Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_2/V9_264.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/AY2G0By00UkZAfFE5D>;
          Mon, 27 Feb 89 05:16:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 05:16:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #264

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 264

Today's Topics:
             Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar
              Re: 1992 moon base
              Re: 1992 moon base
         Re: French small space shuttle: A go ahead !
               Re: the un/manned debate
             Re: Henry Spencer, the Movie
              lunar base 1992???
        Model rockets: composite materials/mixing rule
        Re: An integrated space program for the world
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 08:54:44 GMT
From: Portia!hanauma.stanford.edu![e-mail]  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar

Most of the replies I have gotten have been of the form
"Well there is this wonderful way to do it already if you put
this expensive equipment on the ground and have something
cheap in orbit." (Or use GPS which is expensive at both ends
and not accurate enough.)
But the whole point is the areas we want to measure are
remote and inaccessible; we don't want to have to go there
once a week to take a measurement. We want to go there once
and not have to come back very often to maintain whatever it
is we left behind.
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger [e-mail] decvax!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

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

Date: 22 Feb 89 21:39:59 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

There appears to be considerable curiosity about what the proposed
lunar base was to include, how much mass, etc.  For example,
Paul Dietz calculated a payload limit as follows:

>One additional problem with the shuttle (vs. the Saturn V) is that a
>lunar vehicle launched by the shuttle must use solid or storable
>propellant rockets to leave earth orbit, rather than oxygen/hydrogen,...
>
>If a shuttle can carry 27 tons and we use storable propellants with an
>Isp of 300 to inject to and land on the moon, then six shuttle flights
>lets us land about 21 tons on the moon (including the dry mass of the
>landing vehicle).  Question: what was the mass and payload capacity of
>the LEM?

From the "The Columbus Project" by Hyde, Ishikawa, and
Wood:

    The initial lunar settlement will travel to the moon in several
    (nom. 6) independent Shuttle-launched lunar landing system vehicles
    Each will deliver 6 metric tons of net payload to the lunar surface.
    This represents roughly 20% of the mass placed by the Shuttle
    into LEO, a significant improvement over Apollo systems per-
    formance which is made possible by two considerations: 1) all
    major maneuvers are carried out with ... H2/O2 propellants...;
    2) almost all of the payload is finally deposited on the lunar
    surface--it isn't necessary to also carry propellant to
    return much of the landed payload from the Moon....

The Columbus Project assumed using RL-10 engines with Isp=444
seconds -- remember this was all before Challenger and the ban on
H2/O2 in the Shuttle bay.  The Shuttle payload was to be 29.2 tons,
including 22.1 tons of propellant.  Lunar injection burn used
15.1 tons of propellant; boiloff and midcourse maneuvers used
another 300 kg.  6.5 tons are burned to enter Lunar orbit and land,
leaving enough (200 kg) for 60 seconds of hovering.  Landed mass
is 7.1 tons, of which 1.2 tons is vehicle structure
(which is broken down in detail).    Cargo mass is 5.9 tons.
Thus the total mass available from 6 flights would have been
35.4 tons.  2.7 tons were reserved for a modified Apollo
capsule  for emergency return.  The breakdown of the
actual colony mass was:

    11.3 tons inhabited area
        4.8 t primary structure (8 double Kevlar bags, 5mx15m)
        4.0 t internal furnishing s and equipment
        2.5 t atmosphere

    5.6 tons life support
        3.5 t food
        0.5 t water conditioning
        0.9 t air refurbishment
        0.7 t thermal management

    5.5 tons power plant
        1.7 t solar primary power (170 kW peak power)
        0.8 t fuel cells and power conditioning
        3.0 t H2 and O2 in various forms

    1.2 tons personnel and gear (6 people)

    1.5 tons lunar vehicles

    0.4 tons emergency ascent stage

total    25.5 tons

which leaves about 7 tons for extra hardware -- or for reserve in
the event one of the missions fails.  (There are considerable details
given for, e.g., how thermal management is done, but I think
I've given enough data here...)

    Jordin (To the Moon, Alice, To the moon) Kare



>I noted with interest that the quotes from the document describing the
>moon base mentioned teleoperated rovers.  This is a wonderful idea.  I
>assume the teleoperation is from Earth.  If so, isn't their use
>independent of whether a manned base is set up?
>
>    Paul F. Dietz
>    [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Feb 89 00:10:23 GMT
From: phoenix![e-mail]  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base


>From the "The Columbus Project" by Hyde, Ishikawa, and
>Wood:

>Thus the total mass available from 6 flights would have been
>35.4 tons.  2.7 tons were reserved for a modified Apollo
>capsule  for emergency return.

    That's some modification...the CSM weighed 55,000 lbs and the
LM 35,000 lbs.  That's 45 tons.  The fact that you wouldn't need
the mass to slow down, enter lunar orbit, and land would be helpful,
but you have to bring more people back now, which should account for
most of it.  Moreover, if the CSM is landed on the moon instead of
left orbiting, the fuel requirements go up drastically.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <[e-mail]>  <- preferred
              <[e-mail]>

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

Date: 22 Feb 89 18:10:54 GMT
From: amdahl![e-mail]  (T.S. Reddy)
Subject: Re: French small space shuttle: A go ahead !

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
> >You should care about your titles: Hermes is a *European* project, backed
> >up by the ESA. Your national pride, although comprehensible, gives a strange
> >idea of Europe to the locals on your side of the Atlantic:
> >       France first
> >       Great Britain never
> >       Germany sometimes
>
> In a way I have to agree with the above.
> But for *HERMES* the case is the same that with ARIANE.
>
> At the biginning NO ONE else wanted to support it or to be part of it.
> Then when the project began to engrange successes, everybody
> joined the train !!  The Germans being the more honest of all.
>
     There was a joke to the effect that in the early days of Ariane,
if the launch succeeded, the French used to call it a French space effort
and when it failed, they used to call it a European space effort.
     Also, when fog covered the English Channel, British newspapers read
"Fog envelopes Channel; Europe isolated", but I digress :-).
>
> Jean-Marc.
> [e-mail]


--
T.S.Reddy

Arpa: [e-mail]
uucp:...!{ames,decwrl,uunet,pyramid,sun}!amdahl!reddy

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

Date: 22 Feb 89 19:52:42 GMT
From: uhccux![e-mail]  (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Happiness is planet Earth in your rearview mirror):
" The problem with arguing about the value of space research is, what is its
" REAL value.  Not the intrinsic value to most participants (knowledge), but,
" for instance, what does 1987A have to do with a cure for AIDS or stopping
" the greenhouse effect. ...

Right.  If you want people to be willing to invest in space, you
have to give them back something they value for their investment,
or at least promise to do so shortly.  I've been following this
discussion since forever waiting for someone to point out the
obvious source for such value.  It's entertainment.  Movies filmed
on Mars.  Curios carved from Deimos rocks.  Contest -- Win a 2-day
vacation on the Moon!

What I hear from you guys is stuff like new materials research and
testing models of planetary evolution.  Get real.  You'll never
get more than a dribble of cash, if that's the best you can do.

        Greg, [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Feb 89 21:10:27 GMT
From: att!cbnews![e-mail]  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: Henry Spencer, the Movie

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>
>What I'm really waiting for is >>> Henry Spencer the Movie <<<
>:-)

I saw a section of the script for this; the working title is, I believe,
"Spencer for Higher."   The clip I saw was a climactic showdown between
our hero and his evil nemesis, Dietz Vader:

D.V.: "With the moonbase controlled by my robotic automatons, the weaklings
    of Earth lie helpless before me !" [maniacal laughter]

NASA: [portrayed by fat, slowmoving burocrat-types] "Damn !  If only
    Congress had OK'd the manned base, we could have prevented this !
        Help us, oh Henry-wan !"   [cries of anguish]

H.S.: "Sorry, boys, but you're on your own."  [more cries of anguish,
    maniacal laughter from D.V.]

D.V.: "I knew you would turn to the dark side of the moon... er, force."

[a remote camera pans over the robots working the missile silos of
Moonbase, when suddenly, a bright flash appears; the base is wiped out,
levelled, but then begins to change before our eyes; trees spring up,
roads, buildings; soon, an entire city exists, complete with a Moosehead
brewery, and a Canadian flag flies from the tallest building, rippling
gracefully in the solar wind.]

D.V.:  "Huh ?"

H.S.: "Hah-hah !  While you were occupied with undermining NASA, my private
       space venture firm secretly completed their Genesis device !"

D.V.: "You mean...?"

NASA: "No, no !!!!"

H.S.: "Yes.  The Moon has been Torontoformed !"


(These characters are fictional. Any resemblence to sci.space posters is
strictly coincidental.  And even if it isn't, it's just a joke, OK ? 8-)


------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker                        att!cbnews!wbt
    "You made a killing in real estate and NASA,
     selling cemetery plots in outer space;
     'till some falling profits crashed upon your doorstep.
     Welcome to the Human Race."     -    Timbuk 3
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

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

Subject: lunar base 1992???
From: [e-mail] (trekkER)
Date:    Wed, 22 Feb 89 23:39:53 EST

  Rather than rushing projects together and begging for donations
to get a lunar base by 1992 (for the 500th anniv. of Columbus'
stumbling upon the new world)  I think a much more feasible and
worthwhile goal would be to plan said base in greater detail for
2020.
  Aside from having much more time to plan, experiment, and secure
funds, i think the date is much more appropriate.  Columbus didn't
discover the new world (i hope you all realize that :-) ) he merely
proved that you could get to someplace across the Atlantic and
return alive.  In fact he died not knowing that he had landed in
America.  (He thought he had found the East Indies.)
  2020, however, would mark the 400th anniversary of the voyage of
the Mayflower and the subsequent settlement of New England.  Apollo
marked our lunar parallel to Columbus.  Let the lunar base parallel
the settlement of a new frontier.

Live long and prosper,
Chris Clark

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

Date: 22 Feb 89 19:33:24 GMT
From: att!ihlpb![e-mail]  (R. M. Jungclas)
Subject: Model rockets: composite materials/mixing rule


>Can you tell me where he obtains his carbon filament material, and how
>much it costs?  What equipment does he use for winding?

The February issue of American Spacemodeling (available at many hobby
stores and a few libraries) contains an article on composite materials
but excludes sources or costs.  This issue also contains a 1 page
article on the "No Mixing" (ie Model rocket vs high power) rule and
the rationale behind it.

The fellow that I know uses a variety of different materials, especially
fiberglass cloth. I have no idea what weight he used, where he got it,
or what price he paid.  All I recall with regards to price is a
statement of his that comparable size tubes cost more than
manufacturer's tubes. I do know that he has contacted military
suppliers.

The equipment that he uses is similar to a lathe. Most expensive part
is coming up with the mandrel to "form" the tube, which he machines
from aluminum stock. I've personally seen him start to build a tube
during half-hour to an hour convention presentation.  I recall that it
was time consuming and messy.

BTW, the reason that this individual makes his own tubes is for scale
competition. Fraction of percent errors in scaling the model, spiral
seams, etc. are considered unacceptable.  This individual has
represented the US in international competition and has one of his
models on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington.

R. Michael Jungclas                    UUCP:      att!ihlpb!rjungcla
AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville, IL.       Internet:  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 09:34:20 PST
From: [e-mail] (Tim Shimeall x2509)
Subject: Re: An integrated space program for the world
Cc: [e-mail]

[Intro material deleted]
>     The space program I propose is an extremelly long-term engineering
>project that is to be carried out both on the Earth and Mars.  Its purposes
>are the following:
>
>    (I)   To reform the food production system on the African continent,
>    (II)  To reclaim the Sahara.
>    (III) To provide a concrete symbol of world unity and a common purpose
>    to bind that unity together,
>    (IV)  To create additional living space to alleviate the overpopulation
>    problem.
>    (V)   To explore, colonize and terraform Mars.
>
>To carry it out will require the cooperation of most of the world's nations,
>and this time may be the best opportunity for such a prospect.
[Subsequent material deleted]

Interesting idea, with one major flaw.  It won't work.  You're
expecting cooperation among strongly antagonistic nations (consider:
Libya Vs. Chad, Rampant civil wars in the area, etc.) that have a
long-standing record of considering only their own local and immediate
interest.  Your plan does not provide any advantages to the regiems in
the area to cooperate. To be fair, these are also poor nations, without
the resources needed to support abstract and long-term goals.  I don't
think you could get these nations to work together on even trivial
goals, let alone on something as costly as what you propose.

I'll also invite you to consider the social effects of converting the
Sahara into farmland.  There are widespread and ancient cultures built
around desert life, with many active advocates.  I don't think that
they'll welcome the sacrifice of their culture.

(I leave to others the critique of the technical aspects of this
plan.)

Note that these criticisms apply ONLY to the Sahara reclamation
process.  Terraforming Mars involves nothing close to these political
problems -- only some very nasty technical problems.  It would also
satisfy goals III through V of your list above.
                    Tim

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #264
*******************