Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 05:56:39 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #245 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 1 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 245 Today's Topics: Apollo Moon Missions ? (2 msgs) Aurora (rumors) Battery help needed! Blimps Hopkins Leaks (was Re: Blimps) Jovian glider? (was Re: Hopkins Leaks (was Re: Blimps)) Magnetic elevator? NASP (was Re: Canadian SS Reboosting a denser station (was Re: payload return from Fred) Robert Goddard or liquid-fuel rockets? Spy Sats (Was: Are La Stupid Centaur Tricks The Future of Fred Vacancy for aerospace research in Ireland Why Apollo didn't continue? Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Feb 93 09:55:00 GMT From: Roland Dobbins Subject: Apollo Moon Missions ? Newsgroups: sci.space TT> TT>From: tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Thompson) TT>Newsgroups: sci.space TT>Subject: Apollo Moon Missions ? TT>Date: 25 Feb 1993 01:23:36 GMT TT>Message-ID: <1mh72oINNdu8@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> TT>Reply-To: tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov TT> TT> I am ignorant, I admit it. My memory has failed. Can someone ref TT>tired brain cells, and tell me (us) which Apollo mission to the Moo TT>last one? There couldn't have been too many. TT> TT> Mille Mercis TT> TT>--- TT>------------------------------------------------------------ TT>Timothy J. Thompson, Earth and Space Sciences Division, JPL. TT>Assistant Administrator, Division Science Computing Network. TT>Secretary, Los Angeles Astronomical Society. TT>Member, BOD, Mount Wilson Observatory Association. TT> TT>INTERnet/BITnet: tjt@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov TT>NSI/DECnet: jplsc8::tim TT>SCREAMnet: YO!! TIM!! TT>GPSnet: 118:10:22.85 W by 34:11:58.27 N TT> Apollo 17. I believe that Gene Cernan was the last human to walk on the surface of the Moon. Missions were planned through Apollo 21, but funding was cut due to Vietnam, etc. --- . Orator V1.13 . [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 05:43:34 GMT From: gawne@stsci.edu Subject: Apollo Moon Missions ? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <13910.409.uupcb@the-matrix.com>, roland.dobbins@the-matrix.com (Roland Dobbins) writes: [concerning the identification of the last Apollo mission] > Apollo 17. I believe that Gene Cernan was the last human to walk on the > surface of the Moon. Launched 5 Dec 1972, I remember it for other significant reasons. Regular readers may have noticed Henry Spencer's quote of Gene Cernan in the recent past, "God willing, we shall return." > Missions were planned through Apollo 21, but funding was cut due to > Vietnam, etc. More etc... than Vietnam. Henry K and Tricky Dicky had already been pulling troops out of SE Asia, and we got "peace with honor" and the Paris peace treaty in Feb 1973. Cancellation of Apollo had as much to do with NASA internal friction as anything else, methinks. -Bill Gawne, Space Telescope Science Institute "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe are the laws of the universe." - G. J. Caesar ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 93 07:52:39 GMT From: Hugh Emberson Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space >>>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 1993 14:55:32 GMT, PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR said: JP> Why is it extremely audible in the Los Angeles area? Does it fly at JP> rather low altitude? If yes, can it only fly at hypersonic speed ? JP> (it should never land !) Does Aurora hate Los Angeles ? Doesn't everyone? :-) :-) It's probably audible in Los Angeles for exactly the same reason that the Shuttle is. It's coming into land, slowing down and loosing height at the same time. Aircraft don't land at any speed above a couple of hundred knots, let alone hypersonic speeds. Anyone know what the aircraft with the fastest landing speed is? My guess is the X-15, or maybe one of the lifting bodies. Hugh -- Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad hugh@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 1993 06:13:56 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: Battery help needed! Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.electronics,sci.aeronautics,sci.chem,sci.engr In article <1993Feb25.214437.28051@cbfsb.cb.att.com> rizzo@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (anthony.r.rizzo) writes: >You might consider using a fuel cell. NASA already uses a bunch >of them on the shuttle. So safety should be less of a problem. >A fuel cell also might have the appropriate energy density. >All you'd have to do is provide the fuel cell with the appropriate >supplies of O2 and H2, in the correct ratio of coarse. The output >will be H2O + e. It's been a long time since I read about >fuel cells, but I recall that 10 years ago there was considerable >discussion about small fuel cells with solid polymer electrolytic >membranes, i.e., no spillage of potentially toxic or corrosive >liquids. I'm sure that NASA can give you more information >on the subject. What do you think, RG? This is a bad choice. The power requirement he names is fulfilable with about 25kg of silver-zinc batteries (power density 102.4 Wh/kg for space shuttle EMU batteries, for instance). They'll have no moving parts. A Fuel cell has potentially explosive mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen, either cryogentics or pressure vessels to store them, and has valves and such that can fail. Besides, the batteries will be cheaper... -george william herbert President, Retro Aerospace gwh@retro.com gwh@soda.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 04:08:40 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Blimps Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >Lighter than air vehicles do indeed have lots of potential for Mars, though the >difficulties can't be ignored. It is however _far_ easier than floating a >balloon on Jupiter, something Bill Higgins and I have been puttering around >with. I've done some puttering about on Jovian ballons myself, and they don't seem that bad: Of course, they have to be hot air, but if you use a nuclear heat source, they work quite well up to the 100 mbar level. Below the 5 bar level, they shouldn't be much more difficult that ballooning on Mars... Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 20:13:11 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Hopkins Leaks (was Re: Blimps) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , pgf@srl04.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: > I'm not sure in what way, but two of the rigids built in the > US, the Akron and Macon, were built differently from the > standard German design, and were judged to be better except > for that little modification the FAA insisted had to be made > to the tail design (which was ultimately responsible for the > loss of both craft, one with heavy loss of life, and the other > with only light loss of life). Phil, we are both descending into fuzzily remembered realms of fact. Strictly speaking, I don't think the FAA existed in the mid-1930s. And why would they dictate design of military airships? Gotta go home and look at my books. > higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: [quoting Josh Hopkins] >>> Lighter than air vehicles do indeed have lots of potential for Mars, though the >>> difficulties can't be ignored. It is however _far_ easier than floating a >>> balloon on Jupiter, something Bill Higgins and I have been puttering around >>> with. > >>Not much lately, though-- haven't had the time. Most weekends I can't >>even *get* to Jupiter... > > Doesn't your mom and pop live there? Nope, Melbourne. Jupiter is further south. Handy if you need a gravity assist to get to Miami. -- O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 20:21:51 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Jovian glider? (was Re: Hopkins Leaks (was Re: Blimps)) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , jechilde@unccsun.uncc.edu (John E Childers) writes: > In article <1993Feb25.201026.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: > Have you considered using a glider at Jupiter? With all that convection > soaring might be practical. The control system would be much more > complex than for a ballon but a glider would be realitively strong compaired > to a ballon. Also, a windmilling propeller could be used to generate > electrical power if the soaring part worked. We have kicked it around a little, but doing a good job on the balloon design is hard enough! I would like to have a pretty big balloon payload that could drop very small gliders as it drifted into interesting areas... think of the *Akron* launching its scout biplanes to look for Japanese ships... I should mention that the inspiration for all this came from artist Karl Kofoed, who has proposed a Jovian dirigible. I think this is a neat idea that is worth some quantitative investigation. Bill Higgins | "I shop at the Bob and Ray Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | Giant Overstocked Surplus Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | Warehouse in one convenient Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | location and save money besides SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | being open every evening until 9." ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 93 06:52:29 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Magnetic elevator? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1mlissINNa03@access.usask.ca>, choy@dvinci.USask.Ca (Henry Choy) writes: > > What if we use a vertical maglev train to launch into space? Would it > be feasible for a large number of trips? > > > -- > > Henry Choy > choy@cs.usask.ca > > We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Interesting, had not heard that one.. But it sounds interesting.. Kind of liek a giant space gun (c.1920 or so).. Possible, will see.. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 09:55:00 GMT From: Roland Dobbins Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SS Newsgroups: sci.space CO> CO>From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) CO>Newsgroups: sci.space CO>Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SSF effort ?? ) CO>Date: 20 Feb 1993 19:44:50 GMT CO>Message-ID: <1m61niINNfth@rave.larc.nasa.gov> CO>Reply-To: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) CO> CO>> Aerospace Daily also reports that NASA research CO>> on advanced subsonic and supersonic transport aircraft would CO>> get a big increase under Clinton's budget plan, with $550 CO>> million more programmed in fiscal years 1994-97, and another CO>> $267 million scheduled for FY '98. CO> CO>What about NASP??? CO> CO> Errr . . . that _is_ NASP. It's SSX I'm worried about . . . --- . Orator V1.13 . [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 03:54:45 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Reboosting a denser station (was Re: payload return from Fred) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb26.102807.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >> Why not? Most of it will be more useful up there than down here. And >> a heavier station is *better*, because it reduces the frequency with >> which reboost is needed; even trash is more useful as station ballast >> than as return cargo. >This is because air resistance is kinder to a dense object than a >flimsy one, for equal surface area. But obviously you need to consume >more propellant to reboost the heavier station when it eventually >*does* need a reboost. Henry implies that this tradeoff is >favorable. Why? Failure tolerance: Should some accident prevent refueling, you have more time to correct the problem. Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 93 06:45:09 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Robert Goddard or liquid-fuel rockets? Newsgroups: sci.space In article , bmock@eis.calstate.edu (Ben Mock) writes: > Does anyone have any information on Robbert Goddard and liquid-fueled > rockets? I'm doing a research paper on Goddard so any info on his life > and his beliefs will be apreciated. Also if anyone has any information on > where I can find information on Goddard will be very helpful. Thanx. > Ben Don't have any new info.. But I think a goddard style liquid fuel rocket would be a great project for a high school or college rocketry/science class.. Maybe have it as part of the NASA Shuttle. Namely used to get a small payload up farther in orbit.. Michael Adams NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 09:55:00 GMT From: Roland Dobbins Subject: Spy Sats (Was: Are La Newsgroups: sci.space DA>Actually, I thought they had most of the basic stuff down pretty we DA>although some was certainly exaggerated at least a bit. Advanced K DA>are supposed to have "near real time" imaging capability, but that DA>does not translate into the continuous view they portrayed. The BI DA>however was that their operation was at NIGHT, and these satellites DA>placed into sun-synchronous polar orbits to optimize their daylight DA>I do not believe they have a significant nighttime imaging capabili DA> ........ DA>That report has been around a while... DoD's GROUND based tracking DA>were certainly used and perhaps even one of their airborne platform DA>it may just be the press jumping to conclusions to think any satell DA>involved. KH-11 orbits are not all that much higher than the shutt DA>would make an intercept pretty tight, and besides the optics are ob KH-11 is neither the latest nor the greatest "real-time" platform up there. --- . Orator V1.13 . [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy] ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 93 06:50:42 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: Stupid Centaur Tricks Newsgroups: sci.space In article pgf@srl04.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: > >I don't understand why it's more reliable to have a single engine than >two engines with a gimballing system that would allow it to function >on one engine. > >I guess they're just into newspeak (half the engines, half the chance >of failures!). Hi Phil, actually they're right. They have to do something about the engine out problem. Right now, the easy way (read: cheap) is to do a structural redesign to one engine but use the same pointing mechanism as the existing engines do. This also gives a 300lb higher payload (amazing, you leave a 315 lb engine off and gain 300 lb of payload 8-). The other alternative was to develop a new guidance and engine pointing system. This theoretically gives a higher reliability, but it's not worth the added expense. The one-engine variant has half the failures the current two engine one does; the enhanced two engine option is past the point of diminishing engineering investment return. -george william herbert President, Retro Aerospace gwh@retro.com gwh@soda.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 93 06:56:00 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: The Future of Fred Newsgroups: sci.space In article <26FEB199316435095@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >[...] >The moral of the story is keep congress out of the engineering design process. > >Also the SSF racks will be common with SpaceLab and SpaceHab, so yes you >can go home and sleep well tonight, knowing that NASA is not completely a >bunch of incompetents. I've just as easily seen NASA institutionally adopt the wrong technical solution, that people could easily demonstrate was wrong. I've seen other organizations do it too. Moral of story: adopt an attitude that totally rejects differing ideas on how things are done, and you will make a fatal mistake. Adopt an attitude that allows anyone to give input and your progress goes to zero. Anywhere in between and you're accused of treason by both camps, but the project is more likely to succeed. -george william herbert President, Retro Aerospace gwh@retro.com gwh@soda.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 02:57:53 GMT From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie Subject: Vacancy for aerospace research in Ireland Newsgroups: sci.space In article , joe@epona.physics.ucg.ie (Joe Desbonnet) writes: > ******************************************************************** > > Vacancy for Engineer/Physicist/Computer Scientist: > > We require a postdoctoral/industrial researcher with experience in > real-time signal/image processing and pattern recognition (particu- > larly using AI methods) to work in the FLAME consortium. The > post is vacant immediately. > Why not advertise the position in Astronomy & Space, published in Ireland with a circulation of 5,000 from the March issue on (just quintupledwith a circulation that varies from 1,000 to 5,000 (current March issue). ? -Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from: Astronomy International, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland. 6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20.00 (surface, add US$8.00). ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 07:42:14 GMT From: Charles Adam Rummel Subject: Why Apollo didn't continue? Newsgroups: sci.space I just saw several articles here which said that the Apollo program was cut short because of either Vietnam stuff or internal NASA conflicts. Does anyone have any inside information that they can share? I remember doing research in grade school on the topic, as this all happened before I did, and noting that Apollo was scheduled to go to 20 or 21, what happened? They used the left-over Saturn parts to make Skylab, but was that because they had run out of LEM/CSM and rovers or had too many Saturns, or...??? I'm sure if I sifted through all the piles of info I have at home (not school) that I might find the answer, but I figured this might be quicker ;) Either post or e-mail, but I don't read this group as often as I would like. (School gets in the way of So many things...) Thanks. Chuck Rummel car57812@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 245 ------------------------------