Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_2/V9_266.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/wY2b6Yy00UkZQgX05o>;
          Tue, 28 Feb 89 05:17:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 89 05:17:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #266

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 266

Today's Topics:
      Re: Model rockets: composite materials/mixing rule
              Re: 1992 moon base
                  Satellite
                Re: Satellite
            Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
         Re: First concert from space--update
              Re: Space colonies
        Forbes article on manned space program
              Re: NASA, Soviets, gripes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 89 16:21:48 GMT
From: hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad![e-mail]  (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: Model rockets: composite materials/mixing rule

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (R. M. Jungclas) writes:
>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 builders of fiberglas model rocket tubes that I've seen are using
3/4 oz glass cloth from Sig, usually only a single wrap (with slight overlap
at the seam, wrapped over a steel mandrel coated with mold release.

There is also a supplier of carbon fiber materials buried in the classified
ads in _American Spacemodeling_:

Competition Specialties
PO Box 452
Vine Grove, Kentucky  40175      Catalog $3.00; emphasis on composites for
                 model rocketry use.

I have not seen their catalog but plan to get my hands on it shortly.
--
Mark Johnson ([e-mail]) WB9QLR/0 (Monon RR enthusiast)
NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS  phone: [phone]
email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson
US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226

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

Date: 23 Feb 89 19:10:56 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>>... 2.7 tons were reserved for a modified Apollo
>>capsule  for emergency return.
>
>    That's some modification...the CSM weighed 55,000 lbs...

Sounds like they were planning to use just the CM, not a full CSM, although
they'd have had to goose the life support up a bit.

>... you have to bring more people back now, which should account for
>most of it...

A stock Apollo CM could hold five people with minor modifications; such
a configuration was planned in detail for the Skylab rescue plan (which
was never used, since none of the Skylab crews needed rescuing).  This
by itself wouldn't add much.
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Feb 89 05:54:46 GMT
From: well![e-mail]  (Philip Nicholls)
Subject: Satellite

I am posting this for a friend.  He can be reached at
well!gregor for email.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR A SMALL SATELLITE
2-21-89

The San Francisco and Golden Gate Chapters of the National
Space Society will launch a small satellite into orbit in
the summer of 1990.  We are soliciting proposals for
instruments and experiments to go in that satellite.  Two
obvious types of mission are astronomical and earth-sensing,
but we are open to other ideas.

Deadline for responses is March 15, 1989.  Proposals should be
limited to 3 pages (excluding resumes).  A decision will be
announced by the end of March.  Experimenters will be
responsible for funding and building their own experiments.
Depending on the complexity of the instrument package, it
must be ready for integration with the satellite by February
1990.

Proposals should discuss:

   o  The scientific goals of the mission.

   o  A brief description of the experiment itself.

   o  The proposer's technical background and ability to
      complete an instrument package in the time allowed.

At this stage in the planning we are looking at two types of
platform:

   o  A non-stabilized (tumbling) satellite

   o  A gravity-stabilized satellite with spin axis pointing
      at the Earth

Proposals may address either or both options.  We're looking
for good science AND a mission which will attract wide
public attention.

Satellite Parameters:

Altitude: 150 to 400 nautical miles.

Orbit: High inclination polar orbit.  Circular.  96 degrees
sun-synchronous.

Lifetime: 4 months to decades.  No recovery of payload.

Weight: Up to 20 pounds

Volume: About 1.5 cubic feet.  Hexagonal space 22" wide, 6"
high.

On-board Data Storage: 1 S32 or IEEE488 bus.
Downlink: 9,600 bits/second.  Telemetry will be provided for
the life of the satellite.

Attitude Control: Either none (a tumbler) or gravity-boom
stabilized.

Power: Solar cells with storage batteries.  5 watts average.
Peaks of 20 watts for short times.

Temperature Range: 58 - 84 degrees F.

Shielded against charged particles and radiation.

G Forces at Launch: 12G vertical, 3G lateral.

Special Rules: This launch is not being done through NASA,
so it's not necessary to follow all NASA requirements for
components.

Experiments with additional power or pointing requirements
will be considered, but preference will be given to
experiments with lower requirements.

Submit Proposals To:

     National Space Society, San Francisco Chapter
     P.O. Box 1351
     San Francisco, CA  94101

For more information contact Gregor Hartmann, President, San
Francisco Chapter, National Space Society, at 415-863-3737.

The National Space Society is a nation-wide grassroots
organization which promotes the civilian use of the solar
system.

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

Date: 23 Feb 89 19:50:14 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Satellite

In article <[e-mail]>, pan@well (Philip Nicholls) writes:
>
>REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
>FOR A SMALL SATELLITE
>2-21-89
>
>The San Francisco and Golden Gate Chapters of the National
>Space Society will launch a small satellite into orbit in
>the summer of 1990.  We are soliciting proposals for
>instruments and experiments to go in that satellite.

A warning for those who might be interested in this proposal.

These are the same people who just lost their shirts on a benefit
concert performance by The Bobs, one of the hottest musical groups in
the San Francisco area.  The benefit was a $3,000 affair.

This satellite launch is going to cost on the order of $100,000.  Don't
hold your breath waiting for them to find the money.

>The National Space Society is a nation-wide grassroots
>organization which promotes ...
                                 space station, space shuttle, NASP, and
most other NASA schemes to keep us out of space.


William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

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

Date: 23 Feb 89 18:21:14 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Gray) writes:
>It is also worth noting that the Ariane V will be man-rated.
>I believe the proton is too.

One hears varying stories about whether Proton was meant to be man-rated,
but I don't think it is today.

>Is there any plans to do this with the Titan IV?

It could probably be done, but I don't think anybody plans to do it.
Various people have recommended development of an expendable-launched
manned capsule, but NASA and the USAF are ignoring them.
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Feb 89 20:48:50 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic![e-mail]  (Rick Wojcik)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Shel Talmy) writes:
>A company in Los Angeles called Orbit Productions has been formed to
>stage the first ever concert from space.  A large portion of the proceeds
>from this venture is to be donated to various charities.

I usually applaud activities designed to promote charity and I don't really
want to spoil anyone's fun, but it seems to me that our space program (and
that of the Soviets) has suffered egregiously from people who want to turn it
to some nonscientific purpose.  The shuttle program suffered a spectacular
setback, not just because astronauts died, but because certain politicians
wanted to turn it into a real media event.  There is no justification whatever
for sending Senators, teachers, and singers into orbit.  The Soviet Union
shouldn't be sending up astronauts from different nations just to score
political points.  There is more than enough work up there for scientists and
professional astronauts.  Countries such as the US and the USSR use up huge
resources to keep these activities going, and it is a shame that people can't
understand the worth of the investment without a sugar coating.  Perhaps we
need these kinds of activities to keep the space program alive, but I think
that people would be much more receptive to it if our leaders tried to
promote the space program from loftier motives--e.g. the advancement of
science and the destiny of the human race.

I apologize to Shel and others in her company for being such a curmudgeon.  It
is just my personal opinion that we are not yet at a point where the activity
that they contemplate is justifiable.




--
Rick Wojcik   csnet:  [e-mail]
              uucp:   uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik

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

Date: 22 Feb 89 21:59:57 GMT
From: tektronix!reed![e-mail]  (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Space colonies


Oops.  Made a few errors in last night's post.  The article was the
_March_ 1989 Discover.  Also, the g-forces involved were in the 100's
of 1000's of g's, and the _launch_ technology could be built tested and
contructed by 1995 for 300 million$.

The stumbling block, it seems, is making satellites tough enough to take
being shot out of a rail gun and still have maneuvering ability to change
their trajectory from a ballistic that intersects the planet to an orbit
which doesn't ;*).  Supposedly such technology would be "expensive to
develop, possibly more than the launch facility."

That doesn't strike me as much of a limitation at all.  The usefulness of
shockproof, tough electronics has uses _far_ beyond just space.  Car
engines, drill bits hydraulic presses and stress monitors for buildings
would just be a start of the list of applications.

Simply having a cheap way of getting booster rockets into orbit would be
worth it in my opinion, a reliable satellite launcher that is _cheap_ as
all hell...  IMHO, dozens of companies would be building more satellites
if they knew that they would indeed be launched.  At $300 mil for the whole
launch setup, including development costs, dozens of launchers may spring
up by the end of the century.  Microtechnology would probably be advanced
in tandem with satellites and electronics that can survive mega-g's so
easily launched light planetary probes could eventually be launched with
no boosters or gravity slings needed.  Well, maybe not, but it is a great
thought to think on.

The actual projected launch costs, including overhead, was 10-40$ per pound,
as compared to 1,000-40,000/pound for conventional launches, (depending on
the source).

Michael Sandy
[e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Feb 89 21:05:19 GMT
From: amanda![e-mail]  (Martin Sodos)
Subject: Forbes article on manned space program

This weeks Forbes had an interesting article on the space
program vis-a-vis the desirability of building the station and
going to Mars. I won't reprint the article here (those interested can
get a copy), but I'll outline the basics contained therein.

Note before I begin that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the
contents or the conclusions, I'm merely summarizing.

The basic thrust of the article begins by noting how the Soviets have
said that as a result of their research into extended stays in space,
they have come to the conclusion that without changing the basic
environment provided that their cosmonauts will be unable to survive
more than a year in space at a time.

It is then noted how the National Academy of Sciences and of Engineering have
both recommended that a trip to Mars and the space station, which uses
this as one of its' main justifications for being built, should not be
built until more basic research into life sciences and related engineering
issues is done. They also recommend that the station and trips to Mars be
separated from the rest of the NASA budget.

It is noted that merely rotating a space station is not a reasonable
solution, the example given being that to generate 1 g at 1 rotation per
minute requires a station either 10 miles wide, or a tether with a counter-
balance of the same length, Not a trivial engineering problem.

The article goes on to infer that the space program has suffered from
the manned space efforts, and that the ability of man to live in space
for extended periods is currently a romantic notion, disproven by
the facts. The reader is then presented with the logical conclusion
that therefore, a trip to Mars would be a likely disaster until we
know more about how to enable man to survive for extended periods, and
should be, at least temporarily, put on a back burner.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the facts and conclusions provided,
I think the article makes for intesesting reading, particularly because
it is contained in a respected business, not scientific, publication,
and may therefore be indicative as to how the educated lay public
perceives 'the facts'.

MS



  --

  Martin Sodos
  Sun Microsystems            uucp: {any major}!sun!msodos
  Mt View, CA                 phone: [phone]

  A man who isn't a liberal in his youth has no heart. A man
  who is not a conservative in his later years has no brains.

  Winston Churchill (paraphrase)

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

Date: 23 Feb 89 14:39:45 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: NASA, Soviets, gripes

Has anyone besides me noted the slow shuttle launch pace since last
fall?  At this rate, we'll get maybe six flights this year.  Since
NASA is spending $3.4 B on the shuttle this year, that's about
$10K/pound to orbit.  America won't be "back in space" until NASA
can demonstrate that it can launch the shuttles at a much higher
sustained rate.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #266
*******************