Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_526.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/Uc:sm2q00WBw83rU4G>;
          Sat, 11 May 91 02:17:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 11 May 91 02:17:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #526

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 526

Today's Topics:
                Re: IT'S OVER
       Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus)
              Possible Fredlets
              Re: Why the space station?
             Re: Saturn V vs. ALS
             Re:  Saturn V vs ALS
               Re: Terraforming Venus?
             Space Science Crisis
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
                 mars orbiter
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
       Re: Japanese satellite destroyed on NASA rocket.

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: 8 May 91 15:33:15 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!bradley.bradley.edu!buhub![e-mail]  (Craig Levin)
Subject: Re: IT'S OVER


    Actually, the show has been guaranteed to run 2 more years.
I don't know where this gentleman gets his information, but if you
want the real facts, I'd hop over to rec.arts.startrek and take a look
around.

--
Craig\The Moonman\Levin                      Pedro Alcazar
[e-mail]     House Of The Moss Rose, Barony of
                Illiton, Middle Kingdom
"Space is big, space is dark, you'll always find a place to park!"
-Burma Shave

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

Date: 9 May 91 01:18:06 GMT
From: stanford.edu!agate!headcrash.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lon Stowell) writes:
>  Has anyone considered making a "planetary park" out of Mars to
>  preserve Mt. Olympus and some of the other formations?  Just
>  cause it is lifeless doesn't mean it is without beauty...and
>  worth preserving.
>
>  Go terraform an ugly planet.

Could you identify a "ugly planet" for me. I find parts of ALL the planets
we have photographed quite wonderful. But it is not reasonable to say that
terraforming Mars would destroy Mons Olympus. Even with running water,
errosion would take longer than human history to remove Olympus. Also,
while Olympus is beautiful, might it not be even more wonderful with trees
growing on it?

            Frank Crary
            UC Berkeley

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

Date: 10 May 91 03:13:36 GMT
From: wuarchive!waikato.ac.nz![e-mail]
Subject: Possible Fredlets


    I have just been reading a copy of the space shuttle manifest, and I
noticed the large number of labs that are intended to fly (Japanese, German and
US spacelabs, intenational and US microgravity labs, there may be more (please
add any you know about)). There has been some discussion on sci.space.shuttle
about when the shuttle will be phased out (2000 - 2020) and I began to wonder
if these labs could provide cheap extensions to SSF (assuming it's there to be
extended). Any comments?

By the way what are the current plans for extending Fred (again assuming it's
there to be extended).

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

Date: 8 May 91 02:22:30 GMT
From: stanford.edu!agate!headcrash.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Sheppardson) writes:
>[e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>>Is it really less expensive to build an orbital microgravity + life
>>sciences lab than an orbital assembly platform?
>
>  Actually, it is -- if you can only build one station.
>
If I understand the rest you what you are saying, you mean a microgravity +
life sciences  facility is less expensive than an orbital construction +
life sciences platform. While this may be true, A purely construction
station (e.g. NO or almost NO science.) would be very cheap.

>  Given the station we have today, there's not a whole lot of extra
>  capability that you could cut if you were to decide that SSF was going to
>  be dedicated to the support of lunar and planetary exploration. You still
>  need to habitation space, the power generation capability, and the limited
>  lab space of the current design. I can't think of any system in the MTC/PMC
>  design that could be eliminated or any system capability which could be
>  reduced if all you planned to do was to support the Space Exploration
>  Initiative (i.e. lunar/mars exploration) PMC is pretty much the minimum
>  viable permanently manned station one can come up with...
>
This not the case at all. The current soviet station, Mir, is able to
support limited orbital construction (they have done numerous test
EVAs practicing orbital construction techniques.). Mir consists of
2 science modules (Kvant and Kristal), 1 EVA/life support module (Kvant 2),
and one core/habitation module. If the science modules were replaced
with EVA support and extra living space, Mir would be as capable as
Freedom's PTC for orbital construction (E.g. 4-man, w/ suits for all of
them.) This "consturction" Mir would consist of 5 20-ton modules.

A 5 Titan-launched-size modules is MUCH cheaper than Freedom.

>  Indeed. One of the advantages of the old 'sticks and balls' erectable truss
>  concept was the fact that there was all sorts of open space for the
>  addition of growth structure to support vehicle processing facilities
>  (hangars) and growth systems and utility lines.

The problem with a design with lots of open space is DOCKING. A failed
docking attempt will put the space shuttle flying past the station. If
the station has trusses sticking out in many directions, the chance of
a colission is much greater.

Note that a lunar base could be supported with a construction-only station,
while a interplanetary mission would need life-sciences research to address
long duration zero-gravity issues.

                   Frank Crary
                   UC Berkeley

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

Date: 29 Apr 91 17:21:42 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V vs. ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>The following small launch vehicles are being designed by US firms, without
>government support.
>
>Industrial Launch Vehicle, by American Rocket Company.

Project dead.  Amroc is now marketing its hybrid-rocket technology to others
rather than trying to build its own launcher.  It might have been different
if George Koopman had lived... :-(

>Conestoga Launch Vehicle, by Space Services, Inc.

Project dead in its original form when Space Services died.  Since rescued,
in a limited way, by new owners.

>Astra B, by E Prime Aerospace Corp.

If anything's happened on this one lately, I haven't heard about it.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 8 May 91 18:47:55 GMT
From: ogicse!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Doug McDonald)
Subject: Re:  Saturn V vs ALS


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>It is unlikely to be help much unless you go hypersonic rather than
>supersonic.  The major benefit of air launch for Pegasus is the higher
>altitude rather than the speed, and Pegasus's launch altitude already
>gives you most of the attainable altitude benefit.  The difference
>between 250m/s (B-52) and 1000m/s (SR-71) speed at launch is not all that
>significant when circa 8000m/s is needed for orbit.
>
>A much simpler and cheaper way to get that extra speed and altitude, given
>ample budget and an absence of other constraints, is just to put another
>rocket stage under the thing.  It makes little sense to build an aircraft
>capable of a wide variety of performances including sustained supersonic
>cruise if all you want is one quick push to high speed and altitude.
>
>The approach is potentially interesting *if* you are building a supersonic
>transport for other reasons.  Debate is still open on whether that is a
>reasonable thing to do, given concerns about economics, sonic boom, and
>atmospheric effects (e.g. ozone layer).
>

The thing I have always wondered is why the bottom stage would not be,
rather than a rocket, an air-breather. This is of course some
sort of half-way from launching from an airplane and adding an
extra ordinary rocket stage. The only problem I see is the extra
development cost.

Doug McDonald

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

Date: 3 May 91 15:51:51 GMT
From: hpfcso![e-mail]  (Mark Luce)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus?

/ hpfcso:sci.space / [e-mail] (Fraering Philip) / 11:37 am  May  2, 1991 /
In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon Monsarrat x6227) writes:

>Wait, do Jupiter's moons (like Ganymede) have enough gravity
>to support an atmosphere even if supplied with impacted comets?

Well, they have an ice surface already, do they need the comets?

After all, everyone says they'd supply Venus with water from
the Jovian satellites.

And Ganymede has the same diameter as Mars. I don't have the surface
gravity on hand.

     Uh, what about the slight problem that the Galilean satellites of
Jupiter are well within the Jovian radiation belts?
     Also, Ganymede may be nearly the same size as Mars, but is a much
larger percentage of ice as opposed to rock. I think the surface gravity
is actually closer to that of our moon.
     Not sure what you could do with Io, given that its interior is
being constantly churned by tidal forces....
     Titan, which already has an atmosphere twice as thick as Earth's,
and mostly of nitrogen, might be a better bet...






--
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: Fri, 10 May 91 11:03:17 PDT
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: Space Science Crisis


This Wednesday, 8-MAY-1991, there was a general alarm sent out about
possible huge cuts to NASA's space science programs.  The word was that
one half to one billion dollars were to be cut from NASA's budget, and
that Admiral Truly was adamantly opposed to further cuts on the space
station.  This put AXAF, CRAF/Cassini, and EOS square on the chopping,
not for downsizing, but for elimination.  The people to contact about
this were listed as Rep. Bob Traxler (fax [phone]) and Rep. Bill
Green (fax [phone]), both of the House Appropriation Subcommittee
for NASA, VA, and HUD Budget Allocations.

Does anyone out there know what came of these Subcommittee meetings?

_____________
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
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit.  Mars is somewhat the same
 distance from the Sun, which is very important.  We have seen pictures
 where there are canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water,
 there is oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
 -- J. Danforth Quayle, APS, Volume 35, Number 1 (1990), page 2

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

Date: 9 May 91 03:54:05 GMT
From: sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:
>Lamborghini-class launch vehicle.  Rather, it is a "Ford Pickup" class
>

    Now that's it.  Now I know why this will never work, they want a Ford
    ""Fixed or Repaired Daily".  Of course, it would produce more jobs, so
    maybe it will work.

                            Will...

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

Date: 29 Apr 91 20:26:31 GMT
From: unisoft!hoptoad!pacbell!pacbell.com!mips!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!suned1!slced1![e-mail]  (Lloyd E Vancil)
Subject: mars orbiter


What is the schedual for revisiting Mars?
Before the Challenger disaster there were plans for another Mars mission.
(at least thats the way my unreliable wet-ware data storage unit (brain)
remembers it).


--
 | suned1![e-mail] | * S.T.A.R.S.!   .       +      o       |
 | [e-mail]    | The Revolution has begun!   .     +    |
 | sun!suntzu!suned1!lev         | My Opinions are Mine mine mine hahahah!|

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

Date: 8 May 91 19:15:27 GMT
From: aio!vf.jsc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> BTW, the current price is $500 to $1,000. They now admit that $300 was
> never practical. Kind of makes you feel good about the future doesn't
> it?
>
> But this number is interesting. Two contractors have offered to build
> for a fixed price launchers which will launch 100K pound payloads. They
> will do it in half the time and 5% of the cost of ALS. Operational costs
> of these launchers would be about the same as ALS.
>
> In this time of high taxes and deficits why do you insist on spending
> dollars on what we could have for pennies?
>
>    Allen

5 % ? who are the contractors? what are their track records ?
I'll believe it when I see it.  "There aint no such thing as a free lunch."

--

Mike Kent -      Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC
        2400 NASA Rd One, Houston, TX 77058 [phone]
        [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 May 91 21:30:47 GMT
From: haven.umd.edu!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU![e-mail]  (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

Brad Mears writes:
#Your attitude is very understandable, but you left something out.  How can
#NASA regain the trust of the general public (or even Congress)?  Presumably,
#the only way to regain your trust is to build a launch vehicle that fulfills
#the promises made for it.  But we can't build another launch vehicle because
#we failed once.  Catch-22.

If the supporters for ALS can give concrete reasons why ALS will be on
budget and meet specs, fine. So far the discussion here has been:

Pro ALS: "ALS will by wonderful because it is designed to be wonderful."

Skeptic: "They said that about the shuttle. Why will this be different?"

Pro ALS: "Because ALS isn't the shuttle!"

That just does not cut it. The shuttle is basically an albatross
hanging over our necks (and before someone complains that I am bashing
the shuttle, my Ph.D. thesis is on observations made on the ASTRO-1
flight) and before billions are spent on something new, it is *VITAL*
to make specific identifications of why the new system will work
whereas the old system did not.

Otherwise we risk spending billions of dollars and getting a second
albatross.


--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      [e-mail]
 UUCP:        ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

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

Date: 8 May 91 18:40:01 GMT
From: pasteur!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!grapevine!male!jethro!exodus!concertina.Eng.Sun.COM![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
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.

Proton?













--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #526
*******************