Date: Fri, 9 Apr 93 05:31:42 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #441 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 9 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 441 Today's Topics: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market. (2 msgs) Atlas revisited Biosphere II (2 msgs) Biosphere II >>IS<< a theme park. DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test lie low netters! UFO's want you! NASP Plans, absence therof (2 msgs) Portable Small Ground Station?dir Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage (2 msgs) space food sticks SSF Redesign as of 3/31/93 Talking to Boeing management about SSTO type stuff from a shareholder perspective. Washington Post Article on SSF Redesign What if the USSR had reached the Moon first? What Minerals are Cheaper on Mars? than earth? (2 msgs) 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: 8 Apr 93 10:58:05 PST From: games@max.u.washington.edu Subject: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1q09m1$hme@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > |What we need, at this point, is to build an orbital demonstrator. It > |need not be a full-scale transport prototype, and indeed it need not be > |manned, but it must go into orbit repeatedly. This is the final proof > |that the approach is workable, and it is a step we will be ready to > |take after the DC-X tests (if we aren't already -- a debatable point). > |There is no need to waste time and money repeating the preliminaries > |yet again. > > This is not the point. Note that I did not specifically mention the DC program. They do not mention the DC program. This (1st stage) work is work that to my knowledge has never been done. And that it to ascertain the extent (as much as possible) of the commercial market in a fashion that will allow them to go to wall street for financing. The vehicle design comes from the requirements of the commercial market. If for instance, it turns out that the driving market will be tourism, and advertizing, then maybe the vehicle need only 5000lbs to LEO (as opposed to the SDIO 20kLBS) If, on the other hand, it turns out that the market driver will be Solar Power Satellites (SPS), then it may be that the vehicle needs to have 40,000 or more to LEO. If it turns out that 20klbs is the right payload, and DC works, then they may may need no demonstration phase. This is not to say that DC should not be built. It is a good demonstrater, and it will help when these guys go to wall street, and say, "fund me", as it will have shown that it is possible to build the vehicle, but that is only 1/2 of the equation, wall street has to know not only that you can build it, but also that you CAN SELL IT. It seems to me that this is an intrinsically different approach than DC, and it is not threatening to DC, and it can be run parallel to DC... I'm all for it. Or is there something sinister here that I have missed. John. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 18:47:18 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr8.105805.1@max.u.washington.edu> games@max.u.washington.edu writes: >This is not the point. Note that I did not specifically mention the DC >program. They do not mention the DC program. This (1st stage) work is work >that to my knowledge has never been done. It has been done. Several times. There are dozens of reports and studies on the launch market for the next ten years or so. Dozens more on the potential for new markets. We are past the point of doing any more studies. We need to bild hardware now and see if it works. >The vehicle design comes from the requirements of the commercial market. DC is compatible with 95%+ of the world launch market. Whatever this consortium proposes it MUST be very similar to DC or nobody will even consider investing in it. >If for instance, it turns out that the driving market will be tourism, and >advertizing, then maybe the vehicle need only 5000lbs to LEO (as opposed >to the SDIO 20kLBS) Nobody is going to invest in a launcher which doesn't serve an existing market. (Before you bring up Pegasus, remember that the government MADE a market for it). >If, on the other hand, it turns out that the market >driver will be Solar Power Satellites (SPS), then it may be that the vehicle >needs to have 40,000 or more to LEO. Maybe cheap access to space will bring about the need for such a vehicle. Much as the DC-3 produced demand for the 747 eventually. Let's build the DC-3 of launchers first. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you where my husband I would poision your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you where my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------69 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 93 13:26:40 EDT From: Jerry Davis Subject: Atlas revisited Thanks for the interesting discussion about using pressurized fuel tanks to keep the Atlas booster rigid. I had read some about this in Kenneth Gatland's 'Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology' but still have a question. This my be blatantly obvious to some but, how does the tank remain pressurized while the engines are consuming fuel? Or, perhaps they remain rigid enough until the booster is well out of the atmosphere? Any enlightenment is appreciated. Jerry Who plays a statistician at work not a rocket scientist. jdavis@griffin.uga.edu ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 1993 12:40:42 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Biosphere II Newsgroups: sci.space In article <19930408.043740.516@almaden.ibm.com> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes: >In <1q09ud$ji0@access.digex.net> Pat writes: >>Why is everyone being so critical of B2? > Because it's bogus science, promoted as 'real' science. It seems to me, that it's sorta a large engineering project more then a science project. Rather then analyzing every component, they are just going and building a large functioning machine. Given the scope, what's teh problem? If it runs in balance great. |>self sustain. to date, it seems they are having O2 balance |>problems. It's like a farm. if the crops grow it's a success. | Hardly. I'd imagine that a farmer would really like to know how |to repeat his success. The problem with B2, is that whether it |succeeds or not, they won't really be able to explain it. To that |extent, it's not very good science. I guess you have never been on a farm much. These guys do a lot of things, that are based on empirical observation of highly complex multi-variate phenomena. B2 is not bench science, but rather a large scale attempt to re-create a series of micro-ecologies. what's so eveil about this? Given it's not funded by NSF, why should it be held to peer-review methods. Also, the more i read, the more I realize that not all peers agree. If you don't like it, be a little skeptical, and say. "It's ed basses money, and could be better applied elsewhere". I don't think that one little group of PhD's are the keepers of holy light and doctrine. THis is science, not religion. pat ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 18:18:14 GMT From: Richard Ottolini Subject: Biosphere II Newsgroups: sci.space >From article <1q09ud$ji0@access.digex.net>, by prb@access.digex.com (Pat): >> >> Why is everyone being so critical of B2? >> Would you spend a couple years in a closed space station (or closed seafloor station for the matter) constructed according to the principles or results of B2? The details are not detailed or reliable enough for verification or refutation. Many millions of dollars down the toilet. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 93 11:09:33 PST From: games@max.u.washington.edu Subject: Biosphere II >>IS<< a theme park. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <19930408.043740.516@almaden.ibm.com>, nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes: > In <1q09ud$ji0@access.digex.net> Pat writes: >>Why is everyone being so critical of B2? > Because it's bogus science, promoted as 'real' science. >>It's ed Basses money, why should we care. >>If he spent it on Cocaine and hookers, no-one would care. > If he'd said he was building B2 as a theme park, no-one would care. Um, does anybody know if it really >>IS<< a theme park? At $6.00 per head to look through the lobby, and more to buy lunch, and T-Shirts, and ECO- correct books, with only $10mil into it, and all of the publicity it has generated, it might have shown a profit by now even. Hell, if I were anywhere near it (in AZ), I would probably take my family by and pay the bucks to have a look around. John. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 16:35:52 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1q0ail$c0k@picasso.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> gregw@minotaur.tansu.com.au writes: >> Needs a door in the "hot" part of the structure, a door whose >> operation is mission-critical. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Why is it mission-critical, if there are the three other alternatives... It is unlikely that an operational craft would be equipped for all four. The idea is to pick the one that works best. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 19:26:35 GMT From: Tom Van Flandern Subject: lie low netters! UFO's want you! Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker) writes [referring to UFO abductions]: > I noticed that Tom Van Flandern was absent for a while. How about it, > Tom? Will you tell us about it in your book, or is that too far afield > for the current tome? (BTW, how is your book coming?) I'll tell you now: Aliens didn't like what I was saying about solar system origins, so for the past week they have kept my postings from reaching the net. And that hard disk crash that kept me off the net for a few weeks last month -- also caused by aliens, you can be sure. When they last abducted me, I was warned against going ahead with my book and revealing so many secrets. They said I would be moved ahead of Salman Rushdie on the global hit list if I published despite their warning. Don't let this get around, but the book aliens don't want you to read will be out next month. Details later -- I think I hear them coming back! -|Tom|- -- Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy. ------------------------------ From: Ricardo Belmar Subject: NASP Newsgroups: sci.space Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 15:30:17 GMT Lines: 10 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU This may not be the right newsgroup in which to ask about the NAtional Aero-Space Plane but... I'm writing a paper on NASP and I'm looking for just about any information anyone would like to share, even opinionos about the project. E-mail me any responses or just post them here. Ricardo Belmar rab3u@virginia.edu University of Virginia ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 16:50:40 GMT From: Mary Shafer Subject: Plans, absence therof Newsgroups: sci.space The Hatch Act is designed to keep civilian employees of the government out of partisan politics. We are not allowed to campaign for, donate to, or advocate any candidates for partisan offices or support parties in any way. This is both for our protection and for the protection of the parties; we can't be pressured to make "voluntary" donations of time and money and incumbents can't have an army of ready-made campaign workers. We are allowed to involve ourselves in non-partisan politics, like school boards, municipal offices, etc. The same rules apply to immediate family members. Outside employment must be approved by the agency; it can't be (or look like) a conflict of interest. For example, I can teach engineering at the local college in the evenings, but I'd never be allowed to work nights at McDonnell. We can be paid for speaking and writing only if there is no nexus between the subject and our work. I can take money for writing romantic novels but I can't take money for speaking about aircraft stability and control. (Not that I'd write a romantic novel; murder mysteries are more my style.) We are very limited in our investments, too, because of the same conflict-of-interest issue. Again, there must be a nexus; I avoid high-tech stocks but I can put money into healthcare stocks, someone from HHD would have to do the opposite. All of these rules are there to ensure that the public can be assured that civil servants will not be motivated by issues other than the ones at hand. We shouldn't make decisions based on what our investments will do or what our politics are or any other extraneous issues and these rules are in place to make it absolutely obvious what the limits are. We are also enjoined from things that appear to be conflicts of interest, even if they fit the rules. This is because perception is as important as legality. There are other rules of behavior that have to do with bringing the government into disrepute. These things have to be pretty flagrant, but civil servants can be dismissed for behavior off the job if it would cast a bad light on the government. Examples of this include sexual scandals and extremist groups. Persistantly not paying debts qualifies, too. (This isn't just the Feds--in California, teachers can lose their credentials if they're convicted of drunken driving.) The whole point is that public employees are held to a higher standard than are private employees. We all know this. It tends to make us somewhat more circumspect. It certainly holds me back from being perfectly frank in this forum--I'm not going to put my career on the line for some bozo to complain to his congressman when I call him an idiot. Just remember, you're fighting someone with one hand tied behind her back. -- Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 17:38:07 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Plans, absence therof Newsgroups: sci.space In article shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >[Descussing the Hatch Act] >This is both for our protection and for the protection of the parties; we >can't be pressured to make "voluntary" donations of time and money and >incumbents can't have an army of ready-made campaign workers. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That only applies to the executive branch. Congress, in its wisdom, has seen fit to exempt itself from this law. This gives every Represntative and Senator his or her own personal crew of campaign workers paid for by you and I. >It certainly holds me back from being perfectly frank in this... >Just remember, you're fighting someone with one hand tied behind her back. But your still more than a match for anybody around. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you where my husband I would poision your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you where my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------69 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 00:22:09 GMT From: M22079@mwvm.mitre.org Subject: Portable Small Ground Station?dir Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr7.150058.16014@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > >In article <1993Apr5.185700.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >>In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>> In article <1993Apr2.214705.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >>>>How difficult would it be to set up your own ground station? >>> >>> Ground station for *what*? At one extreme, some of the amateur-radio >>> satellites have sometimes been reachable with hand-held radios. At the >>> other, nothing you can do in your back yard will let you listen in on >>> Galileo. Please be more specific. >> >>SPECIFIC: >>Basically to be able to do the things the big dadies can do.. Monitor, and >>control if need be the Shuttle... >> >>Such as the one in Australia and such.... > >The Shuttle isn't controlled from the ground, and it's communications >with the ground is mainly through the TDRS system. It doesn't take >a huge antenna to gather the signals relayed by TDRS, but it does >take complex and expensive equipment to demultiplex the data streams. >Everything is transmitted as a multiplexed multimegabaud digital data >stream. The high speed demultiplexers are beyond ordinary amateur >reach at this time, though prices are falling rapidly. More importantly, >NASA doesn't release specs on what the channels are, so you still >probably couldn't make sense of what you receive. > >Ordinary Shuttle suit communications takes place on UHF, and when >conditions are just right you can monitor that directly with rather >simple equipment, similar to what amateurs use in the SAREX experiments. >Shuttle also has ordinary flight radios for use during landings, but you >have to be line of sight to receive those. > >The DSN stations are different, and aren't used to monitor Shuttle. >These stations use huge antennas to gather in the very faint signals >from distant probes. They use advanced LNAs, low noise amplifiers, >and computer enhancement to pick up signals that are so faint that >a flea scratching himself at 2000 km would have more power. You have >no hope of duplicating them on an amateur budget. > I would not be quite so extreme in my statements about DSN. The Low Noise Amps (LNAs) are quite expensive but you can do some significant enhancement on any PC if you know the encoding schemes and are willing to run significantly less than real time. You can also create an antenna field (small cheap antennas) and rebuild the signal using amplitude and phase combining. The theory actually allows an awful lot from spacial diversity and block coding. Your targets will be significantly limited by your system and receiver noise, but above a certain threshold I think you could scrape up the energy and recover bits. If anybody cares to correct me, feel free - I've only got two courses in Comm Theory and a little experience with SATCOM (TDRSS). Karl Pitt (KPITT@MITRE.ORG) >Gary >-- >Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary >Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary >534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary >Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 1993 12:33:08 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage Newsgroups: sci.space I think the FAQ will address your questions. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 16:47:50 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr7.224308.4675@Princeton.EDU> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes: > My question is as follows. As I understand it the main theme behind >SSTO is quick, cheap, and good. The idea is to get a operational launch >vehicle designed and tested as quickly as possible, and then to have a fast >and cheap operation cycle. But why use only one stage? Because there is no need for more than one, and not having any parts fall off vastly simplifies a number of things, including range safety, intact abort, and the turnaround cycle. People built two-stage airliners once. Nobody bothers any more. It's just not worth the extra performance. >... However, we pay a very high penalty on >payload capability. *SO* *WHAT*??? This is the big mistake that almost every launch system currently in existence has made: shooting for maximum performance instead of minimum operational cost. If you don't like the size of the payload, either scale up the vehicle (this is not a military missile that has to fit in a predefined silo) or fly it more often and assemble in orbit (the largest payload that absolutely must go up in one piece is a human with life support). > I would think that by applying all the concepts of SSTO to a double >stager we would get nearly the same price and time performance, but with >higher payload capabilities. Developing two different vehicles is going to be nearly as cheap as one? I have my doubts. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 1993 12:44:57 -0400 From: Pat Subject: space food sticks Newsgroups: sci.space In article <8APR199309102094@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> tpcliff@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (RODGER CLIFF) writes: |individually packaged. My mom bought one box of each flavor ( and never |bought any more.) Probably one of those things (like disco, bell-bottoms, >leisure suits, etc.) that should not be resurrected. Nothing was as bad as 1-2-3 Jello. That made space food sticks look like Spicy Lo Mein. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 1993 17:35:45 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: SSF Redesign as of 3/31/93 Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1q14jn$g7i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, as806@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave McKissock) wrote: > > > In a previous article, Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen) says: > > >In article <1phv59$isn@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) wrote: > >> > >> > >> Where are the meetings? > >> > >> pat > > > >Goldin said during the press briefing that they would be in Crystal City by > >the beltway in DC > > > You sure about that Andy. I think Pat was asking where the meeting > of the blue ribbon advisory panel was going to meet on April 22. This > meeting is supposed to be open, although by "open" NASA may just mean > that folks in the press are invited. I'm not actually sure whether > tourists or folks off the street can walk in & join the meeting. > > Anyhow, I haven't yet heard a specific place for the meeting. Yes, > the redesign activity is housed in Crystal City, but that doesn't > necessarily mean the 4/22 meeting will be there. I asked around....all I could get was DC....which means probably headquarters. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 93 11:41:21 PST From: games@max.u.washington.edu Subject: Talking to Boeing management about SSTO type stuff from a shareholder perspective. Newsgroups: sci.space Well, I appear to be at it again. I just got my shareholder package from Boeing, and I want to go to the meeting. But since I went last year, I know that they have a question and answer period from the shareholders. Now, nothing REALLY gets done here, but I figure that there ought to be a way to ask a question/make an accusation/make a request about some kind of SSTO vehicle program from boeing in such a way, that the people there will at least have to think about it. (Especially since they video the meeting, there will be something in the corporate record) And, yes, I expect to be dismissed at the meeting, with "Well, we are studying that, and if in the future it looks promising, then we will start a program, blah, blah, blah" So, I need to be prepared with a followon question, for after I have been dismissed. My intent is to make sure that management knows that there is shareholder support for at least looking at this on their own. So, what is the question that will have the most impact on the corporate management? What should I say after getting the management doubletalk? John. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 1993 17:37:31 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: Washington Post Article on SSF Redesign Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1pviqp$77u@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) wrote: > > > THe article also mentions that Panel is looking to overhaul > the station management structure. On their ability to accomplish this......I'll believe it when I see it! ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 93 13:31:20 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first? Newsgroups: sci.space In article , dxb105@aries (David Bofinger) writes: >jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes: > >> [The Soviet Union] could have beaten us if either: >> * Their rocket hadn't blown up on the pad thus setting them back, > >Didn't they lose their top rocket scientist in a car crash or >something? Or something. Sergei Korolyev (always referred to as the "Chief Designer" when he was alive -- i.e. his name wasn't public until after his death) died just before the Soyuz program started flying. His death was due to natural causes, although it's likely his health had suffered due to his years in the Gulag (during the '30s and '40s, I think). He was the guiding force behind nearly all of the Soviet Union's spectacular space "firsts" (satellite, moon impact, man in space, space walk, etc.). Almost immediately after his death, the program started to run into trouble. (Komarov died on Soyuz 1, the N-1 super booster repeatedly failed, and so on.) In my opinion, Korolyev was undoubtedly a fine design engineer, possibly on the level of von Braun, who did an excellent job of accomplishing all he did given the economic and political situation in which he had to work. It's likely the Soviet space program would have done better had he not died. I don't believe they would have been able to beat the US to the moon, however -- I recall reading the Soviets thought the earliest they could land on the moon was 1971 or so, and they were counting on US setbacks to have any chance of getting there first. With more luck, they may have been able to steal some of the US thunder by doing such missions as a manned circumlunar flight or an unmanned sample return (two missions they came awfully close to pulling off before Apollo 8 and Apollo 11, respectively). -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 16:49:38 GMT From: Eric H Seale Subject: What Minerals are Cheaper on Mars? than earth? Newsgroups: sci.space jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes: >I saw a prog where you land an automated space craft on mars. Its basically a >feul tank. It then cycles the atmosphere and via some simple chemical reaction >ends up with rocket feul - a tank full after 9 months (not sure of time scale). > >Then you send the manned expedition and they pump the feul thats waiting into >their ship and use it to get home. ie could exploit the atmosphere for rocket >feul greatly reducing payload for any ships = big bucks. I didn't see this program, but the Martian atmosphere is largely made up of carbon dioxide -- tough to get much fuel out of that. There was some talk a while back of landing a nuclear-powered ship on Mars (a ways into the future) to electrolyze CO2 into CO & O2. Then, you "burn" the carbon monoxide in your rocket engine for thrust: 2CO + O2 => 2CO2 But, keep in mind that burning carbon monoxide won't give you much thrust... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 17:58:22 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: What Minerals are Cheaper on Mars? than earth? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr8.164938.15397@den.mmc.com> seale@possum.den.mmc.com (Eric H Seale) writes: >talk a while back of landing a nuclear-powered ship on Mars (a ways into >the future) to electrolyze CO2 into CO & O2. Then, you "burn" the >carbon monoxide in your rocket engine for thrust: > > 2CO + O2 => 2CO2 > >But, keep in mind that burning carbon monoxide won't give you much >thrust... Actually, it's not a bad fuel; it's just not a great one. On the other hand, Mars only has one-third of Earth's gravity, so you aren't under quite so much pressure to find great fuels... The big advantage of CO/O2 is that it relies only on materials -- CO2 -- that we know can be had in quantity at any point on Mars. If you can find a reliable source of hydrogen (e.g. water), or even bring it along, it's easy enough to make CH4/O2, which is an excellent fuel combination. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 441 ------------------------------