Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_2/V9_254.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
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/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/wY0cWYy00UkZESN05r>;
          Wed, 22 Feb 89 05:17:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 05:16:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #254

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 254

Today's Topics:
        Re: Space travel and the spirit of man
            Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
             Re: Space Resources
             Re: State SPACEPAC rankings
              CDSF has a chance!
            Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
               Re: the un/manned debate
            Re: Energia questions
            Re: Energia questions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 89 22:32:53 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>>... Sustained manned presence requires self-sufficiency...
>>
>>Why?  Name three settlements on *Earth* that are self-sufficient.
>
>My message, in context, said *potential* self-sufficiency...
>Space settlements must be *more* self-sufficient, because the transportation
>system from Earth to space is more complex and fragile...

Again, why?  All you have established is that a space colony which is not
fully self-sufficient is dependent on the maintenance of transportation
systems to and from (mostly from) Earth.  So what?  This is a problem only
if you consider the primary purpose of colonies to be acting as lifeboats
for Spaceship Earth.  While I consider this significant in the long run,
I don't see it as a big short-term motivation.  In the long run the colonies
will have ample economic motivation to become as self-sufficient as possible;
it is not necessary to impose it as a precondition.

>How would dependent
>space settlements fair if it were discovered that rockets destroy the ozone,
>or if WWIII broke out (conventional or nuclear), if the powers controlling
>the system decided there were more urgent priorities than spending billions
>on distant space habitats, or (fill in your own bad-news scenario).

One of two things happens.  They come back to Earth on the last flight of
the transportation systems, or they die.  (Actually there is a third
possibility, that they find out they aren't as dependent as they thought,
but we'll ignore that as a quibble.)  The bases in Antarctica today are
in essentially the same situation:  they are utterly dependent on outside
supply.  For some reason this isn't considered a major problem with them.
Anyone who signs up for the first space colony will be accepting risks.

>>Clearly a colony needs either good recycling
>>or local supplies for air and water, and local production of basic foods
>>and structural materials is at least highly desirable.
>
>Agreed.  And we do *not* have the technology to do this...

Oh, nonsense.  Look at some of the work SSI has commissioned if you want
to know what can be done in the way of manufacturing with lunar materials.
"Mining" is not an issue at all, a bulldozer will suffice.  Oxygen is
everywhere in the regolith.  Hydrogen *is* a problem, which is why I
mentioned the lunar-polar-crater-ice issue.  Limited recycling does not
appear to be beyond our capabilities now, if you are willing to accept
less than 100.00000% probability of success.  Yes, modest further progress
would help on many of these things -- for example, there are probably
better sources of materials than randomly-chosen lunar regolith -- but
it's not *necessary*.

>... It is still an expensive operation to scoop up a few ounces
>of soil on Mars...

Expensive.  Not difficult, or beyond our technology, just costly.  The
Apollo astronauts did it on the Moon with hand scoops, if you recall.

>>...start a lunar colony with today's technology.
>>there was a proposal to do exactly that in 1992...
>>but the reliance on six donated shuttle flights killed it.
>
>This is off by several orders of magnitude.  You can't put even one
>space station module, with supporting solar cells, batteries, and
>several weeks of food, on the Moon, with six shuttles...

Which is why you don't use space station modules for something like this.
The idea is to plant something that can grow, not to try to prefabricate
an entire colony.  Six shuttles, at old nominal-payload numbers, is about
350,000 lbs in low orbit.  I don't know what exact propulsion system those
folks had in mind, but that still adds up to a number of tons on the lunar
surface (one-way trip, remember -- this is a colony, not a base, and a
minimum-budget do-or-die version at that).  Sounds adequate as a starting
point for bootstrapping, to me.

>even if we
>had a lunar landing vehicle (a $5+ billion development in and of itself).

We had one, actually, which cost rather less than that, but we threw it
away.  However, much of the work would not need to be re-done.

>The estimates from NASA for a *minimal* lunar base: about 10 people huddled
>in space station modules covered by dirt, with no mining or manufacturing
>operations--run around $100 billion...

Yup.  Ever heard what NASA proposed as the budget for a Halley probe, versus
what was quoted when Delta Vee asked the same manufacturers about doing it
privately?  "NASA specializes in astronautical missions with astronomical
price tags."
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Feb 89 16:53:07 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!oodis01!uplherc!esunix![e-mail]  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Kevin William Ryan):
>

>    On a more serious note - numerous people have asked about redoing the
> Saturn V, despite the fact that NASA pitched most of the plans and machinery
> for same.  It seems that the cost would be almost prohibitive.
>    I would like to know if anyone has information about the Saturn launcher
> used for the early Apollo tests (the IIB?) - were the plans for that pitched
> as well?  Surely the capacity to orbit the mass of the LM/SM/CM combination
> would be useful.  Does anyone know if the plans for that are still around?
>
>                                                   kwr

I don't know the fate of the Saturn IB plans, but I did look up its
LEO payload. The Saturn IB had an LEO payload of 40,000 lbs. The Titan
IV, currently under development, will have an LEO payload of 40,000
lbs.  The Proton booster has an LEO payload of ~42,000 lbs. The Ariane
V booster, currently being developed by ESA, is expected to have an
LEO payload of ~43,000 lbs.

There is not much point in resurecting the Saturn IB when the Titan
IV, Proton, and Ariane V all have, or will have, equivalent
performance.

            Bob P.
--
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

        Reality is what you make of it.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1989 15:59-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Space Resources

Posting of (Chip [e-mail]) re: (Chris Ott)

I'll stand with Chris. I've had the doomsayers balthering in my ear for
20 years now and I'm really pretty bored by it. I hope I get to toast
Chris's foresight at one of the space settlements while the hairless
apes who stayed behind go back to the trees.

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

Date: 18 Feb 89 06:37:07 GMT
From: att!alberta!obed![e-mail]  (stephen Samuel)
Subject: Re: State SPACEPAC rankings

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
>>Subject: Spacepac ratings by State
>>From: Scott Pace <[e-mail]>
>>a rough measure of the Spacepac "rating" of each state.  Ratings of 70% or
>>more were called pro-space, while 0-50% were called anti-space. This gave
>>us 15 pro-space states, 9 anti-space states, and 26 "swing" states.
>>The ranking was:
>>California      66.5  [#20]
> >Alaska          91    [#1]
> >Florida         87.6  [#3]
> >Wisconsin       43.3  [#45]
> although I was surprised somewhat by the poor standing of
> >California      66.5  [#20]
> but why in God's name is Alaska *first*, significantly beyond the pack??
I think that Alaska has much more of a pioneering spirit than most other
states would have.. (There's not much difference between an Alaskan winter
and a warm night in space :-).
 California, on the other hand, is just too COMFORTABLE. People in
that state may tend to find it much easier to look towards things like
social issues (civil rights, ecology, etc.).

 The movie-crew people (with possible exception of the lucas and other
such FX groups), for example, probably couldn't care less about space
exploration.

--
Stephen samuel !alberta!{obed,edm}!steve
Look on the bright side... It might have worked!

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

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail]
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 89 19:12:54 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash![e-mail]
Subject: CDSF has a chance!

Now is the ideal time to support the Commercially Developed Space
Facility and lay the groundwork for termination of the Space Station.

The National Space Society family of Organizations and aerospace
establishment interests are so worried the Launch Service Purchase Act
will pass without their coopting ammendments that they aren't keeping
close track of what is going on with the budget process.  Right now
Congress is primarily concerned with the budget, so while these
typically anti-space elements are preoccupied we can wave the flag
of privatization before the administration to ensure it helps get CDSF
authorization into the budget.  With the CDSF in the budget, calls for
fiscal restraint can easily be used to eliminate the Space Station.

This can be done right now.  The iron is hot.  Time to pound it flat.

By the time the NASA-boosters realize the LSPA, while valuable, was
just a diversion, it will be far too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: [phone]
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![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Feb 89 04:19:10 GMT
From: aablue![e-mail]  (John B Scalia)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ( Avatar) writes:
> [a whole ton of verbage canned]
> detail prints in whatever size you'd like. Shop prints are usually 'D' size,
> for those of you who have never worked in a machine shop, roughly 36" x 56".
>
> [Even more deleted]

I don't normally nit-pick, but having been involved with several NASA
contractors and with 20 years of engineering, I must point out the
least of the errors from your article. A 'D' print is either 22" x 34" or
24" x 36" period. Apollo/Saturn engineering drawings were either 27" x 36"
or 36" x 48" except for some assembly and wiring details which were done
in 36" rolls by length required. --- It is important that you understand
that many of the details called in the prints were not as-built on the
real thing.

These are known as change orders. Typical display units are those
components minus the change orders. In most situations a flying version
of the part does NOT exist and the change order detail has been lost.
That fact alone would mean many millions in engineering dollars just
to make what you've seen fly.

Face it, Saturns won't fly again. It's time for another subject.



--
A A Blueprint Co., Inc. - Akron, Ohio [phone] voice
UUCP:       {uunet!}aablue!jb    Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who
FidoNet:   1:157/697        wants to spend their life in an institution.
EchoNet:   US:OH/AKR.0

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

Date: 19 Feb 89 00:12:56 GMT
From: minke![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>... All this
>>could be done, in spades, if only a fraction of the funding currently
>>thrown at manned programs were available for the effort.
>
>Of course it's not, and never will be, since money taken away from manned
>programs does **NOT** get shifted to unmanned programs.

Just what evidence do you have for this?  I recall that after Apollo was
cancelled, money was shifted into Viking and Voyager, among other things.  On
the flip side, it is clear that the U.S. solar-polar and Halley missions
were cancelled, and Galileo, Magellan, Space Telescope and Mars Observer
were delayed, due to the funding priorities and delays of the Space Shuttle
program.  There is a clear trade-off, and giving manned programs most of
the money has starved and will continue to starve the real space program.


Nick Szabo              [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Feb 89 02:25:00 GMT
From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Energia questions


From [e-mail] (Peter Scott):

> Those four boosters on Energia are liquid fuel, not solid, right?

That is correct.

> What altitude do they separate at?  Are they recovered and reused?
> What about the main rocket?  How close does it come to being able to

The four first stage boosters fall away in pairs and parachute back to Earth
ready for refuelling and further use, while the core stage splashes down in
the Pacific.  Though it might be noted that the Soviets have yet to demonstrate
this capability.
--
Andrew J. Higgins                 | Illini Space Development Society
404 1/2 E. White St apt 3            | a chapter of the National Space Society
Champaign IL  61820                  | at the University of Illinois
phone:  [phone]               | P.O. Box 2255 Station A
e-mail: [e-mail] | Champaign IL  61825
                 ^^^^^^
"When the Waters were dried an' the earth did appear,...The Lord He created
 the Engineer"
 - Rudyard Kipling

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

Date: 19 Feb 89 00:12:54 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Energia questions

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
>Those four boosters on Energia are liquid fuel, not solid, right?

Right.

>What altitude do they separate at?  Are they recovered and reused?

I don't remember the altitude, if indeed the Soviets have published it.
They are recoverable and reusable by design, although the Soviets
haven't yet actually tried that.

>What about the main rocket?  How close does it come to being able to
>go into LEO?  Could it do so if it jettisoned the engines and just
>send the shell into orbit?

The core probably comes fairly close to orbit, since Buran's maneuvering
engines are not huge and it will have to be close to orbit at separation
time.  As a guess, you could probably get the core into low orbit without
much trouble.  You would run into the same problems as orbiting shuttle
tanks, though:  high air drag and a short orbital life unless you do
something special about it.

>If so, how come the Russkies haven't built
>an orbiting facility this way?

Be patient -- they've only flown the thing twice so far!
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #254
*******************