Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 9 May 91 01:25:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0c-Bonq00WBwE9F04w@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 9 May 91 01:25:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #508 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 508 Today's Topics: Re: Space technology Re: Why the space station? Re: Incentives Re: Space Station Freedom Information Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not... Recovering Galileo Re: Galileo Update On CNN Re: Japanese satellite destroyed on NASA rocket. Re: Galileo works? Current Shuttle Schedule SPACE Digest V13 #476 Other Formats Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Apr 91 15:27:09 GMT From: mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@apple.com (Paul Blase) Subject: Re: Space technology To: rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) RW> I like what Carl Sagan said, if you want to develop non-stick RW> frying pans you're better off funding a program for developing RW> non-stick frying pans 99% of the time(rather than a program for RW> sending box cars with men in them to space). That's assuming that you were originally intending to invent non-stick frying pans. The term spinoff means new uses for technologies that were originally invented for other purposes, such as (in the case of Teflon) gaskets, pipes and such for corrosive liquids, and non-lubricated bearings. I really don't think that the kitchen utensile industry has the bucks available to develop such materials. They do, however, have the resources to develop new uses for something that NASA developed in the course of building a moon-rocket. RW> When James Webb, RW> the chief NASA administrator invented the words SPINOFF I think RW> he developed one of the all time great public relations gimmic RW> of the 60's. True, but that does not make it invalid. The new products and industries developed as a result of spinoffs have already paid for the space program several times over. RW>I think the major applications of space RW> technology are, in order of importance: ICBM's, military RW> reconnaisance satellites, weather satellites, communications RW> satellites, propaganda for more NASA expenditures, astronomy, RW> and planetary probes. How about space-based industry? I think that you are being extremely short sighted. --- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR] -- Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 04:19:57 GMT From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5!szabo@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Why the space station? In article <1991Apr22.034722.676@ariel.unm.edu> prentice@triton.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes: >Is this something that life scientists (whatever that means, biologists, >doctors, etc...) are really calling for or is this something that NASA >has dreamt up as yet another one of their applications of space? Are you kidding? For NASA "life sciences" means studying the effects one non-representative space environment -- 28 degree low earth orbit -- on a very small sample of uncommonly healthy people. In other words, "life sciences" is a transpararent buzzword for another multi-billion dollar astronaut toy. A real space environment biology experiment would study a large variety of gravity levels and radiation types on statistically meaningful samples of animals with biology close to human. This would cost less than 1/10 what NASA is proposing for Fred. >Is this something NIH has bought into? Hah hah! That's a good one. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "Living below your means allows you to live better than living above your means." -- Dave Boyd The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 91 06:52:19 GMT From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5!szabo@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Incentives In article <1991Apr24.172156.3205@en.ecn.purdue.edu> irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (/dev/null) writes: >Congress should allocate (through lotteries, appropriations, >etc) a large cash prize on the order of >US$100,000,000 for the first person/organization to >go to the moon and spend an amount of time on the surface. It doesn't make sense to encourage industry to do something totally non-commercial. A more interesting proposal I have heard is to pay a $500/lb. anti-fee for any payload, even if it is sand, delivered into low earth orbit -- on top of whatever other revenue that payload might give the launch company. This encourages the development of inexpensive launchers, since a launcher even without any revenue payload can make a profit, if it is cheap enough, and there is further incentive still for cheap launchers with useful commercial paylaods. The reason this proposal is useful is that the goal is very generic, rather than specific, and the generic orbit that is specified is one that commerce is already interested in. Along these lines, an improvement to the proposal would be to pay $2,000/lb. for payloads delivered to GEO, since this is the most frequent commercial destination. (An aerospace rule of thumb is that cost/lb. to GEO is 4 times cost/lb. to LEO). -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "Living below your means allows you to live better than living above your means." -- Dave Boyd The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 03:10:50 GMT From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5!szabo@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Space Station Freedom Information In article <1991Apr23.150638.15737@engin.umich.edu> kcs@sso.larc.nasa.gov (Ken Sheppardson) writes: > ] Space Station Freedom serves no significant scientific purpose. Just about anything can serve some minor scientific purpose. Fred serves very little scientific purpose relative the the $thousands of millions being spent on it. > ] The money we're spending on a space station could be better spent on > ] something else. On _many things_ else. Refer to the proposed NASA budget I posted last week to this newsgroup. > ] The space station is practically useless for astronomy because of the gases > ] it gives off and because it's not a stable enough platform for precise > ] pointing. Not "practically useless" but "much less useful per tax dollar than a wide range of alternatives" > ] Space station is a political necessity. It can't be cancelled. One pork barrel's as good as another. Many could be sold more easily than a boring space station. A very important point I hope you include was the one I described in a previous article, about the theory of centralization which has been the major rationale of the station paradigm, vs. the fact that the various industrial and defense uses of space need a large variety of orbits unreachable by a centralized station or platfrorm. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "Living below your means allows you to live better than living above your means." -- Dave Boyd The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 91 04:19:17 GMT From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5!szabo@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not... In article <12270@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >1. We already have medium and light launchers (not that they couldn't > be made cheaper and more cost effective). And mayhap current commercial > payloads are sized to fit these existing launchers 'cause if they aren't > the only game in town, waiting for the shuttle is a pain. We have had several HLV's during the history of spaceflight. Let's consider their record: Saturn V: 0 orders from industry Russian Moon Rocket: 0 orders from industry. Shuttle: 0 orders from industry not subsidized by at least a factor of 5 Energia: 0 orders from industry Titan IV: 0 orders from industry We had Saturn V around for a decade. At the same time our first large commercial industry, satcoms, chose Delta, Atlas and Titan. The DoD also chose mid-range rockets over the Saturn V, as did all deep space exploration missions except Apollo itself. In all those years, not one commercial order. Not even a defense order. Doesn't exactly look like commerce is chomping at the bit for an HLV. >2. Very large payloads are, in part, nonexistent because of the nonexistent > launchers to toss them overhead. Three such launchers exist right now, and one previously existed for a decade without a commercial or defense order. In contrast, let's look at the other end of the spectrum: Pegasus is less than a year old and it has not only won as many as 45 DoD orders, but it has also inspired an entire new industry, the development of the commercial Iridium network of 77 phone cell satellites. Pegasus is targeted to launch the test and replacement Iridiums, and stands a reasonable chance at the main launch contract. In addition, ocean observation and store-and-forward satellites using Pegasus are under development, and a solar storm warning satellite is being considered. Quite a flurry of interest and creativity for a launcher less than one year old. Phil is right on target here. Increasing scale is not the answer. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "Living below your means allows you to live better than living above your means." -- Dave Boyd The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with. ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 91 18:27:02 GMT From: tahoe!jimi!herbert!doug@apple.com (Doug Phillipson ) Subject: Recovering Galileo Forgive this possibly silly idea, but could we just use Jupiter or one of its moons to send Galileo back to Earth/Venus for a gravity-brake back to earth orbit where the shuttle could do a repair mission and carry up another booster for it. Or some other trajectory to slow it down and return it to Earth? Would this be cheaper than sending a comm satellite to jupiter? Douglas Phillipson (EG&G) ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 91 15:05:40 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucsd.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Galileo Update On CNN In article <799@newave.UUCP> john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes: >CNN ended the segment by saying that "informed space experts" estimate >that there is about a 1 in 10 chance of Galileo being fixed. But JPL >added that if there is a fix, they _will_ find it. Who the hell are the "informed space experts?" This is a problem with a single spacecraft, the experts on which are keeping mum as they work around the clock. Heck, they haven't even tried the backup mechanism yet, and the "informed space experts" (I suppose the same people who tell the public _all about_ how a HLV is needed) are ready to declare the probe dead? Well, this is yet another time to repeat the quote: "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." -- Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu ''It's a Flash Gordon/E.E. Smith war, with superior Tnuctip technology battling tools and weapons worked up on the spot by a billion Dr. Zarkovs.`` - Larry Niven, describing the end to _Down in Flames_. ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 91 20:37:39 GMT From: usc!rpi!mvk@ucsd.edu (Michael V. Kent) Subject: Re: Japanese satellite destroyed on NASA rocket. In article <1991May3.190730.29704@iitmax.iit.edu> thssdwv@iitmax.iit.edu (David William Vrona) writes: >In article <21631@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >>Atlas has a rather unreliable history and I would guess General Dynamics >> >This is a ridiculous statement. The Atlas has been a workhorse since the >60's. Name another platform that has put more payloads into space. McDonnell Douglas's Delta has put about 187 payloads in space in about 201 attempts. I also believe Martin Marietta's Titan has over 100 successful launches to its credit, but I'm not completely sure. The numbers on the Delta are close (+/- 10), and I can get exact numbers if you really must have them. -- Michael Kent mvk@itsgw.rpi.edu McDonnell Douglas Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute All facts in this post are based on publicly available information. All opinions expressed are solely those of the author. Official positions may vary. ------------------------------ Date: 1 May 91 15:23:55 GMT From: mintaka!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Galileo works? In article <10960@hub.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: >why do they not simply point the high gain antenna to Earth, turn on the transmitter, and >observe the signal strength. >This will establish the bottom line of whether there is >enough gain to transmit TV and data. I don't know, but maybe because the radio waves could become focused in such a way as to interfere with the spacecraft electronics. I don't know how much radio-frequency interference the circuits can take. -- Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu Joke going around: "How many country music singers does it take to change a light bulb? Four. One to change the bulb, and three to sing about the old one." ------------------------------ Date: 1 May 91 15:36:36 GMT From: usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ysub!psuvm!gws102@g.ms.uky.edu Subject: Current Shuttle Schedule Does anyone out there have the current shuttle launch schedule and what payload s it will be carrying? Glenn Szydlowski GWS102@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Penn State Aerospace Engineering ------------------------------ ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Wed, 01 May 91 13:56:40 EDT Resent-From: Tommy Mac <18084TM@msu.edu> Resent-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 02:21:58 EDT Reply-To: space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu From: space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU%CARNEGIE.BITNET@msu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #476 Comments: To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU To: david polito <15432DJP@MSU.BITNET>, Tom McWilliams <18084TM@MSU.BITNET> Subject: Laser Launchers (summary). Dave wrote: >> Get an ice cube (well, a big ice cube). Hit it on one end with a >> laser. The top millimeter or so undergoes a process sometimes >> called Laser Induced Detonation. It more or less explodes (goes >> from a solid to a plasma); most of the byproducts being hurled >> backwards, essentially normal to the surface of the ice cube. You >> wait for a few milliseconds for the byproducts to get out of the >> way, and hit the ice cube again with the laser. You get high >> exhaust velocity, high thrust, reasonably high thrust efficiency >> (most of the exhaust is going in the right direction). The only >> problem is that we don't know how to build it yet. So in other words - We'd have a steam-powered rocket! So much for blasting the Satrun V for being 'old' technology ;-} Tommy Mac Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Date: 1 May 91 21:44:26 GMT From: psuvm!gws102@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu Subject: Other Formats Almost forgot, information on VAX/VMS GIF viewerd would also be appreciated. A nd also, does anyone know if there is a GIF program available or even if it is possible to display GIF images on an IBM mainframe with an IBM 3179G color grap hics terminal. (and any nice file decompression software?)? Thanks for any an d all help on any of the computer formats. Glenn Szydlowski GWS102@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Penn State Aerospace Engineering ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #508 *******************