Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_5/V11_550.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

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/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/kaU6Nce00VcJEWzE4N>;
          Thu, 21 Jun 1990 02:17:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 1990 02:16:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #550

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 550

Today's Topics:
            Full Funding for NASA
         Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest
                   Nitpick
           Schematics for Satellite decoder
         Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest
           Spacelab costs, pricing politics
         Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest
Re: Making fresh vegetables on long-duration space travel (Forwarded)
        Radiation belt references (was Re: Radiation)
            Re: Public Perception Of Space
        Getting spaca exploration really going

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Jun 90 15:04:37 GMT
From: eagle![e-mail]  (Gregory Fedor)
Subject: Full Funding for NASA

I received this via e-mail, but thought I'd reply to it here:

>From @po5.andrew.cmu.edu:[e-mail]  Tue Jun 19 14:58:56 1990
>From: "Jon C. Slenk" <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail] (Gregory Fedor)
>Subject: Re: Full funding for NASA!
>
>I, for one, do not want my taxes going to anything other than the explicit
>protection of my rights. I do *not* consider funding NASA (in general) to
>be such: if NASA were purely military then I could justify it, but NASA is
>also doing (and preventing) what should be *entirely* comercially done.
>
>-Jon.
>(Donning Acme Flame-Proof Suit already...)
>

No flames...we are adults.

I don't believe that the commercial sector is ready to undertake the full
mission of NASA.  Yes there are several areas that started out as NASA
exclusives, but have matured enough that private industry can see profit in
pursuing them (don't forget the country is based on capitalism).

In my work here at Lewis (one third of NASA's research arm), I've heard
several stories that state that private industry _wants_ NASA to do the basic
research and initial testing, then turn the technology over to them for
commercial development.  The one instance that comes to mind is the recent
work done on unducted fan engines.  The work on that was started here at Lewis,
was initially tested here at Lewis, and then _given_ to private industry to
take a look at.  Engine manufactures took the information and developed
comercially viable engines.  Why we don't see them is the flip side of the
economics, they are good but not good enough to attract buisness.

 If you are willing to fund things for your *private protection* then I think
 that the work done by NASA should be right up there.  Our future is in the
 hands of our children.  Do we want them learning about advanced thinking from
 people who's purpose is military (don't get me wrong I don't oppose everything
 that the military has done), or do we want them to learn from an organization
 whose charter is to expand the knowledge of the human race.

 You might say that's a pie in the sky dream, that NASA has never been that,
 and never will be.  On the first part I have to disagree, I am presently
 working at NASA because I grew up during NASA's hayday.  My earliest memory
 is that of Apollo 9's liftoff.  I was about 3 or 4 then.  That had a dramatic
 impact on my life that has led me to where I am today, and is guiding me
 towards tommorow.  If it can happen to me then it can certainly happen to our
 children.  As for the second part, NASA could return to what it once was if
 the politics was removed.  In the early days politicians didn't get in the
 way as much as they do today.  We as a nation have to stop the political
 bullsh*t and start making progress.

 Private industry can do alot of things NASA can't, and for such things they
 should with the cooperation of NASA.  NASA has it's faults (as does private
 industry) but it does alot of good things and shouldn't be chastized for
 them.  Stop the politics and maybe we can get somewhere.

--
Hailing frequencies closed...

Gregory Fedor                 [phone]
Sverdrup Technology           [e-mail]
NASA Lewis Research Center    Cleveland, Ohio 44135
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 21 Jun 90 02:52:15 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Lawrence Curcio)
Subject: Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest

Simmer down there, Vince! If the discussion is going to make
sense, we have to start doing some numbers, and that means we
have to start making some assumptions and modifying them. Nobody
else was doing this, so I thought I would. I assumed you would be
using Aerotech class N's because (1) I have data on only Aerotech
motors, and (2) I figured you wanted the highest available mass
ratio. The larger the diameter, the higher the mass ratio. The
class N has a mass ratio of four. The engine you described has a
mass ratio of 3.5. If you have smaller mass ratios, you are going
to have to have more stages. More stages means bigger lower
stages. There is a trade-off. (BTW the class N costs $1300, not
$3000.)

The business of upper stages weighing half of the current stage -
that was pulled out of the air. There is an optimization problem
here. Again, let's do NUMBERS. Show us a better configuration.

I forget what a reasonable orbital velocity is - 4 mile/second?
If that is true, then orbit can be achieved in 5 stages - or
fewer if you can have a bigger engine made. Problem is, why send
up only one ounce? How will you know it got anywhere? It will be
like any other rocket that goes out of sight, only bigger and
more expensive. This isn't a rhetorical question. As I say, I'm
up for something, but a good thing deserves up front
consideration. Lets do some. The group seems like a good forum.

-Larry Curcio

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 90 23:29:50 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Keith F. Lynch)
Subject: Nitpick
Cc: [e-mail]

> A COMPARISON OF OPTICAL AND RADIO ASTRONOMY

> ... the mid-point wavelength of the Radio window is about 0.5 meters.
> ... the corresponding frequency is about six thousand MHz, or six
> gigahertz (GHz).

No.  0.5 meters is 600 MHz or 0.6 GHz.  6000 MHz is 0.05 meters.
                                ...Keith

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 90 15:10 GMT
From: "Joe Desbonnet, UCG Ireland." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Schematics for Satellite decoder

For those interested in receiving satellite pictures you'll
find information on building your own decoder in Space Digest Volume 9
Issue 527.
Joe.

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

Date: 20 Jun 90 22:00:21 GMT
From: sam.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]  (Vincent Cate)
Subject: Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest



I just talked with someone at Vulcan Systems Inc.  He told me that
their K500 weighs about 3.5 pounds with the fuel being 2.5 pounds of
that.  He said that the Isp was about 225.  I asked if by paying
more I could get lighter cases and he said, "Sure if it is large
order".   He could replace the 16 oz case with a 4.5 oz case.
The 4.5 oz case was about $100.  A 2.75 lb rocket with a 0.25 lb
case would be far better than a 3.5 lb rocket with the same thrust,
especially when used as an upper stage.  The extra cost would be well
worth it.

I told him about wanting to send something into space and he said
they were building a 60 inch rocket motor for somebody who was sending
something into orbit.  I was surprised and he said that they made
stuff for the military and could make any size.  I said, "So I
could just order a "Q" and you would make it?"  He said, "Sure."

With very light cases we should be able to get about a 3,000 MPH delta-V
from each stage (using an engine of half the size in each higher stage).
Thus a total of 8 stages or so should do it.


I AM SURE WE CAN SEND LITTLE ROCKETS INTO SPACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  -- Vince

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 90 10:47:07 SET
From: [e-mail]
Comment: CROSSNET mail via MAILER@CMUCCVMA
Subject: Spacelab costs, pricing politics

Date: 20 June 1990, 10:38:29 SET
From: Lutz Massonne             [phone]     LMASSONN at ESOC
To:   [e-mail]
Subject: Spaclab costs, pricing politics

If I recall the Spaclab affair correctly, also the European politics
should be considered. The Spacelab project was financed with a big share
from West Germany, which always tended towards close relations with NASA
(as they still do, look at the bi-lateral ROSAT and Galileo missions).
Concurrently, the French concentrated their financial support on Ariane
development, where they paid the largest part.

Looking backwards now, the French approach seems to have been the
more prosperous one. The French Aerospace industry got much experience
in lanucher technology which now is extended into the manned
spaceflight technology (Hermes), whereas the West German industrial
experience gained through Spacelab was never utilised, as Spacelab
is considered more a "dead end" (because of its Shuttle reliance)
and Ariane is the "European success story".

Regards, Lutz


 +===================================+===============================+
 | Lutz Massonne                     |This mail expresses my personal|
 | Robert-Bosch Str. 5               |opinions only and is in no way |
 | D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG             |official or reliable.          |
 +===================================+===============================+

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

Date: 19 Jun 90 16:38:54 GMT
From: convex![e-mail]  (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest

[e-mail] (kevin.w.mckiou) writes:

>Somebody want to volunteer to get the FAA clearance? :-)

The FAA is not in charge of this.  You need a license from the
Dept. of Transporation's Office of Commercial Space Transporation.
The regulations are very complex, you will need a lawyer, and the
cost of the license will almost certainly exceed the $5000 budget
for this project.

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

Date: 17 Jun 90 13:25:42 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!pacbell!sactoh0!unify!csusac!csuchico.edu![e-mail]  (Ralph Reid)
Subject: Re: Making fresh vegetables on long-duration space travel (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
> . . .
> . . .  By applying commercial hydroponic (soil-less) growing
>techniques, plant growth time from seed to harvest is much
>quicker than for field-grown counterparts.
> . . .


I have heard that plant growth can be stimulated by changing the
length of the day perceived by the plants by changing the length of
time the plants are exposed to light.  Will this technique be applied
in this project?  Does this technique stimulate the speed of vegetable
and fruit production, or just leaf and stem growth?

--
Ralph.
ARS N6BNO
[e-mail]

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

Date:     Wed, 20 Jun 90 12:38 CST
From: William Higgins <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Radiation belt references (was Re: Radiation)
Original_To:  SPACE

A bunch of you (Harold P. White, Henry Spencer, Marc Hairston, Alan Herbst, and
Jon Bloom) were discussing radiation belts, and the consensus was that good
references on the subject were scarce.

In my browsing of the Fermilab library  I recently came across this:

High-Energy Radiation Background in Space
(AIP Conference Proceedings 186)
Edited by A.C. Rester, Jr. and J.I. Trombka
American Institute of Physics, New York 1989
L.C. Catalog Card no. 89-083833
ISBN 0-88318-386-2
DOE CONF 8711149

This is a book of conference proceedings, but has a lot of review material with
detailed looks at the Van Allen belts and other sources of radiation in space.
I'll bet it could answer many of the questions you have about radiation, though
it may not be as good as a textbook or survey for this purpose. Here are the
major sections of the book:

The Radiation Environment
Particle Interactions and Propagation: Dynamic Modeling
Data Bases
Instrument Background and Dosimetry
Detectors and Experimental Progress
Biological Effects
Future Needs and Strategies (this section has some papers on Space Station,
Hubble, and ESA radiation considerations, and a good survey of the Mars
Observer gamma-ray spectrometer)

The meeting was the Conference on the High-Energy Radiation Background in Space
(CHERBS) in November 1987 on Sanibel Island in Florida.

Hmm... AIP has a Bitnet node, AIPPINET.  Wonder if you could order the
book that way? (-:

                                    Bill Higgins
Engineer of Hijacked Train:
"Is this a holdup?"                 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Masked Gunman:                      Bitnet: [e-mail]
(Hesitates, looks at partner,
looks at engineer again)            SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
"It's a science experiment!"
                                    Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Jun 90 13:03:08 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jon C. Slenk)
Subject: Re: Public Perception Of Space

Doug said that if private enterprises were the only ones to do the exploration,
etc, things wouldn't get done too quickly (if at all), because of the pro-
hibitive cost.

I can agree with that viewpoint. There would have to be noticable benefits
from such exploration, and they might be difficult to find, and thus
the missions might be difficult to justify. I do not know if data on the
outer solar system is something people would be willing to pay for if
that was the only way they could get it. There are two possibilites:

1) Yes, they would. This needs no further discussion, as it backs up my point.
2) No, they wouldn't (at least not enough to fund missions). In this case,
I belive that it is wrong for governments to step in and use their money
to do what is *NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASABLE.* Note that it is not economically
feasable BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T WILLING TO PAY FOR IT: that is the hypothesis
of this potentiality. (I would allow the government to do some economically
unfeasable things, but only if they directly relate to the protection of
the governed's rights.) It bothers me when people reason it out like,
"Well, we personally can't afford it. Neither can companies, as there
are no profits, only losses, involved. So lets get the government to
waste money on it, because they have plenty to spare."
So. No matter how one may look at it, I still don't belive that the US
government, not any other government, should be "Out There" for any
reasons other than strictly military ones.

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

Date: 20 Jun 90 15:08:34 GMT
From: usc!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Getting spaca exploration really going

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon C. Slenk) writes:
> >
> >2) The real work of exploration, advancement and making use (ie: set up
> >zero gee labs, do communications etc.) should be done by private
> >companies.
>
> Exploration done privately? Um, I doubt IBM and GE are going to be sponsoring
> the next set of probes to Saturn. There's no profit to be made, other than
> to sell the photo rights to National Geographic and the Discovery Channel.
> Of course, Disney blew $50 million plus on "Dick Tracy" but what do I know?
> The last "shoestring" exploration was the Voyager probes; I believe both
> came in for under $1 billion.
>
> Government, or private consortiums of governments (ESA) will always be
> leading with the chin.

Except for military developments, or explorations taken primarily for
trade or military purposes, or for claiming territory, most research and
exploration was undertaken by profit-seeking or charitable organizations
until quite recently.  I am including research by public universities
funded through their monies in this, as those institutions were competing
with private universities.

Until very recently, there was no large optical telescope funded by the
US government.  They were all built from charitable donations.  Virtually
all of the research done in the US, except for some military research,
and a small amount of agricultural research, was done without federal
grants.  The stifling effect of the major funding now being federal is
being felt already.

Maybe space is too big for individual philanthropists and institutions to
finance.  But there have been non-profit organizations sponsoring discovery
funded largely by membership dues and such; the National Geographic Society
comes to mind.  But with millions of people believing in space, and industry
willing to pay for R&D which can profit them, the job can be done.  Let it
be done!
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)    {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!cik(UUCP)

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #550
*******************