course, but I sure would like one of the gismos! In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 00:34:07 GMT From: cunyvm!ndsuvm1.bitnet!nu021172%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Things aint so bad now of the University of North Dakota) that Skylab was larger than the CURRENT Mir configuration. However, I believe that Mir is scheduled to grow much larger. Scott Udell UD140469@NDSUVM1.BITNET . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 19:41:02 PDT From: purtill@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU Subject: Proposed Commercial Space Incentives Act Does anyone know where I can get a copy of this? This was something I heard about a year or two ago, possibly here. The idea was that the government would guarentee to buy some (relatively large) amount of launch capacity at $500/kg (or some such rather cheap amount). I don't know any more since I haven't been able to find a copy; I don't even know who proposed it. (Please reply to me (if possible) I will summarize to the net). Mark Purtill Arpa: purtill@math.mit.edu | purtill@multics.mit.edu | purtill@mit-multics.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 21:04:36 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: World satellite launch sites I was trying to locate thhe San Marco launch site in the Indian ocean but couldn't. How many launch sites are there in the world from which satellites have been sent up? And what are their longitudes and latitudes? Many thanks for any responses, I don't have a source for this. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 00:27:01 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: World satellite launch sites > I was trying to locate thhe San Marco launch site in the Indian > ocean but couldn't. San Marco is an oil-rig-type platform, not an island. It's off the coast of Kenya, if memory serves. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 22:40:43 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: ICs before Sputnik? To: PT!k.gp.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay@cs.rochester.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: PT!k.gp.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay@cs.rochester.edu (Donald Lindsay) >> Well, IC's were invented before Sputnik, weren't they? > No. Computers used tubes when Sputnik went up. People, if you don't > know anything, stop proving it to the world. Tubes: 1906 Transistors: 1947 Sputnik: 1957 IC's: 1959 Ok, so Sputnik came before IC's, but he wasn't THAT far wrong. And computers did NOT use tubes then. (Sputnik itself did, but that was because the Soviets liked to rely on old technology, even as today.) ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 87 02:09:23 GMT From: mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Apollo Command Module In article <4258@hplabsb.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >> But the REAL color of the Apollo lunar >> CSMs is in fact silver. > >Really? Then why is the REAL CSM on indoor display at KSC colored >gold (CM) and white (SM)? Dunno, haven't been to KSC since the Apollo 17 launch. Again, it could either be aging or perhaps some protective coating, or perhaps Rockwell issued special Limited Edition Comemorative GOLD Command Moduals :-). (Signed and numbered, collect them all!!). I've seen Apollo 9, 10, 11, 14 and 17 and Skylab 3 Command Moduals and sat inside the Apollo 14 and Skylab units (CLAUSTRAPHOBIC CITY!!!) and have never seen gold mylar on them (some of it does survive re-entry). Another thought just crossed my mind, this problem might have to do with the fact that just possibly there were real Gold CMs. But changed for flight units. Just like the mylar and color schemes for the Lunar Modual changed during it's evolution, or the striping on the Saturn V. *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 10:18:55 GMT From: hao!scdpyr!djr@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Dave Rowland) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad With the recent discussion about the Shuttle I thought I would throw in my two cents worth. I think everyone will agree that the shuttle has its problems. The ways in which these problems should be solved seem to vary greatly with each individual. Several netters are expounding the virtues of the Soviet system and its plentiful, cheap rockets. While ths Soviet system is effective, scraping the shuttle in prusuit of cheap, expendable rockets would be an error as grave as the ones that lead to the death of seven astronauts. The lesson we need to learn from the Soviets is not use cheap, expendable rockets but, perfect the technology we have. Many of our hard fought after gains were tossed out with the Apollo program. Unfortunatley, Congress is not willing to fund the Space program at the level necessary for this to be accomplished. NASA made a big mistake when it sold the shuttle to Congress as a cheap means of placing payloads in orbit. With a lot of hard work, time, and money a shuttle could become a relativly inexpensive method of launching payloads. However, this would be a second generation of shuttles, not the current system that at best could be called experimental. In order for a shuttle system to be cost effective it would need more vehicles, more spare parts, more people, and better management. One of the biggest problems facing the U.S. space program is lack of direction. Here I have to agree with Sally Ride. A base on the moon would be a better way to go than jumping for Mars. Anybody can figure out that it is easier to get somthing off of the moon than it is to get somthing off of Earth. The moon would be an ideal place to launch a mission to Mars. The U.S. program needs to proceed at a steady pace not in the leap frog fashion of the past. In order to reach Mars or even to establish a permanent presence in orbit the space program needs to have a steady income. President Reagan has issued a directive for the development of a Space plane. This is too big a leap. If the U.S. goes for another giant leap in technology the shuttle disaster will repeat itself. The U.S. should proceed more conservativly in its development of vehicles. Probably the best way for the U.S. to proceed is for it to: 1) Perfect its existing technology. 2) Assure the Space program with a steady income. 3) Be more conservative in its development of hardware. Well, I guess I will get down off of my soap box now. I hope to see some more views on these issues posted. "Hey laser lips, your momma was a snow blower!" -- Number 5 Dave Rowland at NCAR Boulder, Colorado djr@scdpyr.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 87 15:21:30 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: The Rocket Team #7 - America attacks Mexico The first White Sands V-2 was launched on April 16, 1946, and it failed. The rocket reached an altitude of some 3.5 miles when a fin came off, and it had to be destroyed by shutting off the propellants. Happily for Turner, the next firing on May 10 was a success. ... With an ear-splitting roar, it lumbered off the launcher and rose to an altitude of 71 miles. ... Despite the relative crudity of range safety equipment in those early days, wayward missiles and consequent damage were rare. When one did go astray, it did so with a certain technical elan. On May 29, 1947, at 7:35 PM, a V-2, prophetically numbered Missile O, took off normally enough, but a gyroscope in the guidance unit malfunctioned. The missile arched backward and headed south for El Paso. It continued over the city, crossed the Mexican border, and impacted a mile and a half south of the city of Juarez, which was thronged for a fiesta. As it plowed into a rocky hillside, just outside Tepeyac Cemetery, the missile barely missed a building were the construction companies of Juarez stored their dynamite and blasting powder. Incredibly, no one was killed or injured, and no damage was done to buildings or homes. The missile, of course, had no warhead; but it blasted a crater 30 feet deep and 50 feet in diameter through its kinetic energy alone. "In a few minutes, everything broke loose," Colonel Turner later recalled. "I checked with my friend the commanding general of the State of Chihuahua. He assured me that there was no damage and that he would clear the unfortunate event with the authorities in Mexico City." Scarcely had he put down the phone when he found himself on another, explaining what had happened to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, chief of staff of the US Army in Washington. Having satisfied Ike, the harassed commander of White Sands a few minutes later found himself talking to Secretary of State George C. Marshall. The gravity of the situation had completely escaped one enthusiastic young lieutenant in Turner's command. He proudly boasted that he belonged to the first American rocket unit to fire a guided missile against a foreign country! Turner later explained what had happened: "The accident was a result of mistakes both mechanical and human. A faulty gyroscope caused the rocket to head south instead of north. A civilian worker neglected to push the button that would have cut off the rocket's fuel supply and have made it fall within the limits of the target range. He misjudged the direction of the missile. It looked to him that it went straight up." However, Ernst Steinhoff, who was the `civilian worker', had a different story: "I was the range safety officer, and I had to tell a sailor, who came from the Naval Research Laboratories, to push the button, which would cut off the fuel to the engine. However, I knew from experience what happens when a V-2 with residual propellants impacts. It starts a nasty fire. So I told the sailor not to push the button. I wanted the let the propellants all burn out and have the missile travel as far as possible, hoping it would clear both El Paso and Juarez. ... Steinhoff later recalled that within ten minutes of the impact, food stalls in the vicinity of the cemetery were selling still warm souvenirs of the V-2. He added, with only slight hyperbole, that altogether the Mexicans sold at least 10 to 15 tones of material (much resembling tin cans) from a rocket that weighed only 4 tons. [from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ] -- Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #359 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Sep 87 06:23:12 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19273; Tue, 22 Sep 87 03:18:58 PDT id AA19273; Tue, 22 Sep 87 03:18:58 PDT Date: Tue, 22 Sep 87 03:18:58 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709221018.AA19273@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #360 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 360 Today's Topics: Volunteering to help space research New commercial space market? Re: Ariane up, up, and away again BMD and Announcing Launches Jobs in Space Re: Jobs in Space Vostok scale model Energia payload Re: Space Digest more international Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? PC's East, was Space Digest more international Re: FTL and intergalactic travel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Sep 1987 18:06-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Volunteering to help space research Another opportunity for those so inclined: Mark Prado PERMANENT, LTD 114 Westwick Ct #5 Sterling, VA 22170 703-444-1560 (voice) (703 or 202)-450-2732 (computer) Mark's company is, among other things, brokering research efforts of individuals with DOD and NASA space efforts. I don't know very much about the set up. I recommend that anyone who might be interested can contact him for more details, since I have only a newsletter (and I have met the guy) to go on. These are not necessarily volunteer projects. The information I have indicates he will be handling compensated work in many areas. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 87 16:57:55 PDT From: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: New commercial space market? I noticed a very interesting article in the 21 Sept. 87 SF Chronicle pg A12. I was going to wait for this week's AW&ST but it doesn't look like I'll get it for at least another day. So here are some excerpts, quoted without permission: Pentagon May Build a Fleet Of Cheap One-Shot Satellites United Press International Washington The Defense Department is considering creating a fleet of expendable satellites that could be easily launched, possibly from truck beds, to keep information flowing and to foil Soviet space weapons by sheer volume. . . . The new devices, designed to handle crisis communications, high-resolution imaging and interception of military signals and codes, could be launched in the "low dozens to mid-hundreds" at relatively little costs, scientists say. [other quotes from John Mansfield, dir. strategic technology, DARPA] [talk about using surplus Poseidon's and short and mid-range rockets punted by latest Euro-missile treaty] "The obvious question is whether we could use the boosters scrapped under (the treaty)," [Mansfield] said, "We're not trying to duplicate or compete with other national systems, but use technology at hand and see if it makes sense to have mobile, survivable launch capability." The rockets would not have to offer hight reliability. "Instead of 99%, we could ask for 95% or 90%," Mansfield said. The first "orbital demonstration" should take place within 18 months. "We're definitely in a fast track," said Mansfield. "Defense (Dept) is urgent on this program." At least a dozen organizations, including Lockheed, the University of Utah, Pacific American and LTV, have submitted proposals, initially for delivery systems and perhaps later for complete systems, he said. [Navy and Army "reportedly favor" the plan, the Air Force is "reluctant to commit".] "The theory is that if they throw a lot of them up there, it will be harder for the Soviets to shoot them all down. If it costs us $10M to produce and it costs the Soviets $50M to shoot it down, then they're playing a fool's game." [a scientist who asked to remain unidentified] . . . [All I can add to this is that at the recent small satellite conference in Monterey, CA the DARPA people were talking about letting out contracts to a few rocket companies to put small satellites up.] Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 87 00:40:28 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Ariane up, up, and away again > > The Ariane rocket placed the Australian Aussat K3 satellite into > >geostationary orbit 22,500 miles over the Earth on schedule 18 minutes and > >27 seconds after liftoff.... > Those times must be wrong.. The problem is that the media doesn't understand the difference between geostationary orbit (where the satellites are eventually headed) and geostationary TRANSFER orbit (GTO), what the satellites are in at third stage shutdown. Some simple sanity calculations on the back of an envelope would make it obvious that there's a difference, but the press that usually covers these things doesn't seem able to do that. A typical Ariane GTO has a perigee of 200-250 km, an apogee of 35800 km (i.e., geostationary altitude), an inclination of 6 to 8 degrees, and an argument of perigee just below 180 degrees. Perturbations caused by the oblateness of the earth raise the argument of perigee to 180 after a few orbits so that at apogee kick motor firing, the satellite is both at apogee and over the equator. The low GTO perigee causes the spent third stage to re-enter the atmosphere after a few years; it also saves fuel by not putting any more energy into the booster casing than you have to. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 87 13:36 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: BMD and Announcing Launches > When/if we (or anyone else) get the capability to shoot down ICBM's, > that will provide the technical capability to shoot down any space > launch as well. Due to the reaction times involved, and the > consequences of _not_ killing an ICBM, any unnanounced launch probably > _will_ get shot down. Such a treaty will become a necessity in the > very near future. Do you think the Soviets will oblige us and announce when their launches occur? If they don't, and the US blows up some cosmonauts, the damage to US world political standing would be enormous. Can you say "act of war"? Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 1987 23:27:21-EDT From: David.Waitzman@galley.ece.cmu.edu Subject: Jobs in Space Apparently-To: Space-Enthusiasts@mc.lcs.mit.edu I am looking for a job, but I think that answers to the following request might have a wide audience: I would like pointers to companies doing work for Space missions (preferably the Space Station) that need someone interested in network programming, systems programming, and computer architecture. NASA doesn't seem the right route currently. My local L5 people suggested asking the Net. thank you, david waitzman (BS Computer Engineering/Applied Math in Dec. '87) please reply to djw@faraday.ece.cmu.edu (arpanet) or the bb ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 16:03:11 GMT From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu (Keith P. Mancus) Subject: Re: Jobs in Space This is relevant to a matter of great interest to most of us; making a living. A recent posting by Eugene Miya implied that he had gotten job offers from JSA. Has anyone on the net received job offers from either JSA or ESA? How do these organizations feel about hiring Americans? What about Arianespace? I've always thought that if the U.S. trashes its space program sufficiently badly, I'd just go elsewhere. How realistic is this? Also, how saturated is the market for newly graduated AE's with no experience? Keith Mancus ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 87 18:13:03 GMT From: steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@uunet.uu.net (Mike Trout) Subject: Vostok scale model For those interested in building plastic scale models of REAL spacecraft (not those wimpy American types :-)), a model of the Vostok is again available. It's a 1/25th scale kit by VEB Plasticart of East Germany. From the illustration, the kit appears to include both the spherical "capsule" and the large rear "service module" (?), plus lots of neat antennas and bells and whistles sticking out all over the place. Definitely different from your run-of-the-mill US/UK/Japanese model kit. I've never put together a VEB kit, but I've heard the quality is fairly decent. Caution might be advised, however; I've seen some commie bloc helicopter kits that weren't fit to be melted down for toothbrush handles. However, VEB is being handled by Squadron Shop of Texas, a true class outfit that usually doesn't deal with inferior kits. It's the only thing about Texas I like :-). The VEB Vostok kit is back in stock at Squadron Shop. It may be purchased by mail at a cost of $17.95 (Texas residents add 6% sales tax) plus $2.50 postage and handling. If interested, mail your dough (or plastic money number) to Squadron Mail Order, 1115 Crowley Drive, Carrollton, Texas 75011-5010, or call (214) 242-8663. The VEB Vostok kit is Squadron Shop part #9-VB5180. Note: I have nothing whatsoever to do with Squadron Shop; I'm just a VERY satisfied customer. I think they use real Vostoks for delivery; of the dozens of orders I've placed, the LONGEST time period for delivery (from day-of-mail to day-of-receipt) was 13 days. Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 00:33:31 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Energia payload An interesting recent speculation, from Spaceflight I think... What was the payload on the first Energia flight? We know it had its own propulsion system, which failed. It was also rather thin. Given that Energia is the launcher for the Soviet shuttle, which does not have its own large engines, it must be capable of taking a hefty payload into orbit without an upper stage. What would be the role of an upper stage? It might be for putting heavy payloads into Clarke orbit, but that is stretching things a bit -- the Soviets don't seem to have any pressing need for such large payloads in that orbit, except possibly for power-satellite experiments. What it *might* be is a heavy upper stage for planetary missions. "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 03:38:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Space Digest more international > [...deleted...] > > Wish we had a few russkies on line too. I'd LOVE to argue with them!!!! > > Unfortunately, possession of a personal computer is illegal in the > USSR. As is possession of a photocopier or mimeograph. You see, > Russians are afraid that free speech would lead to critiism of the > government and the spread of radical ideas. From the evidence of this > file, they're obviously wrong. Nobody HERE would ever do anything > like that. > -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign I've been corrected by E-mail by someone who claims second-hand knowledge instead of third-hand knowledge (like myself). He said that possession of a PC, Xerox, or mimeograph is not ILLEGAL in USSR, just expensive and difficult. Who am I to argue? I only know what I read in the papers (and newsgroups) :). -- Ken Jenks ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 11:46:32 GMT From: ptsfa!amdahl!drivax!macleod@LLL-TIS.ARPA (MacLeod) Subject: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? :Remember the Atlas Centaur that supposedly got hit by lightning earlier :this year? Well, nobody actually *saw* the thing get hit, and charged :particle beam weapons are basically artificial lightning machines... : :-) Col. Thomas Bearden, USA (Ret.), late of the Army Weapons center at the Redstone Arsenal, claims that the Challenger disaster, the Atlas-Centaur failure, and the third (Thor?) 1986 launch failure were all caused by tests of third-generation Soviet Tesla-effect Scalar-wave transmitters. Such devices, according to Bearden, broadcast two out-of-phase scalar Tesla waves, which are calculated to phase-couple at the target site. (He cites Bohm-Ahranov effect as proof that this is practical.) When the waves couple, they kindle electrons out of the virtual state, triggering anything from EMP effects to high-energy plasmas. Bearden claims that the Soviets are restrained from using Tesla-effect weapons to subdue the world because another country - he does not name it, but strongly hints that it is Israel, a very good choice - has Tesla technology and will use it. If Tesla-effect weapons exist nuclear weapons are obsolete. I don't have the physics-math background to evaluate Bearden's claims, unfortunately. He does paint a scary picture. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 18:31:53 GMT From: devo.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? In article <2411@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: > Col. Thomas Bearden, USA (Ret.), late of the Army Weapons center at > the Redstone Arsenal, claims that the Challenger disaster, the > Atlas-Centaur failure, and the third (Thor?) 1986 launch failure were > all caused by tests of third-generation Soviet Tesla-effect > Scalar-wave transmitters. [Technical discussion deleted] I guess Col. Bearden hasn't kept up with the engineering analysis of the Challenger explosion, which convincingly points to other causes. (Not knowing details on Atlas/Centaur or Thor, I won't speculate.) Besides which, if the Russians do have this "Tesla-effect" weapon, why are they willing to risk its disclosure (to say nothing of a particularly nasty war) by shooting at our space launches? It's a _lot_ of risk for little potential gain. Also, if the Israelis have the thing, why are they still developing IRBM's? (And why don't _we_ have it, since we subsidize a lot of the Israeli defense budget?) Furthermore, such a weapon would not make atom bombs obsolete, anymore than Star Wars would. It would just produce problems in delivery, which could be solved with the same measures that can beat SDI (get in close, go low, and/or use lots of decoys.) Atom bombs are still (ugh!) useful; they're the cheapest way ever to destroy human life. Occam's razor supports the argument that Tesla effect weapons were not used to destroy our space launches, and that neither the Russians nor the Israelis have them. It sounds like just more red-scare stuff, for which we have paid too much already this decade. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 12:25:18 GMT From: unc!symon@mcnc.org (James Symon) Subject: PC's East, was Space Digest more international In article <74700023@uiucdcsp>, jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > I've been corrected by E-mail by someone who claims second-hand > knowledge instead of third-hand knowledge (like myself). He said that > possession of a PC, Xerox, or mimeograph is not ILLEGAL in USSR, just > expensive and difficult This doesn't quite belong in sci.space but we often discuss east-west technology issues so: A Polish national who recently visited here had gone back to Poland a year ago after getting his Phd in comp. sci. He took a Macintosh with him. His was the 13th in all of Poland. He said there are about 50 - 60 now. The university there is going to build their VLSI design lab around Macintoshes (no not Mac II's). I don't know what the corresponding situation is in Russia, but if access to computing power is that precious in the east, the achievments of their space program are all the more impressive to me. Jim Symon Internet:symon@cs.unc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 87 13:42:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel Re: Deflecting interstellar medium Arthur C. Clarke proposed an interesting idea I hadn't seen before in his recent (rather boring) book, "Songs of a Distant Earth". His STL ship used a large ice cube in front of the space ship as an ablative shield to chew a *long* tunnel throught the "vacuum". He has undoubtedly done some calculations as to how much ice was ablated by collisions -- he's the kind of author who actually opens reference books and uses a calculator *before* writing things down. I understand he does most of his work by telecommuting. Does anyone know his net address in Sri Lanka? -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks "For I dipt into the Future, far as human eye could see Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be; Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails, Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales." -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson (BTW -- this quote comes from one of his books.) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #360 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Sep 87 06:19:44 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21490; Wed, 23 Sep 87 03:17:21 PDT id AA21490; Wed, 23 Sep 87 03:17:21 PDT Date: Wed, 23 Sep 87 03:17:21 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709231017.AA21490@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #361 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 361 Today's Topics: MIR elements, 15 September 1987 space news from Aug 3 AW&ST Dumb idea of the month Deflecting asteroids Re: Deflecting asteroids Re: Moon Colony Re: Things aint so bad ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Sep 87 04:37:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: MIR elements, 15 September 1987 Sorry about the delay between the last element set and this one; I've been out of town since the middle of last week and haven't had the chance to post. Satellite: MIR Catalog ID: 16609 Epoch day: 87256.83201087 Inclination: 51.6313 degrees Right ascension of node: 60.4396 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0036069 Argument of periapsis: 133.7471 degrees Mean anomaly: 226.6830 degrees at epoch Mean motion: 15.80101025 orbits / day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00028542 orbits / day**2 Source: NASA Goddard via Henry Vanderbilt of NSS. Kevin Kenny UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny Department of Computer Science ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA) University of Illinois CSNET: kenny@UIUC.CSNET 1304 W. Springfield Ave. Urbana, Illinois, 61801 Voice: (217) 333-8740 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 23:57:15 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Aug 3 AW&ST [Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is PO Box 1505, Neptune NJ 07754 USA. Rates depend on whether you are an "unqualified" or "qualified" subscriber, which basically means whether you look at the ads for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial or military interest. Best write for a "qualification card" and try to get the cheap rate. US rates are $55 qualified, $70 unqualified at present. It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of it has nothing to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth it to you.] [More to the point, here's the first in a series of recommendations about sources of information. The single best space periodical is not AW&ST or Space World or anything else you might guess easily. The best is Spaceflight, published by the British Interplanetary Society. It covers all the space programs, not just the US one; its coverage of the European and Soviet space programs in particular is much better than any US source. The bulk of it is understandable even to a beginner. It publishes overviews and historical material as well as current events. Its "Satellite Log" is the only easily-available source I know of with a paragraph or two of information on each and every satellite launch anywhere (as you would expect, these days it's almost solid Soviet launches). Its "Space At JPL" section includes a lot of fascinating material about the US program that is seldom seen in US sources. (A particularly-interesting sample appears below.) Easily the most comprehensive space magazine anywhere. The cover price is L1.25/US$3.25, but it's not common on the newsstands. Although I think it can be had by ordinary subscription, the normal way to get it is to join the BIS. This costs about US$35, with lower rates for new members under 21 or over 65. Several other publications are available, and one or two optional membership grades. Write for full information first. The British Interplanetary Society, 27/29 South Lambeth Road, London SW8 1SZ, England.] [First item today is from Spaceflight, not AW&ST.] JPL is studying a Lunar Polar Orbiter that could be launched from a Getaway Special can. It would be carried into low orbit by the shuttle or almost any expendable; it only weighs 150 kg. Once in orbit, it unfolds a couple of long solar panels, locates the Sun, spins itself up to a few RPM for stability, and fires up a pair of solar-powered xenon ion thrusters. Average thrust is only about three times atmospheric drag in the beginning, but that's enough. LGAS (Lunar GetAway Special) spirals out from Earth over about two years, and then spends another six months spiralling down to a 100-km lunar polar orbit. Payload is a 10-kg gamma-ray spectrometer, which will settle the question of whether there are frozen volatiles at the lunar poles, while also extending the Apollo elemental-abundance survey of 23% of the lunar surface to the entire surface. It will also give the gamma-ray astronomers another triangulation point for locating gamma-ray bursts, and precision tracking of LGAS will improve mapping of the Moon's lumpy gravitational field. Transmitter power will be 1 watt, with 1.5 megabits of RAM storing lunar-farside data for delayed transmission to Earth. The spacecraft design would have other uses; in particular, with a launcher like Delta that could start it from a higher orbit, it could fly missions to near-Earth asteroids. A major side benefit is that it tests solar-ion propulsion *in space* at low cost and risk, clearing the way for its use on more ambitious missions. The JPL group hopes to arouse enough interest to turn LGAS into an approved project; earliest launch would be July 1991. [Back to AW&ST] USSR now has six "crew-related" spacecraft, all different, in orbit: Soyuz, Mir, Kvant, the tug that brought Kvant up, Salyut 7 (mothballed but still alive), and the Cosmos 1686 module docked to Salyut. Seven if you count the Progress tankers. JPL may add a second UV spectrometer to Galileo; it's a spare from Voyager that could be added easily while Galileo is being rebuilt for its latest mission plan. Shuttle thermal protection in the wing/elevon cove area being redesigned for better protection; there has been serious reentry damage here in the past. The area between the nose cap and the nosewheel door is also being worked on, for the same reason. Mitsubishi refuses to sell McDonnell-Douglas the LE-5 oxyhydrogen engine (used in the H-1's upper stage) for use in a Delta upper stage, because of Japanese restrictions on military use of space technology. [McD-D hoped to use the H-1's upper stage to soup up the Delta. So much for that...] Fletcher meets with White House Chief of Staff in hopes of better White House NASA support and reinstatement of the cancelled Soviet space-program briefing for Reagan. Meeting was "short and inconclusive". Soviets launch 15-20-ton Earth resources platform, largest civilian Earth-survey spacecraft in history. It resembles the sort of thing the Ride report recommended as a major goal for NASA. [Also of note, in Spaceflight I think, is the observation that its orbit matches those used for some Salyut flights.] Rep. Bill Nelson: "The Soviets manage by objective -- not by budget." Visiting Soyuz crew returns from Mir, with Alexandrov replaced by Laveikin. Laveikin developed a heart abnormality in orbit on Mir, so Soviet mission control decided to replace him with Alexandrov. He was not ill and was working normally (after a difficult adaptation to free-fall), but bringing him back down was felt to be safest. [Here we have the first unscheduled space-station crew rotation, done as a matter of routine.] Hughes teams with Lockheed and Pratt&Whitney for the ALS competition. Hughes's design uses a modular design with the P&W RL-10 oxyhydrogen engine, now used in Centaur. They will have to stack a lot of RL-10s together to launch a heavy payload -- its thrust is only 16,500lbs -- and it's not a terribly efficient engine, but its reliability record is very good. Hughes is still talking about launching from Palmyra Island. NASA to power up Discovery, restarting shuttle launch processing cycle. Various issues remain unresolved; delays from the June 26 launch date are quite possible. Two problems of note are lingering troubles with the 17-inch feed-line valves (which must be fixed before Discovery goes to the VAB for stacking, because of their location), and the discovery that some nuts in the orbiters may have been overtorqued during assembly. NASA extends space-station crew tour of duty from 90 days to 120 for the early crews, with a rise to 180 expected after the first year. This will reduce the number of shuttle missions needed for station visits. NASA medics think 120 is okay but want to examine 120-day results before approving longer stays. Other changes are under consideration, notably jettisoning trash into the atmosphere for destructive reentry rather than taking it down in the shuttle and building the logistics module with composites rather than aluminum to reduce its dead weight. There is growing support for using a heavylift launcher for station assembly, and contractors may be told to allow for either. NASA is also re-examining the current policy which provides for essentially no structural spares, which would leave the program very vulnerable to a launch failure or a major ground accident. NASA broaches the issue of canceling Phase Two of the station (upper and lower booms, solar-dynamic power, servicing bay); Congressional reaction is strongly negative. British space program down the tubes: Thatcher government reneges on pre-election promise of expanded British space program, freezing British space budget and casting doubt on the future of Hotol and the Space Platform segment of Columbus. [Roy Gibson, head of the British National Space Center, resigned in response.] USAF to buy five more early-warning satellites from TRW. Charles Stark Draper, father of inertial navigation, dies. India chooses Delta to launch Insat 1D comsat in late 1989; this will be the first commercial Delta launch, although it's not the first order. Japan Air Lines to experiment with satellite link to supply north-Pacific airliners with stock prices and other business information, starting 1989. Picture of JPL design for aerobraked Mars orbiter/rover. Video teleconference between Boulder and Moscow on Mars exploration. Solidest results probably in areas like engineering models of Mars and standardization of navigation beacons. Soviets are confident that the prolonged-free-fall problems of a manned mission are solvable, and are suggesting control of Mars rovers from orbit. Soviets, unlike US, have not given up on the possibility of life on Mars, and want to look deeper underground. France proposes twin-balloon platform to go on early-90s Soviet Mars lander. One balloon would be filled with helium, the other would be a solar-heated hot-air balloon. The pair would lift the instrument package to 6-8 km during the day, letting the winds carry it perhaps 500 km per day. At night the hot-air balloon would deflate and the craft would land, with the helium balloon holding the balloons themselves aloft for a clean takeoff the next day. This will give ten or more landings in widely-separated areas. A later mission might use the same system to collect surface samples from many places, with the balloon eventually jettisoned, leaving the payload and a locator beacon awaiting recovery by a rover mission. Australia and Japan agree on Australian reception of images from Japan's MOS-1 ocean-survey satellite. Australia is studying an Australian Science and Applications Spacecraft, possibly launched into polar orbit for remote-sensing work and other applications. Letter of the week: "Regarding the Harvard Business School report on commercial space... this has been common knowledge within industry for 7-8 years at least... Cost, access to space, macroeconomics (how the US competes...) are issues that Congress and the various administrations have chosen to ignore, from an industrial point of view. Creation of capital must be left to the printing presses, as far as they are concerned, and launch vehicles are just silly play toys for scientists. "It is a good thing that they did not think that way about the railroad and the airplane. "Now that someone has done a study, what will be done with it? Can anyone think beyond the next two years?" "W. David Montjoye, Ohio" "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 23:05:19 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Dumb idea of the month To: REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: Robert Elton Maas > Or maybe just buy launch vehicles from other nations, such as the USSR, > if we can't do a good enough job ourselves? Just what we need - to depend on the USSR for access to space. Why not turn over all border stations, shipyards, and airlines to them while we are at it? ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 22:41:48 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Deflecting asteroids To: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) > To avoid splitting the [asteroid] with the shock, it would probably be > necessary to use many bombs rather than a few big ones. It is generally believed that most asteroids are loose aggregates - like piles of rocks rather than like individual rocks. Of course nobody knows for sure, yet. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 19 Sep 87 18:01:54 GMT From: unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Deflecting asteroids In article <257040.870918.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: >It is generally believed that most asteroids are loose aggregates - >like piles of rocks rather than like individual rocks. Of course >nobody knows for sure, yet. References, please? I've never heard this about asteroids, even in the course on asteroids & comets I took last spring at Caltech. I know there is some sentiment that COMET nuclei may be aggregates. Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 15:09:46 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@rutgers.edu (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Moon Colony In article <2374@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.UUCP writes: >(David Smyth) writes: >> Would it be practical to build a space port on the Moon ... >> ..... >> * Where would the fuel come from (Oxygen plentiful, >> but what about hydrogen? [...] > >Rocks. Crystaline rock contains considerable "water of crystalization" >which can be liberated by, among other techniques, solar-heating. On *Earth*, *some* rocks do. Lunar rocks are particularly devoid of hydrogen. Unless there's ice in some of the permanently shadowed areas at the poles (we *need* a Lunar Polar Orbiter to find out!), about the only other 'native' source of lunar hydrogen is solar wind protons. >> * Who would really want to live on the moon? >ME! (at least for a "tour of duty"), just tell me where to sign up! Me too. The question may be, who wants to live there for more than just "a tour of duty". There are moves afoot to get a private lunar colonization venture rolling, but it'd likely be a one-way trip. For all that, I know a lot of people still willing to go. Alastair JW Mayer ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 00:19:02 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad > How does the Mir compare with Skylab, besides the obvious fact that we > no longer have Skylab. Roughly speaking: 1. Mir is quite a bit smaller than Skylab. Necessarily so, it was launched by a rather smaller booster. 2. Mir has four docking ports earmarked for future expansion plus two used for routine operations, where Skylab had one plus an emergency spare. (It did have expansion ports originally, but lost them later in its development when it became clear that they would never be used.) 3. Mir has a propulsion system used to reboost it periodically, Skylab didn't. 4. Mir is designed to be resupplied in space, Skylab was not (for lack of a suitable cargo vehicle and because, again, it was clear that the capability would never be used). 5. In short, Skylab was a one-shot while Mir is the nucleus of an ongoing space-station project. "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #361 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Sep 87 06:53:40 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23314; Thu, 24 Sep 87 03:17:15 PDT id AA23314; Thu, 24 Sep 87 03:17:15 PDT Date: Thu, 24 Sep 87 03:17:15 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709241017.AA23314@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #362 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 362 Today's Topics: space news from Aug 10 AW&ST Re: Space Station orbital` inclination Re: Space Station orbital` inclination Re: Things aint so bad Re: What I was responding to ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Sep 87 23:11:38 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Aug 10 AW&ST [There is a lot of news in this issue.] [Second recommendation for space magazines has to be, I think, Space World. It used to be okay but ho-hum; it has gotten significantly more interesting of late, perhaps partly as a side effect of the NSI/L5 merger. Aimed at relative beginners, no heavily technical stuff. One of the more interesting features is interviews with interesting people; summer readers may recall me quoting large chunks out of one of those. The way to get Space World is to join the National Space Society, which is what was formed when the National Space Institute and the L5 Society merged. This is a Good Thing and you should join anyway. NSI was always a fairly quiet group that didn't do a whole lot in my opinion (except for their Shuttle launch tours, which were pretty good; I saw 41C go up that way). L5 was different, it being credited with little things like scuttling the infamous Moon Treaty, saving Galileo, making a key difference in getting the replacement orbiter funded, etc. The publications weren't all that great but the results were fairly impressive; being the only space-activist group that the US State Department hated was a distinction of sorts... :-) (State backed the Moon Treaty, as did almost everyone else who cared except L5. Score: L5 and mankind 1, State Dept 0.) It is a little too early to tell what will come of the merger, but there are hopeful signs. NSS (the name is likely to change, many people dislike it) is at PO Box 7535, Ben Franklin Station, Washington DC 20044. Regular dues are $30/year, with a reduction to $18 for people under 22 or over 64, I believe. (I'm a life member and proud of it; unfortunately, you can't buy a life membership any more -- it was a casualty of the merger.)] Signs that the White House may be waking up to the state of the US space program. AW&ST pats itself on the back for making noise about it, which apparently got read at fairly high levels. USAF Space Division passes control of the DMSP military metsat to USAF Space Command [you can't tell the players without a program...] since it is now operational in orbit. [This should be old news to readers of this group by now.] Proxmire is going to try to kill the space station. Garn will lead the defense. Rep. Nelson: "NASA is awash in so much uncertainty due to a lack of direction from the White House [that] decisions are being made by indecision." USAF completes first conversion of Titan 2 ICBM to booster, rolled out of Martin Marietta plant on Aug 3 for shipment to Vandenberg. MM has a contract to convert 7 more, with an option for another 5; there are about 50 of the missiles in mothballs since their recent deactivation. Air Force Sec. Aldridge predicts that the program will go beyond the existing contracts. The missiles are in good shape. Changes to make them into launchers are mostly electronics upgrades and modifications to the nose to take a payload instead of a warhead. Payload is 4800 pounds into low orbit. Modifications to Vandenberg pad SLC4-West got underway after the launch of the last Titan 3B in February; the Titan 2s are a bit shorter. [Micro-editorial: This is what the USAF should have done all along, and in particular this is what they should have done if they were really concerned about getting the Navstars launched. Instead, for Navstar, they held a lengthy competition and then bought, "off the shelf", a version of Delta that does not exist yet and has never flown! Can you say "subsidy"? Can you say "pork barrel"? And they complain about Ariane subsidies.] Hopeful signs for space science at NASA. DoD is moving things off the shuttle as much as possible, which is good news for science payloads. NASA is trying to go back to building backup spacecraft for planetary missions. [About time!! The lack of a Galileo backup in particular is a national scandal, given a complicated, ambitious mission and a new and (in my opinion) risky spacecraft design.] Funding for a Mars Observer backup is in FY88 authorizations; if the primary spacecraft works, the backup may fly as the Lunar Polar Orbiter. [ABOUT TIME!! We are long overdue for a lunar-polar mission. I also applaud the idea that backups which aren't needed as backups should be *flown*, perhaps on a different mission, rather than being donated to the Smithsonian. If you think the Viking and the Voyager in the Smithsonian look realistic, it's because they *are* real.] Lennard Fisk, new Space Science & Applications head at NASA, is pushing for long-term continuity in several ways: - One Scout-class science satellite per year, aimed at getting small research groups active again in flight programs. - Regular Explorer-class missions, starting with Cosmic Background Explorer in 1989, Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer in 1990, and then X-Ray Timing Explorer in 1992. - Continuation of the "great observatories" program. "We are the only nation capable of doing such great space observatories -- it's time we got on with the rest of them." The Hubble telescope is ready to fly and the Gamma Ray Observatory is in the works, but the others are still stalled; in particular, the Advanced X-Ray Astro- physics Facility is high on the list for an FY89 new start but has competition from the planetary program. - Getting planetary missions going again. Comet Rendezvous and Asteroid Flyby is AXAF's competition. The CRAF backup could turn into the Cassini Saturn mission. [Pity there won't be a Galileo- Saturn mission, since the chance to build a second Galileo has been lost. There were hopes for it; some of the Galileo software has a Jupiter/Saturn bit in it.] - Earth Observing System, aka the US polar platform, probably a FY91 new start for launch circa 1995. Fisk is trying to sort out who gets priority if AXAF and CRAF collide for FY89 funding. AXAF may have a slight edge, because CRAF could delay a year (by picking another comet) while AXAF's optics development is a tricky long-lead item; AXAF would also start out cheaper. Soviets activate Cosmos 1870 polar platform. Cosmos 1871, launched Aug 1, seems to be a Soviet equivalent to the early Big Bird spysats, based on its orbit and early activity. Progress 31 tanker docks with Mir. China orbits recoverable imaging satellite carrying French experimental payload piggyback. Japan decides to develop three new advanced spacecraft: ADEOS (Advanced Earth Observation Satellite), an Earth/ocean satellite for launch in 1993 on an H-2 and later refuelling and servicing in orbit; an experimental data relay and tracking satellite for launch in 1994; and an advanced Clarke-orbit metsat to fly in 1993. Japanese controllers regain full control of MOS-1 after an Earth-sensor malfunction forces it into a backup attitude-control mode. Details still under investigation. US plans $1G five-year program looking at lightweight-satellite technology. DoD is semi-interested in the idea of lots of small satellites rather than a few big ones, since it would make overall systems much more resistant to attack. Some (e.g. Aldridge) are skeptical because big satellites are needed to meet requirements, but others note that battlefield commanders would much prefer small cheap satellites under their direct control. DARPA is pursuing both light-satellite technology and portable-launch-system ideas. Morton Thiokol hot-fires the new shuttle SRB joint design for the first time. On first inspection, looks okay. First full-size SRB test set for Aug 26. NASA formally awards contract for Challenger replacement, orbiter OV-105. It will be essentially a duplicate of Atlantis and Discovery, with minor upgrades that will also be retrofitted to them. The existing structural spares will be used; discussion on building a new set of structural spares will start soon. Picture of the shoulder patch for STS-26, quite a pretty one. NASA to start shuttle-derived heavylift booster studies despite USAF opposition. Now called "Shuttle-C", aimed at operational status by mid-1993 for space station assembly. Payload 100-150,000 lbs into low orbit, availability rather sooner than the USAF's ALS. Martin Marietta and Amroc sign agreements with USAF for use of government launch facilities. McDonnell-Douglas and General Dynamics to follow. The insurance situation remains less than ideal. Also, the agreements contain pious platitudes but no real guarantees about preemption by government missions, and the government is not liable for preemption costs. Roy Gibson, director of British National Space Centre, resigns in protest at Thatcher decision not to boost space funding. European sources comment: "This could not have come at a worse time...". Outlook for Hotol cited as "extremely grim"; other ESA and British projects endangered. Inmarsat chooses Delta for an Inmarsat 2 launch in late 1989. NASA is looking at the problems of transporting space station modules and related large payloads. They are too big for ground transport, and water transport has a lot of problems. Air transport is preferred for several reasons, but the aircraft aren't up to it. The NASA Super Guppy has troublesome weight limits and in any case is about to be retired; it would need massive overhauling to stay in service. The USAF is modifying two C-5As to accommodate shuttle-payload-bay-sized loads, but there is no formal agreement for NASA use of these aircraft. Aerojet tests rocket engine, originally meant for commercial-space uses, that might go into the new USAF upper stage. It's a leftover from a Ford Aerospace project called "Transtar" for shuttle-to-geosynch transport, and has been funded privately since Transtar's cancellation, with an eye on government use. JPL is working on improving Voyager 2's attitude-control software for the Neptune encounter; low light levels will again require moving the whole spacecraft to compensate for Voyager's motion during long exposures. Also under study is the exact encounter trajectory. There are no more gravity-boost constraints since Neptune is Voyager's last stop. The Polar Crown trajectory plan takes Voyager very low over Neptune's north pole and then past Triton. There are some worries, though: Polar Crown passes very close to a possible Neptunian ring, a strong Neptunian magnetic field (considered unlikely) could cause trouble during the north-pole pass, and getting too close to the atmosphere could cause heating, drag, or arcing in high-voltage circuitry. The encounter trajectory could be changed up to a few weeks before encounter (August 1989), but a late change would mess up encounter planning. Soviet radar-equipped ice-tracking satellites have proven valuable enough that the USSR will establish a permanent ocean-monitoring satellite system. FCC receives three filings for permission to operate a mobile satellite system. This is two more than they hoped for; attempts to form a single consortium, to avoid protracted spectrum-space battles, have failed so far. McDonnell-Douglas studies larger versions of the PAM upper stages, for use with large comsats launched on Titan or Long March. Teledyne Brown exhibits reusable-spaceplane model at Paris airshow. A 747 would carry it to altitude. Engines would be four RL-10 Centaur engines and one Shuttle main engine. Payload would be 3500 kg, with increases possible later. The 747 would need some sort of thrust augmentation, either hydrogen duct-burning in its engines [Dani Eder says that Boeing believes this is practical; it more than doubles the thrust, and doesn't hurt the engines if it's brief] or else replacement of the engines with eight afterburning fighter engines [world's hottest 747!]. Aerospace Forum article from David Morrison, chairman of the SSEC, arguing for ongoing commitments to planetary exploration. "The primary difficulties are not technical; they simply reflect lack of commitment and funds. Like other space science areas within NASA, the planetary program is never treated as a continuing activity. Individual missions are proposed and perhaps eventually approved. Meanwhile, as previous missions are completed their funding is terminated automatically. Continuity and efficiency are lost. Without an infusion of new starts, science at NASA is always in a going-out-of-business mode... The US cannot regain international leadership in planetary exploration without a specific commitment and well-understood long-range objectives... Business as usual -- meaning an annual new-start competition between disciplines within a highly constrained NASA space science budget -- is likely to result in further frustration and erosion of the field..." Langley experiments with using optical disks to distribute satellite data to researchers. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 04:34:36 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Space Station orbital` inclination In article <1011@scicom.alphacdc.com>, wats@scicom.alphacdc.com (Bruce Watson) writes: > Current plans are to have the US space station put into an orbit with > an inclination to the equator of 32 degrees. The space station will > be the largest object in orbit and will be very bright to a ground > observer. But at this inclination it will not be seen well north (or > south) of latitude 38 degrees. Does anyone know why this inclination > . . . >From the "National Space Transportation and Support Study Civil Needs Data Base, version 3.0, Payload Listing Report" NASA Headquarters, Code MD, Washington DC 20546, 16 July 1987, pages 589ff: Space Station Infrastructure Flight # Altitude(NM) Inclination(deg.) 1 150 28.5 2 190 28.5 3 190 28.5 4 190 28.5 ... 30 190 28.5 Logistics Flights 220 28.5 What that means is that the station will be assembled mostly at 190 miles altitude, to give the Shuttle more payload on deliveries of station components. After the last parts of the initial station are delivered, the station is moved up to 220 miles to reduce atmospheric drag. Note that this 'plan' is still very subject to change. There is a lot of activity centered around reducing the number of launches required to deliver the station parts by using a heavy lift vehicle. There is a battle under way over whether the heavy lift vehicle should be made of shuttle parts, or be the Air Force 'Advanced Launch System'. Stay tuned. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Launch System Program ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 21:27:20 GMT From: unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Space Station orbital` inclination In article <1438@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >What that means is that the station will be assembled mostly at 190 >miles altitude, to give the Shuttle more payload on deliveries of >station components. After the last parts of the initial station are >delivered, the station is moved up to 220 miles to reduce atmospheric >drag. How will they move it? Does the Station include manuevering thrusters? Figuring out how much thrust a large structure like that can withstand, and where to apply it as the structure changes configuration, sounds like one of the harder problems involved. Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu || ...mcnc!unc!leech) __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 23:04:24 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A Andrews) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad > I was recently told by one of my Space Studies professor (Dr. James > Vedda, now of the University of North Dakota) that Skylab was larger > than the CURRENT Mir configuration. However, I believe that Mir is > scheduled to grow much larger. > > Scott Udell > UD140469@NDSUVM1.BITNET On the other hand, Skylab has been in central Australia since 1979, while the Mir ("Land", NOT "Peace") is a few hundred miles above it. It ain't what you done, it's what you done LATELY that counts! (You all should have heard Stine and Pournelle at NASFIC in Phoenix, couple of weeks back, backtracking their original support of the Shuttle (our shuttle, that is) and saying now what they shoulda said then: a stupid government project, a spaceship built by committee...) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 18:04:42 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: What I was responding to > ... we'd have CORPORATE space stations up before... Folks on the net might be interested to know that there is a serious proposal for a corporate space station. Not the External Tanks Corporation idea, which is a little different, but an honest-to-God privately-owned space station. The fun part is that it would cost less than $500 million (million, not billion) and would be up within five years. There are two key parts to this. First, it would be designed and built by a construction company, *NOT* an aerospace contractor! And second, the launch services would be bought commercially from the lowest bidder: the USSR. The hardware would go up on four commercial Proton launches, followed by whatever number of commercial Soyuz launches are needed for construction and operation. Art Dula, the fellow who's been trying to sell Proton launch services in the US, came up with this one, and apparently is serious about it. Needless to say, there are people in Washington who are *really* unhappy about this idea. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #362 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Sep 87 06:21:17 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25122; Fri, 25 Sep 87 03:19:03 PDT id AA25122; Fri, 25 Sep 87 03:19:03 PDT Date: Fri, 25 Sep 87 03:19:03 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709251019.AA25122@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #363 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 363 Today's Topics: Re: Things aint so bad Space colonization Re: New evidence for 5th force Re: New evidence for 5th force Re: 5th Force Re: New evidence for 5th force New evidence for 5th force Re: New evidence for 5th force Triassic-Jurassic Face on Mars - Erosion rate? Re: Things aint so bad Re: Things aint so bad Things Are So Bad Re: Things aint so bad ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Sep 87 21:39:09 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad > Mir ("Land", NOT "Peace") My dictionary also gives the alternative translation of Mir as Village. -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 23:23:08 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Space colonization To: eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: Eugene Miya N. > Truly ironic, you realize you wrote about this topic 3 years or so > ago, maybe 2. Haven't you noticed that all lists repeat themselves? I'd bet that if the moderator of any list ran message from five years ago, nobody would notice the difference if it weren't for the old-fashioned message headers. > I would debate that. There is open space but little air, I would not > call this "room." To you believe as REM that man will adapt to > living in vaccuums? Did REM say that? I don't. I believe we can manufacture air and everything else we need out of resources in the asteroid belt and elsewhere in the solar system. >> Antarctica? While easier to get to, it is much more hostile than >> space, actually. > You have been there I assume? No. Does one have to have been somewhere to know anything about it? Then nobody on this list could discuss space. :-) > I would debate this statement as well. Well, space has no temperature, so you don't need protection from bitter cold. Space doesn't have fierce storms that will destroy your shelter. Neither does it have big cracks opening up at random to swallow the works of man. Nor does it have white-outs, where you can get lost twenty feet from shelter. Also, space is much bigger than Antarctica. And easier to travel through. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 00:23:47 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force >I thought there were only three known fundamental forces: > >1. Strong nuclear force >2. Electroweak force >3. Gravity Well, if you want to be picky, there is widespread consensus that we are not far from unification of the strong and electroweak forces, and that gravity will come into the fold eventually somehow. Under normal conditions, though, they still look like four distinct forces. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 03:08:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force I wrote... > > How significant is 1-2%? I thought that G was one of the > > least-accuratly know physical constants. I have different Orbital > > Mechanics texts that give values which differ by 0.1% -- these were > > undoubtedly published on the same planet. Phil wrote... > You're right, G isn't known very accurately. My Casio calculator has > it in rom as 6.672e-11 Nm^2/kg^2. On the other hand, Gm, the product > of G and the mass of the earth, is known much more accurately (10 > digits or so) from precise observations of earth satellites. > > Phil I hate being right when I don't really know what's going on. Does anybody know where the data for G come from experimentally? The only things I can think of to measure have to do with Gm, where m is the mass of a large body. Is there a way to measure G seperate from m, or, failing that, is there a way to measure m seperate from G then work backwards? -- Ken Jenks Graduating MS: Aero/Astro Engineer (BS: Computer Science), (Looking for a full-time manned-space job, starting 6/88) Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 1987 16:50-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: 5th Force I have a radical idea. READ the journal reference I posted BEFORE arguing about it! I'll remain neutral on the issue because I'm not an expert in areas that are necessary to evaluate the validity of the geophysical experimental methods used. I just posted an interesting reference for y'all's perusal. If someone were to read the article and discuss shortcomings, or such, that might be worth everyone's time. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 05:35:22 GMT From: newton.physics.purdue.edu!clt@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Carrick Talmadge) Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force In article <74700016@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force. Two seperate >> borehole measurements of G, one by a team in Australia and one by a >> team in Michigan, have found roughly the same 1-2% deviation from >> theory. This is in the range of Fishbach's findings of discrepencies ^^^^^^^^ that's Fischbach. >> with the Eotvos data. >> >How significant is 1-2%? I thought that G was one of the >least-accuratly know physical constants. I have different Orbital >Mechanics texts that give values which differ by 0.1% -- these were >undoubtedly published on the same planet. > -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign The 1986 CODATA value [Ref: E.R. Cohen and B.N. Taylor, Physics Today, August 1987] gives for the latest value of G: G = (6.67259 +- 0.00085) x 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 sec^-2, which is accurate to about 1 part in 10,000. This measurement is essentially that of Luther and Towler [Physical Review Letters 48, 121 (1982)], with an inflated error. The fellow making the measurement at Michgan, by the way, is Albert Hsui -- a geophysicist at the University of Illinois at U/C, though he was on sabbatial leave at Princeton when he published this work. If Hsui's value is reliable [this is the BIG question], it would certainly be "significant". There is also an interesting article reporting a "fifth force" type effect by a group headed by Paul Boynton at the University of Washington in Seattle which will be coming out (I think) next Monday [Sept. 28] in Physical Review Letters. Boynton was a postdoc under The R.H. Dicke at Princeton back in the 1960's studying the cosmic ray background. For the interested, Boynton's article gives a fairly complete bibliography of fifth force experiments which have been reported to this date, including the first repetition of the original Galileo free fall experiment since the 17th century. Carrick Talmadge clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1987 19:31 EDT From: RP%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: New evidence for 5th force Date: 11 Sep 1987 14:25-EDT From: Dale.Amon at cs.cmu.edu Re: New evidence for 5th force Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force. Two seperate borehole measurements of G, one by a team in Australia and one by a team in Michigan, have found roughly the same 1-2% deviation from theory. ... Would someone please explain the details of the experiment and what sort of accuracy the experimenters envision? ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 13:45:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force Speaking of that "inflation factor", I read a speculation (I believe it was in Analog SF/SF) that G has been *increasing* with time. It seems that some of the earlier measurements of G were lower than later ones. Since the trend in these measurements were steadily (albiet slowly) increasing, the idea was that data errors were possible, but so was a change in the "constant". Possible reason: expansion of the universe. Amusing speculation. -- Ken Jenks ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 1987 19:08-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Triassic-Jurassic Some researchers are studying the possibility that the Manacouagan impact structure in Quebec (70km diameter) may have caused a mass extinction at about 200M BP. Evidence is interesting but not solid at this time. It is not proven that the extinction was indeed a boundary event, nor is the dating yet accurate enough to suggest a compelling causal link with the impact structure. Work is proceeding. If anyone is interested, the reference is: "New Early Jurassic Tetrapod Assemblages Constrain Triassic-Jurassic Tetrapod Extinction Event", PE Olsen, NH Shubin & MH Anders, Science, 28-Aug-87, p1025-1029 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 20:34:42 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Face on Mars - Erosion rate? Ignoring the question of whether the so-called "Face on Mars" in the Cydonia region is a natural phenomenon or not, or even looks like a face from different sun angles (I'm prepared to wait for more data), I'd be interested to know just how long such a structure would remain recognizable under Martian conditions. Assumptions have to be made, of course - carved rock or heaped dirt? And how have erosion rates changed over the years? However, given what (little) we know about meteor impact rates, freeze-thaw erosion, wind erosion, and even water erosion in that region of Mars, what would the upper bound be for a structure of that size (about a mile long?) to stay recognizable? A million years? 10 million? 100 million? A billion? Alastair JW Mayer "What we really need is a good 5-cent/gram launch vehicle." ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 87 04:04:06 GMT From: mnetor!genat!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net (Gordan Palameta) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <477@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: > [...] As briefly as possible... The shuttle, when it flies again, will be safe. It will *not* be cost-effective, and will *not* be able to fly often enough. Dear Lord, the flames we'll be wading through for the next week. And me stuck with a 1200 baud terminal. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 87 18:28:35 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: >> ...stuff about our dormant shuttle... > No kidding. And I beleive there's good reasons for it. But when it > flies again, we'll see regular shuttle launches and a VERY reliable > system. Am I the only one in the world that thinks that this is BUNK! We had a VERY RELIABLE shuttle. It blew up - AND WE KNOW WHY! If we avoid that condition (freezing the poor O-rings before launch) it would remain reliable. By re-designing it we now have an unknown system -LESS RELIABLE NOT MORE! John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Sep 87 20:18 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Things Are So Bad In response to Lawrence Dziegielewski's comments about the "zippy" shuttle: Lawrence is confusing technological gee-wizardry with engineering accomplishment. The shuttle is certainly a more breath taking vehicle than the boring Soviet launchers. Unfortunately, is also much more expensive, old NASA lies to the contrary. Even if they get it up to 12 or even 16 launches/year (for a four shuttle fleet), and even if it never crashes again, it's still much more expensive than the Proton (or the Saturn). NASA's predisaster propaganda was based on 24 flights per year from a 4 shuttle fleet -- something that objective observers say is impossible. Lawrence stated that after these fixes it will be a safe vehicle. His faith in NASA is touching. Perhaps the SRBs won't kill it, but does he really think that there are no other hidden problems that NASA hasn't stumbled on yet, has failed to recognize the severity of, or just aren't solvable? Lawrence's hope that the shuttle will be flying regularly again soon is not well founded. Is NASA going to risk losing another shuttle when that could kill the space station? It's in NASA's best interests to be very slow in returning the shuttle to "full" operation. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 15:38:03 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@rutgers.edu (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <474@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: >In article <8561@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> > Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else >> > presently has anything nearly as zippy... >> Anything nearly as zippy, no. This has nothing much to do with >> usefulness, though. The Soviet hardware consistently does almost >> everything better than the Shuttle does it, albeit less glamorously. >I don't know where you're getting your information, but the Soviets >have NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle. There is nothing on the >pad anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the >shuttle. On the contrary, the next launch of Energia will probably be carrying "Shuttleski". Satellite photos of Tyuratam have shown shuttle vehicles for years. Looks like they're ready to launch. >there's no way you can get me to beleive that ANY Russian hardware >performs better than the shuttle. And 'glitz' or 'zippiness' has ^ Define "better". Even ignoring the fact that right now, the shuttle doesn't perform at all, hasn't for a year and a half, and probably won't for another year yet. *Potential* performance doesn't orbit any satellites. At least the Sov's are actually *flying* their hardware. Anyway, Energia is a Saturn V-class launcher (ignoring the minor detail that the only Saturn Vs left are being used as lawn ornaments) and can put a hell of a lot more payload up than can Shuttle. Or, it can put the Russian Shuttle and payload up. Are you talking about Shuttle's man rating? Okay, it can stay on-orbit for a bit over a week. Mir has been continuosly manned for nearly a year now. >The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into >space and returing with other payloads. They do not have the ^ Certainly they do. The Progress vehicles (essentially unmanned Soyuzs) used to resupply Salyut and Mir have been bringing back down film packages, expermental data, zero-G processed materials (not just experimental results, the Sovs are using zero-G processed crystals for sensors in military hardware) etc for years. >sending teams of scientists and technicians into space all at once like >we can with the shuttle. Hmm, there are probably half a dozen people up there now even as we speak, er, type. If you can launch a Soyuz a week with a couple or three people each, and have a couple of space stations up there (Salyut is still up) for them to work in, is that really worse than sending up seven at once in a vehicle that can, with maximum effort, only be launched every 5 or 6 weeks? >> However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost too >> much and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way. This is a >Cost too much? Maybe, but if flown like they were in '85 and '86 the >cost comes way down. The cost of flying the shuttle will remian high Sorry, but it doesn't. *Operation* costs for shuttle are far higher than originally promised, or that NASA would have you believe. There's just too much expensive hand labor (actually, most of that is management) involved. It still costs $4-$5000/lb to launch on shuttle, plus $50,000 an *hour* to get an astronaut to do anything. >get them going regularly again (soon, I hope). Besides, high >technology is expensive, and the shuttle is probably the most advanced >space vehicle in the world today. IT'S WORTH IT. As a research vehicle, perhaps. *NOT* as a way to get us routine access to space. Shuttle is also the most expensive space vehicle in the world today. Certainly, do the research for the next generation of launchers. But we *NEED* cheap, reliable launch technology today. NASA has seen that as threatening their precious (it pays their salaries) Shuttle, to the deterioration of US launch capability. NASA also does research on aeronautics, and has some pretty fancy, advanced (expensive!) research aircraft. You don't see them trying to compete with Fed-Ex or American Airlines or any of the other dozens of air cargo and air passenger companies do you? You don't see NASA telling the airframe manufactures that they can't sell airplanes to anyone they want to. You don't see NASA trying to run the airports the way they do half the spaceports do you? NASA's role in space should be research. The Shuttle is OK as a research vehicle. As a commercial "space truck" it sucks dead bunnies. >Get on the stick and get with the program, man. Or at least get the >right information. Not a bad idea. Have you taken your own suggestion? > Lawrence A. Dziegielewski | E.I. Dupont Co. Alastair JW Mayer ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #363 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Sep 87 06:31:42 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01064; Sat, 26 Sep 87 03:17:37 PDT id AA01064; Sat, 26 Sep 87 03:17:37 PDT Date: Sat, 26 Sep 87 03:17:37 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709261017.AA01064@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #364 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 364 Today's Topics: Answers about Mir elements (long) Re: Things aint so bad Re: Things aint so bad Re: Things Are So Bad Re: Things aint so bad Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Sep 87 23:12:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Answers about Mir elements (long) I have been receiving enough queries about the nature of the Mir orbital elements to warrant a posting to the net at large, rather than attempt to answer all of them by email, particularly as I do not appear to have valid return paths for all the people who have asked. Mir is the Soviet space station. It is crewed permanently, and orbits the earth in a slightly eccentric ellipse. Its altitude varies between roughly 306 and 354 km. Mir is quite clearly visible to the naked eye if it is overflying the observer's location shortly after sunset or before sunrise. When it is in full sunlight, it appears from the surface of the earth as a moving, starlike object that is comparable in brightness to the brightest stars (for the astronomically inclined, its visual magnitude is roughly -0.5). In order to spot it, though, an observer needs to know where to look and when. The calculation of this is fairly complicated, and the apparent position of Mir in the heavens varies substantially between one location and another. For this reason, one really needs a computer program to do the prediction. The four programs that I've tried all take the orbital data as a standard set of numbers, the so-called ``Keplerian orbital elements.'' These numbers describe the motion of a satellite with respect to the Earth's dynamical center; the programs extrapolate this to a given time and give the satellite's apparent position from a specified location. The elements are the figures that I post periodically -- a set of elements is good only for 2-3 weeks' predictions, owing to unpredictable interactions between the spacecraft and the upper atmosphere, perturbations by other bodies, and maneuvers executed by the crew of the station. The program that I use most frequently is Bob Wallis's SGP4-C-2. It has the advantage that it filters out overflights for which the lighting conditions are unfavorable (the observer in sunlight or the satellite in darkness), while the other programs require the user to select the orbit pass manually. The other programs that I use are the two C-ORBITS programs from Amsat, and an ancient ``dusty deck'' in Fortran called SPACETRACK. The advantage to C-ORBITS is that it reports on the latitude and longitude of the spacecraft, allowing it to be plotted on a map; SPACETRACK is the most accurate orbit predictor of the three, at the expense of a lot of computational complexity. Probably the easiest way to get any of the programs is to download them from T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M', located in Austin, Texas. It is available 24 hours a day by calling +1 512 892 4180. It speaks 300/1200 baud, 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. In addition, a program for the IBM PC is available from the National Space Society headquarters in Washington. I haven't tried it, but it has been used by NSS to make the predictions for their ``Mir Watch'' expeditions. Please do NOT ask me to email copies of any of the programs, as I do not believe that I have entirely current versions of any of them, and some of the program authors may also object to my redistributing them. If downloading them is impractical, you may possibly be able to arrange other means by contacting the program authors or Kelso directly. Please, don't take up their time with frivolous requests! They, like anyone else, have real work to do, and are conducting visual observations as a hobby. Program Author(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ C-ORBITS (1) Robert Berger (Robert.Berger@C.CS.CMU.EDU) (2) Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU) SGP4-C-2 Bob Wallis (pyramid!weitek!wallis) SPACETRACK Felix R. Hoots (?) Ronald R. Roehrich (?) T. S. Kelso (tskelso@ngp.UTexas.EDU, {ihnp4, seismo, sally}!ngp!tskelso Mir Watch Gordon Woodcock, off net. For information on Mir Watch and the Mir Watch software, contact Henry Vanderbilt of the National Space Society: +1 202 543 1900 days. He also has a service that provides the elements over the telephone: +1 202 543 4487. If you're interested in learning how the programs operate to compute satellite positions, you should consult a good textbook on celestial mechanics. A gentle introduction to the subject is available in Duffett-Smith, Peter. Practical Astronomy with Your Computer. 2nd ed., New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981. It stops short of the techniques needed to do a really good prediction, though. For these, one needs a more advanced text, such as Escobal, Pedro. Methods of Orbit Determination. New York: Wiley, 1965. Good luck and clear skies in spotting Mir! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Kenny UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny Department of Computer Science ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA) University of Illinois CSNET: kenny@UIUC.CSNET 1304 W. Springfield Ave. Urbana, Illinois, 61801 Voice: (217) 333-8740 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 00:04:16 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad > So? When will it fly. Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup, a > non-working hoax. I think you're years away from a launch. Years. Well, I recall a very interesting paper in JBIS (I think) that firmly claimed that the Soviet "G" booster had never existed, and that their new big booster didn't either. The hilarious part was that publication delays meant I read it just *after* the Energia launch! -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 00:21:34 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad > ... The Progress vehicles (essentially unmanned > Soyuzs) used to resupply Salyut and Mir have been bringing back down > film packages... etc for years. Mmm, you might want to re-check this. The normal Progress is a Soyuz derivative, not just an unmanned Soyuz, and lacks a heatshield. It burns up on re-entry. Cargo return has been via Soyuz. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 21:21:59 GMT From: unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Things Are So Bad In article <8709200324.AA15208@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >Lawrence's hope that the shuttle will be flying regularly again soon is >not well founded. Is NASA going to risk losing another shuttle when >that could kill the space station? It's in NASA's best interests to be >very slow in returning the shuttle to "full" operation. NASA seems to have turned a collective blind eye to the near certainty of losing another shuttle. Quoting from an AP story printed 9/15 on an NRC study of the station: "NASA's plan to build a space station will be difficult and risky, the NRC says, and the agency should prepare for the contingency of losing a shuttle orbiter during its construction. ... Using the space shuttle to build the station, the report said, would pose a 60% probability of losing another orbiter. It said NASA should prepare for such a loss by planning to build another reusable spacecraft. ... NASA, however, said it had "a high degree of confidence that the space station can be successfully deployed with the current shuttle system." ... NASA also did not endorse the suggestion that a fifth orbiter be built." I suspect the same thing is happening with the Station that happened with the shuttle - NASA KNOWS it will cost substantially more than they claim, and believes they will not get funding for the project if they admit the higher cost. I admit I don't have any facts to base that belief on. Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu || ...mcnc!unc!leech) __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 16:25:51 GMT From: tikal!phred!petej@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Pete Jarvis) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <4347@teddy.UUCP> rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) writes: >Especially if they are flown the way they were in '86. After a while, >we'll loose the three remaining shuttles (they way we did in '86) and >the cost will eventually reach zero, it might be argued. (Let's see, we "...flown the way they were in 1986."? Come on Dick. We won't be flying as we did in '86 any more, obviously, because of the re-designed SRB's and re-vamping of procedures. Many other items also have and will have been taken care of. I have great confidence the Shuttle program will continue smoothly and we will benefit greatly from it over the long run. Peter Jarvis......Test Engineer, Physio-Control Corp. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 15:13:58 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Townsend Brown) Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? commercial airlines have, for awhile now, occasionally come to a landing with "unexplainable" 1-2" holes burned through the fuselage (rudder) section...hit in flight no less!! and everyone calls me nuts for doing tesla experiments! :-) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 87 20:25:00 GMT From: spdcc!m2c!frog!john@husc6.harvard.edu (John Woods, Software) Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? But you should possess sufficient common sense to wield an Occam's Razor. Specifically regarding the Challenger disaster: burn-through of O-rings had been noted many times in the past (maybe not in Time or Newsweek, but noted in public nevertheless), so a burn-through of both rings is certainly a highly plausible result, especially considering the physical circumstances. It seems less likely that the Soviets are able to deliver half-inch-wide pulses of radiation to targets thousands of miles away moving at a very good clip AND being buffeted about by winds. Reason demands that you go for the simpler theory, NOT the theory that exercises your adrenals more. John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Maybe it's the sound of a WET RAG hitting a smooth WEASEL! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 87 06:25 CDT From: Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches Original_To: Orig_To! space, TESLA In article <2411@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (Macleod) writes: > Col. Thomas Bearden, USA (Ret), late of the Army Weapons Center at the > Redstone Arsenal, claims that the Challenger disaster, the > Atlas-Centaur failure, and the third (Thor?) 1986 launch failure were > all caused by tests of Third? Generation Soviet Tesla-effect scalar > wave transmitters To begin my response here, let me first ask who this Col. Thomas Bearden is and what his credentials and sources of information are? Before any real analysis of the claims of mysterious 'Tesla Effect' weapons can be done, we must know where this information comes from. Next, I will provide some background information on myself so that my analysis of this matter can be examined in the proper light. Several years ago while I was stationed at some rather remote Air Force Bases where there was very little else to do, I spent a considerable amount of my time researching late 19th and early 20th century technology. A significant portion of this time was spent on accumulating and studying information on Nikola Tesla - one of the more dramatic figures of that era. I consider myself an expert on this period of the history of modern physics, and on Nikola Tesla in specific. As such, I am especially annoyed at those who have picked up on some of the more radical ideas of Dr. Tesla and promulgated a cult of pseudo-scientists based on those ideas. I am equally annoyed at those of the legitimate scientific community who regard Dr. Tesla himself as a crackpot because their knowledge of him is based only on what they have heard from these fringe groups. Although Nikola Tesla was most certainly eccentric, he was also a legitmate scientist, fluent in several languages, and educated as well as the best of his contemporaries. His contributions include not only the AC electric devices and systems that he is best known for, but the first actual radio transmissions (which a court decision decided was his, rather than Marconi's), the first radio-controlled devices, radar, the first CRTs and fluorescent lights, and many others in areas such as fluid dynamics and aerodynamics. Overall during his lifetime, he acquired approximately 700 patents, 25 of which were the basis of the current Westinghouse Corporation. Since this is a space digest, I think it's appropriate to mention that in 1926 he performed some calculations that were accurate to within .1% of the amounts of force and fuel necessary to send a spacecraft to the moon. However, let me now proceed to what I think is the basis for the claims of 'Tesla Weapons'. In the years around the turn of the century, Nikola Tesla had established a laboratory on the top of Pike's Peak near Colorado Springs, CO. It is from here that the famous picture of Tesla sitting quietly reading while sparks flash around him comes from. His experiments at that time were directed to discovering a means of transmitting large amounts of power wirelessly. His theory was that if you treated the Earth as a conductor of a limited length, that you could create standing waves within it from which you could tap off energy at some distance away with the proper receiving equipment. Many current day devices work on similar principles, and if you are interested in the details, look in any first year physics textbook. Tesla claimed that the energy tapped off could possibly be much larger than the amount of energy his transmitting systems were putting into the earth. This was based on his earlier research into the phenomena of resonance. An example of resonance that most of us are familiar with is the case of a group of soldiers walking in step across a bridge. It is well known that if the rhythm of the soldier's steps is in harmony with the natural resonant frequency of the bridge, that vibrations in the bridge will increase in amplitude until the bridge begins to crumble. For more details on this, refer to the discussions of simple harmonic oscillators in any physics texbook. It seemed to be Tesla's belief that if his transmitting systems could provide the appropriate electrical 'push' to the standing waves in the earth at the right time or frequency, that the energy within the earth itself would come into resonance with the waves that he was creating and could be tapped off accordingly. He further speculated that if you could set up two or more of his generating stations, that through the phenomena of wave interference you could control the degree of electrical activity at any point on the surface of the Earth. You could therefore, possibly, create artificial lightning by increasing the electrical potential of an area of the Earth's surface until it was high enough to break through the dielectric insulating middle layers of the atmosphere. For anyone that doesn't know, lightning is essentially the same as a capacitor discharge. The upper layers of the atmosphere, charged constantly by the solar wind, and the surface of the earth, are the plates of the capacitor while the middle, denser layers of the atmosphere serve as the dielectric insulator. From Tesla's notes and photographs, it would seem that his experiments to this end were somewhat successful. He managed to light up a 10 Kilowatt bank of lamps at a distance of 26 miles, while at the same time destroying most of his transmitting equipment and overloading the generating stations in Colorado Springs that were providing his power. His equipment, and Colorado Springs generators were shortly rebuilt, and he continued his experiments, but many of the details to the rest of his experiments there are not known. Several years later, with the backing of George Westinghouse and Andrew Carnegie, Tesla began to construct a second generating station at Wardencliff, Long island N.Y., with a third station planned at an unspecified location somewhere in the southeastern states. However, the Wardencliff station was never fully completed, since Tesla had squandered much of his own fortune and his backers apparently withdrew their support for nondisclosed reasons. When Tesla died in 1943, it is said that his notes were confiscated by the FBI, since he was supposedly involved in some kind of weapons research as part of the war effort. An alternative explanation says that they were returned to his family in what is now known as Yugoslavia (hence 'the Russians have them'), or maybe they were returned to his family after the FBI examined them. To be honest, no one really knows where they are, or if they ever existed at all. Nikola Tesla was known to have had a photographic memory, and he may never have committed all his research to paper. We do know that his personal diary is now in the Nikola Tesla museum in Belgrade. That's it. The previous encapsulated history of Dr. Tesla should show where the rumors of 'Tesla Weapons' come from. Now all we have to do is decide if they're real. To this end I offer the following arguments. 1) If the electrical potential of the Earth were drastically changed in a particular area, it would seem to me that all electrical transmissions and communications in the area of effect would be disrupted. I don't believe there is any record of this sort of effect. 2) If any 'weapon' of this sort exists, I think (based on my knowledge of Dr. Tesla's theories and my knowledge of physics), that it could not be so precisely controlled that it could affect an object as relatively small as the shuttle. The waves that Tesla spoke of were low frequency long wavelength distrubances which could possibly affect regions the size of large cities. To have more precise control of the region disturbed would mean that the waves would have to be higher frequency, or that the Russians would have to have many generating stations so that the interference patterns could be more precisely controlled. If the waves are higher frequency, the my argument in #1 applies even better. If there are a large number of generating stations, then surely our satellite reconnaissance would have shown them, and our government would have taken measures to find out what they were, and how to protect ourselves from them. 3) It is doubtful in any case, that our military would be unaware of the potential of such devices, and if they are plausible, would not have created some of our own. I should add to support this argument that there are records of a Dr. Robert Golka having done experiments similar to Dr. Tesla's at Wendover AFB in Utah within recent years. 4) Dr. Tesla may have actually been in error as to the effects his apparatus were causing. I don't doubt that he lit up the lamps I described earlier, as I have pictures of this event, but perhaps it was simply caused by more standard RF energy. At the time he did this, there were really no other communications and such to disrupt, and the effects described as occuring around his transmitting station at the time could just as easily have been caused by simple RF. 5) If we assume that the weapons are plausible, and can be precisely controlled, then they may actually provide an adequate defense screen against a large number of incoming missiles by providing effects similar to EMP or plasma effects in addition to being able to be used as offensive weapons. If this is the case, then our present Mutually Assured Destruction deterrent falls apart, since if only one side has this capability an effective first strike could be launched with few losses. 6) Although I haven't really examined the physics of such an appartus, it would seem to me that it would take quite a power drain to operate. If nothing else, this effect would have been noticed by our satellites, or by someone monitoring the Soviet power grid. 7) Last of all, I don't know exactly what is meant in the (Macleod) message by 'kindling electrons out of the virtual state' unless it is referring to the creation of electron-positron pairs as occurs in some particle accelerators or in other high energy phenomena, but it sounds fictional to me. If it is electron-positron production, then tell me how it is used in any sort of weapon. If the above isn't enough to discourage anyone who believes in these mysterious weapons, then contact me and we'll discuss it in more detail. At the very least, I would be interested in responses to my comments, and I would like to find out what the Bohm-Ahranov effect is without having to dig through my library. I would also like Macleod to tell me where he got his info, and something more about Col. Beardens comments, physics, and math. Rick Johnson TESLA@FNAL.BITNET ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #364 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Sep 87 06:25:50 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02550; Sun, 27 Sep 87 03:17:07 PDT id AA02550; Sun, 27 Sep 87 03:17:07 PDT Date: Sun, 27 Sep 87 03:17:07 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709271017.AA02550@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #365 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 365 Today's Topics: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? Re: Things aint so bad Re: space news from Aug 3 AW&ST bids for launch priority?? Private space Defense spending Defense Spending Re: Private space Re: bids for launch priority?? Re: Private spaces... Re: Proposed Commercial Space Incentives Act Re: Proposed Commercial Space Incentives Act ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Sep 87 17:19:17 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? (Stephen P. Masticola) writes: > Occam's razor supports the argument that Tesla effect weapons were not > used to destroy our space launches, and that neither the Russians nor > the Israelis have them. It sounds like just more red-scare stuff, for > which we have paid too much already this decade. I truly wish I knew who said: "Never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by stupidity" John M. Pantone ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 21:44:53 GMT From: larson@unix.sri.com (Alan Larson) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <772@maccs.UUCP> gordan@maccs.UUCP (Gordan Palameta) writes: >The shuttle, when it flies again, will be safe. >It will *not* be cost-effective, and will *not* be able to fly often enough. Am I the only one who is having trouble with this first claim? There were a large number of items (I think they called them criticality-1 items) which, if any one of the failed, would lead to catastrophe. I don't have a list of these items, but I did have the impression that there was very little being done them. Alan ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 23:19:54 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: space news from Aug 3 AW&ST [From Henry Spencer's excellent summary of Aviation Week:] >NASA to power up Discovery, restarting shuttle launch processing cycle. >Various issues remain unresolved... >Two problems of note are lingering troubles with the >17-inch feed-line valves ... and the discovery that >some nuts in the orbiters may have been overtorqued during assembly. Oh, come now, Henry, that's no way to refer to the Shuttle crew, even if they _are_ getting annoyed at all the delays. :-) Jordin Kare ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 11:29:56 From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: bids for launch priority?? Date: 26 Aug 87 17:19:56 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ivory!mike@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article Or maybe it is correct to say that NASA is under-focused. It has no business launching commercial payloads with the taxpayer's money underwriting everything. Any value to the suggestion that at times of surplus business and shortage of launch capacity, such as the next five years, it should take bids for launches, accepting the highest bidders first? It could always force a government-funded payload, such as Galileo or HST or military missions, into an early slot by allocating extra money to the project that wants the launch, which would effectively be "funny money" since it comes from the budget, goes to the want-launch agency, passes to the STS budget, and as a profit returns to the general budget. But among the various private companies such bidding would select those companies that really wanted to launch because they thought the application would be really profitable, and leave the next group that bid slightly lower clammering for private launch services at a cost they can afford. As soon as private launch services really existed, some of the high bidders would then switch from STS to the private service, paying top dollar for timely (early) launch, giving private launch companies a nice profit if they deliver better than NASA does. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 23:25:29 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Private space To: ihnp4!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: ihnp4!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dennis Grittner) > Let's work toward having a good program without guarnateeing any > privateers their profits. If they want to take risk, let them - that's > 'private enterprise'. Right. And lets ALSO abolish restrictive laws that apply to private launches. And lets make space industry tax-free. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 03:25:28 GMT From: clyde!burl!codas!killer!usl!elg@rutgers.edu (Eric Lee Green) Subject: Defense spending in article <558655360.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU says: > The US is not going to be able to even pay to defend it's OWN shores > if we keep going at the rate we are. Many would make the case that the > very high expenditures in defense are wrecking the US economy. Defense spending is less than 1/3rd of the Federal budget, and the ratio is falling fast as other spending increases. It's not like the situation in 1960 where 80% of the U.S. budget was spent on defense. We are still spending the same percentage of the GNP now on defense, as we were in 1957, and 30 years don't seem to have collapsed us. We could probably do a better job of defense, at a lower cost, but if you really want to look at the cause of the deficit monster, just look at all the pork-barrel projects that Congress is continually dishing out on the domestic sides of things. Just to make this relevant to sci.space: I do not think that science and space would get any more money if we were spending none on defense. They'd just find another class of "underpriviliged" people to spend our money on, like maybe out-of-work space scientists :-(. The only way we'll ever do anything in space, is if it's economical, and that presupposes that we have a cheap way of getting there. Apollo-style projects are neat while they last, but have nothing to do with assuring a continued presence in space. Eric Green elg@usl.CSNET day is done, the song is over, {akgua,killer}!usl!elg thought I'd something more to say.... P.O. Box 92191 --PF Lafayette, LA 70509 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 15:39:19 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Defense Spending In article <170@usl> elg@usl (Eric Lee Green) writes: >Defense spending is less than 1/3rd of the Federal budget, and the >ratio is falling fast as other spending increases. It's not like the >situation in 1960 where 80% of the U.S. budget was spent on defense. I have heard that this change is an illusion due to accountingchanges, and that these accounting changes were motivated by the desire to produce that illusion. In 1960, the U.S. budget did not contain the social security system, which as a properly run, self-supporting, self-contained pension plan did not need external support by taxes. When congress started to vote social security payments to everyone and his brother, it was no-longer self-contained, and it had to be taken in. Tis is just what I've heard, I wasn't alive at the time and the newspaper articles I read about this in were probably politically motivated. Please correct me if I'm wrong. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 16:31:31 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ivory!mike@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) Subject: Re: Private space In article <257063.870918.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: >Right. And lets ALSO abolish restrictive laws that apply to private >launches. And lets make space industry tax-free. Agreed on the abolition of prevention of private launches, but why should it be tax free? The space industries will be helped by the same tax laws that now allow them to write off their losses in other areas, and they should pay taxes to the nation of launch when they are making a profit. Michael Lodman (619) 485-3335 Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 87 00:26:05 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ivory!mike@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) Subject: Re: bids for launch priority?? In article <8709181841.AA13806@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes: >Any value to the suggestion that at times of surplus business and >shortage of launch capacity, such as the next five years, it should >take bids for launches, accepting the highest bidders first? Yes, there is some value in that idea. However, to the highest bidder might still heavily undervalue the cost of the launch. Who would make up the difference? Of more value would be NASA CORRECTLY estimating ALL the costs of a particular launch, and charging accordingly. I have a feeling that it would be outrageously expensive, and that commercial launchers would come in and offer lower cost launching, but still probably at a hefty profit. Supply and demand would soon take over, and the price would adjust to some level we they all could live with. As long as the government is willing to subsidize and underwrite the launching of commercial payloads, no commercial competitive launching capacity will exist. The government is using your tax dollars to make sure HBO is distributed nationwide. That isn't right. If it costs HBO more to buy time on SATCOM 9 or WESTAR 8 or whatever, they will pass the costs on to those who use their service, which is as it should be. I think Rockwell Int., G.D., Lockheed etc should be ashamed. They have had all of the basic research for space done at governmental expense, yet they have done virtually nothing to utilize that knowledge for anything but riding the government gravy-train. Michael Lodman (619) 485-3335 Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 87 20:00:57 PDT From: "William J. Fulco" To: bob Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov, liberty Subject: Re: Private spaces... > From: bob > Thanks for your reply. Our points of view are closer than > you seem to imply. Sorry, this subject really gets me going, I sometimes get carried away. I'm probably going to run for U.S. Congress for my district in 1988. Space policy (along with education and the tax system) is (are) going to be the issues I'll raise. The net debates have been very useful in helping me recognize competing arguments for my position papers to address. Again - I think Gov't space money would be better spent paying to get things into orbit, not designing/building the means to get stuff there. I saw somewhere that some company (Hugh Aircrash Co?) was paid umpteen millions of dollars for 2 satellites DELIVERED ON ORBIT. The contract was not "gimme a bird and I go fly it", it was "I want to purchase a brand new orbiting satellite". > My main complaint I have often made is that any privately funded space > ventures will have to compete against the massive Goverment subsidies > of NASA and ESA. (And the Russians Japanese and Chinese too). > There is too much national interest in space travel (France in the > case of ESA) for goverments to be persuaded to stop this funding. I really think that if NASA would give up the subsidies for the STS and the U.S. govt spent its money on purchasing launch services, that a robust supplier network in the U.S. would develop. It's hard to visualize private U.S. companies competing with non-U.S. gov't subsidized launchers, until you think that the private firms will eventually provide better service, better product, more ability to cater to a diversity of user needs that the subsidized launcher. People once told private parcel-post companies that they would be stupid to try to compete with the U.S.Post.Office (subsidies). In order to make a go of it, these companies, needed higher productivity, better technology -- much lower costs... Guess what... it they go it... customers now like the better service, and lower rates of the private companies - now it's the U.S.P.O. that has had to lower it's rates so that it can compete! The same was/is true with brain-dead tariffs/quotas on imported Japanese cars. The extra burden placed on the Japanese companies hurts them in the short run, but after they figure how to squeeze some extra profit from the situation, their product becomes much better - it has to be to survive. Pitty the poor American car company - having had an easy time of it while the tariffs were on, now facing a fearsome/battle tried Japanese car company that can make a good profit even with the government of the U.S. against it. > I have made a number of recent postings arguing this point of view. > Until some private company invests money, and gets a return for it's > investment, thus showing the way, Goverments are the only groups with > enough money or motivation to finance space exploration. They can offer to buy, there is always someone willing to supply a buyer if the price is right. > The British Goverment seems to be an exception to this rule. No money > for space. Mrs T has however said she is willing to examine any other > proposals to help space exploration. i.e. changes in the law. > Who knows, perhaps your trip to the moon might be on a British shuttle > yet. :-> > But don't hold your breath waiting. :-< > Bob. (bill) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 16:16:34 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Proposed Commercial Space Incentives Act In article <8709180241.AA13837@cauchy.mit.edu> purtill@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU.UUCP writes: >Does anyone know where I can get a copy of this? This was something I >heard about a year or two ago, possibly here. The idea was that the >government would guarentee to buy some (relatively large) amount of >launch capacity at $500/kg (or some such rather cheap amount). I don't >know any more since I haven't been able to find a copy; I don't even >know who proposed it. (Please reply to me (if possible) I will >summarize to the net). A draft of this act (also called the Commercial Launch Incentive Act) was put together by the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy at the Spring '86 meeting. The suggested text of the act (and report of that meeting) can be found in "America: A Spacefaring Nation Again" available from the L5 Society, er, National Space Society in Washington. Briefly, the idea was that the government guarantees a market for N thousand pounds of payload delivered to orbit, at M dollars per pound. This was to be payable only on successful delivery of payload to orbit. A launch company would notify the gov't in advance (a couple months) of the launch opportunity, and the gov't could use it to put up a useful payload. However, if the gov't elects not to do so, the launch co. can go ahead anyway with a payload of their own choice (even a ballast payload) and the gov't would have to pay up if it made orbit. The idea behind the guaranteed market is to encourage private investment in the launch business, especially in companies with ideas for bringing costs down. We kicked around various values of N and M, as well as minimum payload per launch and minimum useful orbit. I think the final figures were $500/lb, minimum payload 10,000lb/launch to LEO (this figure was chosen to include weight of transfer stage to boost something useful - a couple 1000 lbs - to GEO. It's also roughly the weight of a Gemini spacecraft...). I'd have to check the text to say what N was, but a total figure of $100million/year into the guaranteed market fund (for a period of five years) sounds right. Understand that these figures are subject to change as the act goes through the legislative wringer. This act has a number of backers (don't ask me for names, I don't have them. You might ask in the "space" conference on BIX, many of the people involved in putting this together, and the L5 HQ staff, hang out there.) There is precedent for an act like this - e.g. the airmail contracts that got commercial aviation its big start. I've probably got the text of the act on softcopy somewhere. Ask if you want me to dig it up. Alastair JW Mayer "What we really need is a good 5-cent/gram launch vehicle." ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 16:40:26 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Proposed Commercial Space Incentives Act > Does anyone know where I can get a copy of this? ... It's in the report "America: A Spacefaring Nation Again", available from the National Space Society (see my latest AW&ST summary for their address) for I think $10. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #365 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Sep 87 06:54:26 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04080; Mon, 28 Sep 87 03:17:53 PDT id AA04080; Mon, 28 Sep 87 03:17:53 PDT Date: Mon, 28 Sep 87 03:17:53 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709281017.AA04080@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #366 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 366 Today's Topics: NASA tv (or pig out on shuttle video) Alternate information from NASA on shuttle activities More on NASA Select Most Successful Space Missions Reply to a government employee Re: Things aint so bad Newsweek reply National Commission on Space Report Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons Re: Ion engines Plug nozzles in Energia ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Sep 87 00:17:25 GMT From: mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) Subject: NASA tv (or pig out on shuttle video) I received many replies to my casual mention about the NASA tv network, so I thought that I would post a followup and "how-toooo" article for further details. Like many companies and agencies, NASA supports it's own television network. It is known as "NASA Select Television" and is used for everything from teleconferences (audio on landline) to mission coverage. As far as I know, it is not meant to be private. Much has been written about it in Sat TV magazines, and there was plans at one time between NASA and some TVRO companies to get low-cost dishes to schools for '51L and flights following. Also, most of the network video comes from the feeds. Forget about the teleconferences, they're pretty dull material, but the other stuff can easily make it worth the cost of a dish. All, and I mean ALL, launches (non-classified) are covered live. So you could've watched that Delta explosion, as it happened, or the last of the Atlas launches. It's a big help while us space junkies go through withdrawal. Of course, the best part is the shuttle coverage. The coverage begins several days ahead of the launch with assorted news conferences with the crew and payload people. On launch day, tune in about 3 or 4 hours ahead of time. You'll get the PAO commentary with the ground-loop chit-chat. 30 minutes after launch they'll replay all of the launch video, unedited from all of the color camera positions, from about T-10 secs to staging. At T+45 minutes they'll show the launch from the black and white on-pad engineering cameras. It knocked my eyeballs out the first time I saw it. And so far, I have never, ever seen any of the networks pick it up. You'll see views from cameras immediately to the side of the SRBs, or out next to one of the wings. 9 or 10 different views in all. After the launch replays, they switch over to JSC until landing. Most of the views are from those el-cheapo color cameras in the corner of MCC looking over the consoles, or at the plot-board. But when there is downlink TV they show it. If the downlink TV is broadcast directly to a ground station (as it usually is until the satillites are out of the payload bay), when live, it'll be a funny flickering black-and-white image. What you're seeing is the raw, unprocessed, sequential-frame video. That is, one frame is red, one green and one blue. They then merge everything together and replay it a few minutes after LOS. The ground stations use the same transponder for their relays, so you'll see the signal drop for a few seconds, then come back from Hawaii or Goldstone. When the TV comes down from TDRSS it is real-time color as the color processing is apparently done at the TDRSS station or someother remote site. All in-flight press briefings are broadcast, as well as science films about certain experiments (mainly during Spacelab). And in some cases EVA rehersals in the water tank or building 15 (I think) are sent out. What really makes it fun, is when the guys in the TV control room get loose. And it's late at night, and . . ., well maybe I better not say anything about that. The current transponder is on Satcom F-II, way over the Atlantic, Xpnder 13. It has a brutally strong signal here on the left-coast, so anyone this side of Mars outta be able to get it. I use a 12 foot dish with a 60 degree LNA, but on the east coast, there should be little problems seeing it with an 8 or even 6 foot dish. So be prepared for excitement on STS-26, thumb your collective noses at the networks and tune in to the bird. Also, stock up on video tape, you'll be needing lotz of it. Addendum: If you are in an international mood, you may want to try "ESA Select" the next time an Arainne is launched. The boys in Guyana broadcast their escapades usually on Spacenet 1, around transponder 21 or so. But it changes from time to time. *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** ------------------------------ Date: 22 September 1987 10:32 edt From: TS5864@OSHTVMB.BITNET Subject: Alternate information from NASA on shuttle activities Forgive me if this question has come up before, but I have only been receiving information from the net for a month or so. Even though I know that the Space Shuttle will not be going up until next summer sometime (at the earliest), I figure that it is not too early to start preparing for the media hype that will accompany it. I was disturbed by the press coverage of shuttle as flights neared the Challenger disaster (ie. getting less and less). Since I (like many of the other netters) like to know what is going on with the flights, what they are doing, mission objectives, etc. I was wondering if there were other sources of information where I could find out more about shuttle flights? Are there alternative video/audio sources for the official NASA pictures (ie. the video that the networks hack down to 15 secs for their news capsules)? Please respond to me directly, rather than cluttering up the net with stuff that may have gone around before, and I'll summarize if there is interest. -tom Thomas Lapp ARPA : TS5864%OHSTVMB.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU : LAPPT@OHIO-STATE.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 12:33:07 GMT From: pyrdc!netxcom!rkolker@uunet.uu.net (rich kolker) Subject: More on NASA Select Just one more point on NASA Select (Which I can pick up on my little 5 foot dish on the east coast...good transponder). Your local TV station can pick it up for rebroadcast. Here in the Washington DC area, Channel 56 grabs most everything off NASA Select. If you have a station in your area that's just barely getting by (like many public stations) let them know this, and tell them the feed is free. You may save yourself the cost of a dish, even a small one. Rich Kolker ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 14:52:29 GMT From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) Subject: Most Successful Space Missions Henry Spencer summarizes (thanks!) from the 10 August issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology: >JPL is working on improving Voyager 2's attitude-control software for >the Neptune encounter; ... There are no more gravity-boost constraints >since Neptune is Voyager's last stop. [Encounter in August 1989.] The success of the Voyager 2 is absolutely astounding. This got me thinking--- what are the most successful space missions? I have come up with the following catagories: Earth Observation (i.e. for science; comsats and spysats are out) Manned Exploration (e.g. moon landings) Manned Space Science (i.e. earth orbit) Planetary Flyby Planetary Observation (i.e. in orbit around something other than Earth) Planetary Landing Astronomy (e.g. orbiting telescopes) Mail me your votes (and reasons) for most successful single mission in each catagory. If you had to pick one mission as the most successful, regardless of catagory, which would it be? I will summarize to the net. Lawrence Crowl 716-275-9499 University of Rochester crowl@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department ...!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!crowl Rochester, New York, 14627 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 87 01:16:26 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Reply to a government employee To: eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: Eugene Miya N. > Interesting points. Sometimes I wonder if it would not be better (for > the sake of a better space program) to have a totalitarian society, at > least it would make the launches run on time. Smile when you say that. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 05:50:52 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <4004@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, awr@tybalt.caltech.edu (Bruce Rossiter) writes: > Oh goody. Does "regular shuttle launches" mean that we will: > 1) Get all the backedup payloads launched > 2) Have enough space to provide launch capability to > European countries and our own country as well? > and how long until this schedule starts? And will the European > community ever trust our space program again? Consider that today the US has among commercial and government programs the following on order: 1 Space Shuttle Orbiter 23 Titan 4 Boosters 26 Titan 2 Boosters (converted ICBMs) 18 Atlas Centaurs (being built on speculation by General Dynamics) 17 Delta II Boosters My prediction for 1989 US launches is: 12 Shuttle 6 Titan 4's 4 Titan 2's 4 Atlas Centaurs 8 Deltas 3 Connestoga Total: 37 launches. Not too shabby. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 87 05:58 EST From: RON PICARD Subject: Newsweek reply Hi all, When the Newsweek article came out I sent a copy to my congresscritters. I didn't receive any reply from my senators (not uncommon), however my representative forwarded both the article and my letter to Robert Roe, chairman of the house Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. I recently received a reply that contained an excerpt from House report 100-204 which accompanied the NASA authorization bill. I suggest everyone on the net get a copy. The title of the section following what I was sent is titled "Utilization of Orbiting Shuttle External Tanks. Ron Picard | You get what you pay for General Motors Research Labs | unless you pay for it with taxes ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 87 18:52:03 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (T.EBERSOLE) Subject: National Commission on Space Report The report issued by the President's National Commission on Space is available from Bantam Books; it is titled _Pioneering the Space Frontier_. Copies can be ordered through the Space Studies Institute for $11.00 sent to SSI, P.O.Box 82, Princeton, N.J. 08540. It might be in your local bookstore now. A six-page summary prepared by SSI is also available. (Call 609-921-0377.) -- Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 87 14:40:48 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons in article <8577@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) says: > Posted: Mon Sep 14 15:19:35 1987 >> Sigh. When oh when will work really start on ion rocket and other >> deep-space propulsion? > As soon as there's a mission for it. And of course, nobody will plan > missions around unproven technologies, since NASA cannot afford > failures. Can you say "vicious circle"? Sure you can. Jeeez Henry, I know you've been reading this list since June. In June I posted a brief article telling about some articles in the June "Aerospace America." On page 30 in that issue is an article named "Ferry to the moon" written by Graeme Aston of JPL. That article describes current work on xenon and krypton ion engines. It also describes a solar powered lunar ferry ( could be an asteroid ferry ) based on these engines. A brief quotation "Each engines draws a maximum input power of 5 kW, which corresponds to a thrust per engine of 0.2 N at a specific impulse of 3,500 sec". Lots of work is being done on ion engines. If you read AW&ST, as I know henry does, you also know that the U.S. Air Force has been running a small project to develop a 100 kW space rated nuclear reactor. Put the engines and the reactor together and you have what the man is asking for. Ion propulsion is being developed, and has been under development since before many of us were born. Spend an afternoon in a good, or even a so so, engineering library and look it up. I did that about twenty years ago. I found references going back into the 30s. Anyone remember the SNAP project? Or the ion propulsion experiment on board ( boy I hope this is right ) SNAP-1A? There are many missions that require something like ion propulsion. Unfortunatley, ion propulsion seems to be what is known as a HARD problem. Give it time and don't give up. Bob Pendleton P.S. I'm starting to wonder whether some of you have entered a depressive spiral. I've seen this happen to individuals, I can't imagine how destructive it could be for a whole news group. Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 87 05:29:51 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Ion engines In article <480@esunix.UUCP>, bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: > There are many missions that require something like ion propulsion. > Unfortunatley, ion propulsion seems to be what is known as a HARD > problem. Give it time and don't give up. > > Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland Ion engines don't have to be hard to make. Here at Boeing there is a project to test a simple ion engine. It consists of a welded case, a perforated screen, about two dozen permanent magnets, a fuel feed line, and a power supply with 26 components. And that's it. Part of the difficulty in prior ion engine designs supported by NASA were (a) they tried to squeeze the maximum performance out of them, and (b) they took a lab power supply setup and tried to translate that to space use, without first simplifying the circuit. Thus you end up with an ion engine with a 2000 component power supply. Dumb. The real challenge for an ion engine is finding enough power to run them. You need a big photovoltaic array or a nuclear generator to feed them. For more information, contact Don Grim. He's in charge of the project. He can be reached at (206)773-2569, or at: Mail Stop 8E-22 Propulsion Systems Engineering Technology Organization Research and Engineering Division Boeing Aerospace Company POB 3999, Seattle,WA 98124 Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 02:27:57 GMT From: pyramid!weitek!sci!daver@decwrl.dec.com (Dave Rickel) Subject: Plug nozzles in Energia Anyone know of any details (or sources for details) about plug nozzles for rockets? Apparently the Energia booster is using plug nozzles instead of the more conventional bell nozzles. The article guesses a specific impulse of 485 seconds (as opposed to 455 for the SSME in vacuum) for the second stage. Impressive. (the article is in the August _Spaceflight_) david rickel decwrl!sci!daver ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #366 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Sep 87 06:20:32 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05790; Tue, 29 Sep 87 03:18:25 PDT id AA05790; Tue, 29 Sep 87 03:18:25 PDT Date: Tue, 29 Sep 87 03:18:25 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709291018.AA05790@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #367 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 367 Today's Topics: Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons The Rocket Team #8 - In Orbit Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons Spot and Security Re: Spot and Security maps Remote sensing Re: BMD and Announcing Launches Re: SDI funding of space research Re: Japanese space Re: Japanese space Re: BMD and Announcing Launches Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches Re: BMD and Announcing Launches ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Sep 87 18:13:45 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons > >> Sigh. When oh when will work really start on ion rocket and other > >> deep-space propulsion? > > As soon as there's a mission for it. And of course, nobody will > > plan missions around unproven technologies, since NASA cannot afford > > failures. Can you say "vicious circle"? Sure you can. > > ... by Graeme Aston of JPL. That article describes current work on > xenon and krypton ion engines. It also describes a solar powered lunar > ferry ( could be an asteroid ferry ) based on these engines. Right. Now where's the budget to build it? Especially, where's the budget to build it based on an unproven technology? There really is a vicious circle here, which was quite visible in the rejection of some of the Halley-rendezvous proposals: it takes a relatively ambitious mission to need fancy propulsion, and relatively ambitious missions cannot be trusted to unproven propulsion systems, which of course will never be considered "proven" until they are tried on a real mission, which won't happen unless the mission is hard enough to need them, and so on. Certainly there is ongoing R&D on ion engines. That's been true, more or less and off and on, for thirty years. The jump between that and "cleared for flight" is a big one, however. See my next AW&ST summary, which will probably come out later today, for details on an intriguing JPL proposal for breaking the vicious circle. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 14:05:33 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: The Rocket Team #8 - In Orbit On the night of January 29, 1958, the Explorer 1 satellite sat on top of its Juno 1 rocket booster, which was in the final countdown. ... Not present were the three principals, von Braun, Pickering and Van Allen. They were in Washington at a communications center of the Pentagon. In case of a successful orbiting, the army wanted them available immediately for the nation's press. On that night Aeolus, god of winds, conspired against Juno. The winds at 40,000 feet were 165 mph, clearly greater than those the rocket could withstand. The launch was scrubbed. The next night was worse; the winds reached 225 miles per hour. Again there was a scrub. ... The high winds would abate on the late evening of January 31, Meisenheimer [the meteorologist from Patrick AFB] told Medaris, who took a gamble, and lo, they did! At 20.30 hours, the countdown got underway. At 21.45 hours, trouble began. Someone noted a pool of liquid on the pad beneath the launcher. A propellant leak? A truly dedicated propulsion expert courageously ran onto the pad and thrust his head under the rocket to see what was wrong. Medical experts were of two minds on the dangers of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, with which the Juno 1 was fueled. Some thought one whiff would be fatal; others thought that it could result only in baldness or impotency. The engineer quickly determined that the liquid was the result of a spill rather than a leak. A decade and a half later he was alive, hirsute, and otherwise functional. The countdown resumed. Things went smoothly until 22.35 hours. A caution light came on, and Robert Moser [...] told Debus that he had an indication one of the jet vanes on the Juno 1 was deflected. Debus glanced at his own panel, which indicated otherwise. No problem. Forget it. Resume countdown. At 22.45 hours, Debus nodded affirmatively and almost casually to Moser, who pressed the switch that ignited the engine of the Juno 1. The job of firing the upper stages fell to Stuhlinger, who followed their flight by radar tracking and a radio beacon. At the proper moment, he pressed a switch that sent the firing signal to them. All ignited on schedule. At the communications center, von Braun and Pickering waited impatiently. The tracking station on Antigua Island had reported the fourth stage had fired and the satellite had passed over it. But von Braun wanted confirmation from Pickering's tracking stations in California before he would say Explorer 1 was in orbit. An hour and a half elapsed. According to von Braun's calculation, they should have heard by then from California. Pickering got on the telephone to his tracking stations: "Why the hell don't you hear anything?" Still there was silence. Apparently, it had not attained orbit after all. Then within 30 seconds, all four stations reported they had Explorer 1's signals coming in. It was in a higher orbit than expected, which accounted for von Braun's prediction of a shorter period for the satellite. From Peenumunde to Cape Canaveral had been a long voyage, but the team was in space at last. [from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ] Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 16:26:29 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons in article <8632@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) says: >> ... by Graeme Aston of JPL. That article describes current work on >> xenon and krypton ion engines. It also describes a solar powered >> lunar ferry ( could be an asteroid ferry ) based on these engines. > > Right. Now where's the budget to build it? Especially, where's the > budget to build it based on an unproven technology? > See my next AW&ST summary, which will probably come out later today, > for details on an intriguing JPL proposal for breaking the vicious > circle. Give it a break Henry. You're working so hard at contradicting positive statements made in this net that you are starting to contradict yourself. A lunar ferry will not be funded until there are firm plans for a lunar base. But, from your own description of JPLs proposal, ion propulsion will not be an unproven technology by then. Now before you get all negative about its chances of being funded; let me point out that an ion powered LGAS is a small enough project (except maybe the deep space tracking part) that it could be carried out by a small group of researchers at a university funded by a small research grant. Get away specials are cheap. Remember NUSAT? It was built with glad handing and hard work. The step from NUSAT to LGAS isn't very big. And what if GAS canisters aren't available for some reason? Well it looks like the Amroc/GlobeSat people will be launching small satelites in the near future. Not as cheap as GAS put plenty cheap. A lot of the people at GlobeSat are the same people who built NUSAT. What you see as a vicious circle I see as the disorderly, but natural, progress of a new technology. Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland ------------------------------ Date: 21 September 1987 13:14:34 CDT From: To: Subject: Spot and Security There have been several condemnations of attempts by governments, notably ours, to restrict the availablity of satalite pictures. On the whole, I am in sympathy with this, and in any case the cat is out of the bag and can't be put back in. But I'm more nervous about it than you seem to be. I remember, for instance, that participants in the Cuban missle crisis attributed the successful (i.e. non-nuclear) resoloution of the crisis in part to the fact that they had about a week to think about the problem before the presence of the missiles became public information. See, for instance, ESSENCE OF DECISION (sorry, I've forgotten the author). There are sometimes valid national security considerations, although I admit that the catagory is infinitly abusbible, and frequently abused. And as I say, the question is in this case moot. But maybe the question should cause you some discomfort. Jonathan Goldberg ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 87 16:38:55 GMT From: mnetor!yetti!geac!daveb@uunet.uu.net (Brown) Subject: Re: Spot and Security In article <8709211842.AA17897@angband.s1.gov> C90630JG@WUVMD.BITNET writes: >But I'm more nervous about it than you seem to be. I remember, for >instance, that participants in the Cuban missle crisis attributed the >successful (i.e. non-nuclear) resoloution of the crisis in part to the >fact that they had about a week to think about the problem before the >presence of the missiles became public information. > Jonathan Goldberg A parallel to this is the (rather new) requirement that people being wiretapped under a court order get a notice from the court when the wiretap period expires. (This is in Canada, by the way: You poor americans still have to guess who's listing to your phone (:-)) Perhaps the sensor people would accept a restriction on publication of certain material for 72 hours or so? David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 87 15:20:28 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Bugs Bunny) Subject: maps with all the talk over SPOT and such, and having tripped over this book i could not pass up, i thought i would post this here. The Map Catalog Joel Makower Editor Laura Bergheim Assoc. Ed. Tilden Press Vantage Books Ret. $14.95 it lists all kinds of maps, and map software too! it is a good little desktop reference for all sorts of maps. and it does include SPOT and CIA sources (fun fun fun) :-) (well, i liked it anyway) enjoy! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 87 00:53:22 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Remote sensing To: sunybcs!kitty!larry@AMES.ARPA Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: sunybcs!kitty!larry@ames.arpa (Larry Lippman) > In the pursuit of your goal of "freedom", be sure to advocate: > 1. Repeal all laws pertaining to espionage. > 2. Open all U.S. military installations to the public for > unrestricted passage. The idea that there is any expectation of privacy for objects in plain view of the sky is out of date. The US and the USSR can see eachother's military installations. This is good, as it reduces paranoia and unjustified suspicions. Why forbid companies and individuals from looking at the Earth from space? There is really no way to do so except to ban everyone but governments from going into space. And nothing to be gained by it in any case. In the space age, there is a big difference between true espionage - stealing private papers, etc - and looking at large objects in plain view. The days when weather reports, for instance, were classified (to hinder enemy bombers) are long over. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 19:46:12 GMT From: mnetor!yetti!geac!chris@uunet.uu.net (Chris Syed) Subject: Re: BMD and Announcing Launches In article <8709201923.AA16304@angband.s1.gov>, DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: > Do you think the Soviets will oblige us and announce when their launches > occur? I suspect they do... sort of. If our trackers can't tell the diff between an ICBM on a ballistic trajectory and a launch vehicle & payload headed for orbit, we're in bad trouble. I know it's fiction, but there's a nice account of this burried somewhere in the 700 pp. of _Red Storm Rising_ by Clancy. cbs ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 18:06:34 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research > > Remember that an absolute ban on weapons in space would ground all > > ICBMs. (A good idea, too.) > > I see. What do you propose be done when thousands of ICBMs are sent > flying, in contradiction to the treaty? Call the police? Be somewhere else at the time. :-) More seriously, if using them is illegal, there is no further legal justification for retaining them, so they get scrapped as part of the treaty. Not that I have any hopes that this will ever happen... "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 87 15:20:13 GMT From: ecsvax!dgary@mcnc.org (D Gary Grady) Subject: Re: Japanese space In article <8709161649.AA22583@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >The proposal to annex part of Australia to Japan sounds really neat, >not that I think that it would ever happen, . . . It has happened, though not in a fashion that would be of use for space purposes. There was a World War II Japanese POW camp at Cowra, New South Wales, which was the site of the largest prison break in history. It failed, and hundreds of Japanese died in the attempt. After the war the Japanese government discovered that the cemetary there was being maintained, voluntarily, by the men who had served as guards at the prison. Touched by the gesture, Japan donated a magnificent Japanese garden to the people of Australia. In return the Australian parliament ceded the land of the cemetary to Japan. If former enemies can be so civilized about matters of war and death, cooperation in space exploration seems relatively trivial. -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 87 01:04:20 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arpa (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Japanese space In article <8709161649.AA22583@ames-pioneer.arpa>, (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > The proposal to annex part of Australia to Japan sounds really neat,... Speaking as an Australian citizen and U.S. resident, I'd hate to see that happen. I'd much rather the U.S. annexed Australia. Sometimes I think it such a pity that the U.S. isn't the imperialist nation certain groups would have you think it is. Peter da Silva ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 87 21:25:03 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: BMD and Announcing Launches In article <1439@geac.UUCP>, chris@geac.UUCP (Chris Syed) writes: > I know it's fiction, but there's a nice account of this burried > somewhere in the 700 pp. of _Red Storm Rising_ by Clancy. If anyone is interested in the technology of warfare, as currently deployed this is the best place to start. Clancy not only writes a VERY good story, but also does his homework - the technology descriptions are right on target. John M. Pantone ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 20:28:54 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches > > Col. Thomas Bearden, USA (Ret), late of the Army Weapons Center at the > > Redstone Arsenal, claims that the Challenger disaster, the Atlas-Centaur > > failure, and the third (Thor?) 1986 launch failure were all caused by > > tests of Third? Generation Soviet Tesla-effect scalar wave transmitters It's hard to find better illustrations than this of the absolute necessity for civilian control of the military. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 18:55:44 GMT From: miq%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jim Maloy) Subject: Re: BMD and Announcing Launches In article <1439@geac.UUCP>, chris@geac.UUCP (Chris Syed) says: (answering why the Soviets would announce their launches) > If our trackers can't tell the diff between an ICBM on a ballistic > trajectory and a launch vehicle & payload headed for orbit, we're in > bad trouble. Now wait a minute. I find it difficult to believe that our (U.S.) tracking ability is so poor as to miss the difference in velocity between an ICBM and an orbital LV. That'd be less than three significant figures of accuracy. I could do better with a plumbline, protracter and a stopwatch. 1/2 :-) Unless the Soviets are using ICBMs that take off at orbital speeds and then retrothrust to suborbital, this mixup should never occur. James D. Maloy The Pennsylvania State University Bitnet: MIQ@PSUECL, MIQ@PSUVM Aerospace Engineering, '87 UUCP : {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!miq ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #367 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Sep 87 06:20:04 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07353; Wed, 30 Sep 87 03:16:42 PDT id AA07353; Wed, 30 Sep 87 03:16:42 PDT Date: Wed, 30 Sep 87 03:16:42 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8709301016.AA07353@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #368 SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 368 Today's Topics: Midwest Space Development Conference Speaker Needed Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches Re: Japanese space Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches Re: SDI funding of space research Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? Re: SDI funding of space research Re: BMD and Announcing Launches Re: Space Digest more international ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Sep 1987 18:26-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Midwest Space Development Conference Midwest Space Development Conference Oct 16-19, 1987 Holiday Inn Northwest, Worthington Conference rate $57/night single or double, mention MSDC to get special rate 885-3334 (I don't have the area code) Registration $30 at door $40 Friday dinner $12 Saturday lunch $8 Saturday Night Banquet $20 Sunday Lunch $8 Space Activist Workshop $20 Model Rocket Workshop $10 Check payable MSDC, mail to Midwest Space Development Conference PO Box 261151 Columbus, OH 43226 Info Jim Woods 216-282-6329 Program includes Bonnie Dunbar (Astronaut), Gordon Woodcock (Boeing Huntsville) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 87 16:17:38 GMT From: ihnp4!occrsh!uokmax!rob@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Robert K. Shull) Subject: Speaker Needed What is your "Vision of the Universe"? In 1987, nearly 2100 students from across Oklahoma answered this question through their art as they participated in "Visions of the Universe" student art contest. Sponsored annually by the Kirkpatrick Planetarium in Oklahoma City, the contest is open to all Oklahoma students in grades K-12. Themes for the contest range across all areas of astronomy, science fiction, and fantasy. Each year the planetarium holds a reception for the finalists and winners. Over four hundred students and parents attended last year's reception. Highlights of the reception included inspiring speeches by both C.J. Cherryh and Freda Deskin, Oklahoma "Teacher in Space" candidate. These two individuals praised the students for their work, and encouraged them to keep pursuing their "vision of the universe" to make it a reality. This year the Kirkpatrick Planetarium needs more individuals willing to share their "vision" with the students involved in the 1988 "Visions of the Universe" contest. The awards reception will be held on the evening of Friday, February 26, 1988. We are expecting over 600 students and parents to attend. The Kirkpatrick Planetarium will be able to provide air fare and lodging for a qualified speaker. We are looking for science fiction or fantasy writers, artists, illustrators, members of the scientific community, etc. We would also like to hear from individuals involved in special effects. If interested please contact, before January 1, 1988: Kirkpatrick Planetarium Christina R. Reeves-Shull 2100 N.E. 52nd Oklahoma City, OK 73111 Ph. 405-424-5545 Or, send mail to rob@uokmax Robert K. Shull University of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network ihnp4!occrsh!uokmax!rob CIS 73765,1254 Delphi RKSHULL ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 17:55:14 GMT From: steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@uunet.uu.net (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? In article <538@uop.UUCP>, robert@uop.UUCP (Townsend Brown) writes: > commercial airlines have, for awhile now, occasionally come to a > landing with "unexplainable" 1-2" holes burned through the fuselage > (rudder) section...hit in flight no less!! > and everyone calls me nuts for doing tesla experiments! > :-) This is almost certainly caused by lightning strikes. Planes have been hit without their crews knowing it, and bolts may travel 40 miles or more from their parent thunderstorms. The burned holes through the metal skin are very characteristic of lightning strikes. Extensions such as tail fins, rudders, nose cones, and wingtips are the most frequent areas of damage. There was a good discussion of this problem some time ago in rec.aviation. Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 17:20:03 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches In article <1423@faline.bellcore.com>, karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > > > Col. Thomas Bearden, USA (Ret), late of the Army Weapons Center at the > > > Redstone Arsenal, claims that the Challenger disaster, the Atlas-Centaur > > > failure, and the third (Thor?) 1986 launch failure were all caused by > > > tests of Third? Generation Soviet Tesla-effect scalar wave transmitters > > It's hard to find better illustrations than this of the absolute necessity for > civilian control of the military. > > Phil Huh!? Other than the fact that the guy is RETIRED, and presumably no longer affecting military operations (does anyone wonder why he was retired, btw :]), since when are civilians more immune to infection by crackpot ideas than the military? If a state legislature seriously considered legally redefining the value of pi as 3.0, what says they wouldn't do some equally idiotic thing in any other given area? (Not that there aren't enough examples of such behavior in your morning paper...) seh ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 07:24:49 GMT From: mnetor!genat!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net (Gordan Palameta) Subject: Re: Japanese space In article <789@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <8709161649.AA22583@ames-pioneer.arpa>, (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >> The proposal to annex part of Australia to Japan sounds really neat,... > >Speaking as an Australian citizen and U.S. resident, I'd hate to see >that happen. I'd much rather the U.S. annexed Australia. Sometimes No no no, not the whole country, just a hundred odd square kilometers at the northern tip of Queensland. I posted an article on this about a week and a half ago <769@maccs.UUCP>, but apart from Eugene Miya, who seems quite taken with the idea, it has not met with much response of any kind. So I'll just recapitulate the idea here before allowing it to sink into oblivion. Basically, at their current launch site the Japanese are severely restricted in their launch windows, mainly because local fishermen don't like to have spent rocket stages raining on their heads. I think they are prohibited from launching at least 9 months out of 12. Now, everyone agrees that the key to a large-scale space program is frequent launches (on a weekly basis, like the Russians do). Some day not too far in the future the Japanese will have a large-scale space program, but this is clearly impossible with their current setup. They will have two choices -- compensate the fisherman and deprive them of their livelihood, or look for a launch site away from the Japanese home islands. Enter Australia, which is apparently offering a site at the northern tip of Queensland as a launch site. However, all they're offering is the land itself -- investing the money to build facilities would be up to the other party. The proposal I made was that Australia could make the offer more attractive by actually offering to transfer *sovereignty* of the launch site to the Japanese (works for embassies and, apparently, war cemeteries -- why not launch sites?) I wrote: >What the Japanese would get out of the deal would be a launch site near >the equator in which they would be free to make massive investments >without the fear of being booted out or having the rent on them being >raised to extortionate levels (something like what happened to the >British with their military bases in Malta in the early 70s -- they >were eventually forced to pull out; or like what the Americans keep >worrying about with their bases in the Phillipines). > >What the Australians would get would be a few paltry billion dollars >for the real-estate, a special trade arrangement whereby Australian >goods would be let into the Japanese zone under reduced or no tariffs, >and an opportunity for their young scientists and engineers to study >and participate in a space program in close geographic proximity to >their homes. Note the only really unusual thing here is the transfer of sovereignty. There is ample precedent for building launch facilities far from your main population centers (the Europeans launch from South America, but N.B. from French territory), and the Australians are already offering a site. The point is, a launch site off national territory would be a worrisome prospect for the Japanese. It's not just another "foreign investment" -- a major national space program will involve investing hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few decades. A space program is something that a country's future, no less, will be riding on. When that much is at stake, it's difficult to leave it at the mercy of the vicissitudes of international politics, no matter how friendly or stable a host country might be. The economic and technological benefits to Australia would be great if they could land a launch site and support facilities in their back yard. And the thing is, if the Australians offer sovereignty, it just might be the "kicker" that captures imaginations, puts the whole notion of a Japanese launch site on the Australian continent on the "front burner", and makes the prospect too attractive for the Japanese to refuse. Admit it, there's a weird ring of plausibility to it, no? By the way, Peter, if you DO want to sell your *entire* country to the Japanese, don't let me stop you. Some time ago, the Rhinoceros party proposed selling Canada to the US for $20 trillion dollars -- we'd all become millionaires and move to Florida. (For those who don't know, the Rhinoceros party is a joke political party in Canada, which has lately expanded to the US -- Bill "Spaceman" Lee (ex Red Soc and Montreal Expo) for President in 88, anyone?) Gordan Palameta ...!mnetor!lsuc!maccs!gordan ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 22:41:45 GMT From: steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!bob@uunet.uu.net (Bob Armao) Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches For those interested in the life of Tesla, Smithsonian Magazine had an article on him in the June 1986 issue. I'm going to dig it out and re-read it myself if I can locate it in my "pile". -- Bob Armao (bob@brspyr1) | Third line of this signature was UUCP: ihnp4!dartvax!brspyr1!bob | shredded to protect National Security BRS Information Technologies | Phone: (518) 783-1161 |-------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 01:36:56 GMT From: rosevax!kksys!bird@uunet.uu.net (Mike Bird) Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research In article <8631@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> > Remember that an absolute ban on weapons in space would ground all >> > ICBMs. (A good idea, too.) >> >> I see. What do you propose be done when thousands of ICBMs are sent >> flying, in contradiction to the treaty? Call the police? > >Be somewhere else at the time. :-) > >More seriously, if using them is illegal, there is no further legal >justification for retaining them, so they get scrapped as part of the >treaty. Not that I have any hopes that this will ever happen... "And if it was made illegal to own guns, only criminals would have them...." Of course, this is simplistic, but if the missles were supposed to scrapped, chances are that all sides would keep a few around "Just in case..." As far as telling the difference between a legit launch and a ballistic launch, "legit" launches can behave ballistically, and ICBMs could be launched under guidance. Especially if the "other side" was using this as a criterion. Mike Bird ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 87 09:18 EDT From: Emanuel.henr@xerox.com Subject: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? "What !!!!!!!" Townsend Brown writes, >>"commercial airlines have, for awhile now, occasionally come to a >>landing with "unexplainable" 1-2" holes burned through the >>fuselage(rudder) section...hit in flight no less!!" I have never heard anything about this sort of thing. Is this documented fact, or anecdotal hear-say ? More info please. Keith Emanuel Xerox Corp. Rochester, New York ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 87 23:37:07 GMT From: super.upenn.edu!eecae!crlt!russ@rutgers.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research In article <386@kksys.UUCP>, bird@kksys.UUCP (Mike Bird) writes: >In article <8631@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >As far as telling the difference between a legit launch and a ballistic >launch, "legit" launches can behave ballistically, and ICBMs could be >launched Get real. *All* launches* are ballistic, and guided during powered flight. The differences between ICBM launches and satellite launches are: 1.) Satellite launches come in ones and twos; ICBMs come by the gross. 2.) Satellites launch from pads at a few launch sites; ICBMs launch from silos, and SLBMs pop out of the ocean. 3.) Satellites usually launch into minimum-energy (eastward) or sun-synchronous (retrograde near-polar) orbits, while ICBMs head for their targets. ICBMs also stop boosting at lower speeds, but that's a bit late for ID'ing them for defensive purposes. >Mike Bird Russ Cage ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 87 14:43:01 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: BMD and Announcing Launches in article <20735MIQ@PSUVMA>, MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET (Jim Maloy) says: > > In article <1439@geac.UUCP>, chris@geac.UUCP (Chris Syed) says: > > (answering why the Soviets would announce their launches) > >> If our trackers can't tell the diff between an ICBM on a ballistic >> trajectory and a launch vehicle & payload headed for orbit, we're in >> bad trouble. > Unless the Soviets are using ICBMs that take off at orbital speeds and > then retrothrust to suborbital, this mixup should never occur. FOBS Fractional Orbit Bombing System. One of the things that gives me nightmares is an FOBS MIRV. The idea is to do exactly what you said. Put a number of bombs in low earth orbit and deorbit them just a short distance from their targets. I've even hear people suggest that a "reasonable" basing mode for MX, er Peacekeeper, is launch to orbit on warning. But, then I know a lot of crazy people. I don't want to sound PARANOID, but, every orbital launch could be a sneak attack on somebody. If you really want to start losing sleep, think about how many expended upper stages there are in orbit. How many are large enough, and in stable enough orbits, to conceal a warhead? Do I believe this kind of thing is going on? No. Could it go on? I don't think so, but I wish I was sure. Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 87 14:52:54 EDT From: Castel1%UMASS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Re: Space Digest more international What I've heard, from a friend of mine who has spent some time in the USSR, is that possesion of things like PC's and copiers is indeed legal (just expensive and difficult) but possesion of a *modem* is extremely illegal. That makes very little difference, of course, as probably most Russians in the astronomy field have access to (IBM!) mainframes, but I'm sure they severely restrict E-mail access going out of the country (even if they're using the RCF822 standard, which somehow I doubt). -Chip Olson, UMass-Amherst (Castell@UMass.Bitnet). ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V7 #368 *******************