Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_735.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/8cOjVWC00WBw47rE4W>;
          Fri, 28 Jun 91 04:50:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 04:50:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #735

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 735

Today's Topics:
            APS Space Station News
               Lost satellites
            SPACE Digest V13 #617
              Re: Mars or bust!
               Re: What's HUD?
              Re: A Space Science letter
                  Space Link
            Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise

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: 12 Jun 91 09:23:10 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: APS Space Station News

From: [e-mail]
Subject: "What's New" Jun-7-1991
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jun 91 21:07:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.91158.170731WTU
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 56

WHAT'S NEW, Friday, 7 June 1991                    Washington, DC

1. SPACE SCIENCE IS SACRIFICED BY HOUSE TO RESTORE SPACE STATION.
Truth took a holiday in the floor debate over an amendment to put
$1.9B back into space station Freedom.  The debate was filled
with talk about Columbus (Nancy Johnson (R-CT) preferred to talk
about "Isabella's boat") and preposterous claims for spinoffs
that would have left the most shameless SSC flack gasping.  Rep.
Hall (D-TX) predicted a cure for cancer would be found on the
space station because "we haven't found it on Earth and it must
be out there somewhere."  The amendment, introduced by Rep. Jim
Chapman (D-TX), took most of the $1.9B from other NASA programs,
leaving NSF intact but devastating space science programs.  NASA
Administrator Richard Truly is said to have approved the strategy
as a means of disciplining space scientists who opposed Freedom.
President Bush personally phoned Republicans urging their support
for the amendment.  After the vote, Rep. Bob Traxler (D-MI), the
subcommittee chair who recommended termination of Freedom, warned
that "The space station is going to eat your dinner next year."

2. THE SPACE STATION DEBATE MOVES TO THE SENATE--NSF IS AT RISK.
On Wednesday, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the
allocation of dollars among its 13 subcommittees.  The HUD/VA/IA
Subcommittee allocation, $81.26B, was only $0.05B more than that
of its House counterpart.  That's not enough to restore the space
science programs that were cut by the House--and if an attempt is
made to restore the rent subsidy program, which the Chapman
Amendment also cut, it could threaten other programs such as NSF.

3. JAPAN LINKS PARTICIPATION IN SUPERCOLLIDER TO SPACE STATION.
International partners in space station Freedom had officially
expressed indignation at the possibility that the US might dump
the space station at this late date.  Privately, however, they
have been ambivalent at best.  The Japanese have threatened not
to participate in the SSC if Freedom is cancelled, but in fact
they have shown no enthusiasm for the SSC anyway and have refused
every inducement to join.  So far, Japan has spent perhaps $300M
on its part of the space station, compared to $5B for the US. The
Germans still face strong opposition from their own scientists to
any participation in the manned space station (WN 28 Dec 90).

....

Robert L. Park  [phone]      The American Physical Society



--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

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

Date: 11 Jun 91 23:50:56 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!frodo.cc.flinders.edu.au!pippin.cc.flinders.edu.au![e-mail]  (Wolfgang Lieff)
Subject: Lost satellites

- With Olympus one more satellite is more or less lost in orbit;
  does anybody know how much 'dead money' belonging to the space
  agencies or insurance companies is up there in the moment ?

- If this sum is a considerable amount, what would be a competitive
  price the Soviets could charge for stationing a technician and a
  Soyuz modified as an 'Inter-orbit-toolshed' (maybe without re-entry
  capabilities) onboard their space station ?
  Most of a maintenance infrastructure is already there: regular supply
  uplinks (Progress, Buran) can provide spare parts; continous service
  (even on weekends) is possible thanks to long-term missions,...

It would be very interesting, if somebody (maybe from an insurance
company) could give a hint, what they would be prepared to pay if
they could get a satellite 'back to work'.

               Wolfgang Lieff , [e-mail]
Flinders Institute for Atmospheric and Marine Sciences, Adelaide , Australia

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <Added.4cJf=[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 12 Jun 91 19:34:25 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Sat, 8 Jun 91 01:55:45 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #617
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Re : Future of energy and materials (was asteroid mining)

>There are multiple possibilities in the wings for new energy sources
>when the oil runs out (various forms of nuclear and solar power
>have nearly unlimited potential; obstacles of cost can be
>confidently predicted to be overcome if a strong incentive is there).

Quite idyllic, if untrue.
SOLAR ENERGY, besides being inefficient (on Earth, but then, who's going
to build solar-energy collectors in space witout asteroids?) are dependent
on clouds, lack of space, and night.  Very good for passive use, but then,
solar will never power cars, trucks, planes, heat (and cool) large builidngs,
toast bread, run refridgerators, refine metal, etc, on Earth.
HYDROELECTRIC has already been exploited, in the U.S. to it's fullest extent,
unless one advocated wholesale destruction of living space (for people, too)
by putting multiple dams on a river, creating the dreaded Bloated Locks look.
NUCLEAR (fission) depends on Uranium, which, like oil, will become more and
more difficult to find and refine.  (reserves are about equal to oil right now)
FUSION is still a pipe-dream.  Since your post was presenting evidence that
supported the pipe-dream-ness of Asteroid mining, I will assume that Being A
Pipe Dream is sufficient to exlude an energy option.
WIND is a great energy source.  In windy areas.  Few and far between, when you
add in the necessary inefficiencies of kinetic-to-electric conversion.
OIL, is of course, limited.  Current arguments seem to be "We don't look for
reserves we don't need, and when we had to look, they were always there."
Admittedly, this is fortunate, but hardy proof that "It always will be there"
And, for the 'developing nations' to develop, they will need industry, which
requires high-density-energy (oil), so the demand will only increase.

Just because these sources are in the wings doesn't mean they will ever
leave the wings.

Are there other long-term energy sources that can compete with oil that
I've forgotten?

Tom
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 12 Jun 91 23:27:37 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!brolga!uqcspe!cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]  (Rhys Weatherley)
Subject: Re: Mars or bust!

>  concerns among critics who are worried about the huge cost, put at $500
>  billion or more by some analysts. The report, issued after 10 months of
>  study, did not mention a price tag.

Numbers like this always make me laugh.  They sound SO BIG!!!  Let's say that
100 million Americans had to carry the cost in their tax (I don't know the
exact tax-paying population of America).  We are talking $5000 each.  OK,
maybe that's quite a lot to wear all at once.  But we are talking over
20 years before the mission gets off the ground.  Is $250 a year average too
much to ask?  Heck, I pay more than that (the equivalent Australian amount)
each year on computer equipment and software alone (and I'm a VERY low-volume
buyer).  My yearly bus pass costs around that as well.  And not all of the
cost will be borne by the taxpayer if they get industry support, etc.

Sheesh.

Rhys.

+=====================+==================================+
||  Rhys Weatherley   |  The University of Queensland,  ||
||  [e-mail]  |  Australia.  G'day!!            ||
||       "I'm a FAQ nut - what's your problem?"         ||
+=====================+==================================+

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 00:28:03 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: What's HUD?



Yes, HUD is the ultimate pork barrell agency.
It is subject to intense lobbyng by the contruction industry.
Much of its funding disappears.

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 00:16:35 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: A Space Science letter



I am glad to see somebody in the science community trying to
call a halt to the sensless attacks on the Space Station Freedom
.
I sincerely hope you are successful in restoring proper levels
of funding to space science AND the manned program.
   Scientists should realize that a reform of the federal
budget is certainly necessary, but attacking manned space is
not the appropriate method.
   Better to attack the waste and inefficiency in HUD, VA etc.
How about privatising VA hospitals, like the space activist
libertarians say shoud be done to NASA.....

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 14:55:38 GMT
From: infonode![e-mail]  (Jeff W. Hyche)
Subject: Space Link

Here in Huntsville at the Marshal Space Flight Center they have a public
bbs called Space Link.  The number is 205-895-0028, it supports baud
rates from 300-2400 bps.  I don't use the system because it only goes up
to 2400, but now they have added internet access.  You can get some of
the status reports and Shuttle status from there.  Here is the post from
the bbs, I hope it helps.


"2_9.TXT" (1215 bytes) was created on 04-24-91

Enter {V}iew, {X}MODEM, {Y}MODEM or {M}enu  [V]...v

Internet Access to NASA/Spacelink

WHAT
NASA/Spacelink is available to users with access to the Internet.  Currently,
four TELNET ports are available for callers.  These ports can be reached at the
following addresses:

        Domain Name:        spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov  OR  xsl.msfc.nasa.gov
        Internet Address:   128.158.13.250

File Transfer Protocol (FTP) capability will be implemented soon.  XMODEM and
YMODEM will not work through the Internet.

WHY
NASA was approached by universities and other groups designing networks to
offer teachers and students access to the services available on the Internet.
It became clear that connecting to the Internet would reduce access costs for
NASA/Spacelink's target audiences, teachers and students.

HOW
NASA/Spacelink reaches the Internet via the Southeastern Universities Research
Association Network (SURAnet), a regional network affiliated with National
Science Foundation Network (NSFNET).

FUTURE
NASA/Spacelink's next expansion phase will increase several elements of the
system, including additional storage for images from NASA's observatories.
NASA/Spacelink's Internet connectivity will be upgraded to offer more
simultaneous TELNET sessions and FTP file transfers.

--
                                  // Jeff Hyche
    There can be only one!    \\ //  Usenet: [e-mail]
                               \X/   Freenet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 07:14:37 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!geac!aimed!torag!w-dnes![e-mail]  (Walter Dnes )
Subject: Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise


[e-mail] (Dani Eder) writes:

> To minimize the cost of a beanstalk, you would not design it
> to hang all the way down to the ground.  There is a compromise
> design which builds up from the ground using compressive structures
> and down from GEO using tensile structures, having their tips
> connected but not transmitting large forces across the connection.

     Maybe we should rename this thread. I posted a couple of
weeks ago saying that tethers are theoretically possible, but I
had severe doubts about real-world implementation of beanstalks
per se. Basically you seem to be agreeing with me. Yours is the
second response I've seen so far that suggests going to a tether.

> I have done a conceptual design for a 10 km tower using existing
> graphite/epoxy, with standard structural allowables and allowing
> for a Mach 1 peak wind at 10km altitude (at jet stream altitude),
> tapering down to 150 mph peak wind at ground level.  The numbers
> come out not too bad.  Above 10 km, the lower pressure dominates
> any conceivable wind speed (I assume no upper atmosphere winds
> exceed Mach 1), and the 'scale height', the height over which
> the cross sectional area of the structure changes by a factor
> of e, increases towards the limit of the material, which is
> 10's of km for graphite/epoxy.  If we limit the area ratio of
> the tower portion to 300, then we end up with a tower on the
> order of 60 km tall (this may be off by as much as a factor of
> 2, since I have not gone and done a detailed structural analysis)

     Getting the tether down to 60..100 km above sea level is a
good start for cutting down fuel costs. I don't know if it's worth
the effort to go the rest of the way. Did you make any allowances
for structural icing ? Yes, I *KNOW* the tower/beanstalk/tether will
probably be built at the equator. The freezing level is higher
there than in the temperate zones, but it does exist. You can get
icing in cloud even when there is no precipitation falling down to
the ground. Basing a structure in the Sahara is no guarantee
against icing in cloud. One of my co-workers deals with consultants
regarding design of towers, some of which are on mountaintops, and
meteorological theory notwithstanding, in many cases local
experience is the only guide she can quote to how much reinforcing
is needed.
     Structural icing is a real-world problem on two fronts. 1) The
sheer weight of ice. 2) The ice will increase the cross-section area
exposed to winds and thus increase wind loading. How much of a
safety margin have you built in ?

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

Date:         Thu, 13 Jun 91 13:01:00 CDT
From: David Lowe <[e-mail]>


     Many of the most interesting conversations on this forum
deal primarily with the economic organization of space research.
In some of those discussions it becomes clear that several
participants go beyond a practical realization of the advantages
of private enterprise to the romanticization of those advantages
known as libertarianism.

     It is easy enough to dismiss this approach when the field
under discussion would hardly exist without government
intervention.  I have usually just written it all off as due to
the influence of the late Robert Heinlein on science fiction
readers or on the fact that the insufficient humanities
background provided in most engineering curricula does not
provide an adequate basis for students to discover the silliness
the Ayn Rand they read in high school.  (Hold the flames; I am an
engineer.)  Lately, however, remarks have been made that go
beyond the normal sniping at government, welfare, taxes, and HUD.

     Herman Rubin has told us:

> There are private space societies.  Except for government
> restrictions, there is nothing to prevent these space societies
> from publicly raising the billions needed for space
> activities....

     It is fantasy such as this that prevents my taking
libertarianism seriously as an intellectual movement.

     Later Mr. Rubin states:

> A single American billionaire attempted to build an
> ecologically sound, and eventually to be profitable, enterprise
> on a part of Brazil, where the Jary River flows into the
> Amazon.

     On the Jari River, Daniel Ludwig cleared--largely by
burning--250,000 acres of ecologically diverse virgin rainforest
and replaced it with a huge cellulose and rice farm.  This was
ecologically sound?  Remember that description the next time you
hear a libertarian decrying government interference.  Do we want
to trust these people to knock large pieces of comets and
asteroids around near-earth space?  For more information on
Ludwig's environmental disaster see _The Invisible Billionaire_
by Jerry Shields.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #735
*******************