Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_4/V13_441.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/Ac4wLU600WBw0hH04f>;
          Tue, 23 Apr 91 01:28:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 01:27:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #441

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 441

Today's Topics:
              Airships R-100/101
       Math needed to convert RA & DEC & Dist to X Y Z coord's.
            Re: Cape York launch facility
               Re: Saturn V blueprints
          Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D
              Re: Why the space station?
            SPACE Digest V13 #437
             Re: Mars media alert
              Re: Why the space station?

Administrivia:

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

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 13:07:55 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Airships R-100/101

Perhaps further discussion should be re-directed
to an aviation newsgroup; however, an excellent reference
to read regarding the R-100 airship is "Slide Rule",
the autobiography of Nevil Shute. This famous novelist
spent the first 20 years or so of his career as an aerospace
engineer in England, and he was one of the structural
design engineers for the (privately-built) R-100.
Everything that Phil Fraering said regarding the
R-100 and R-101 is substantiated there -- the R-100 and
R-101 were built (I believe) to identical requirements specs
for the British government, but the former was built by
a private company (on a fixed-price contract, I think),
while the latter was built by the British Air Ministry.
The R-100 came in on schedule, on budget, and within
spec (or pretty close to all these targets), and flew
sucessfully and safely (including in severe weather). The R-101
was, if memory serves, far over budget, behind schedule, under
spec., and crashed on its first flight. Poetic justice: some of
the bureaucrats whose meddling caused the R-101 design to
deteriorate went down in flames in that crash, literally.

I suppose there is an interesting historical lesson here.
Perhaps the US Congress should buy a second-source space station
from a private company, with a fixed-price contract. M<ind you,
if the analogy is too close, the result would be the cancellation of
]all future spaceflight endeavours in the US the first time
there's a fatal accident involving SSF...

--

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Apr 91 23:29:20 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Ralph Busch)
Subject: Math needed to convert RA & DEC & Dist to X Y Z coord's.

Hi folks!

Could someone be kind enough to email me the formulas used to convert a stars
polar coordinates to their rectangular coordinates?  I can do it on my
calculator with ->POL and ->REC conversion keys, but I forget how to enter and
interpret the results.  (I'm using a SHARP EL-5103S calculator, btw.)

I would like to be able to convert a stars RA, DEC and distance into a X Y and
Z coordinate system with the sun at 0,0,0.  Can this be done?  Has it been
done?  I want to know because I'd like to write a program that'll plot the
stars from any 3d coordinate I care to choose.
Why?  Oh, I dunno, just one of those little things that I've always wanted to
do. :)

Oh, and if you have actual source code (basic preferably) then please include
that as well.

Please E-mail...this seems like a really esoteric request, and I doubt many
others would be interested.  Thanks!
--
Ralph Busch -- live from lotus land!
Coordinates: 49N19' 122W48'  (That's in Canada, BTW!)
[e-mail]  or  [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 06:22:14 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!metro!seagoon.newcastle.edu.au!jupiter.newcastle.edu.au![e-mail]  (Luke Plaizier)
Subject: Re: Cape York launch facility

[e-mail] (Steve Lechowicz) writes:



>Does anyone know what the current  situation is with the launch facility
>proposed  for the Cape  York  peninsula?  If so I would  appreciate  any
>information.  Thanks in advance.

    Actually, from what I last heard the Cape York Space Agency have
hit apon a problem that seems to hit every large scale project. The company
that was sponsoring them have decided to sell out.
    Actually, I think the line of buyers was pretty good so I am not
sure as to whether the selling was a part of a well organised profit
scheme or whether something is hapening about cape York that we need to
know more (and might not want to know more) about.

    So there you have it for the finance.

    Otherwise, the last I heard as well the environmental impact
statement is still being worked out. The environmentalists have come
forward in anextraordinarily strong program saying that the sand dines
the spaceport will be built on need to e preserved. They have come up with
some new variations of wildlife that live nowhere else, and capeyork will
be so comprehensive a destruction of wildlife that they can't risk letting
it go ahead.

    yeah, tell that to the crocodiles at Cape Canaveral.

    I guess I should e more well read, but that is as much as I know
for the time being.




                    Luke Plaizier.

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 14:26:24 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints

> >By the time you redesign to accommodate available hardware and re-modify
> >the launch pads, you may as well have started from scratch with a clean
> >sheet design.  [Instead of a new Saturn V].
>
> However, there is reason to think these numbers are over inflated. The
> presentation was biased against Saturn alternatives favoring ALS type
> systems. For example, NASA's estimate of the cost of F-1 engines is about
> twice what Rocketdyne says it will take. If these numbers are indeed off
> by two then Saturn V's can be built for 40% the development cost of ALS,
> in a third less time, and cost about the same to operate. If we did a
> commercial procurement prices would drop far more.
>

You also must realize, Rocketdyne is looking for a contract.  *Of Course*
they are going to give their 'best estimate.'  Also commercial procurement
!= lower cost.  As for the cost of operation, think Energiya Buran.  It is
the equivalent in technology and cost to the Saturn V.  Notice how only one
Energiya Buran launch was made?  I heard it was COST that is causing such
a delay in further launches.

As far as electronics, I don't think too many manufacurers are interested
in tubes anymore.  When that amount of resources are put into antique
technology, the overall tecnology 'level' drops.  The Japanese, and Europeans
corporations in the commercial market would LOVE that.

Yes, there are ways to substitute higher tech parts for lower tech items,
but you are then redesigning it.  Might as well do the ALS then and
remain cheap and contemporary.



> This may well turn out to be the best approach. Going for something we
> know we can build will reduce risk and keep the effort focused. We will
> be far less likely to push every technological envelope which is what
> killed the Shuttle SSME's.

I don't think ALS is trying to push technological envalopes.  It
is a response to the need for economical launchers.  Something
the Saturn V is NOT.

>
> When we have a baseline system, we can start a program of continuous
> improvement. This will cut part counts, reduce manufacturing time and
> result in greater savings.
>

This sounds like an MBA's arguement for adopting a out-dated, obsolete
expensive, unreliable (yes UNRELIABLE) launcher.  AND it is saying
that there is a need to redesign the Saturn V.  Why not just make a new one?
If you are comitted to a redesign and the upgrades, etc, might as well
design it for the times.  Or buy an Energiya.  They're about as expensive
as a Saturn V - probably as outdated, too.

Ressurecting the Saturn V is a romantic idea, but not really cost
effective or the best choice for the times.

Its like trying to built F-4's again because they were such 'workhorses.'


--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Brent L. Irvine                    These are MY opinions
Malt Beverage Analyst
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 14:39:25 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D



'Incompetant' is a pertty sweeping term to apply to any large
organization.

Many times the government makes excellent choices as to proper programs.
The myopia many times lies with the voters and therefore Congress.

I don't think that the other parts of the government are as poor
as they are accused of being.

Just remember that politics and hidden adgendas do a pretty good
impression of stupidity, but it isn't stupidity at work.

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Brent L. Irvine                    These are MY opinions
Malt Beverage Analyst
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 09:24:20 PDT
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

In SPACE Digest V13 #437,
  unmvax!uokmax![e-mail]  (Robert W Murphree)
  writes:

>Dear reader:
>.
>.
>.
>Politically the space station is a necessity.  It is imposssible to get
>elected president without the Texas-California aerospace vote.

Speaking as a Texan, I'm not sure if this is true, or, if so, how it is
relevant to the space station.

>.
>.
>.
>Basically alot of space scientists hate it-its basically a white elephant
>as far as space science goes(my opinion).

Not just your opinion.  A manned space station is not useful at all for
space science.  Let me clarify something here.  Many people think that
space science is just science done in space, but in fact the term has
acquired a concrete meaning: space scientists study space, but mostly
they study the space around objects in the Solar System, like planets,
asteroids, comets, etc., and they study the interaction between those
bodies and the space surrounding them.  Mainly what's in that space is
particles and fields, so a station which emits boatloads-o-particles
and which may have its own electric and magnetic fields is pretty much
useless to a space scientist.  Much better would be something like
Motorola's Iridium project.

>As far as national competiveness goes, its really hard to think of
>something, short of digging ditches and filling them up, that when
>compared with materials science or manufacturing technology that is as
>usless as the space station.

In my narrow opinion, there are only two reasons to build and deploy a
manned space station at this time,
1) to find out more about what happens to living things in space,
2) to have a way station for man-tended spacecraft,
3) to have a repair station for expensive spacecraft,
4) to have a base for constructing large spacecraft piecewise.

Okay, so that's four reasons.  Flame me!

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
                     "I've tried to figure out where I am." - Dan Quayle

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Mon, 22 Apr 91 17:32:00 EDT
Resent-From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Mon, 22 Apr 91 01:35:24 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #437
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: Uploading to alpha Centauri

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dani Eder) writes:
>>
>>The ultimate in apparent time dilation would occur if you travel to another
>>star at the speed of light.  Now, how does one do this?  Imagine an improved
>>scanning tunneling microscope that can tell you what atoms it is seeing.
>>Freeze the crew solid, and scan their entire bodies atom by atom.  Then
>>send a radio message reading "carbon,oxygen,hydrogen,hydrogen..." to a
>>receiving station at the destination.  There a set of drexler-style
>>nano-machines build a copy of the crew atom by atom.  Finally, you unfreeze
>>the crew.
>>
>f one could pull this off over any distance (one inch to one mile or whatever)
>it would have profound philosphical effects.  Namely that all we are is the
>individual arrangement of atoms.  From that one could study the arrangement
>to determine what makes for a person to be "alive".  Quite interesting!

Not to mention the possibility for 'backups' or 'copies'!
Imagine meeting yourself coming out of one of those things, thinking that I'M
the real me, but so is the copy...

Tommy Mac
18084tm@msu
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 22:40:53 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Mars media alert

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Anastasios Vergis) writes:

>I am wondering how they solve the problem of atmoshere density, i.e. to
>get a breathable atmosphere we need to have enough planetary mass so that
>it doesn't escape into space.

I suppose the same way it was solved back when it had running water.


--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
"The Soviet Union has neither soviets nor unions." - Eric Hoffer (in 1974).

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 07:29:21 GMT
From: wrdis01!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!triton.unm.edu![e-mail]  (John Prentice)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

>...could study the long-term affects of microgravity and artificial
>gravity on human beings.  For manned interplanetary missions, such
>knowledge would be extremely useful -- although perhaps not absolutely
>necessary, depending on the amount of risk one is willing to take.
>
>There are still those who argue that manned interplanetary missions
>are impossible due to the long-term biological effects of
>weightlessness.  The Soviets have partially disproved this assertion
>with the long-duration stays of cosmonauts on Mir, but more research
>is necessary to conclusively determine the best means to deal with
>this problem -- exercise, artificial gravity, etc.

This response made me think a little bit about the way I asked this question.
I posed my original question in terms of justifying the space station
on scientific grounds, but let me make one statement.  There may well
be grounds other than scientific why we should put this thing up.  I
don't wish to suggest that the value of the station to engineering or
as a learning ground for further exploration should be ignored.  My
own bias is toward greater resources being spent on science, but I think
I should make clear that I at least acknowledge the merit of other
arguments for spending money on this space station.  I am not sure yet
that I agree with it, but neither am I sure I don't.  That is what
I would like to get out of this discussion, a good argument for why
someone in the sciences (or for that matter, Joe Blow Citizen) should
get excited about this and want to pay for it.

By the way, if it any comfort, I very definitely think we should NOT
build the SSC.  That I do think benefits too few people and doesn't
serve the larger interests of science in a time of extremely tight
budgets.  I say this even while my company tries very hard to get
business from those people :-) !  Hell, if you can't beat them,
subcontract to them!

John

--
John K. Prentice    [e-mail] (Internet)
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Computational Physics Group, Amparo Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, USA

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #441
*******************