Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_5/V11_564.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/MaV5OG600VcJ8cOU4P>;
          Sun, 24 Jun 1990 01:58:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 1990 01:58:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #564

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 564

Today's Topics:
              Re: Saturn Rockets
             Re: Space incentives
      Re: Orbital Mech Tutoring (was Re: HST crazy idea)
         Solar sail race, and other entries.
          Re: BiosphereII (Was RE:Egomania)
              Re: Saturn Rockets
         Re: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/21/90
              Re: Saturn Rockets

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: 22 Jun 90 19:59:24 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn Rockets

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Mosley III) writes:
>...but as for Nova "receeding into the dim post-Saturn future", when I
>first came across the references to the booster (late '67) the impression
>given was that the planned mission was for both Earth-Mars shots and
>lobbing orbital space platforms into high orbits. At what point was this
>plan finally scrapped?

I don't think it was so much scrapped as deferred farther and farther
until it disappeared.  My guess would be that the decision to terminate
Saturn V production after #15 was the deathblow for Nova as well, since
it essentially took the US out of the real-big-expendable business.
Certainly the decision to build the shuttle, which was going to be
oh-so-much-cheaper-than-expendables, settled the matter once and for all.
The final "go" decision on the shuttle was in 1971, I think, and the
Saturn V decision was sometime in 1967.

>...finally, what design for Nova came the closest to approval? ...

I've never seen a real study of the history of the project.  My guess
would be that it never really got to the point of picking a specific
design and pushing hard, given that it was relegated fairly early to
the status of long-term Saturn-V-followon design studies.

>...was the decision to keep the booster size down to the actual C-5 used
>based on the Michoud size situation, or was it due to the abandonment of
>the direct flight approach?

A little of both.  Michoud looked like a good place, but the reason why
its selection went through with little fuss was that the key people
(notably Von Braun) had given up on direct flight and saw no near-term
need for anything bigger than the C-5.  And once Michoud was chosen and
work was underway there, lack of facilities was one more argument against
direct flight.  Actually, it took quite a while for direct flight to die;
there were proposals to do a scaled-down direct flight using a Saturn V.

Overall, the decisive factor was probably Von Braun's opinion that C-5
was about the biggest booster that could be ready in time for Apollo's
deadline.

>Also, can you cite sources for the C-8 that
>might supply conceptual diagrams of any sort? The same would be appreciated
>for the C-3 and C-4 variants as well.

The best sources for this sort of thing in general are the NASA History books,
"Stages to Saturn", "Chariots for Apollo", and "Moonport".  (There's also
a new one, an overall history of Apollo, "For All Mankind", but my copy
is out on loan and I can't check it easily.)  Unfortunately, despite being
big thick books, they tend to skimp on technical issues in favor of
people and management.  I don't think I've ever seen a drawing of C-8,
although I think StS has sketchy drawings of C-3 and C-4.  (Actually,
C-4 is almost indistinguishable from C-5.)
--
As a user I'll take speed over|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
features any day. -A.Tanenbaum| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Jun 90 00:48:47 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!unicorn![e-mail]  (Worth Henry A)
Subject: Re: Space incentives


     I won't attribute the following, as it was email'ed and not posted
to the net at-large. However, I feel it is important to the discussion
and probably echos the sentiments of many space enthusiasts. This concerns
the postings I have made about establishing a major private prize fund
(using insurance to provide leverage for contributions).

>I disagree.  I think that those who believe in space can produce the necessary
>non-profit and profit corporations to do the job.  I also believe that only
>those are willing to do the job.  The number of those in the US who believe in
>space is in the tens of millions, and we are not the poor. Most research before
         ----------------
>WWII was privately funded, and it should be that way again.  Governments need
>real prodding to do research  and do not have the slightedt idea of how to set
>up the necessary research environment.  They are not that bad on development,
               -----------
>but are still quite bad.  Universities could get rid of a large part of their
>administrative staff if it were not for the federal government.
>
>Most of the people do not care about space.  Fine; just let them keep out of
>the way.  Space should be settled by those who believe in it as free people,
>not as agents of repressive governments.
>

    Thanks for the reply, however if you take a closer look at my proposal
you might see that we disagree less than you think. The proposal I made is
ONE of possibly many ways for enthusiasts to encourage such private
initiatives. The prize scheme I proposed was intended to provided a PACKAGE
of incentives which would, hopefully, create an ENVIRONMENT in which initial
ventures (always the riskiest) would have a chance to succeed. Consider the
following points:

   1) In time, a large (in the BILLIONS) prize might be generated.
      Such sums would capture the public imagination and could well
      stimulate future Edisons into making the break-throughs
      necessary to make space profitable.

     What could the inovative SSI group do with an incentive of
      a 50-billion dollar prize for establishing a lunar colony?
      They have already demonstrated much of the required technology,
      but building actual space hardware and obtaining affordable
      launch services are altogether, another thing.

   2) The prize could make the difference between a project that is
      economically unfeasible and one that has a hope of breaking-even
      (or even profiting).

   3) The incentives for major contributors would provide a ready-made
      pool of companies and institutions which have DEMONSTRATED their
      interest in being involved. This could well make the difference for
      small startups looking for partners. This pool would include not just
      possible R&D partners, but promotional ones as well.

   4) Once the prize becomes large and is taken seriously, individuals
      and companies (and, dare I say it, even governments) will be forced
      to vote, with their dollars, whether they prefer long term
      technological advancement, or prefer turning into couch-potatoes,
      waiting for a gradual slip into a third-world morass of famine,
      pestilence, and plague (sorry to be so melodramtic, but I couldn't
      resist).

   5) This scheme COULD be initiated by a small group of enthusiasts,
      or even ONE philanthropist. There is a BIG difference between
      the "tens of millions" who believe, and those who will actually
      "give until it hurts". The largest enthusiast organization
      that I know of, the NSS, has ~23,500 members (from a recent
      "AD ASTRA" issue). A recent NSS fund drive, for more money to
      waste on more useless lobbying, raised an amazing $50,000.
      All organizations world-wide may total less than 50,000 members.

    Yes, most research and exploration in the past was not funded
by governments, but by aristocratic patrons and professional (royal)
societies (often using prizes as an incentive); businesses,
philanthropists and finally governments are more recent arrivals.
To develop an environment where major private space initiatives
have any hope of thriving, or even surviving, we must find ways
to encourage all possible sources of funding and support to cooperate,
we must become entrepreneurial.

    Space R&D is no luxury, we have succeded in creating a standard
of living and a world-wide population that can not be sustained. Many
would like us all to return to a simple low-intensity agronomic society
-- unfortunately, there are too many homo-sapiens and not enough land --
we would, instead, reap famine, plague and a new dark age. Less
intensive cut-backs in consumption and standard of living would buy us
a little time, but not forever. The only solution is learning to do much
more with less, and the best place to learn that, is in the cold, harse,
vacuum of space. I'm not trying to advocate moving mankind to the stars,
there is just not enough time or knowledge to even contemplate such
fantasies. Instead, I am trying to initiate a CONSTRUCTIVE dialogue on
the net to find ways to create an environment in which needed space R&D
can occur without long-term political support. Merely, wishing for it
will not make it happen, we need real ideas, and not more whining
("If not the net, who? If not now, when? ..." where is JFK when we
need him :-) ).

    Anyway, I will quit wasting bandwidth and will wait to see if a
constructive dialogue develops. And, in the meantime I'll write the
Space Studies Institute and Project Solar Sail for more information on
what they're up to.

HW - just another of America's many functionally illiterate graduate students.
6/22/90

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

Date: 23 Jun 90 03:38:02 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Orbital Mech Tutoring (was Re: HST crazy idea)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cookson) writes:
>Ok, I understand the problem with getting the shuttle to it, but why can't
>the orbit be given an apporpriate precession (sp?) rate to follow the terminator
>as the earth revolves around the sun??

What you need for this is a rotation in the plane of the ecliptic, but
the precession you get from the Earth's equatorial bulge is a rotation
in the plane of the Earth's equator.  At reasonable altitudes (i.e. below
the inner Van Allen belt), the best you can do is about ten months of
constant sunlight and two with short eclipses.
--
As a user I'll take speed over|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
features any day. -A.Tanenbaum| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Jun 90 21:01:22 GMT
From: usc!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!maven![e-mail]
Subject: Solar sail race, and other entries.

About the SOLAR SAIL race...
What is the current "ride" status of the projects...
I understand that there is a guy in france that put up
a $20,000 prize for the winner?

Big question,  Does the premise of a solar sail race include
magnetic sails?

I would think that the premise of the race is to use what I would
call PASSIVE technology, where the energy comes from another source
than the spacecraft...  If this is the case, then magnetic sails
would be included.

A magnetic sail uses the fact that the solar system has a magnetic field.
You take a superconducter ring, and start a current in it, it now has a
magnetic field, and the one for the solar system pushes against it.

I know a guy who is starting to get VERY serious in this area, and finding
out if he has a chance of being included in the race is important to him.
(Or would he be disallowed like those giant amazon jumping frogs...
cause it was obvious that they would win...)

any thoughts?  Suggestions?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trendy footer by:
            John Stevens-Schlick
            Internet?: [e-mail]
            7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126
            (206) 935 - 4384
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My boss dosn't know what I do.

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

Date: 23 Jun 90 20:13:19 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: BiosphereII (Was RE:Egomania)

The current issue of Whole Earth Review has an article describing the
current state of the project.

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

Date: 23 Jun 90 19:08:26 GMT
From: thorin!cezanne![e-mail]  (David Becker)
Subject: Re: Saturn Rockets


 [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>"Stages to Saturn", "Chariots for Apollo", and "Moonport".  (There's also

I'm interested in _Stages to Saturn_ but that title is not in the
local online catalogs.  Who is the author?

Two _Chariots for Apollo_ are listed.  They are subtitled "a history of
manned lunar spacecraft", by Courtney G. Brooks, and "the making of the
lunar module", by Charles R. Pellegrino.

_For all Mankind_ was by L. B. Taylor in 1974 and Harry Hurt in 1988.

What did Von Braun do after Saturn?
What opinion did he have on the shuttle vs. expendables?

David Becker        Gotta love a machine that hangs on
[e-mail]        your every word.

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

Date: 24 Jun 90 02:56:01 GMT
From: att!cbnewsj![e-mail]  (r.craig.montero)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/21/90

Given all of the consternation generated by the "long" startup period
for Hubble, I had a question or two for those who signatures include
Observatory (or anyone else who might have the answer :^)).

For an instrument in Hubble's class, how long would the equivalent
startup period be in a ground-based observatory?

Would the process we have the pleasure of reading about on the net
for Hubble be the same for a ground based instrument? (excluding
the guidance system and terminator induced wobble)

Any answers would be appreciated. It might allow net readers to gain
some perspective on the process for Hubble.

Craig Montero
att!mtuxo!rcm
Bell Labs

STANDARD DISCLAIMER inserted here.
To:sci.astro
Subject: Ground Based Large Telescope Questions
Newsgroups:
In-Reply-To:
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Cc:
Bcc:

Given all of the consternation generated by the "long" startup period
for Hubble, I had a question or two for those who signatures include
Observatory(or anyone else who might have the answer :)).

For an instrument in Hubble's class, how long would the equivalent
startup period be in a ground-based observatory?

Would the process we have the pleasure of reading about on the net
for Hubble be the same for a ground based instrument? (excluding
the guidance system and terminator induced wobble)

Any answers would be appreciated. It might allow net readers to gain
some perspective on the process for Hubble.

Craig Montero
att!mtuxo!rcm
Bell Labs

STANDARD DISCLAIMER inserted here.

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

Date: 24 Jun 90 04:14:42 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn Rockets

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Becker) writes:
>>"Stages to Saturn", "Chariots for Apollo", and "Moonport".  (There's also
>
>I'm interested in _Stages to Saturn_ but that title is not in the
>local online catalogs.  Who is the author?

Roger Bilstein.  Bear in mind that these are government publications,
which may not be in a normal books-in-print list.  (They don't seem to
have ISBNs, for example.)  StS is NASA SP-4206, CfA is SP-4205, Moonport
is SP-4204.

>Two _Chariots for Apollo_ are listed.  They are subtitled "a history of
>manned lunar spacecraft", by Courtney G. Brooks, and "the making of the
>lunar module", by Charles R. Pellegrino.

The NASA History one is by Brooks, Grimwood, and Swenson.  Pellegrino's
book is worth reading for tidbits of information here and there but is
not terribly well done overall.

>_For all Mankind_ was by L. B. Taylor in 1974 and Harry Hurt in 1988.

Neither; it's recent and is not Hurt's book (which I have but have not
read).  When my copy comes back from loan I'll be able to supply a
more detailed reference.  It's just possible I have the title wrong.

>What did Von Braun do after Saturn?

Basically, he died.  After Saturn and the beginnings of Skylab, he was
talked into leaving Marshall to become NASA's VP in charge of advanced
projects or something like that.  It quickly became clear that nothing
was ever going to come of the planning he was in charge of, and he was
basically in a dead-end job.  (It was not politically possible for him
to become head of NASA.)  He left NASA for a consultant position in
industry, and shortly thereafter died.
--
As a user I'll take speed over|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
features any day. -A.Tanenbaum| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #564
*******************