Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_6/V12_660.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

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/0bOQkTC00VcJ02Ik5c>;
          Sat, 15 Dec 1990 02:09:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 1990 02:08:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #660

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 660

Today's Topics:
        Additions to Frequently asked SPACE questions
        The Next Ten Years In Space (LO-O-ONG)
          NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle

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: 12 Dec 90 03:34:29 GMT
From: ogicse!zephyr.ens.tek.com!wrgate!mtdoom![e-mail]  (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Additions to Frequently asked SPACE questions

[e-mail] (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>
>You can make it change.  Just discuss the changes on the net, then mail the
>resolution to me.

Coming to a concensus on the net can be difficult if not impossible, but
I'll try anyway.  Here are some proposed additions.  Anyone have severe
objections?  Anyone want to write answers and mail them to Eugene?

    1. How can someone get computer readable images from space
    probe X?

    2. Why do the Principle Investigators get to hog their data for
    a full year instead of releasing it to me (Joe Taxpayer) who
    paid for it?

    3. Why don't we ship nuclear waste into the sun?

Note that I'm not asking for answers.  I either already know or don't care.

---
Dan Tilque    --    [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Dec 90 06:11:00 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: The Next Ten Years In Space (LO-O-ONG)

As we near the end of another year, let us celebrate the vision of the
pioneers of our space program.  The following quotations come from
THE NEXT TEN YEARS IN SPACE 1959-1969, Staff Report of the Select
Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration (U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1959).

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

[Brig. Gen. Boushey, USAF]
Based on my assumptions that we will steadfastly support a vigorous
scientific and military space program, I believe the following space
goals will be achieved during the next decade:
1959    Unmanned space probes (and lunar probes).
1960    Unmanned communications satellites
1961    Unmanned geodetic survey, reconnaissance, and attack-
warning satellites
1961    Unmanned weather reporting satellites
1961    Unmanned navigation satellites
1963    Unmanned lunar and planetary satellites
1965    Manned maintenance, repair, and resupply space vehicles
1965    Unmanned lunar surface vehicles (soft landing capability)
1966    Manned lunar circumnavigation (and return to Earth)
1967    Manned defensive/offensive space vehicles
1968    Manned "all-purpose" space station (astronomical
observatory, Earth surveillance, weather reporting, and
communication relay)
1968    Manned lunar vehicle (landing and return to Earth)
1969    Manned lunar base (start construction)
. . .
Launching costs would be further reduced by development of fully
recoverable boosters in 2 sizes of approximately 1 million, and 4
million pounds thrust.  These will be developed as a matter of
urgency during the next 5 years.  In addition, the advantages of
nuclear rocket propulsion are so great that I believe this type rocket
engine will also receive priority emphasis and will be developed
within the 8- to 10-year time period.
. . .
Last, I believe electrical propulsion devices will be developed during
the next 5 years.  Whether they be ion, plasma, or particle type units,
they most probably will require small, nuclear reactors for their
source of electrical energy.  Since only relatively low thrust outputs
are necessary for these type reaction engines to be extremely useful,
the nuclear reactor can be small and of low power, and, even for
manned space flight, would not entail intolerable shielding weights.
I expect such electrical propulsion devices and their necessary
nuclear power sources will be in use within 6 years.
. . .
We can also expect, during the next 10 years, that piloted space flight
will become routine, and will be followed by not only a manned
circumnavigation of the Moon, but near the end of the 10-year
period, the start of construction of a large space station which will be
assembled section by section as the result of numerous individual
firings from an equatorial launch site.  Final join-up of these sections
will be accomplished by piloted "space-tugs" which will operate in
orbit during their entire useful life.  In addition to the "tugs",
manned resupply and maintenance spacecraft will shuttle from the
Earth's equator to the orbiting satellites.  Of course military
spacecraft will police the near vicinity of the Earth to prevent the use
of space for aggressive purposes.

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

[Arthur C. Clarke]
In the decade 1960-70 I think we may expect the following with a
very high degree of assurance, almost amounting to certainty:
Automatic probes to the Moon, Mars, Venus.
Establishment of meteorlogical and communication satellites, possibly
manned, certainly visited by servicing teams.
Manned flights around Moon, without landing.
Robot landings on Moon.
Flight tests of nuclear propulsion devices.
The following are possible, but much less likely in 1960-70:
Probes to Mercury, asteroid belt, outer solar corona.
Manned flights around Mars and Venus without landing, except on
Mars' moons.
Landing of manned spaceship on Moon.
I consider the latter unlikely before 1970 owing to limitations of
technical manpower and the need to assimilate the results of the first
period of astronatuical research.  It would be unhealthy to force the
natural pace of development and attempt too much, too soon.
    Of all the applications of astronautics during the coming decade, I
think the communications satellite the most important.  The use of
satellites for TV and radio relaying was, I believe, first suggested by
myself in the British journal Wireless World in 1945, and it is now
widely conceded that this may be the only way of establishing a
truly global TV service.
. . .
The TV satellite is mightier than the ICBM;  this is the fact which I
would most earnestly bring to the attention of your committee.

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

[Dr. Walter R. Dornberger, Bell Aircraft]
In the powerplant field, the following _will_ be achieved:
1.  The successful development of operational first-stage booster
powerplants with millions of pounds of thrust, however, using cheap
and conventional propellants.
2.  The successful development of operational upper stage high-
energy propellant powerplants (hydrogen-oxygen, flourine-
hydrogen).
3.  The successful development of nuclear powerplants for the upper
stages.  This powerplant will be used for manuvering in space.
4.  The successful development of air-breathing recoverable manned
first-stage boosters (turbojet-ramjet combination) taking off
horizontally and launching the upper stages at altitudes of about
60,000 feet and speeds of about Mach 5.  For economy reasons we
will have later in that time period no expendable first-stage boosters
any more for civilian and scientific space flights.

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

[Frederick C. Durant III, former pres. American Rocket Society]
In the year following the first sputnik there was some funding of
earlier planned programs, such as Dyna-Soar, X-17, the Sentry, and
Army and Air Force vehicles, but the United States spent essentially
nothing on new concepts--new creative space programs.  In my
opinion, the relative space technical capabilities of the two nations
changed little, if any, in 1958.
    I do not argue the "case for panic."  I state simply that the United
States has not yet faced the challenge as presented by the U.S.S.R.
We are forming set patterns of thinking and relaxing in unwise
confidence that the NASA will be the guiding light into space.  Our
scientific planners are overconservative, in my opinion, and a change
must occur if the United States is not to meet defeat.  Defeat not in a
hot war--but, humiliatingly, at our own game:  Creative, industrial,
technical enterprise;  the bold scientific program.
. . .
With a few exceptions of outstanding industry and governmental
teams, I don't see this combination of qualities, determination, and
financial support in the United States today.
    Maybe we have to get mad.  Maybe we need a Pearl Harbor in
space.
    I think we'll get one.

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

[George L. Haller, General Electric]
A type of rocket now being considered for space vehicles is a high-
temperature nuclear reactor through which is passed a low molecular
weight propellant such as hydrogen or ammonia that is heated by
the fission process and is then exhausted through a rocket nozzle to
produce thrust.  Since the nuclear rocket would not have to carry a
high molecular weight oxidizer, it could theoretically have a specific
impulse at least double that of the best chemical rocket.
    The nuclear heat transfer rocket might prove useful for putting
large payloads in orbit (on the order of 25,000 pounds or more) and
for space missions to the Moon, Mars, or Venus.  General Electric's
aircraft nuclear propulsion department is presently under contract to
the United States Air Force and the AEC to develop a nuclear turbojet
powerplant for aircraft propulsion.  The development of related
powerplants for space propulsion is a logical extension of this work.
. . .
General Electric, like other firms engaged in missile and space work,
is concerned about the question of indemnity as it pertains to
unusually hazardous risks arising from missile space programs.  An
indemnity provision should be included in the Space Act.
Participation by industry in space development in the coming years
will increase the need for protection against liability claims too large
to be assumed as a business risk and for which adequate insurance is
not available.
. . .
We are seriously disturbed by the sweeping authority of the patent
provisions of the Space Act.  As written, the act grants the
Government exclusive ownership of any inventions conceived or first
put to use under any contractural or other arrangement between a
company and NASA.  Apparently, these exclusive rights might attach
to inventions made with private funds in advance of and
independently of a contract proposal, or even to inventions stemming
from noncontractural research and development that a company
might undertake for commercial purposes, if the inventions related
to one of the scientific fields also being investigated for NASA.

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

[Alexander Kartveli, Republic Aircraft]
The listing below is a logical sequence of significant events in the
conquest of space.  The dates assigned are a rough assessment of the
difficulty of the tasks.  It presumes a realistically large unified
development effort.
1957    First sputnik.
1958    Explorers and Vanguard.  Moon probe.
1959    Planetary probe.
1960    Manned Earth satellite.
1961    Instrumented lunar hard landing.
1962    Instrumented planetary hard landing.  Instrumented lunar
soft landing.
1963    Instrumented planetary soft landing.
1965    Man in orbit around Moon.
1968    Space station for staging to Moon and planets.
1969    Man on Moon.
1970-75    Moon base.
. . .
Manned space stations have been suggested as a staging area for
further exploration of space.  The present "man-in-space" programs
planned for the near future offer considerable hope that in a 10-year
period the first operational space stations will have been placed in
orbit.

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

[Roy Knutson, North American Aviation]
The ultimate objective of manned space flight within the vicinity of
Earth will be a satellite large enough to permit occupancy by a
number of men for extended periods of time.  Manned space stations
will probably represent the highest attainment of space technology
within the decade ahead.  Realization of such devices will depend on
advances in the state of the art in a number of fields.  Large rocket
boosters must be developed, producing millions of pounds of thrust.
New environmental control systems must be designed to maintain
human life.  A reliable orbital-shuttle vehicle must be developed to
ferry men and supplies.  And a host of subsystems, large and small,
of hitherto unattainable reliability must be built.
    The first space station will probably be a single integrated
assembly boosted directly into orbit with a large rocket booster and
several succeeding stages.  One such design envisions a cylindrical
vehicle 7 feet in diameter and 50 feet long, boosted into orbit by a 6
million pound thrust booster.  A complement of 5 men would man
the station for a period of 30 to 60 days.
. . .
Toward the end of the decade, a fairly comprehensive picture of the
surface of Mars should be available.  The presence of life on Mars, in
the form of vegetable matter of a low order, has long been a
provocative conjecture.  The orbiting vehicle may provide answers to
the question.  And of course, the nature of the famous "canals," if,
indeed they exist at all, might be settled by a close look at the
Martian surface.

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

[Dr. Theodore Merkle, Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, CA]
The major problem of those wishing to explore "space"--that is, the
volume of space lying between the orbits of Mars and Venus--is as it
has always been, the problem of devloping a suitable propulsion
plant.  It is clear that chemical systems for such a task would be
enormously expensive, vastly hazardous, and in the last analysis too
unreliable.
. . .
Light, reliable reactor systems will be developed for use by parties
wishing to land on the Moon, Mars, and Venus.  Such landings will
_not_ occur during the coming decade, but somewhat later.

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

[Dr. Glauco Partel, founder Italian Rocket Association]
. . . Artificial ball lightning for ore mining with an extremely speedy
and most economical process.  Such lightning, already under
research, would, with extraordinary speed, cut into the ground and
form mining shafts with solid, streamlined walls . . . Operative jet
torpedoes with underwater jets of both the rocket and ram-jet type .
. . Operational underwater missiles with speeds of 300 knots . . .
Ocean depths used as the biggest launching pads in the worlds,
having the huge advantage of being concealed . . .

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

[George H. Stoner, (General Manager, Dyna-Soar) Boeing]
The nuclear rocket will allow us to reduce the bulk of these lunar
and satellite booster systems by a factor of 8 or 10, at least.  . . .  Can
we design a manned nuclear rocket for use in the atmosphere where
radiation scattering is a hazard, and avoid the weight penalties of
standard shielding techniques?
    A possible solution might involve the use of nuclear ferry vehicles
to transport large payloads to the satellite space station.  A different
type of nuclear rocket with a relatively light shadow shield could
then be used in space to transport men to the Moon and back.  In
any case, our space efforts will be rather limited in the next 10 years
unless the rapid development of the nuclear rocket receives
increased emphasis.
    With strong support, the nuclear rocket could be available for
operational use by 1968, though unexpected problems in the testing
and development of flight hardware could lead to delay.

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

[George S. Trimble, The Martin Co.]
Eighteen months ago, 3 months before Sputnik I, some of my
collegues and I were laughed out of a very scientific meeting for
proposing and showing how to build a large military base on the
Moon, not because the people at the meeting disagreed with the
feasibility of or desire for the scheme, but because the task of selling
the need to the American public seemed so impossible to them that
consideration of the proposal seemed a complete waste of time.  The
scientists apparently did not believe the American people would find
any sense in such an idea.  I cannot agree with this.

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

[Dr. Wernher Von Braun, Army Ballistic Missile Agency]
The extent of United States achievements in the space age's next
decade will depend on such a well laid-out national program.  The
Soviet Union with its traditional 5-year-plans obviously has such a
long-range space program in operation.  It is utterly essential that
we now commit our resources likewise to a long-range, integrated
national program and sustain that program even if public interest in
it temporarily abates.  For if public opinion again becomes lethargic,
it will, of course, be reawakened by Soviet accomplishments.  But the
resultant stop-and-go method would be neither economical nor
successful.
    I hope you will not think I am begging the question of _where_ we
are going by answering with another question:  _How_much_ are we
willing to pay?

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

Date: 8 Dec 90 20:32:15 GMT
From: ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird![e-mail]  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial BBS, [phone], and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

STS 35
1 20980U 90106  A 90340.71451300  .00053642  00000-0  37954-3 0   129
2 20980  28.4668 332.8436 0011228 341.6274  18.4530 15.72433683   705
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]          Air Force Institute of Technology

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #660
*******************