Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_508.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/gc:Boz600WBwM9Gk49>;
          Thu,  9 May 91 01:25:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  9 May 91 01:25:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #508

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 508

Today's Topics:
             Re: Space technology
              Re: Why the space station?
                Re: Incentives
        Re: Space Station Freedom Information
     Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...
              Recovering Galileo
              Re: Galileo Update On CNN
       Re: Japanese satellite destroyed on NASA rocket.
              Re: Galileo works?
               Current Shuttle Schedule
            SPACE Digest V13 #476
                Other Formats

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: 24 Apr 91 15:27:09 GMT
From: mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: Space technology

To: [e-mail] (Robert W Murphree)

 RW> I like what Carl Sagan said, if you want to develop non-stick
 RW> frying pans you're better off funding a program for developing
 RW> non-stick frying pans 99% of the time(rather than a program for
 RW> sending box cars with men in them to space).

  That's assuming that you were originally intending to invent non-stick
frying pans.  The term spinoff means new uses for technologies that were
originally invented for other purposes, such as (in the case of Teflon)
gaskets, pipes and such for corrosive liquids, and non-lubricated bearings.
I really don't think that the kitchen utensile industry has the bucks
available to develop such materials.  They do, however, have the resources
to develop new uses for something that NASA developed in the course of
building a moon-rocket.

 RW> When James Webb,
 RW> the chief NASA administrator invented the words SPINOFF I think
 RW> he developed one of the all time great public relations gimmic
 RW> of the 60's.

True, but that does not make it invalid.  The new products and industries
developed as a result of spinoffs have already paid for the space program
several times over.

 RW>I think the major applications of space
 RW> technology are, in order of importance:  ICBM's, military
 RW> reconnaisance satellites, weather satellites, communications
 RW> satellites, propaganda for more NASA expenditures, astronomy,
 RW> and planetary probes.

How about space-based industry?  I think that you are being extremely
short sighted.

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 04:19:57 GMT
From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Prentice) writes:

>Is this something that life scientists (whatever that means, biologists,
>doctors, etc...) are really calling for or is this something that NASA
>has dreamt up as yet another one of their applications of space?

Are you kidding?  For NASA "life sciences" means studying the effects
one non-representative space environment -- 28 degree low earth orbit
-- on a very small sample of uncommonly healthy people. In other words,
"life sciences" is a  transpararent buzzword for another multi-billion
dollar astronaut toy.

A real space environment biology experiment would study a large variety
of gravity levels and radiation types on statistically meaningful samples
of animals with biology close to human.  This would cost less than 1/10
what NASA is proposing for Fred.


>Is this something NIH has bought into?

Hah hah!  That's a good one.


--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"Living below your means allows you to live better than living above your
means." -- Dave Boyd    The above opinions are my own and not related to
those of any organization I may be affiliated with.

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

Date: 27 Apr 91 06:52:19 GMT
From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Incentives

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:

>Congress should allocate (through lotteries, appropriations,
>etc) a large cash prize on the order of
>US$100,000,000 for the first person/organization to
>go to the moon and spend an amount of time on the surface.

It doesn't make sense to encourage industry to do something totally
non-commercial.  A more interesting proposal I have heard is to
pay a $500/lb. anti-fee for any payload, even if it is sand, delivered
into low earth orbit -- on top of whatever other revenue that payload might
give the launch company.  This encourages the development of inexpensive
launchers, since a launcher even without any revenue payload can make a
profit, if it is cheap enough, and there is further incentive still for
cheap launchers with useful commercial paylaods.

The reason this proposal is useful is that the goal is very generic,
rather than specific, and the generic orbit that is specified is one
that commerce is already interested in.  Along these lines, an improvement
to the proposal would be to pay $2,000/lb. for payloads delivered to GEO,
since this is the most frequent commercial destination.  (An aerospace
rule of thumb is that cost/lb. to GEO is 4 times cost/lb. to LEO).


--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"Living below your means allows you to live better than living above your
means." -- Dave Boyd    The above opinions are my own and not related to
those of any organization I may be affiliated with.

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 03:10:50 GMT
From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Space Station Freedom Information

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Sheppardson) writes:

> ] Space Station Freedom serves no significant scientific purpose.

Just about anything can serve some minor scientific purpose.  Fred serves
very little scientific purpose relative the the $thousands of millions
being spent on it.


> ] The money we're spending on a space station could be better spent on
> ] something else.

On _many things_ else.  Refer to the proposed NASA budget I posted last
week to this newsgroup.


> ] The space station is practically useless for astronomy because of the gases
> ] it gives off and because it's not a stable enough platform for precise
> ] pointing.

Not "practically useless" but "much less useful per tax dollar than
a wide range of alternatives"


> ] Space station is a political necessity. It can't be cancelled.

One pork barrel's as good as another.  Many could be sold more easily
than a boring space station.

A very important point I hope you include was the one I described in a
previous article, about the theory of centralization which has been
the major rationale of the station paradigm, vs. the fact that the
various industrial and defense uses of space need a large variety
of orbits unreachable by a centralized station or platfrorm.


--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"Living below your means allows you to live better than living above your
means." -- Dave Boyd    The above opinions are my own and not related to
those of any organization I may be affiliated with.

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

Date: 28 Apr 91 04:19:17 GMT
From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Hix) writes:

>1.  We already have medium and light launchers (not that they couldn't
>    be made cheaper and more cost effective).  And mayhap current commercial
>    payloads are sized to fit these existing launchers 'cause if they aren't
>    the only game in town, waiting for the shuttle is a pain.

We have had several HLV's during the history of spaceflight.  Let's
consider their record:

Saturn V: 0 orders from industry
Russian Moon Rocket: 0 orders from industry.
Shuttle: 0 orders from industry not subsidized by at least a factor of 5
Energia: 0 orders from industry
Titan IV: 0 orders from industry

We had Saturn V around for a decade.  At the same time our first large
commercial industry, satcoms, chose Delta, Atlas and Titan.   The DoD
also chose mid-range rockets over the Saturn V, as did all deep space
exploration missions except Apollo itself.  In all those years, not
one commercial order.  Not even a defense order.  Doesn't exactly
look like commerce is chomping at the bit for an HLV.


>2.  Very large payloads are, in part, nonexistent because of the nonexistent
>    launchers to toss them overhead.

Three such launchers exist right now, and one previously existed for
a decade without a commercial or defense order.   In contrast, let's look
at the other end of the spectrum: Pegasus is less than a year old and it has
not only won as many as 45 DoD orders, but it has also inspired an
entire new industry, the development of the commercial Iridium network of
77 phone cell satellites.  Pegasus is targeted to launch the test and
replacement Iridiums, and stands a reasonable chance at the main launch
contract.  In addition, ocean observation and store-and-forward satellites
using Pegasus are under development, and a solar storm warning satellite
is being considered.  Quite a flurry of interest and creativity for a
launcher less than one year old.

Phil is right on target here.  Increasing scale is not the answer.



--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"Living below your means allows you to live better than living above your
means." -- Dave Boyd    The above opinions are my own and not related to
those of any organization I may be affiliated with.

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

Date: 2 May 91 18:27:02 GMT
From: tahoe!jimi!herbert![e-mail]  (Doug Phillipson )
Subject: Recovering Galileo


    Forgive this possibly silly idea, but could we just use
Jupiter or one of its moons to send Galileo back to Earth/Venus
for a gravity-brake back to earth orbit where the shuttle could
do a repair mission and carry up another booster for it.  Or some
other trajectory to slow it down and return it to Earth?  Would
this be cheaper than sending a comm satellite to jupiter?

Douglas Phillipson (EG&G)

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

Date: 4 May 91 15:05:40 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Galileo Update On CNN

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John A. Weeks III) writes:

>CNN ended the segment by saying that "informed space experts" estimate
>that there is about a 1 in 10 chance of Galileo being fixed.  But JPL
>added that if there is a fix, they _will_ find it.

Who the hell are the "informed space experts?" This is a problem with
a single spacecraft, the experts on which are keeping mum as they
work around the clock.

Heck, they haven't even tried the backup mechanism yet, and the "informed
space experts" (I suppose the same people who tell the public _all about_
how a HLV is needed) are ready to declare the probe dead?

Well, this is yet another time to repeat the quote:

"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."


--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
''It's a Flash Gordon/E.E. Smith war, with superior Tnuctip technology
battling tools and weapons worked up on the spot by a billion Dr.
Zarkovs.`` - Larry Niven, describing the end to _Down in Flames_.

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

Date: 3 May 91 20:37:39 GMT
From: usc!rpi![e-mail]  (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Japanese satellite destroyed on NASA rocket.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David William Vrona) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>Atlas has a rather unreliable history and I would guess General Dynamics
>>
>This is a ridiculous statement.  The Atlas has been a workhorse since the
>60's.  Name another platform that has put more payloads into space.

McDonnell Douglas's Delta has put about 187 payloads in space in about 201
attempts.  I also believe Martin Marietta's Titan has over 100 successful
launches to its credit, but I'm not completely sure.

The numbers on the Delta are close (+/- 10), and I can get exact numbers if
you really must have them.

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author. Official positions may vary.

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

Date: 1 May 91 15:23:55 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Galileo works?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:

>why do they not simply point the high gain antenna to Earth, turn on the transmitter, and
>observe the signal strength.
>This will establish the bottom line of whether there is
>enough gain to transmit TV and data.

I don't know, but maybe because the radio waves could become focused in
such a way as to interfere with the spacecraft electronics. I don't know
how much radio-frequency interference the circuits can take.

--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
Joke going around: "How many country music singers does it take to
change a light bulb? Four. One to change the bulb, and three to sing
about the old one."

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

Date: 1 May 91 15:36:36 GMT
From: usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ysub!psuvm![e-mail]
Subject: Current Shuttle Schedule

Does anyone out there have the current shuttle launch schedule and what payload
s it will be carrying?
                                                   Glenn Szydlowski
                                                  [e-mail]
                                             Penn State Aerospace Engineering

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 01 May 91 13:56:40 EDT
Resent-From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Sun, 28 Apr 91 02:21:58 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #476
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Subject: Laser Launchers (summary).

Dave wrote:

>> Get an ice cube (well, a big ice cube).  Hit it on one end with a
>> laser.  The top millimeter or so undergoes a process sometimes
>> called Laser Induced Detonation.  It more or less explodes (goes
>> from a solid to a plasma); most of the byproducts being hurled
>> backwards, essentially normal to the surface of the ice cube.  You
>> wait for a few milliseconds for the byproducts to get out of the
>> way, and hit the ice cube again with the laser.  You get high
>> exhaust velocity, high thrust, reasonably high thrust efficiency
>> (most of the exhaust is going in the right direction).  The only
>> problem is that we don't know how to build it yet.

So in other words - We'd have a steam-powered rocket!

So much for blasting the Satrun V for being 'old' technology  ;-}

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

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

Date: 1 May 91 21:44:26 GMT
From: psuvm![e-mail]
Subject: Other Formats

Almost forgot, information on VAX/VMS GIF viewerd would also be appreciated.  A
nd also, does anyone know if there is a GIF program available or even if it is
possible to display GIF images on an IBM mainframe with an IBM 3179G color grap
hics terminal.  (and any nice file decompression software?)?  Thanks for any an
d all help on any of the computer formats.
                                                 Glenn Szydlowski
                                               [e-mail]
                                             Penn State Aerospace Engineering

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #508
*******************