Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO211.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 05:09:25
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #211
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 17 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 211

Today's Topics:
                 Alien substance from space (2 msgs)
                   Drop nuc waste into sun (2 msgs)
                       Ethics of Terra-forming
                         Nasa's Apollo rerun
                              Population
                   Pulsing rocket engines (3 msgs)
                     Results of Senate SSRT vote.
                        Snow on Titan or Pluto
             Soviet early warning satellites: Info needed
                     space news from Aug 10 AW&ST
            Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 92 17:27:23 GMT
From: "Peter J. Scott" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alien substance from space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>     Anyone have any ideas as to what the substance found on NASA's long
> term exposure unit is?

Coincidentally, a couple of days ago I snagged a spare copy of Vol III #4
of the LDEF Spaceflight Environmental Effects Newsletter, which has a lot
to say on the subject.  It is published by the LDEF Corporation for the LDEF
research community, and their address is P.O. Box 10518, Silver Spring,
MD 20914.  Dunno what the status of quoting articles is, they weren't in
when I called,  hope they don't mind me doing this:

    Unusual "Growth" Found on LDEF Surface

During scanning electron microscope (SEM) detailed investigations of the
materials flown on the Thermal Control Surfaces Experiment (TCSE) S0069 a
most unusual "growth" was found.  This growth was located on the front
cover of the TCSE which was exposed in the ram direction for the full
5.8 years of the LDEF mission.  The term "growth" is utilized to describe
what appears to be an unusual non-faceted dendritic type feature.  A
better term may be coined when we have a positive identification of what the
material is and how it occurred.

[...] Growth occurred on Teflon, in a transitional region between directly
exposed and unexposed surfaces.  Part of the growth region was exposed to
the space environment, which included atomic oxygen and solar ultraviolet
radiation.  This growth was found within an area 3mm in width by about
5cm in length, parallel to a gap between two covers.  Other areas of
growth may exist but have not yet been found.  [...]

Okay, summarizing now.  Doesn't look like a fungus/mold that could have
grown after recovery, hence it is either a post-flight growth that is
not biological, or it grew in space.  They discount the former possibility
since it was stable in a vacuum under electron irradiation (the SEM), so
currently they think it grew in space.

The growth is ordered and non-directional; non-faceted (not a single
crystal metal or crystalline-type semiconductor material); several
stages of growth apparent; growth substrate is a brittle dark layer which
can be easily removed and appears to be flaking off the Teflon; appears
somewhat translucent under optical microscope; two major orientations:
one normal to the surface aligned with the LDEF major axis, the other
parallel to the surface facing inward on one side and outward on the
other side; overall growth pattern appears tohave some of the characteristics
of a dendritic-type growth with nucleation occurring along defect sites.

SEM photos were taken without coating the sample; surface charging from
the electron beam can affect high-res pictures.  This problem only
occurred when the material below the growth was imaged.  When the
growth and its base material is imaged even 50,000x, surface charging
does not build up sufficiently to affect the imaging.  One explanation
would be that the substrate under the growth region is Teflon whereas
the growth and its base material are not.  Growth did not respond to
culturing on nutrient agar.  Acridine orange direct count epi
fluorescence tests (staining DNA) were negative.  Biological tests were
applied to samples that had and had not been exposed to SEM environment,
both negative.

Growth dimensions on the order of 7 microns in height and a fraction of a
micron in diameter.  A few growth units are larger, many are smaller.
Individual growth units have a hollow tube down their center and small
bases expanding to a larger "leaf" or "ear" pattern.  The photo shows
this quite well; too bad I don't have a scanner.  Growth does not appear
degraded by space environment including atomic oxygen.  It is in a location
where contaminants, including dimethyldisulfide gas (from the four
batteries, whose cells ruptured) could vent.

--
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    ([e-mail])

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 03:09:48 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alien substance from space
Newsgroups: sci.space,misc.headlines

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>    Anyone have any ideas as to what the substance found on NASA's long
>term exposure unit is?
>
>    Apparently it's something never before seen on Earth.
>
>    The substance is a few microns of crystal-like material found on a
>piece of teflon from the structure.

A "growth" was discovered on LDEF with an electron microscope.  It hasn't
been identified yet, and all biological testing has turned up negative.
It seemed to have formed during the time LDEF was in space.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | much.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 18:02:38 GMT
From: John Stevenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

Dear wise ones -

Here's a commerical space application that always seems to make a lot of
sense to me, but I've never seen discussed.

Why not drop all the longlived nuclear waste into the sun to permanently
dispose of it. The waste is a *very* expensive problem that will otherwise
be with us (children's children to the nth power) for along time. I've
seen studies developing warning signs to stay away from disposal areas
that assume no language commanlity with today. Implies quite a long time.
I think the halflife of some of the waste is on the order of tens of
thousands of years.

What little I do know:
1. The volume and mass of the really nasty stuff is not unreasonable for
multiple launches.
2. Launch accidents can be designed for so that the waste material stays
contained and the container is recovered.
3. Significant (space class) dollars are being spent on what appear to be
unacceptable alternatives.
4. Waste disposal is the single biggest technical problem preventing
growth in the nuclear power industry. (technical, not pr).

So, oh wise ones, enlighten me. What am I missing?
Thanks

John Stevenson
[e-mail]


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

Date: 16 Sep 92 20:04:23 GMT
From: Jordin Kare <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Stevenson) writes:
>Dear wise ones -
>
>Here's a commerical space application that always seems to make a lot of
>sense to me, but I've never seen discussed.
>
>Why not drop all the longlived nuclear waste into the sun to permanently
>dispose of it...

Generically, this alternative is called space disposal of nuclear waste.
It was studied extensively by NASA and DOE in the late 60's/early 70's.
I spent some time looking at doing it with laser propulsion.

The sun is the wrong destination, even though it is the most naively
popular, because it's extremely hard to get to from Earth; you have to
kill Earth's _entire_ 30 km/s orbital velocity.  Alternatives include:
    Dumping in a lunar crater (lowest delta-V; "pollutes the Moon")
    Storage in very high Earth orbit (recoverable, but questionable
        stability over long times)
    Storage in L-4/L-5 points (ditto, and ties up valuable regions)
    Dumping on Venus/Jupiter (requires precise navigation)
    Storage in Solar orbit betw. Earth and Venus
        (NASA's preferred destination, recoverable)
    Ejection from the Solar System (My preference; requires
        16 kms delta-V in _one_ burn, no final burn, no precision
        navigation.
>What little I do know:
>1. The volume and mass of the really nasty stuff is not unreasonable for
>multiple launches.

Unfortunately, there's no current way to separate the "really nasty stuff"
(mostly long-lived actinides) from everything else, ranging from unburned
uranium to plutonium to "hulls and hardware" to inerts.  It is _illegal_
to do reprocessing in the U.S., courtesy of the Carter administration,
and there is absolutely no sign that's going to change.  Furthermore,
even cracking open the spent fuel rods to repackage the waste involves
a large fraction of the difficulty of full reprocessing, and the US
has no facilities to do so.
>2. Launch accidents can be designed for so that the waste material stays
>contained and the container is recovered.

THis is true; NASA designed some amazing containment vessels for Shuttle
launch, that would survive things like landing in a Bessemer steel furnace
or landing on railroad tracks and being hit by locomotives.  On the other
hand, NASA designed the Shuttle to be .9999... reliable :-(

A laser launch system, unlike rockets, would use small inert vehicles
which could not explode, would follow precisely predictable trajectories
(no onboard propellant; if the laser shuts off you know exactly where
it will land at any time) and could be test launched (and test-reentered)
10,000 to 100,000 times before launching waste.
>3. Significant (space class) dollars are being spent on what appear to be
>unacceptable alternatives.

Depends on who does the accepting :-)
>4. Waste disposal is the single biggest technical problem preventing
>growth in the nuclear power industry. (technical, not pr).
>
>So, oh wise ones, enlighten me. What am I missing?
>Thanks
>
>John Stevenson

The cost for rocket-type launch would be enormous, even if reprocessing
were in full operation and only a small fraction of waste were launched.
NASA found that launching actinides was marginally reasonable assuming
Shuttle launch costs of $10 million per flight ($500/lb to GEO).
Even with laser propulsion, you have to build a big launcher ($20 billion
investment) before it's economical to launch un-reprocessed waste.
Current national policy and politics do not allow for such a route --
too much capital ($$, careers, and politics) is invested in the current
approach, while there is no motivation (pending the secession of Nevada
from the Union) for pursuing alternatives.

    Jordin Kare
[Statements and opinions here are my own and do not represent positions of
LLNL, DoE, or the University of California]

--

    Jordin Kare    [e-mail]    510-426-0363

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 17:10:09 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>We don't know if there is or if there isn't any life on Mars.

We clearly need to find out before we do any major alterations.

>What is to prevent there being some sort of life-form analogous to
>the vent creatures of the deap oceans living subterrameanly at
>some depth at which water, heat and chemical sustanance is available
>from interior heating?

What is to prevent such life on Earth?  Maybe we are unknowingly wiping
it out right now.  We always have to act on imperfect knowledge, but we
should make a reasonable effort.

Consider also that any present life on Mars is probably having a hard
time of it.  Maybe some environmental changes are just what is needed
to *save* it from extinction.

>What ever life there might be on Mars, or anywhere else for that matter,
>at least has the right to exist. Is man God, to destroy other life-forms
>without much measured forethought?

Actually, the correct line is "Is man Nature?".  Nature recognizes no
"right to exist"; extinction was a routine event long before we arrived.
Are we Nature?  Well, yes, we're part of it.  We should act cautiously,
especially given our relative ignorance, and bearing in mind that it's
hard to reverse extinction... but there is nothing morally wrong about
making changes.  Nature does it all the time.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 17:16:30 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nasa's Apollo rerun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig Keithley) writes:

>The gist of the report was that we goofed in our choice of going to the
>moon.  During the late 50s and early 60s, we were faced with the choice of
>developing things like DynaSoar and MOL (these were Air Force) or going for
>the moon shot.  The benefit of the space station route was that we would
>have developed the infrastructure for a manned presence in near Earth (and
>moon) space.

However, the purpose of the Apollo program was to get to the Moon
ahead of the Soviets.  It was not obvious, at the time, that we
could have done that using the space-station-first approach.  Indeed,
it's not obvious even today.  The Apollo program did, however, beat
the Soviets to the Moon (so decisively that the Soviets then decided
to drop out) and was, therefore, a success, no matter what historical
revisionists may try to tell us.


>Perhaps someone could do some back of envelope calculations and determine
>how much payload could be delivered to the moon using a translunar vehicle
>delivered to LEO via a shuttle mission or two.

Just about zero, if you're talking about a manned vehicle -- it
would take one or two Shuttle missions just deliver the vehicle,
you'd still have to refuel it.  That would be a major problem,
since NASA doesn't feel comfortable carrying cryogenic propellents
in the Shuttle's payload bay.


>Then again, assuming Allen's statements (about using DC-Y as a translunar
>vehicle) are correct, I'd strongly consider developing a reusuable DC-Y
>rather than a non-reusuable Apollo follow-on.

A DC vehicle would be the way to go, but we shouldn't put all our
eggs in one basket.  We've done that too many times before.  Even
if DC works, a Saturn-class heavy-lift vehicle could still be useful
for payloads that are too large for a Delta Clipper and not easily
broken down into smaller chunks.  (Things like nuclear reactors, say.)


>Allen, whats the max payload DC-Y can put in LEO?  I need dimensions and
>weight.

No one knows yet.  DC-Y is the prototype.  It's designed to carry
20,000 lb. to low Earth orbit, but probably won't because there's
always some unexpected weight growth during the prototype stage.
If DC-Y gets into orbit with any payload at all, we can work on
getting the weight down to where it should be for the production
vehicles.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 17:31:41 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>Anyway, my point is the following, given that there is an unfulfilled demand
>for birth control (I don't think I've cited sources here, but if you want I'll
>dig some up) and that population growth in the third world tends to eat up
>progress made by foreign aid,

What "progress made by foreign aid?"  The only real success stories
in the Third World -- Taiwan, Korea, etc. -- became economically successful
only after economic aid was cut off.  The "success story" that foreign-aid
lobbyists always cite is the Marshall Plan, because they *can't* find a
more recent example.


>it makes sense to help reduce growth - where the assistance is desired -
>instead of sending cash.

Um, desired by whom?  By the people or by the dictator?  Let's be perfectly
clear on this.  The reason the US stopped funding the UN birth-control
programs in the 1980's was because the money was being used to pay for
programs of forced sterilization and mandatory abortion in places like
China and India.  (And the misnamed "pro-choice" movement in the United
States supported those programs.)


>I then went on to suggest that lowering growth would be more
>likely to help stabilize the region that not lowering growth.
>Please explain whether you disagree with my givens or explain why my assumption
>is wrong.

Your are wrong in assuming that greater availability of birth
control will automatically bring down population growth.  The
record shows that the only thing that brings down population
growth, in the long run, is economic growth -- in countries
that become wealthy, people have fewer children.  The way to
promote economic growth is to promote an indigenous free economy.
And, no matter what George Bush says, you can't promote the
development of a free economy through economic handouts or
foreign interference.


>But transitions take a while.  The people who are working on electric vehicles,
>which may eventually be quite competitive with gas powered ones, or solar
>thermal power, or finding ways to _save_ money through conservation are doing
>it because it's a good investment.

Oh?  If these alternatives are such good investments, why aren't
you willing to finance them with your *own* investment capital,
instead of other people's tax dollars?  With the size of the "green"
movement in the United States, and the number of rich celebrities,
multi-millionaires, and movie stars involved, you can hardly plead
poverty as an excuse.



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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 16:48:43 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pulsing rocket engines
Newsgroups: sci.space

Paul Dietz ([e-mail]) wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael K. Heney) writes:
:
: > I saw an abstract of a paper he wrote for the World Space Congress here in
: > DC last month.  He talks about "rectifying" the engine thrust to effectively
: > double the Isp - for the SSME, that moves it from 455 to the 900 sec range.
: > He claims (correctly; I assume) that you could launch without the SRBs,
: > making the shuttle/ET combination an SSTO.
: >
: > I'd be interested in hearing comments on this, too.
:
:
: Sounds seriously deluded.  There isn't enough chemical energy in
: oxygen + hydrogen to get an Isp of 900 seconds, even assuming 100%
: efficient combustion of a stoichiometric mixture.
:
:     Paul F. Dietz
:     [e-mail]

From the term "rectifying" I'd guess that this is some kind of scheme
to create non-thermal velocity distributions in the exhaust.  Not that
I'm saying it will work, but it means that standard calculations of Isp
for thermal rockets won't necessarily apply.

--
||)) Those who wallow in ignorance      ))) Policemen are numbered in case))|
||)) must dwell in Limbaugh for a time  ))) they get lost - S. Milligan   ))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 17:13:21 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pulsing rocket engines
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <urf.716491099@sw2001> [e-mail] (Urban F) writes:
>Ali AbuTaha, of Dynamic Transients, is claiming that
>pulsing-engine technology could enable the Shuttle to carry a
>payload of 105.500 kg, as apart from 29.500 today, and also that
>an Ariane 4:s first stage could become so efficient as to make it
>a SSTO vehicle.
>
>I'm not capable to judge if this is reasonable, comments please?

Anything Ali AbuTaha is proposing should be taken with a large bag of salt.
He's long on enthusiasm and imagination and short on critical judgement.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 17:58:43 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pulsing rocket engines
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Jones) writes:

 >: Sounds seriously deluded.  There isn't enough chemical energy in
 >: oxygen + hydrogen to get an Isp of 900 seconds, even assuming 100%
 >: efficient combustion of a stoichiometric mixture.

 >From the term "rectifying" I'd guess that this is some kind of scheme
 >to create non-thermal velocity distributions in the exhaust.  Not that
 >I'm saying it will work, but it means that standard calculations of Isp
 >for thermal rockets won't necessarily apply.


Nope -- I don't care if he is proposing rectification, amplification
or transsubstantiation.  Getting an Isp of 900 seconds from H2/O2 fuel
violates the first law of thermodynamics -- the kinetic energy of the
exhaust would exceed the chemical energy content of the fuel.  *No*
chemical rocket can do that.  The details of the engine are entirely
irrelevant.

The idea, as described, is clearly nonsense.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 20:48:30 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Results of Senate SSRT vote.
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has just finished marking
up the Defense Appropriation bill. They appropriated $3.8 billion for
SDIO although there is no line item for SSRT DCX. The report however,
recognized the good work SDIO is doing with the SSTO program.

This is pretty good for the SSRT program. As long as the SDIO allocation
stays at or above $3.8 billion (which seems likely) there should be
funds available for DCX completion.

The next hurdle will be the Conference Committee. This means going
back to putting pressure on Rep. Murtha (D-PA). More on that later.

The staffers working this in the House say 'thanks' to those who wrote
about this. It made a difference.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------220 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 20:04:58 GMT
From: Nick Janow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Snow on Titan or Pluto
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (robert.f.casey) writes:

> Wonder if there would be "snow" storms when Pluto's atmosphere freezes out,
> or would just form frozen "dew" on the surface.  Maybe both, as the gas with
> the higher freezing point "snows" out before the gases with lower freezing
> points condense out.  (Do I remember correctly that there are more than one
> gas in Pluto's atmosphere?)

That brings up a question I've been thinking about: do the non-water gasses
that form the atmospheres of some of the planets and moons form "snow"?  Water
forms those nice little hexagonal crystals, which are low density and which
clump to form nice fluffy "snow".  Does Titan's hydrocarbon atmosphere form
fluffy clumps of hydrocarbon crystals?  Does it form long thin fibres?

Properly investigating that question would probably require me to study a fair
amount of crystallography, low temperature chemistry, etc, which I'm unlikely
to do on the spur of the moment.  :)    If someone does know the answer, or can
provide some supported opinions, I'd appreciate hearing them.

--

[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 18:07:15 GMT
From: Paul Podvig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet early warning satellites: Info needed
Newsgroups: sci.space

I am trying to find information about some COSMOS satellites
which are believed to be Soviet early warning satellites
(COSMOS 1729, 1761, 1774, 1785, 1793, 1806, 1849, 1851, 1903,
1922, 1966, 1974, 1977, 2001, 2050, 2063, 2076, 2087, 2097, 2105.
These were launched before 1991. I know that there were a few
launches in 1991-92, but can't find information).

In one source they are listed as still in orbit, but I can't
find any of them in recent TLE posting. It seems unlikely
that all they decayed, so my guess is that the TLE posting
are somewhat incomplete. There must be the complete one
somewhere. Where?

I would appreciate any response by e-mail.
--
Paul Podvig
[e-mail]
DACS, MIT
[phone]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 16:59:04 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: space news from Aug 10 AW&ST
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>>not clear to me how much they're going to learn from this.  Air drag is going
>>to dominate sail thrust at that altitude...
>
>They'll have at least tested a deployment mechanism...

Hmm, good point.  Anyone who thinks deploying a solar sail is easy has
never tried to design the deployment mechanism...
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 19:18:00 GMT
From: Barry Schlesinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes...
            ...
>From memory, the Libertarian platform has two signficant statements on space:
>
>* Privatize the radio spectrum and orbital slots, and disavow all
>  treaties (Sea, Moon, Antartica, etc.) that prohibit private
>  property and enterprise in frontier areas.
>* Disband NASA, turning over science to the universities, R&D
>  operations to commerce, and anything the military needs to the
>  military.
>
>I strongly support the former...

>[e-mail]        Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
>Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian

Does that mean no more intenational agreements to keep certain
frequencies clear for radio astronomy?
                Barry Schlesinger

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


Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!darwin.sura.net!convex!convex!ewright
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Sender: news access account <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 16:40:11 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.convex.com
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 103
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>It describes FLO, which stands for "First Lunar
>Operations", apparently because it repeats in form and function
>our first lunar operations, Apollo.

Actually, it "repeats" the advanced Apollo missions that
were never conducted.  A 45-day stay by four men is significantly
different from a few days' stay by two men.


>The missions would have a crew of four instead of a crew of three, in
>an enlarged Apollo-style capsule.  The craft would land directly on
>the surface instead of doing Apollo's lunar-orbit rendesvous, increasing
>costs

Not necessarily true.  The original Apollo architecture was
designed with a critical time requirement -- beating the Russians --
as well as cost in mind.  Even so, there was vigorous debate about
which approach was best.  If we're going to return to the Moon, it
makes sense to reexamine the issue in light of changed requirements,
and we may not come up with the same answer.


>The system requires -- get this -- a launcher 1.5 times the
>size of Saturn 5!

You make it sound like a launcher larger than the Saturn V is
impossible, or a ridiculous idea.  Actually, the most likely
launcher is a Saturn V, with liquid strapons for additional
performance.


>The function of these missions is an extension of Apollo.  Geology
>treks using an Apollo-style rover (again made larger to hold four
>astronauts) would be the main justification.  They would try out
>tiny experiments in making LOX and lunar soil bricks, as a sop to
>those who want a real lunar base.  No production plants, no
>mass driver, and no biosphere.

Just as well.  The US government has had some success in exploring
and opening up new frontiers, but government-run economic enterprises
are pretty sure money-losers.  The industrialization and colonization
phase can, and must, be led by private enterprise.  The geological
exploration you snear at would help pave the way for such ventures.
How much additional exploration is actually necessary before the
real work begins is, of course, open to debate, but no one can doubt
that finding deposits of water ice, say, would make establishing
production plants, etc., much easier.

But why do you need a biosphere, Nick?  Aren't you going to give
us your usual line about how everything we need to do anywhere in
space can be done by $14.95 robot that you can buy at Radio Shack?


>Like Apollo, these missions would be utterly dependent on Earth for
>food, water, and shelter.  The lander would consist both of LOX/LH
>propellants and storable propellants for the return trip, a rather
>expensive, kluged combination.

Perhaps.  But developing the technology to store cryongenic propellents
on the Moon for 45 days might be even more expensive.


>They propose a monster rocket 1.5 times the capability of Saturn 5,
>which would not be used by anybody outside NASA.

Does your crystal ball tell you this, or do you have signed
promises in writing from everyone outside of NASA saying they
won't use it.  What you keep overlooking, Nick, is the fundamental
dependence on cost.  If the new (old) Saturn V could be built for
the cost of a Titan IV, say, and had the same track record as the
Titan IV, it would be a serious competitor.  It it could be built
for the cost of a Titan IV and had better reliability, it would
be a major success.


>NASA has already cut the planetary exploration
>budget down to $300 million per year, one-one-thousandth (1/1,000) the
>cost of this project to study the geology of one body.

And how does that compare with the amount that governments,
universities, mining companies, oil companies, etc. spend
every year to study the geology of "one body?"  Is it stupid
that we spend more moeny studying the Earth than we do studying
Pluto?  And why do we spend more money studying the biology of
the human body than all other species combined?  Pretty dumb,
huh?  You can't play that kind of naive numbers game, Nick.
The amount of money the US spends studying a particular planet
is not determined by any desire to show "fairness" to all
bodies in our solar system, but by our degree of interest in
that planet at a particular time.  That, in turn, is determined
by a number of things, including present capabilities, expected
returns, competition from and synergy with other programs, and,
yes, politics.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 211
------------------------------