Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Wed, 17 May 89 03:17:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 17 May 89 03:17:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #440 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 440 Today's Topics: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility Re: heavy launchers Re: heavy launchers looking for informations about man-made biospheres _Analog_ article Re: funding large scale space hardware Be Nice to Junkies Week Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter) Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility Re: more 747 drop tests? citizens in space -- Final Frontier runs poll Michaud's REACHING FOR THE HIGH FRONTIER (Pro-Space Groups). Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 May 89 12:55:52 GMT From: spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility In article <1989May13.202819.23389@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <2020@blake.acs.washington.edu> sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu (sealion) writes: >>are there plans to recover the Long Duration Exposure Facility? > >Yes. NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab, ^^^^^^ Love your choice of words :-). ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 89 10:50:55 GMT From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Dr. Dereference) Subject: Re: heavy launchers In article <1989May13.201437.23217@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <11316@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes: >>We threw away the Saturn V because it was a very expensive, virtually hand >>built rocket that was thrown away after every use... > >This is a fairly circular statement. The Saturn V was expensive, hand-built, >and non-recoverable because of the decision in the mid-60s to throw it away! >When Congress capped Saturn V production at 15, (a) all hopes of reducing >cost through volume went away, (b) it was no longer worth mechanizing the >production process as had been planned, and (c) all work on making Saturn V >stages recoverable stopped because it would never be done. > >Blaming the NASA of the 70s for throwing away the Saturn V is pretty much >a mistake. The real culprit is the Congress of the 60s. It's hardly surprising that congress refused to guarantee long term funding for the Saturn program, few if any large procurment contracts are or have been long term. If the "experts" would have told congress to stick with the Saturn V post Apollo, congress most likely would have funded more of them. Although probably with another expensive, short term, and low volume contract. The Saturn V was fairly expensive and a lot of people thought changing to a fully reusable (that was the original plan) vehicle would save money over the long run. As things worked out these people were tragically wrong, and the US space program has been severely damaged for the last 15 years. I think the major principle NASA violated in deciding to build the shuttle was developing brand new technology when developing existing technology would have worked very well. John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems before it butts in with tomorrow's. ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 89 22:55:23 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) Subject: Re: heavy launchers In article <11401@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (Dr. Dereference) writes: >It's hardly surprising that congress refused to guarantee long term funding >for the Saturn program, few if any large procurment contracts are or have >been long term. If the "experts" would have told congress to stick with the >Saturn V post Apollo, congress most likely would have funded more of them. >Although probably with another expensive, short term, and low volume contract. Then as now, while members of Congress raise some objections to proposals from NASA, they usually deviate little from the advice of the "experts." The record of NASA in providing the appropriate leadership is so poor, there is a clear need for an alternative source of information, ideas, and proposals--a need for space activists. How many readers consider themselves space activists? How many have debated the question of what constitutes a rational space program? No one bothered to reply to my question about the appropriate role of private industry in a space program. William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 17:43:20 GMT From: mcvax!unido!ztivax!tumuc!lan!ocker@uunet.uu.net (Wolfgang Ocker) Subject: looking for informations about man-made biospheres hello net! i am urgently looking for every kind of information about man-made(artificial?) biospheres. with biospheres, i mean "small" self-supporting biological systems for missions in space, sea and other environments. addresses of companies researching in biospheres or titles of books are also very welcome ! :-) please respond via e-mail. thanx alot for your help in advance! claus duerr ps: i am using this account with the permission of my friend. answers will be forwarded to me. -- | Wolfgang Ocker | ocker@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de | | Lochhauserstr. 35a | pyramid!tmpmbx!recco!weo (home) | | D-8039 Puchheim | Technische Universitaet Muenchen | | Voice: +49 89 80 77 02 | Huh, What? Where am I? | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 May 89 11:27:36 PDT From: Peter Scott Subject: _Analog_ article There's an interesting article on the economics of space settlement in the May _Analog_. Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 89 06:39:25 GMT From: jtsv16!geac!yunexus!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware In article <657@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >> Boeing will >> *not* start full development of a new airliner purely on speculation; it >> wants to see contractually-committed customers first. > >I wasn't aware of this. Does this mean that the 7J7, which is currently >under development (or has it gotten to flight tests?) already has some >committed customers? This seems unlikely, given the recent rush by the >airlines to order current models. I think your info is a bit out of date. The 7J7 is nowhere near flight tests, has never entered full-scale development, and is currently firmly on the back shelf due to limited demand for it and soaring demand for current models and derivatives thereof. The fall in oil prices pretty much killed the 7J7 for now. Ask McDonnell Douglas why it still hasn't officially launched the propfan MD-90; same answer. It's very rare for an airline manufacturer to launch a new model without "launch customers" (e.g., the large order from Pan Am [I think it was] that launched the 747). It's been done -- the BAe 146, I think -- but not often. I don't think Boeing has ever done it. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov Date: Sun, 14 May 89 13:31:20 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Be Nice to Junkies Week Jon Leech writes: > Backing away from this particular flamefast a bit: many space >activists have strong convictions on the Way to get things moving >again, which involve far-reaching and highly unlikely changes in NASA >such as "get them out of the space transportation business." I feel >it would be more effective to try and gradually move the agency >towards a research agenda than to attempt a complete upset, because >there is a larger chance of gradual changes happening. One of the best ways to move NASA toward a research agenda is to remove their temptation to pour the vast bulk of their money into space transportation (and other "infrastructure"). All this "prepatory work for the day when everything will happen at once" is an old story. As an engineering manager who still works as an engineer, I recognize that line as one given by people who aren't doing work. At some point you have to tighten the screws, insist on a schedule of results and if those results aren't met, terminate. NASA is a junkie. If you want it to get a job and be productive, you have to fight its addiction as well as showing it where the work is. (PS: I do turn development projects around with this philosophy. I also turn careers around with it.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery Phone: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 Join the Mark Hopkins Society! La Jolla, CA 92038 (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.) UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 89 06:46:47 GMT From: jtsv16!geac!yunexus!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter) In article <1286@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes: >It would be interesting to know how far an earth based radar can reach with >the accuracy to detect killer rocks? For radars of practical size with practical power output, the range is zero on an astronomical scale. The trouble is that radar return is an inverse *fourth power* function of distance, since the inverse-square law gets you once in each direction. And you thought inverse square was bad... Arecibo, with the biggest dish on Earth (not even vaguely steerable) and a monstrously powerful custom-built transmitter, can get useful radar echos from *planets*... but it's not easy. The biggest conventional radars on Earth have trouble tracking inert objects out at Clarke-orbit distances, one-tenth of the way to the Moon. For a 100m rock at planetary distances, forget it. Optical tracking is much better -- it's only inverse-square, since the Sun supplies the illumination. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 89 04:41:11 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility In article <20714@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) writes: >Just a silly question... How much different is the orbit of LDEF to that >which the shuttle took to launch Magellan? Would it have been possible >to retrieve LDEF on the shuttle after it launched Magellan? I doubt it. Magellan had to go into a very specific orbit; it would be remarkable luck if it were similar to LDEF's. Also, I suspect the IUS cradle needed to carry Magellan up probably obstructs the payload bay enough to interfere with retrieving LDEF (which fills most of the bay). -- Subversion, n: a superset | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of a subset. --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 89 06:48:40 GMT From: jtsv16!geac!yunexus!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests? In article <1287@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes: >Why should NASA take the time and expense to drop the Enterprise when it can >do the tests with an actule mission thats already paid for? More tests sooner, plus the ability to run tests in varying conditions without increasing the risk of losing a nearly-irreplaceable real orbiter. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 89 04:31:43 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: citizens in space -- Final Frontier runs poll The latest issue of Final Frontier [a magazine I think pretty well of, and am thinking more highly of by the month] has a feature section on "space tourism", including the following in a sidebar: Should NASA Resume Its Program To Take Ordinary Citizens On The Space Shuttle? Last January, NASA announced that its Spaceflight Participant Program was on indefinite hold. Although the space agency is committed to the "long-term goal" of taking non-professionals up on the shuttle, flight opportunities for a Teacher-in-Space and Journalist-in-Space are not available at this time, and it could be many years before other "civilian" passengers are allowed to ride on the shuttle. Is that too long to wait? We're interested in knowing your opinion. Call 1-900-786-3663 and tell us what you think! $1.25 per call, flat rate, touch-tone phones only. Callers... will be asked by former astronaut Buzz Aldrin for a yes/no response to the single question: "Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?" We'd also like your written answers to the following short survey on space tourism. Send them to "Survey, PO Box 11519, Washington DC 20008". ...the results from both the survey and the phone-in question [will be presented] to NASA, the National Space Council, congressional space committees, and other interested parties. 1. Should a commercial, passenger-carrying "tourist module" be allowed to go into orbit in the cargo bay of the space shuttle, provided it pays for itself? 2. Would you go on a tourist trip to Earth orbit? 3. If so, how much would you be willing to pay? 4. What would you see as the main attraction of a short trip into space? 5. What would you consider an acceptable level of risk for you to go into space, on a scale of 1 to 5? (1 = as risky as airplane travel, 5 = as risky as armed combat) Note that they want written answers to go to that post-office box; posting them to the net is pointless. Note also that I have nothing to do with FF and can't forward answers or respond to inquiries; the above is pretty much everything the issue says about the matter. -- Subversion, n: a superset | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of a subset. --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 89 16:43:45 GMT From: renoir.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) Subject: Michaud's REACHING FOR THE HIGH FRONTIER (Pro-Space Groups). A book I highly recommend to those of you who want to join and/or form various space groups and need some background information on doing so can obtain this help from Michael A. G. Michaud's 1986 book, REACHING FOR THE HIGH FRONTIER: THE AMERICAN PRO-SPACE MOVEMENT, 1972-84, by Praeger Publishers, 521 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10175 (a division of Greenwood Press, Inc.), ISBN 0-275-92150-6 (paperback), $17.95. 436 pages. Michaud's book not only gives an excellent history of the development of U.S. (and British) space groups over the past decades, but also lists addresses of major space groups and has an excellent bibliography. The most interesting fact is that whenever NASA activity goes on the wane, pro-space group activities increase. Larry Klaes ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 89 15:49:42 GMT From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST In article <11316@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes: }In article <136@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes: }>Why the *(&) did we throw away Saturn V???? }We threw away the Saturn V because it was a very expensive, virtually hand }built rocket that was thrown away after every use. The idea of a reusable }rocket is really very sound in theory, although it turns out to be a bit }difficult to execute (especially by a government bureaucracy). With 20/20 }hindsight a big dumb booster made with relatively low performance parts was }probably the way to go. Compared to the Shuttle, the Saturn *is* a BDB.... And, as has been discussed many times before, there was a lot of politics involved in making sure that the Saturn V would never fly again, even before the Shuttle was complete. Why, oh why do we have to throw away proven hardware before the new technology proves itself (or is even available, for that matter)? The Soviets are still launching many of their payloads on the same boosters they had 25 years ago, and doing so in rain, freezing weather, snow storms, etc. When you've used the same launcher over a thousand times, you have a pretty good idea how it will behave.... -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I claimed something? Intelligence is when you spot a flaw in your boss's reasoning. Wisdom is when you refrain from pointing it out. --James Dent ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #440 *******************