Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO291.TXT

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

Date: Wed,  7 Oct 92 05:02:00
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #291
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  7 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 291

Today's Topics:
                    Alleged Benefits of Military $
                             BLACK HOLES
               Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase (2 msgs)
             Colonies  was(Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
              Controversy over V-2 anniversary (3 msgs)
                                 HRMS
                          Laser Space Mirror
                 My final word on Ion to Pluto (long)
                       Revised FAQ on Launchers
                           V-2 anniversary
                 Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?
                          what use is Fred?
                         what use is Freedom?
         With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?

    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: 6 Oct 92 20:16:01 GMT
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alleged Benefits of Military $
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Goodman) writes:


   Reply-To: [e-mail]

   Steinn Sigurdsson writes:

   >In article <[e-mail]> Mark Goodman <[e-mail]> writes:
   >
   >
   >   > Military and aerospace dollars have a particularly
   >   >high multiplier, 7x, because the jobs pay well and allow the workers
   >
   >
   >   I wonder where these numbers come from.  They seem implausible
   >   to me, and would in any case be very hard to measure.  Everything
   >   I have read suggests precisely the opposite, that money spent on
   >   the military and other unproductive high-technology efforts (read
   >   NASA) is particularly unbeneficial to the economy.
   >
   >Try Nature _355_ 107, 1992.
   >
   >So what are your sources?

   I will try to find the article you mention.  But let me explain why
   I think the numbers are implausible.

I can't speak on military spending, the article I mentioned
specifically discussed NASA, specifically it discussed the multiplier
of _procurement_ spending, the mean NASA multiplier is lower - don't
forget they also employ a number of janitors etc. - there are a number
of NASA reports referenced in the article - NASA is required to carry
out these estimates. You are right, these estimates are hard to make,
they are usually conservative.

   Let me explain my position.  I am a Congressional Science Fellow, paid
   by but not representing the American Institute of Physics to work for
   Congress for one year.  I have just started, and am now interviewing to
   see who might want me.

As an AIP fellow you might want to be very careful about researching
your numbers before making public statements, have fun.

      (As an aside, AIP opposes the Space Station
   because it's not good -- or cost-effective -- science.  I think that's
   correct, but misses the point.  The space station isn't about science;
   it's about human spaceflight. I just don't think human spaceflight is
   that important.)

That is of course your opinion. What do you think of the Space Station
as an engineering development project and what do you think is the
appropriate ratio of expenditure on basic research, engineering
development and production?

   I hope to help Congress develop better public policies by providing sound
   technical guidance where I can.  I may offer nontechnical judgments as well,
   but I will do my best to distinguish clearly between technical analysis and
   personal opinion.

Please.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: 5 Oct 92 23:13:00 GMT
From: Bill Nunnelee <[e-mail]>
Subject: BLACK HOLES
Newsgroups: sci.space

-> 1) What exactly are black holes? 2) Is there any truth in the theory
-> that they may be created by alien life forms?
-> 3) Is there a black hole close to our galaxy?

1.) A Black Hole is any sufficiently dense object whose gravity is so
powerful that nothing, not even light, can escape.   2.) Not likely
3.) There are probably many Black Holes within our galaxy, as they are
the natural result of the death of a massive star (I should know the
required number of solar masses, but I would have to look it up).  There
are several good candidates, but because a Black Hole in isolation would
be...well, black, they all involve binary systems where matter is
falling from a relatively normal star onto an unseen companion and
producing large amounts of x-rays.  It is also thought that super
massive Black Holes exist at the center of active galaxies...and even
some not so active ones.


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

Date: 6 Oct 92 15:48:55 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space

This is a misuse of the word "bootstrap".  The scheme does not substitute
a major percent of native materials that would make ensuing steps much
cheaper, as for example a earth-comet-earth-comet propellant bootstrapping
scheme does.

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

>Off the top of my head, any initial builds for a lunar base would require
>the following:

I've included below just the estimated launch costs for this scheme, at
$40 million per ton to the lunar surface.

>
>    o    "construction shack" & living quarters space

Based on SSF, presumeably.  $120 billion SSF cost + Apollo
cost = $270 billion (see my previous article on FLO).
Construction shack 200 tons, launch cost  $8 billion.

>    o    Caterpiller 2000+ Lunar Bulldozer (:-)

50 tons, $2e9, not including power supply, spare parts and tools.
N.B. must be totally redesigned for 1/6 normal force, electric
power, and vacuum-welding conditions, if "dozer" concept will even
work at all.

>    o    Processing plant to extract O2 from lunar soil

This is a losing proposition.  $2e9 to set down 50 tons of equipment,
which will -- if your engineering is quite advanced! -- produce 50 tons
of LOX per year.  The LOX will have all leaked out in that time,
alas.

>    o    Solar furnace to melt soil for glass & construction material

50 tons, $8 billion.  It will break down before it's output a thousand
tons, though.  Astronauts won't be able to fix it, though, any more
than they've been able to fix a myriad of similar problems with the
shuttle over the years.

>    o    Power. Preferably two different means of juice for
>        redudancy; solar & fuel cells if you want to be GreenPeace
>        happy, nuclear otherwise.

500 tons, $20 billion.

>    o    Some food production facility.

500 tons, $20 billion.   This will be a toy, though, since water, air
and organics have to be resupplied from earth as they leak from
the system.  Check out SSF resupply costs for estimates.

Space systems are typically 4*launch costs -- much more than that for
NASA, but let's go with commerce's 4.  That gives us  $240 billion + $270
billion or $510 billion.  The base  is still totally dependent on earth for
air, water, and organics, not to mention spare parts, medicine, and
any signficant expasion of the base.   After $540 billion no mass driver
or other way to get the LOX off, even if it was useful (it's not -- the market
for LOX in earth orbit is $1 billion a year with 100% penetration,
but this base amortizes to $50 billion a year if you can get in
on the current low interest rates, which you can't, because it's
a high-risk venture).

This method of "space development" has been beaten to death.
Give it up, already.  There are plenty of other, better ways
to develop space.

>[admits to problem with start-up costs]

No doubt.  This is more than 500 times the amount spent to start
up comsats, which got a large purse for a new industry.
By comparison, an automated ice extraction scheme could come
in under $10 billion, given some fairly easy advances in tech -- eg
good deep-space electric rockets.  That's half the amount privately
invested in the Chunnel, so we're in the range of commercial interest.
Economically and commercially, there is no contest between the traditional,
obsolete approach and the commercial approach that concentrates
on the needs of industry.


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

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

Date: 6 Oct 92 20:32:14 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Off the top of my head, any initial builds for a lunar base would require
>>the following:

>I've included below just the estimated launch costs for this scheme, at
>$40 million per ton to the lunar surface.

For the amounts we are talking about it would be cost effective to develop
any of several ideas which would reduce launch costs to the moon by one
to two orders of magnitude.

Therfore your launch costs are excessive so analysis based on it is
in error.

>>    o    "construction shack" & living quarters space

>Based on SSF, presumeably.  $120 billion SSF cost + Apollo...

SSF to construction only runs $30 billion. A second set for a lunar base
would run far far less. Your estimate is therefore off by at least an order
of magnitude.

Your estimate of living quarters is excessive so analysis basedon it is
in error.

Hmmm... I see a pattern here.

It looks like there is no point analyzing Nick's post as long as he insists
on using unrealistically bad numbers for ideas he doesn't like.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------201 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 6 Oct 92 14:39:54 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Colonies  was(Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>What I'd like to know is why you chose to forget about the settling of
>the Virginia colony in 1607, or the founding of Quebec in 1608.

Jamestown. Must be yankee brainwashing. :-)

Jamestown is an interesting case due to it's near failure in 1610,
salvaged only by the timely arrival of a resupply mission from
Mother England. The Spanish had a mission in 1570, but they all
perished. Between 1584 and 1607 a number of English attempts at
colonization failed due to inadequate planning and supplies. There's
a lesson there for those wanting to colonize on the cheap.

Gary

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

Date: 6 Oct 92 16:42:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes...
>On 6 Oct 92 04:54:52 GMT, [e-mail] (John Roberts) said:
>
>[Lots of really good comment deleted, but this is _sci_.space and I
>can't stay on my high moral horse and complain about the signal to
>noise ratio when I'm part of the (non-sci) noise.]
>

>Just a bit more on the V-2 commemoration: I was reading the stack of
>papers that accumulated in my absence and found the story about this
>controversy.  The article stated that over 60,000 slave laborers were
>involved and that at least 30,000 did not survive.  A German
>person/group proposed that a memorial to these people be erected at
>Peenemunde.  I inferred (but it was not explicitly stated) that were
>this to be done, many German or European objections would vanish.
>
>--
>Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
>[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
> "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
>                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous

Mary that is wrong and you know it. There were never any slave laborers at
Peenumde. As I said before, there were some Russian prisoners of war but it
was never identified as to what they did. To connect the mass production
center for the weapons with Peenumde is flat wrong and you know it. Give a
source for your article stating that it was at Peenumde and we will see. Better
yet type it in for all of us to see and comment on. The moral aspects of
space exploration and development are relevant here on sci.space.

Dennis

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

Date: 6 Oct 92 19:59:53 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

On Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:42:00 GMT, [e-mail] said:
> News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
> Nntp-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes...
>On 6 Oct 92 04:54:52 GMT, [e-mail] (John Roberts) said:
>
>[Lots of really good comment deleted, but this is _sci_.space and I
>can't stay on my high moral horse and complain about the signal to
>noise ratio when I'm part of the (non-sci) noise.]
>

>Just a bit more on the V-2 commemoration: I was reading the stack of
>papers that accumulated in my absence and found the story about this
>controversy.  The article stated that over 60,000 slave laborers were
>involved and that at least 30,000 did not survive.  A German
>person/group proposed that a memorial to these people be erected at
>Peenemunde.  I inferred (but it was not explicitly stated) that were
>this to be done, many German or European objections would vanish.

> Mary that is wrong and you know it. There were never any slave laborers at
> Peenumde. As I said before, there were some Russian prisoners of war but it
> was never identified as to what they did. To connect the mass production
> center for the weapons with Peenumde is flat wrong and you know it. Give a
> source for your article stating that it was at Peenumde and we will see. Better
> yet type it in for all of us to see and comment on. The moral aspects of
> space exploration and development are relevant here on sci.space.

It was a quote, you asshole.  Read what I wrote again, this time for
content.  The person quoted wanted the memorial at Peenemunde.
He/she/it didn't say that the slave labor was there, he said that the
memorial should be there.  I didn't say that there should be a
memorial or that any memorial should be at any particular place.  I
expressed absolutely no personal opinion about the topic at all.  What
part of this is too difficult for you to understand?

The source was the Los Angeles Times, on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday,
on either page 5 or 7, on the upper right hand side.  My copy went out
in the trash this morning, so the monkey's on your back.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous

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

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:52:43 GMT
From: "forrest.e.gehrke" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> That still doesn't make it right.  Not persecuting people for crimes
>> against humanity because they may be useful to you is wrong.  Period.
>>
>
>
>I am in agreement. However my reading of history does not place the VfR group
>very much in this. As was stated, they were not in SS, and in fact there were
>attempts to take them over. Von Braun and the commander there had to play some
>Byzantine politics to try to stay independant. Remember that the SS existed
>because the German Army was not considered "reliable" enough to do Hitler's real
>dirty work.
>
>> Furthermore, I think this attitude of yours that nobody's hands are
>> clean so people can't be criticized without an understanding of their
>> history is in large part responsible for the decline of modern
>> morality.  You have to step up and take responsibility for your actions,
>> no matter what--you can't wuss out with an unhappy childhood or a mean
>> mommy or "everybody's doing it".  If it's wrong, it's wrong.
>>
>
>
>I don't think that is quite what Dennis said. He was defending the rocket team
>in particular. My own readings of history place me firmly in agreement with him
>on this. But I do agree with you in other cases: ie see my posting about the
>unindicted war criminals from OUR side in WWII. The victors define morality to
>be very simply
>
>
>    what we did   == good or at least necessary
>    what they did == evil and unjustifiable
>
>The above is what society ACTUALLY did, and that is true moral relativism. I
>don't think that anyone is implying that Nazism was anything but the most evil
>and perverted government, over all, of any in recent history. But one must still
>deal with individuals as individuals, apart from their cause, and judge them
>only on their acts and against a well defined legal standard. Had we done that,
>I am confident the same number of Nazi's would have swung on the ends of ropes
>after Nuremberg. The difference is they would have been joined by a couple Brits
>and Americans.
>
>After all, can anyone say the perpetrators of Dresden were other than pure evil?
>A century hence their names will be damned in the history books and they will be
>equated with the worst of their Nazi peers. Please note that I do not place much
>blame on the pilots who flew that terrible mission. The blame is reserved for
>the officers and planners who knew what they were doing and why they were doing
>it.
>
>Von Braun, in my mind, was one of the good guys who happened to be on the wrong
>side at the time.
>

Why all this palaver over what went on in WW II?  It can't be changed
and atrocities occur in all wars. The only thing that is different
about any of them is that the longer they go on, the worse the
atrocities become.   As Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman has proclaimed,
"War is hell".  He did all he could to make it so for his opponents.

(What he had to say about being president of the United States is
even more interesting considering the number who try for it
today).

Can we get on with what this group is set up to discuss and move
the rest of this to one of the talk groups?

Forrest Gehrke [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Oct 92 18:47:15 GMT
From: Eric Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: HRMS
Newsgroups: sci.space

Would HRMS be able to detect signals from Earth, if (lets pretend) it
was conducted at Tau Ceti?  In other words, do we generate signals at
the frequencies HRMS will be listening to?

              Thanks!
                 -- Eric     ([e-mail])


--

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

Date: 6 Oct 92 16:42:35 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Laser Space Mirror
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (D.S.C. Yap) writes:

>It occured to me two years ago that a very large solar sail could be
>used as a giant bill-board in the nighttime sky.  At $50 million
>dollars (excluding launch) you'd probably get some takers and still
>make a profit.  It was a silly notion (I'm sure greenpeace would
>concur), but if anyone has some venture capital - I'm free come
>one year's time... :-)

I hope not. Otherwise, I'll have to urge we break the ASAT treaty and shoot the
damned thing down. :-)


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 16:37:56 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: My final word on Ion to Pluto (long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>> from sensitive instrumentation, the Pluto spacecraft is quite
>small, with
>> RTGs body mounted.  Depending on the type of instrumentation, more
>shielding
>>
>
>I presume this means that an isotope source is once again available?
>Which plant is on line? Will production be threatened by the nuclear
>weapons cut backs? (I believe the RTG material was made in the same
>breeder reactors that were used by the DOE for weapon fissionables.

Made in the Russian Republic. They've got the only stockpiles of Pu-whatever
leftover from bomb production. We're talking TONS, plenty for the next
20-30 years.


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 6 Oct 92 19:46:20 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Revised FAQ on Launchers
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>Josh 'K' Hopkins writes:
>>I've been working on a revisions of the FAQ on launch services.
>>I'm including it here to get some feedback on the format - you're
>>welcome to point out anything that looks like a typo too.  ...
>> ...
>>The following data comes from _International Reference Guide to
>>Space Launch Systems_  by Steven J. Isakowitz, 1991 edition.
>
>Josh, two comments:
>   First, don't use the cost data from IRGSLS.  It is typically
>wrong.
> If you are going to quote a cost number, I would
>recommend using the single flight, commercial customer price for a
>payload to 150 (or 100) nmi.  Just be consistent and current.

I will happily use those if you can provide me with them or an accurate place
to find them.

>   Secondly, same comments apply to reliability.  If you do quote a
>reliability number, quote the time period, number of launches and
>vehicle type the reliability is shown for.

I thought I made this fairly clear.  The reliability number is a fraction with
the total number of launches on the bottom.  All known launches/failures are
included for each vehicle family at the top of the section and individual types
farther down.  The time period is from Sputnik through December 1990.  Did I
fail make this clear in the introduction, or am I making a mistake somewhere?

>   Thirdly, I would recommend modifying your format to a max of 72
>characters in width.  This is the way it showed up on my display...
>[Note: 72 characters is not a hardware limitation, but I've found it
>seems to be about the best width for upload and download of tabular
>information through this type of media.]

Okay, I wasn't aware of this.  It may be difficult, but I'll work on it.
>
>   As for launch vehicles listed, I would also recommend you not
>list launch vehicles which have not yet flown or are not in current
>inventory.
> Ditto for NLS, Saturn, some of the older ELV models
>and some of the foreign launchers (H-2, MS-J, PSLV, GSLV, etc.)

I didn't include ones I knew no longer launch (with the possible
exception of the ASLV, that one slipped my mind).  If I missed one, please let
me know.  I included data on H-2 and Ariane V because I didn't think they were
likely to change much between now and first flight.  I probably shouldn't have
included the PSLV and GSLV though.

Thanks for the input.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
     The views expresed above do not necessarily reflect those of
ISDS, UIUC, NSS, IBM FSC, NCSA, NMSU, AIAA or the American Association for the
                      Advancement of Acronymphomaniacs

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

Date: 6 Oct 92 09:59:36 GMT
From: Tomas Ruden <[e-mail]>
Subject: V-2 anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Bruce Watson) writes:
>Trivia question: Which city was targeted and hit by the most number
>of V-2s?
>
>--
>Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.

And how many was built in total?
--
Tomas Ruden, [e-mail]     !  "Saliga {ro de korkade, ty de skola
Opinions expressed above are my own !  icke skjunka se djupt" - A. Caringer
and are not necessarily shared by   !
the Swedish Tax Administration      !  For a nice date: call strftime(3C)

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

Date: 6 Oct 92 19:09:22 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hartmut Frommert) writes:
>A-4 was the original name by the Peenemuende team; A-1..A-3 were preceeding
>experimental rockets...

Actually it goes further than that...  Here's a quick rundown on the A
series.  There is some disagreement among publications about punctuation,
but both Ley's book and von Braun&Ordway (History of Rocketry and Space
Travel), which I'm inclined to consider authoritative, make it "A-4",
not A4 or A.4 or anything else.  The "V" designations, incidentally, were
coined by the Propaganda Ministry, not the military.

A-1    150kg test rocket; engine fired but design never completed
A-2    larger test rocket; two flown as proofs of principle
A-3    750kg test rocket; three flown; guidance system inadequate
A-4    operational ballistic missile, aka V-2
A-4b    A-4 crudely modified to add wings; attempt to extend range of
    production A-4 design as near-Channel launch sites were lost
    after Normandy; two flown in 1945, one successfully (believed the
    first winged craft to go supersonic)
A-5    subscale A-4; 25 flown to test guidance systems (note that this
    was *before* the first A-4 flights); size similar to A-3
A-6    A-4 redesigned for storable fuels; design complete but never built
A-7    more or less a winged A-5; test model for A-8/9; some flown
A-8    improved A-6 with wings for extended range; never built
A-9    improved A-4 with wings for extended range (much more polished
    design than the later A-4b); never built; manned version sketched
A-10    scaled-up A-4 meant to carry A-9 as second stage for transatlantic
    range; never built
[A-11]    (designation never formally assigned) still bigger scaleup meant
    to carry A-10/A-9 combination for three stages total; intended
    for manned orbital flight; design sketch only
[A-12]    (designation never formally assigned) yet another scaleup, meant
    to carry A-11 and winged A-10 to place 25-30T in orbit; concept only

Incidentally, the reason why the A-4b wasn't called something like A-11
was the same reason why von Braun's later orbital launcher was called
"Jupiter C" even though it was a souped-up Redstone and not a Jupiter:
the A-4 had much higher priority for resources than any other A-project,
so calling the winged variant A-4b got results much more quickly.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 06 Oct 1992 15:48:04 -0600 (MDT)
From: Tony Wickersham <[e-mail]>
Subject: what use is Fred?

>> the area in skylab where the crew exercise equipment was.....
>> With  all the hatches open, within the US areas alone, the crew
>> will be able to  have great frisbee games or races....if they
>> had the time.....

> If any of them went to CMU when I did, they are
> great hall frisbee  "football" players. You'd be amazed at the
> ricochet's you can get. I  hope the switches and screens are cut
> out for it :-)

As many of you will doubtlessly recall, a frisbee is an aerodynamic
*lifting* body, generally modelled on the cross-sectional shape of
an airplane wing.

A frisbee that is thrown in SSF's "halls" will immediately ascend
to the "ceiling".  Needless to say, old frisbee players will have
to learn a few new tricks, if they intend to play aboard the
station. :-)
---
** Tony Wickersham         Programmer   American Heritage Center **
** [e-mail]                Laramie WY  USA          **

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

Date: 6 Oct 92 16:17:16 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: what use is Freedom?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Cohen) writes:
>
>Perhaps....however, how many watts does Mir provide?  I've heard it is not
>much...certainly not enough for the same number of racks and EVA/IVA
>equipment SSF will have...  OK, I guess the cosmonauts have more room to
>float around....I guess that's okay..what else can they do....We have also
>learned that Mir has regular power blackouts lasting around 15 minutes or
>so....real fun...

This is a very important point: power.  For all its volume, Skylab provided
only a small fraction of the power Freedom will be capable of producing.
From the very first flight on, Freedom will have _twice_ the power output

of Skylab.  By PMC, that will grow to six times.  Freedom also offers much
expandability beyond PMC, and more power sources will be added before EMCC.
I'm not sure if NASA plans to add the fourth solar array or go directly to the
solar powered heat engines, but even more power will be available as require-
ments and funding dictate.

Freedom's modular design is what makes this all possible.

>Frank, if you would like to debate detailed design issues email me...
>Those reading a debate of this nature would not know who to believe.

I'm not Frank, but I'd like to talk to you about the design.  I can't
get through to your site, however, so if you could email me at
[e-mail] I'd appreciate it.

>...it will also provide us
>with a (hopefully) permanently orbiting facility which will house more
>experiments then those who are working on it can guess at...

I'd like to add some recent developments that the net may be unaware of.
The most recent configuration has added a third node containing a variable
centrifuge on MB-18 (the first flight after PMC).  Also added after PMC is
an Italian mini-lab, and two Italian mini pressurized logistics modules will
be added between MTC and PMC.  Finally, scars for four external payloads have
been put back into the baseline design.

>It'll also give (the Japanese
>anyway) external experimental platforms for research outside..

This may be somewhat misleading.  SSF is a fully integrated space station.
All users will have access to all facilities regardless of nationality.
American researchers will have as much access to the Japanese labs as
the Japanese do.  Resources (power, computation, air, crew time) will be
divided by roughly the percentage of contribution to the station.

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!

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

Date: 6 Oct 92 18:12:33 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Cohen) writes:

>I'm not sure...but it seems that Allan doesnt support the notion of
>telerobotic exploration....consider this...

Not at all. Telerobotics and automation have an important and critical
role to play. My dispute is only with those who claim that they are enough
and that humans aren't needed.

The reason for the bet is to show that they won't work in all situations.

>If the location can be scanned with enough detail,..then the data
>transmitted back to Earth.... a vitual simulation can be constructed
>Earthside....

Sure. This is not a new idea but it may work for very very simple
applications.

>The technical challenges include the scanning device, the throughput for
>the scanned data back to Earth and the simulation Earthside....all are
>easily solved...

People have been working for years on this very idea. The problems are
far from solved.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------201 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 291
------------------------------