Date: Mon, 25 Jul 88 01:05:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8807250805.AA00553@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #294

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 294

Today's Topics:
	    Re: Ron Paul's Libertarian Party Space Policy
       Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update
Soviet space commitment (was: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update)
       Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update
			 Re: Von Braun quote
				   
       Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update
			 Re: Ramscoop engine
		      Re: Hubble Space Telescope
		 Re: Pegasus and other space projects
	      Unethical National Space Society election
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 88 13:36:47 GMT
From: l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@k.cc.purdue.edu  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Ron Paul's Libertarian Party Space Policy

In article <8807091956.AA22362@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes:

		[Long quote of the libertarian space policy.]

Let me say that I support the libertarian space policy and I will probably
vote libertarian.  However, I do not expect the country to even adopt very
many libertarian policies in the near future (alas).  Does that mean that I
should not support those policies which I think will have good ends, and
possibly even make libertarian societies possible in the future?

Jim complains that because Dale Amon is a libertarian, he cannot reasonably
support any NASA space activities.  I believe that Szilard's prognostications
about the bad effect of the present type of government support of researcn
in general have already occurred, and that steps should be taken to reverse
the process.  However, merely cutting the federal research funding will not,
by itself, do anything good for the problem.  For a good researcher, who
appreciates the problem, to refuse to accept government funds will also not
help the problem.

Libertarians believe that those who wish to fund exploration of space should
be allowed to do so, and that, except for military purposes, the government
should get out.  Thus a libertarian will support the elimination of NASAs
activities in space exploration together with the government removing its
controls on private space activities.  However, this does not prevent the
support of NASA if the government still exercises control.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

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

Date: 10 Jul 88 18:04:36 GMT
From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul F. Dietz)
Subject: Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update

In article <8807081928.AA23848@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>On the
>other hand it may drive the Russians towards faster implementation of space
>processing on an industrial scale.  That would return materials both to their
>economy and provide high tech, high value exports. 

I find this utterly unbelievable.  It's clear NASA doesn't have a single
product that could be made profitably in the space station, and little
reason to expect any such product exists.  Why should the Soviets, with
their awful record at developing and marketing high tech products, expect
success?

It seems incredible to me that, faced with the evidence of what
bureaucracy did to the US space program, people can still think the
Soviet space program is some paragon of good planning.  I don't
see what they're getting that's worth the investment.  And, Glenn's
exhorations notwithstanding, I don't see why the US should follow
their lead.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu

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

Date: 10 Jul 88 18:24:55 GMT
From: att!lzaz!lznv!psc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Subject: Soviet space commitment (was: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update)

< "Would you buy a used operating system from these guys?" >

In article <8807081928.AA23848@ll-vlsi.arpa>, glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman)
writes a whole lot of useful information about the Phobos probes.
Thanks!  But another comment got me to thinking.

>    At the Soviet Party Congress last week there were two people who attacked 
> their space program.  As here the two lines of arguments were that it is 
> (a) expensive and the money could best be spent helping the people or (b) it 
> is a big science project which eliminates smaller, more worthwhile science 
> programs.  In spite of that it appears that the space program still has the
> support of the leadership there.  However now those doubts are being expressed
> publicly, so maybe this is what will finally slow them down.

Color me skeptical about the "spontaneous" outbursts at the Party
Congress.  They might be staged opportunities for the Powers Who Be to
chastise opponents, and to repeat the USSR's commitment to space
exploration and development.

>Glenn Chapman, MIT Lincoln Lab

-Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc
AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com
I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind.

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

Date: 10 Jul 88 19:14:08 GMT
From: thomson@cs.utah.edu  (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update

In article 19086@cornell.UUCP, dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) writes:
:In article <8807081928.AA23848@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA
    (Glenn Chapman) writes:
:>On the
:>other hand it may drive the Russians towards faster implementation of space
:>processing on an industrial scale.  That would return materials both to their
:>economy and provide high tech, high value exports. 
:
:I find this utterly unbelievable.  It's clear NASA doesn't have a single
:product that could be made profitably in the space station, and little
:reason to expect any such product exists.  Why should the Soviets, with
:their awful record at developing and marketing high tech products, expect
:success?

I thought the soviets were using the space station to make very high quality
silicon wafers and chips.  Is this incorrect?  I remember some talk a while
back about chips/wafers that were made on the space station.

Compared to the US, the soviets are far behind in the capabilities of producing
high quality (low amounts of impurities) wafers and corresponding chips.  I
would think that very pure silicon crystals could be grown in the zero-g
environment of space.  Comments?

						-- Rich
-- 
Rich Thomson, Oasis Technologies, 3190 MEB, U of U, Salt Lake City, Utah  84112
(801) 355-5146  thomson@cs.utah.edu  {bellcore,ut-sally}!utah-cs!thomson
		    Alcohol: the drug of availability

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

Date: 10 Jul 88 20:04:29 GMT
From: Portia!Jessica!paulf@labrea.stanford.edu  (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: Von Braun quote

In article <1988Jul10.003611.16575@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>-- 
>Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is  |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>a traitor to mankind.  --Pournelle   | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry
	^
	|
	\------	A curious comment, since the dairy industry supported the
		Republican candidate in the last election...


-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX	     | One Internet to rule them all,    -- Tome
Computer Systems Laboratory  | One Internet to find them;            of 
Stanford University          | One Internet to bring them all,    Internet
->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU  | And in the Ether bind them.         Hacking

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

Date: 07/10/88 20:10:00 EST
From: #JFDOBB%WMMVS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Subject: 

I was wondering if anybody knows why there are never any replies from
any of the machines at larc.nasa.gov, it seems like there are at
least a few frome ames, but none from langley, are there just no
langley people who read this or do they have nothing to say.

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

Date: 11 Jul 88 00:22:54 GMT
From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul F. Dietz)
Subject: Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update

In article <5593@utah-cs.UUCP> thomson@cs.utah.edu.UUCP (Rich Thomson) writes:

>I thought the soviets were using the space station to make very high quality
>silicon wafers and chips.  Is this incorrect?  I remember some talk a while
>back about chips/wafers that were made on the space station.
>
>Compared to the US, the soviets are far behind in the capabilities of producing
>high quality (low amounts of impurities) wafers and corresponding chips.  I
>would think that very pure silicon crystals could be grown in the zero-g
>environment of space.  Comments?

It would pretty silly for the Soviets to grow silicon crystals in space.
The cost would be very high.   It would less technically risky just to
steal (or buy on the black market) and copy crystal growing machines.

It would be doubly absurd to make chips or wafers on a space station,
since microgravity is worthless after the crystal is grown, and the cost
of operating any manufacturing facility in orbit is enormous.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu

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

Date: 10 Jul 88 18:26:24 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine

In article <2284@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
> 
> Remember that your efficiency goes up as you speed up (more swept volume
> per unit time), so a system that can generate 1 gee at 1% of light will be
> able to generate lots more gees at 90% of light, so you're going to have to
> throttle down as you get up to speed in the galaxy anyway.
> 

I beg to differ.  A ramscoop engine suffers from the same ram drag
as any other ramjet type engine.  This apparent force is caused by
temporarily bringing the interstellar matter up to your speed so
you hold on to it long enough to fuse it.  It then expands out the
back at it's characteristic exhaust velocity, which is about 0.04c.

This then is the upper speed limit for an interstellar 'ramjet'.
If you attempt an interstellar 'scramjet' where the interstellar
matter is compressed mostly sideways, and not accelerated axially
up to your speed, then you ship has to be long enough for the
fusion reaction to complete before the ship has gone by.  With
'conventional' fusion reactor designs, the burn times are measured
in many seconds (like 100) , which makes for very long ships.

If you had a laser fusion 'supercompressor' you could probably
get the burn time down,but no one I know of has even 'back of the
enveloped' that concept (magnetic scoop feeding laser inertial
confinement).

-- 
Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth

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

Date: 10 Jul 88 18:04:57 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope

In article <6651@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, ins_ackg@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Choon Kiat Goh) writes:
> 
>    On Nova, there was a show on spy machines and their development
> and so forth. One thing they said was that the next generation of
> spy satellites will be like the Hubble Space Telescope (their graphics
> showed a stunning look-alike) except that it'd be pointed downwards
> instead of up. How feasible would it be for the current HST to be
> turned around and pointed downward, just for a quick scan to test
> out the optics? Is the HST the next step in reconnaisance technology?
> Is it possible for the HST in its existing form to be used as a 
> "spy" satellite?
> 
>    --- Ian ---
> (ins_ackg@jhunix) <== no mention of ironic situations please!

No, you've got it backwards, the HST is derived from the previous generation
of satellites.  As I was told by a co-worker who worked on the Space
Telescope structure "It seemed like they had done all this before",
referring to Lockheed (spacecraft systems on HST) and Perkin-Elmer
(optics on ditto).  Note: Boeing made the carbon-epoxy structure
that holds the optics under subcontract to Perkin-Elmer.

As for the feasibility of pointing it downwards, in short "No way, Jose!".
The science instruments are sensitive enough to be damaged by looking
at a bright planet (Venus, Jupiter), much less a brighter object.

There is a parallel story about a spy satellite being damaged by looking
at a natural gas flare in Saudia Arabia.

When you design for looking at 26th magniude objects, one 10^14 times
as bright is liable to hurt (ouch!)


-- 
Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth

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

Date: 10 Jul 88 18:59:49 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Pegasus and other space projects

In article <1988Jul9.234143.15997@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> > What happens when there are cost overruns and production delays?
> 
> Presumably, existing contracts would have to be renegotiated (unless there
> were provisions for such already present), leading to possible loss of
> business.  Same as what happens when Boeing hits delays or overruns on
> a new airliner.

Just because we delivered a few airplanes a few days late this year
is no reason to pick on Boeing.  Usually, for us, delivery dates are
sacred, and are met at all costs.  There have been some problems this
year because the high rate of airplane production worldwide is 
straining the supplier chain.  We just make damn sure before we commit
to a customer that the date is reasonable (a few days out of 2-3 years
from order to delivery is not that bad, really)... As far as development
or manufacturing costs, if they overrun, Boeing eats the loss.  The
price on the contract is what we deliver the airplane for.  Please
check out you facts in the future before using my employer as a
bad example.

> However, the standard rule of thumb is that doing things privately and
> accepting some risk is an order of magnitude cheaper than having the job
> done by the government.  $450M for government development of three small
> solid motors, by an experienced company, doesn't sound too bad.  Likewise
> a time of two years (not one -- this project is already well underway,
> remember) doesn't sound too bad for motors that don't involve new technology.
> They should represent a fairly routine engineering job.
> 

I agree.  We (Space Research Associates, the small space company I own
20% of) have been working on a similar design, the main difference
being using existing solids.  Our cost estimate through first flight
is about $15 million.  Given that solids typically cost about ten times
first unit cost for set up of a production line, the 45 million number
for Pegasus seems quite reasonable.  Solids are not so much 'designed
and developed' as 'built to order'.  The filament wound case/carbon
nozzle technology is well in hand for Hercules after all the governemnt
motors they have built.  Our design stays with existing solids because
its hard enough trying to raise $15 million in venture money as a
startup.  OSC/Hercules have more money to play with, and can afford
better performance motor designs.

If OSC/Hercules are as smart as they seem to have been so far
then I will go out on a limb and predict that they will be buying
a used 707 cargo plane to convert to their first stage.  Compare
sizes and Costs:

Airplane		Cost with Modifications		Takeoff Wt (lb)

new 747-400		$145 million			890,000
old 707-320C		$8-20 million			333,600

So you get a smaller max weight, who cares.  The 707 can lift up to
twice the initial Pegasus launch weight.  When that gets too small,
they will be able to afford a 747 for even bigger launches.

-- 
Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth

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

Date: 11 Jul 88 02:58:03 GMT
From: ubvax!unisv!vanpelt@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Unethical National Space Society election

I just got a letter about the ballot for the upcoming NSS Board Elections.
It looks like the Nominating Committee has yet another slimy trick up
its collective sleeve -- In direct violation of agreements that seemed
to have been reached at the Denver conference, the ballots are going to
go out with a cover letter recommending a "straight ticket" vote for the
candidates placed on the ballot by the Nominating Committee, there is no
indication of which candidates were placed on the ballot by petition, and
there is no mention of the fact that you can, indeed, vote AGAINST a
candidate by marking NO on the line in front of the candidate's name.

It is my intention to mark a big, red   NO!  in front of every name
which came from the Nominating Committee.  I will make exceptions for
candidates that I have some good reason to vote in favor of, but
for Nominating Committee candidates, the presumption is of guilt
as far as I'm concerned.

The time is running out for wrenching control of this organization from
the bureaucratic thumb-twiddling empire builders, and if we don't do it
this board election, it will probably never happen.  We were unable to have
a board meeting at the Denver convention, because a quorum of board members
did not condescend to put in an apperance!!  I very strongly recommend looking
at the list of which board members attended, and if they weren't there but
they're on the ballot, vote  NO!  unless there are VERY good extenuating
circumstances.  (I'm aware that in several cases, there were.)

I had let my NSS membership lapse, and renewed it for the Denver conference.
I'm hoping that wasn't a mistake.

Sorry about the angry, cynical tone of this.  I'm very sincerely PO'd.
--
"... Local prohibitions cannot block advances in military  | Mike Van Pelt
and commercial technology.... democratic movements for     | Unisys,
local restraint can only restrain the world's democracies, | Silicon Valley
not the world as a whole.   --   K. Eric Drexler           | vanpelt@unisv.UUCP

-- 
"... Local prohibitions cannot block advances in military  | Mike Van Pelt
and commercial technology.... democratic movements for     | Unisys,
local restraint can only restrain the world's democracies, | Silicon Valley
not the world as a whole.   --   K. Eric Drexler           | vanpelt@unisv.UUCP

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #294
*******************