Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_586.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

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/QcFnm2:00WBw44Yk5n>;
          Sat,  1 Jun 91 02:19:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  1 Jun 91 02:19:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #586

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 586

Today's Topics:
        CD-ROM archive of radio images being collected
            SPACE Digest V13 #565
              Manned Space Craft
                 NONE
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
              Shuttle=>Space piggyback?
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #517
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

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: 17 May 91 13:33:13 GMT
From: unmvax!nmt.edu![e-mail]  (Daniel Briggs)
Subject: CD-ROM archive of radio images being collected

Someone recently asked me about archives of radio images.

The answer is "not yet", but soon!  The NRAO is currently collecting
digital images of radio sources to be archived and distributed on a
CD-ROM.  There has been a general call out to the radio astronomy
community to contribute one's best images to this project.  There is
no bias as to program source, instrument used or institute affiliation
of the donor, but I imagine that in practice there will be more VLA
images than anything else.  The archives will be in FITS format, and
the single CD-ROM will hold 300 16 bit maps at 1024 on a side or 5000
256^2 maps.  The eventual release will be some mixture of all sizes.
The data is supposed to contain enough history and parameter
information to allow serious scientific analysis.  The only
requirement is that proper credit be given in any publication using
these images.  The submissions deadline is 1 July, and the target date
for distribution is currently sometime in November.  The price will be
set on a cost recovery basis, which we estimate to be $10.  If
successful, this may well be the first ROM in a series.  If you've got
an image that you'd like to submit for the archives, send mail to Jim
Condon ([e-mail]) for details on how to submit it.  When the
project is a little further along, details will be posted about how to
order it.

Cheers,

Personal Note to Gary Murphy:
Sorry for not replying directly.  The bang path in your .sig is just
not working for me.  I can get to mitel, but it seems completely clueless
about either cunews or cognos.  Likewise no luck with the other form.

--
This is a shared guest account, please send replies to
[e-mail] (Internet)    [phone]
Dan Briggs / NRAO / P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM / 87801  (U.S. Snail)

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 17 May 91 14:46:12 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Fri, 17 May 91 02:25:56 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #565
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

>>>Re: Galileo flyby of ateroids.
>>
>:Point taken, but it still stands that only with the 'stroids can we
>>>:recover all the heavy metals (i.e. gold, iron, lead, copper)
>>>:that are forever hidden at the center of the other planets.
>>
>>>We are a *long* ways from this kind of space exploitation; waiting an extra
>>>ten or twelve years to get the data won't make any real difference in our
>>>schedule of space exploitation.
>>
>>>:And finding those heavy metals could be the incentive that private industry
>>>:needs to get their butts busy building a space infrastructure.
>
>:Disagree that we are a long way from industrial activity ('no matter what')
>:Disagreed that Galileo would waste it's time on the Asteroids.
>
:>Many times, the people on this list have extolled Private Industry for it's
:>ability to cut costs, deliver on contracts, etc, etc that Gov. just can't
:>deliver.  So how do we get PI to pick up where NASA fumbled?  By showing
:>how payoff makes the risks worth it.  Knowledge, even fragmentary, of
:>the Asteroids could be that demonstration.
:>
:>If NASA, a gov agency, could get guys on the moon, in ten years, with
:>National Prestige/Fear the motivation, think what PI could do, with
:>Big $$ as the motivation.  Especially with the experince we have now.

>I'm sorry, but I don't see the big $$ for private industry in returning
>asteroidal heavy metals, or even diamonds, to Earth. The total program
>costs for fetching the materials don't seem at all competitive with local
>sources of the material.

[discussion of costs / sale value of various materials]

I never said this was the source of the bucks

>What could be profitable would be returning iron, aluminum, oxygen,
>hydrogen, and the like to Earth orbit for use there. Getting rid of
>the launch costs for these *bulk* materials makes sense. However, there
>is presently no market for such materials in LEO, nor is there much
>of a prospect of one in the next twenty to fifty years. The smelters,

>Mining the asteroids for materials to_be_used_in_space makes sense over
>the long term. There is no hurry in the next twenty to fifty years,
>however. Meanwhile we need to keep our pet scientists happy with
>pretty pictures from the big gravity sinks.

I think your 'ten-to-twenty years' comment shows that you grew up in an
age when space was not that important because it was a place for
scientific experiments and national prestige stunts, both of which cost
losts of money.

Thoses time-scales will change when it appears that money can be made.
Drastically.  I'm betting my life on it.  If it DOESN"T happen in my
lifetime, my carrer will suck, and my wife will hate me, and I'll be a
miserable fucker and die bitter and angry at the whole world.  :-)
(I'm joking, but it's proabably true)

The resources I'm thinking of may be salable (even at VERY low prices) in the
very short-term.  I.E. before real operations get started.
Take nickel.  It's current price is around $1/lb.  With a typical Nickel
Asteroid, you could sell it for $.05/lb, and still make a klilling. (Do you
know how much nickel would be in an asteroid 1km wide?).  Could any mining
company compete?  More importantly, could we get them to invest?

It's interesting to note that the most abundant source
of nickel in the world has been determined to be the site of an ancient
meteor impact (See Doomsday_Has_Been_Canceled for more of these neat things).
Think of the savings if we caught the next on BEFORE it fell.

In the long term, invoke your favorite Space-Industrialization Scheme,  My
Favorite is O'Neill's.  It will get it's cash from Energy.  It will
grow on energy, sell energy, live off energy (like a weed.)

Human civilization can be characterized by it's ability to control power.
Cavemen could control their own muscles.
Farmers could control plant growth and animal's muscles.
Egypt could control other men's muscles (and minds?).
England controlled woodfire and water.
We control Oil.
Our Children might control the Sun.

I think diverting Galileo for a few years gain would be worth it.
Especiall since, if it worked, we'd be visiting the place, instead of just
sending robots!

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

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

Date: 15 May 91 06:57:04 GMT
From: olivea!samsung!mips!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!telly!moore!eastern!egsgate![e-mail]  (Al Simcoe)
Subject: Manned Space Craft

Can anyone tell me what NASA's next step is in manned space craft after
the shuttle? I take it that it will be some type of craft for a voyage to
Mars.

 If so, would this leave from a space station? If it does, is this craft
assembled in space? Would the fuel be trucked up somehow?

                                   -A-

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 12:34:30 PAC
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NONE

GOOD AFTERNOON:

I MANAGED TO TRASH THE CAMBRIDGE E-MAIL ADDRESS REGARDING NAMES &
ADDRESSES OF ASTRONOMERS AROUND THE WORLD THAT WAS POSTED TO SPACE
DIGEST.

IF SOMEONE COULD POST IT AGAIN (OR SEND IT DIRECTLY TO BE AT THE ADDRESS
BELOW), I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.

                                         - THANKS IN ADVANCE
 ======================================================================
: STEVE HAYHURST : COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE : UNIV. OF IDAHO, MOSCOW     :
: [phone] : IDDINGS AGRICULTURAL   : HAYHURST AT IDUI1.BITNET   :
: COMPUTER APPL. : SCIENCE BUILDING       : IDUI1.CSRV.UIDAHO.EDU.INET :
: SPECIALIST     : ROOM 307               : 129.101.112.1 - IP ADDRESS :
:======================================================================:
:           (  ) ???   \         (  )                                  :
:     .^---^(OO) /      `--.^---^(--)  "COW Discovers Gravity"         :
:    :(_____;\/          o (_____;\/                                   :
:    */UU\ / \         ooo /UU\ / \                                    :
:                                                                      :
 ======================================================================

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

Date: 17 May 91 20:16:01 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

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

>>1. Develop two HLV's:                $1 billion
>>2. Integrate Soyuz with new
>>   vehicle:                          $1 billion (should be less than this)
>>3. Build econo-lodge station:        $2 billion (I'm splurging here as well)
>>                              total: $4 billion

>Where do these numbers come from? I know of no cost estemates coming out
>of industry or NASA to 1: build a HLV for less than $500 million (you
>said 2 for a billion)

I am refering to the Heavy Lift Delta and Titan V which I have written about
before.

>2: Integrate a Soyuz with any vehicle, at any cost.

Granted I am just taking a stab at this. You can double or even tripple it
and it is still a lot cheaper than the Shuttle.

>Build any station except Freedom. (The most recient western work I have
>seen is VERY rough ~1986 US ideas and the European Columbus platform,
>which is also very rough.)

That figure came from the LLNL Great Exploration Study. Their station
cost about $1 billion. I doubled it.

>As far as orbiting a Spacelab module, it would have to be heavily
>modified. The current Spacelab modules have NO power supply or life
>support or station keeping rockets.

Some won't need it since they can get it from the space station.
For the others, yes we will need to modify them.

>(Also no docking support systems)
>Adding these would cut heavily into the module's lab space. A second
>specially designed support module might be necessary.

It already has the interface to the Shuttle. We could build a docking
adapter which connects to spacelab using the Shuttle interface. That
wouldn't cut into lab space at all.

>Except for the simplest (e.g. shake it 'till the solar pannels come free)
>sorts of repairs, There is NO capability to repair satellites in orbit.

Some are designed to have components replaced. Remember Solar Max?

>Since most satellites cost much more than launch costs, it is usually
>cheaper to return the satellite to Earth, fix it there and re-orbit it.

A typical comm satellite costs maybe $150 million. A Shuttle flight
costs $500 million to $1 billion. It is much cheaper to scrap them
than to rescue them with the Shuttle.

>(Note that insurance companies PAY to have NASA bring back a broken
>satellite.) This sort of repair requires much more than a current generation
>station could provide. (Like say even a good machine shop...)

The insurance companies pay a highly subsidized rate. If they where paying
the actual costs, they wouldn't be doing it.

I also suspect there are other ways to de-orbit satellites if we think
about it creatively. A box with Shuttle tiles, a small engine, and a
parachute should do. How much can that cost?

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |        Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with      |
|   [e-mail]   |             -- Harel Barzilai                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 17 May 91 23:06:40 GMT
From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!dsinc!ub![e-mail]  (thaddeus k blayda)
Subject: Shuttle=>Space piggyback?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (DAVID F ROBINSON) writes:
>>Was there ever any consideration for launching the shuttle off of the carrier
>>aircraft...

>There is no aircraft on Earth that could carry a fueled shuttle stack.  The
>orbiter, with no fuel at all on board, is a full load for a 747.

>People have proposed rather smaller shuttle analogs launched from 747-back.
>Nobody has yet funded one.
>--
>And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

Is it possible, however to carry the SRB's and Tank together?  The
shuttle could be set and released from a separate plane with a
system to "catch" the SRB's and the Tank from a separate plane.

Difficult I'll admit, but is it indeed infeasible in this day and age?

Disclaimer:        A wise man can admit that he knows nothing.
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda.acsu.buffalo.edu, [e-mail]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Caution : DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I may be crazy...But it might just be a lunatic you're looking for
--
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda.acsu.buffalo.edu, [e-mail]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Caution : DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I may be crazy...But it might just be a lunatic you're looking for

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

Date: 17 May 91 06:13:11 GMT
From: stanford.edu!agate!tornado.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>    I am curious about this. Does anyone know just how much
>bandwidth is needed to run a half-useful space station remotely?

How much bandwidth is an Astronaut to splice some cables in mission-critical
electronics?

-george william herbert
[e-mail]

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

Date: 17 May 91 16:13:44 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!ox.com!fmsrl7![e-mail]  (Ron Carter)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #517

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Of course, Jupiter puts out more heat than the sun (from the moons point
>of view) so you might get advantages from using Jupiter as a source, too.
>Tommy Mac
>Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

This is incorrect.

Jupiter radiates more heat than it receives from the Sun by
a considerable margin (it is still cooling and contracting,
giving up the heat of its formation).  However, at Jupiter's
moons, this excess heat is tiny; the moons get about as
much solar radiation as Jupiter does, but Jupiter covers
much, much less than half the sky.

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 07:56:06 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

Brian Yamauchi writes:
> My question is how much of this money will actually go to space
> science and unmanned space exploration.  I'd rather have a lot of
> Mariner Mark IIs, planetary rovers, and microprobes than Freedom, but
> I'd rather have Freedom than nothing...

Johnson Space Center claims the popularity of the manned space
program increases funding for space science -- that they are playing
a positive sum game.  Indeed, they claim that there would be virtually
no space science at all without the manned space program.

This might be called the central dogma of JSC.

Since this dogma was originally put forth by JSC, the manned spaceflight
program, over the objections of space scientists, one must give pause
to consider whether JSC might harbor some ulterior motive in espousing it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #586
*******************