Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_0/V10_068.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.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/QZ7HgE600VcJA47E5X>;
          Sun, 24 Sep 89 16:37:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 89 16:37:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #68

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 10 : Issue 68

Today's Topics:
       Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions (Saturn V)
             Re: Mars Mission ship design
             Re: How is Voyager powered?
             Re: Mars Mission ship design
            Possible extra planet
             ISDC conference announcement
            Re: Linguistic Tidbits
           Re: Sunraster Voyager II images
             Re: Observing Oct 12 Launch
         Re: Voting via taxes & other 3&*%^#!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 89 16:49:02 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions (Saturn V)

I should reply on this, since I wrote that one for Eugene.  Note that Eugene
wanted a *very short* answer, which precluded proper explanations.

>+Possible but very expensive -- tools, subcontractors, plans, facilities
>+are gone or converted for the shuttle, and would need rebuilding,
>+re-testing, or even total redesign.
>+
> Excuse me, but I take exception your having posted this as if it were a
>cast-in-concrete fact. Ever since STS this has been the NASA party-line on
>the subject. Not everyone is so sure of this, Eugene...

Boeing is; they investigated the matter at great length for the Jarvis
project, for which they very badly wanted to use the F-1 and J-2 engines.
They concluded that it just was not economically practical to put them
back into production.

>2) Engineers (not MANAGERS!) could, in a matter of months, cut new NC/CNC
>    tapes for a majority of the required structural components.

Sigh.  The shape of a component is the least of your problems.  Things like
exact composition, heat-treatment methods, etc. are also of great relevance
to structural strength and the like.  Re-engineering all this is possible,
but it is not much easier than starting from scratch -- the result is quite
likely to be different enough to require a whole new series of tests.

>3) The electrical sub-system could be re-engineered using modern PC-based
>    circuit emulator packages; the harnesses could be built and tested in any
>    number of wire-houses (most of which are in Mexico, BTW!) that now supply
>    such complex wiring looms for major computer manufacturers, at about 1/2
>    the cost of the orignal wiring looms!

Uh, are they equipped to test for space qualification?  (Vacuum, heat, high
vibration, etc. etc.)  I doubt that very much.  Besides, here again we are
talking about starting from scratch rather than reviving the old design.

>4) Rockwell's Rocketdyne Div. CAN STILL SUPPLY F-1 ENGINES.

Do you have references for this?  What's their price for reviving the
production line?  (If you mean they still have a few in storage, yes,
they do... but I wouldn't fly on one, not after two decades of storage.)


And remember that you've got to find somewhere to launch the things from,
since all the Saturn V facilities at KSC have been extensively modified
for the shuttle.  (And no, they did not preserve Saturn compatibility.)

It's just not as easy as it looks.  Alas.
--
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 20:55:52 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu![e-mail]  (Dan Thompson)
Subject: Re: Mars Mission ship design

Concerning the idea of placing the gravity modules at the ends of long
access tubes, I can see that you could have a problem during the thrust
stages.  If they are extended as far as shown in the diagram, I think it
would undergo tremendous torque stress during any substantial thrust.

Perhaps using a cylindrical design would work better.  Admittedly, it would
not provide as great amount of gravity, but it would not suffer from the
above described stress.

(Please forgive the lack of quoted references, as I am new to the net and
unsure of the system.  In fact, could some kind soul send me an e-mail
reply to confirm that this post made it?)


Dan Thompson        [e-mail]
Disclaimer: I'm unemployed, so I don't care if my boss agrees with me.

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 15:52:24 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!stda.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: How is Voyager powered?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (nick szabo) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
}>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Neal Woodall) writes:
}>Why screw around with strontium?  If you are willing to pay $2500 for
}>300 watts, solar cells can do that right now, including the batteries
}>to get you through the night.
}
}>"P"TG's are in use in the Cascade Mountains*, to power remote weather data
}>gathering stations (rain, snow depth).  They have some solar cell power as
}>well, but people know what they are, and steal the panels.  Not too many
}>people know a "P"TG when they see it.  "P" is for propane, by the way.
}
}
}Solar cells are not reliable because weather is not reliable (over many
}days, not just one night); propane must be continually replenished.  The
}strontium RTG's presumably suffer from neither of these disadvantages.
}I would like to see how they plan to protect customers from the radiation,
}and how they plan to dispose of depleated RTG's.

Has this totally left sci.space context when I wasn't watching?  I must
have missed the weather effects on Voyager (that _IS_ what the subject:
reads as).

BTW:  The sun doesn't do all that great once you are more than four
light-hours away...


"In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain"
                    - Pliny the Elder
These were the opinions of :
[e-mail]  - or - [e-mail]  - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 17:38:55 GMT
From: sumax!polari!gtisqr![e-mail]  (Kevin Bagley)
Subject: Re: Mars Mission ship design

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jesse M. Mundis) writes:
>Just some general details/suggestions for design:

 1)     Design the upcomming space station to withstand a specific
        amount of thrust. If the soviets can live in MIR for a
        year, surely some hardy US astronauts could manage a couple
        of years in something as plush as Freedom.

 2)     If it's decided there has to be gravity, use two modules
        connected with an access tunnel. Start it spinning.
        Cheaper and easier to build than a ring. Also, I don't
        think we need enough space to warrant a ring.
         __________                             __________
        |  Gravity |       Access_Tunnel       |  Gravity |
        |  Module  =============(_)=============  Module  |
        |__________|    Connects to Freedom    |__________|

 3)     Attatch boosters, BIG fuel tanks, landing, and exploration
        vehicles.

 4)     Boost out of earth orbit, using Lunar gravity assist to voyage
        to Mars.

 5)     Freedom orbits Mars while landing and exploration vehicles
        are sent down to begin establishment of base on Mars. Those
        remaining in Freedom could use low thrust vehicles to land
        on, explore, and return samples from Phobos and Diemos.
        I don't think the first time up we'll leave any body behind,
        but maybe on the second trip...

 6)     Leave Mars Base and return to Freedom. Return to earth orbit
        in Freedom (Lunar gravity de-assist). Shuttle astronauts back
        to earth.

 7)     Clean up all the Mars dust out of Freedom, and get it ready for
        the next trip. Meanwhile, it can still be used as a space station.

 Kind of gives new meaning to the word Freedom!

        I see this as more cost effective, and easier to accomplish than
        trying to use the Moon as a stepping off point for Mars. Lets
        go to the Moon for better reasons, like a Farside observatory.
        I don't think it makes much sense to jump out of earth's gravity
        well, into the moon's, only to have to jump out again.

 Questions:

 1)     How much more expensive would it be to design Freedom to withstand
        the necessary thrust.

 2)     Anybody know the estimated mass of Freedom. Using Lunar gravity
        assist, how much fuel/thrust would be needed. Don't forget the
        return home requirements.

 3)     How long would the trip take? How long would it take to build
        this contraption?

 4)     How many people should go? How long should they stay?

 5)     Any major flaws in this idea?  Is it possible?  Difficulties I
        see include... Fuel requirements, Braking requirements on earth
        return, and most of all -- political b.s..

>Jesse Mundis

 Lets build space vehicle/station Freedom.

--
   _____    Kevin Bagley  Global Technology Mukilteo WA 98275 [phone]
     )__) _   _   _       UUCP:uw-beaver!uw-nsr!gtisqr!kevin
   _/__) (_(_(_)_/_)_     ARPA:uw-nsr!gtisqr![e-mail]
  ____________/           Disclaimer: "I did not say this. I am not here."

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

Subject: Possible extra planet
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 16:59:52 EDT
From: Jon Monsarrat "Dr. Who" <[e-mail]>

I have heard many rumors about a suspected 10th planet, a big dark gas
giant way out past Pluto.

Would someone knowledgeable in astronomy please comment on what
research has been done on this possibility, and what the current state
of the hypothesis is? How would such a body be discovered, if it existed?

Thanks very much.

-Jon Monsarrat
 Just a guy.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 11:14:46 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Richard Murphy)
Subject: ISDC conference announcement


In keeping with its international flavor, the Space Development conference
is held each year in a prominent U.S. city.  In 1988 it was Denver, with its
magnificent snow-capped mountains; 1989 is Chicago, the gate-way to the
Great Lakes; and 1990 will find us in Los Angeles, the show-biz capital of
the world.  The year 1991 will be no exception.  We will meet in
multi-cultured San Antonio, Texas, the 9th largest city in the United
States.  A city of festivals and the historically famous Alamo.  A city . . .

Where strolling along the Paseo del Rio (riverwalk) is a unique
experience - a way of life for residents and visitors alike,

Where roving mariachi bands provide dancing in the streets, and

Where savoring the mouth-watering flavor of a real taco is not to be
missed.

Plan now to attend this exciting conference in a truly exotic and fun place.
You will be updated by experts on NASA's status, the Russian space
program, and other international space activities.  Don't delay . . . 1991
will be here before you know it.  Return the following form along with your
$50.00 registration fee by May 1, 1990, after which time the price will be
increased.  This will ensure your participation in what promises to be a
fantastic conference and will support conference preparation.
Cancellation must be made four (4) weeks before the conference.  There is
a $15.00 non-refundable handling fee.


Send registration to:  Beatrice Moreno
                       Southwest Research Institute
                       P.O. Drawer 28510
                       San Antonio, Texas 78228-0510


To obtain further information: Carol A. Luckhardt
                               Southwest Research Institute
                               P.O. Drawer 28510
                               San Antonio, Texas 78228-0510
                               [phone] or 340-1290
                               Internet: [e-mail]
                               Usenet: convex!pemrac!isdc-91

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 13:04:19 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Linguistic Tidbits

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Nichael Cramer):
> As a brief aside, somewhere ("Intelligent Life in the Universe" ?) Sagan
> suggests the adjective "Cytherean" --from Cytherea, the island where
> Venus/Aphrodite was "born"-- to describe things connected with Venus.

*##$! That's what I was desperately trying to remember. This has
certainly been used in SF; and I like it:
Venus:        pericytherion    apocytherion

Although,
Venus:        periaphroditon    apoaphroditon
seems more appropriate and no more difficult to say.

Of course, I assume,

Neptune:    periposeidon    apoposeidon


- Jonathan

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 15:38:49 GMT
From: uc![e-mail]  (Jeff Wabik)
Subject: Re: Sunraster Voyager II images


Could someone tell me where I could get these images (Internet ftp is
cool)?  They sound interesting, but I've obviously missed them.

Thanks ..

    -Jeff

--
Jeff A. Wabik                E/Mail:     [e-mail]
Minnesota Supercomputer Center         AT&T:    [phone]
Minneapolis, MN              FAX:     [phone]

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

Date: 12 Sep 89 22:01:11 GMT
From: oliveb!amdahl!dlb!zygot![e-mail]  (Bruce Henderson)
Subject: Re: Observing Oct 12 Launch



Does anyone know how long the next mission is slated to last?  I would
like to catch the landing at Edwards......

Thanks in advance!

--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bruce Henderson                                       Software Engineer
zygot![e-mail]
"Sorry, Mathematica can't goon this much"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 12:14:15 PDT
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: Re: Voting via taxes & other 3&*%^#!

From: unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!cveg!hcx![e-mail]  (6079 Smith James)

>>     Another good statistic is that Americans spent $17G on entertainment
>> last year!  People who say space program money would be better spent on
>> <insert worthy cause here> should be asked to forgo movies, TV, music,
>> all forms of entertainment.  Nor, for that matter, should they be allowed
>> information or activity of any kind which is not conducive to the
>> furtherance of <insert worthy cause here>.
>
>Now flip that.  "People who say <insert worthy cause here> money would be
>better spent on the space program should be asked to...."  Does that sound
>reasonable to you?  No?  Didn't think so.
>...
>Elitist ranting from:
>James Smith
>[e-mail]

    "Thou hypocrite: cast out first the beam that is in thine own eye,
that thou canst see to cast out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
    Is it just me, or what?  Doesn't it seem hypocritical of a people
who spend $17G/year on music and movies, $250G/year on leisure supplies
and activities overall, to say we shouldn't spend $13G/year on space
exploration?
    Besides, just as A cross B does not equal B cross A, your flipping
of my words does not produce and equivalent argument since a) we already
spend over $300G/year on social programs, not including Social Security and
Medicare, and b) I never asked that <insert worthy cause here> be scrapped
altogether, whereas the people I'm talking about do ask that of space
exploration.

----
"Drive Friendly or Die"            |         Dale M. Greer
  Proposed Texas License Plate Motto    |   Center for Space Sciences
              -- Anonymous    | University of Texas at Dallas
                    | UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #68
*******************