Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_600.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-05 | 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/IcH8AQK00WBwAclU4t>;
          Wed,  5 Jun 91 02:22:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  5 Jun 91 02:22:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #600

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 600

Today's Topics:
             Re: Building Infrastructure
            Huh? Space Station Cancelled?
          Re: SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!!
       Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated
              Re: Space bicycles anyone?
       POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING CANCELLATION
       Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #516
          Re: space news from March 18 AW&ST
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
          Re: SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!!

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: 20 May 91 20:41:13 GMT
From: hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Building Infrastructure

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>Like the Kelly Act, this approach is intended to create markets.

>Not at all.  The Kelly Act was aimed at a _current market_, mail
>delivery.

A major part of the Kelly Act was to promote a passenger airline
industry. William Brown (Hoovers Postmaster General) wanted to
promote an avation industry for defense. He felt the best way to
do that was to provide incentives to airmail carriers to build
bigger aircraft. He got the act amended to provide incentives
for larger airframes, multi-engines, and better navigation. The
incentives also encouraged providers to sell space for passengers.

This provided a set of incentives and moved the aircraft industry
toward what we see today.

>Furthermore, a primary motivation was to strengthen
>the secondary industry, aircraft production, since it was important
>for the defense.

The point is it had a major impact on the technology and direction
air travel took.

>>If I where doing it I would set aside funds for lowest absolute
>>cost to orbit, lowest incrimental cost to orbit (lowest cost/lb)
>>and lowest cost for a launcher which could carry humans

>Yes, but how low?

Of course it would take a bit more research to set numbers, however I
think $1500/lb for the first K kilos, and $5 million for each of the
first L launches is about right. K and L are numbers I wouldn't want
to guess at. I would also pay a bonus if the payload goes up in a
vehicle a human could go up on and return in.

The payload for all these vehicles is to be water delivered to LEO.

>Cost to what orbit?

LEO.

>Why is delivering humans  into orbit important?

Because I want to promote a spacefaring civilization. You can't
do that without having people up there. This will reduce the cost
just as the Kelly act reduced the cost of passenger air.

>What current, or even near-future, market does that serve?

As I said, this is to create markets the same way the Kelly
Act created today's passenger market.

>What about delivery and processing of
>extraterrestrial materials in competition with launching from earth?

Gee Nick, what current or even near term market does that serve? :-)

I think that is an excellent idea. I can think of two ways to
promote that. We add a provision stating that ANY delivery of water
to LEO qualifies for payment. Eventually the payments from the act
will be so low that only extraterestrial resources can meet the
demand. When this happens we will see people to out to the Moon
and asteroids to meet the demand.

Another way would be to simply add a payment for delivery of
water to LEO from extraterestrial sources. By making the payment
large enough we can cause it to happen almost anytime.

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

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

Date: 17 May 91 18:48:05 GMT
From: agate!bionet!ucselx!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!msi.umn.edu!noc.MR.NET!news.stolaf.edu!thor.acc.stolaf.edu![e-mail]  (Thomas Raich)
Subject: Huh? Space Station Cancelled?

I seemed to have missed something in reading the net-news.  There is a
current discussion taking place about SS Freedom being 'cancelled', which
is news to me.  Now I am considering the possibilty that this is just a
discussion and people are proposing the demise due to some circumstances,
although I am not sure.  Can someone clarify this?

Also, this has brought an interesting question to mind.  I read the magazine
updates that are posted to the net (Thanks to whoever you are, they are quite
informative) but does anyone follow congress and the different subcommittees
that in relation to space?  If so, can we persuade you to enlighten us on a
regular interval? I know I have searched and searched to learn how these folks
vote, try insight the magazine.

Thanks for any info...

Thomas

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

Date: 18 May 91 07:07:24 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Byron Han)
Subject: Re: SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I feel that if the space station gets cut then NASA will never see that money
>again.  Space Science will NEVER see that money again.  For people who did not
>want the station because it did not suit their particlar project:  Now you
>have NOTHING!
>
I completely agree with you.  One of the saddest things I have seen is the
(successful usage of) divide and conquer tactics.  Let's get the space station
and space science people pissed off at each other.  Let's get one to help
us kill the other.  Then let's go after the survivor.

The real problem is not "space science" vs "space station".  The real problem
is dealing with the bloated parts of the rest of the budget.

--

Byron Han, CommToolbox Emir       The dream continues...
Apple Computer, Inc.              --------------------------------------------
20525 Mariani Ave, MS: 35CP       Internet: [e-mail]
Cupertino, CA 95014               AppleLink: HAN1  [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]             CompuServe: 72167,1664

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

Date: 19 May 91 03:01:52 GMT
From: usc!samsung!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated

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

>I was not aware that sci.space HAD a moderator. I certainly agree that
>sci.space would benifit from one (or a more active/visible one). It is
>worth noting that on sci.military, untill about a month ago, there was
>apparently no moderator. When one appeared (Actually I think he had beed
>out of town or something...) the time I spent reading that newsgroup
>decreased by about 50%, without the quality or level or information
>really changing.

Well, I was suggesting that sci.space be moderated; and that in order
to reduce the workload that the moderator should be changed from time
to time, just like sci.military, which I believe just changed moderators
from Bill Thacker to whoever [CDR] is; I haven't read the new one enough
to know if he's as good as Bill Thacker, but Bill Thacker did a pretty good
job. I don't know how good, sci.mil is the only moderated newsgroup
I've read.

--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):[e-mail] || YellNet: 318/365-5418
''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable
madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is
beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_

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

Date: 18 May 91 23:51:46 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!aurora.physics.utoronto.ca![e-mail]  (Christopher Neufeld)
Subject: Re: Space bicycles anyone?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Harri Pasanen) writes:
>I was just bicycling home yesterday and fighting the gravity on a modest
>rise when this though grossed my mind.
>
>Has anybody ever proposed space bicycles?
>
   Charles Sheffield has written a short story "Grand Tour" which
appears in _Project Solar Sail_ edited by Arthur C. Clarke. In this
story a bicycle race is held in space, the pilots' musculature driving a
Wilmhurst generator to power an ion engine.
   In the December 1990 issue of the online science fiction magazine
"Quanta", Phillip Nolte also has a story, called "Endurance Racer" with
essentially the same hardware.
   If a person can manage 600 Watts sustained energy expenditure and the
ion engines operate with cesium fuel exhausting at 1 kg/hour, this
represents an impulse of about 0.6 Newtons. Somebody care to check this?
The impulse then scales as the square root of the exhaust rate per hour
for fixed power input.


--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | There no place like $FC58
 [e-mail]    Ad astra! | They're $FF69-ing my
 cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com               | every word! Send for a
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | free $A56E.

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 13:21:39 MDT
From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]> (CARY OLER)
Subject: POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING CANCELLATION
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"[e-mail]"

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                     POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING

                               UPDATE: 19 MAY

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\


WARNINGS CANCELLED:

  - POTENTIAL MAJOR SOLAR FLARE WARNING
  - POTENTIAL MINOR GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING
  - LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WATCH

WARNINGS CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS:  None.

ATTENTION:

     The effects from the major flare of 16 May failed to materialize.  The
window for possible terrestrial geomagnetic and auroral storming has passed.
The Potential Geomagnetic Storm Warning has been terminated.  Geomagnetic
activity and auroral conditions are expected to remain dormant over the next
24 hours.

     The next possible storm period may commence on 23 or 24 May, due to
recurrent effects from a well placed coronal hole which produced strong
terrestrial effects in late April.  Geomagnetic and auroral storming may be
possible after 24 May, peaking between 25 and 27 May.  A Potential
Geomagnetic Storm Warning may be issued sometime during the period if
recurrent effects are expected to be strong. More will be known in the days
to come.

     The Potential Major Solar Flare Warning and the Low Latitude Auroral
Activity Watch have been cancelled.  No major flares are expected from the
regions currently visible.  All warnings have been terminated.


                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

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

Date: 19 May 91 01:40:45 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Fraering) writes:
>I would like to suggest that the position of moderator be rotated;

I was not aware that sci.space HAD a moderator. I certainly agree that
sci.space would benifit from one (or a more active/visible one). It is
worth noting that on sci.military, untill about a month ago, there was
apparently no moderator. When one appeared (Actually I think he had beed
out of town or something...) the time I spent reading that newsgroup
decreased by about 50%, without the quality or level or information
really changing.

                     Frank Crary
                     UC Berkeley

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

Date: 19 May 91 18:17:24 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!quest![e-mail]  (Steve Schaper - SSB)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #516




Additionally the non-Galillean moons of Jupiter are arguably captured satlittestilites
arg, don't have this editor down yet! captures asteroids, So, IF Galilleo is planned to examine any of them, that could also be useful data. Any captured cometary nuculei would possibly be good sources of volitiles as well. The Galillean moons are too hot (radioactively) and have to much gravity compared to these others to be imediately considered for water/volitile mining. It would be better than
earth, but the smaller bodies should be investigated. We can't do that with a crippled Galilleo talking one or two photos per encounter (transmitting via the low-gain antenna to earth) in the Belt.

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

Date: 20 May 91 03:45:18 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: space news from March 18 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Lewis) writes:
>   What does a "fast trajectory" mean? Faster than a Hohmann orbit?
>Or faster than some other orbit I'm not familiar with? How much time
>would this hypothetical trajectory take, and how picky is it about
>planetary alignments? Inquiring minds want to know ...
>
A fast trajectory means faster than a hohmann orbit. In fact a specific
transfer orbit. While I don't recall the details, I seem to remember that
it is the "next step down" e.g. all the other orbits, except a hohmann
orbit, are less efficient. In the case of a Earth to Orbit transfer
the fast, or "opposition" class, orbit still takes months (about 3 or 4)
as opposed to the 260 days of the Hohmann transfer. The big problems are
fuel, about 150% the C(3) energy of a hohmann is required (how 50% more
energy translates into fuel mass depends on the design, but a 200 - 400%
increase might be a good ball park guess.) Also, a "opposition" class
orbit reaches Mars only a week or two before the launch window for an
Earth return. As a result, there are two possibilites:

1) Four months in transit to Mars, 2 weeks on the surface, four months
   returning to Earth.

or
2) Four months in transit to Mars, 26 months on the surface, four months
   returning to Earth. (E.g. miss the first return window and wait for
   the next.)

Neither is too appealing, the first allows not enough time on the surface
to justify a manned mission (e.g. the work that men could do in this short
time could be just as well done by robots. Men need to be there a while
for the advantages of a manned mission to matter.) The second alternative
is just TOO LONG for a safe, productive mission (almost 3 years).
As a result, the Case For Mars IV, Launch, Assembly and Transportation
Workshop recomended that "fast" missions be ignored. The 1000 day hohmann
orbit requires not only less fuel, but provides a reasonable ammount of
time on the surface (about 460 days.)

                Frank Crary
                UC Berkeley

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

Date: 20 May 91 04:13:28 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> ... a station
>like this would be involved in lots of other activites.

Do you really want a multi-purpose station? Trying to be all things to all
people in one of the things which is killing/has killed/will kill Freedom.

                                            Frank Crary
                        UC Berkeley

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

Date: 20 May 91 13:24:04 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!helios![e-mail]  (Mike Vidlak)
Subject: Re: SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Byron Han) writes:

   The real problem is not "space science" vs "space station".  The real problem
   is dealing with the bloated parts of the rest of the budget.

I agree 100%.  As long as NASA funding is lumped together with HUD and
VA, they will always be a target for ``reductions'' so that the rest
to the budget can be covered.

--
Michael Vidlak
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #600
*******************