Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_3/V15NO305.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 05:04:49
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #305
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 10 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 305

Today's Topics:
                        All systems are what?
  All systems are what? (was Re: Mars Observer Update #2 - 10/07/92)
   ANNOUNCING: New Graduate Program in Architecture+Art+Technology
               Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase (2 msgs)
                   Drop nuc waste into sun (2 msgs)
                       LunaOne: Beyond Boostrap
                           Military Funding
                          NASA town meetings
                           Re : Carl Sagan
                             Telepresence
the development and change of the soft-and-hardwsre programms for electronic computers and microcontrollers.
                     Transportation on the Moon.
                    what use is Freedom? (2 msgs)

    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: 9 Oct 92 14:44:40 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: All systems are what?
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
-Subject: All systems are what? (was Re: Mars Observer Update #2 - 10/07/92)
-Date: 8 Oct 92 17:45:14 GMT
-Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

-In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
->
-> The updated spacecraft status, as reported by the Spacecraft Team, is
-> that all subsystems are "Go".

-Is this terminology really in use officially?  It sounds like a holdover
-from the days of Col. John "Shorty" Powers...  Ungrammatical.  One
-should say "all systems are Going," no?

-And what does it mean?  If a subsystem is not "Go,"  what else could
-it be?  I mean, what other values X might "All subsystems are X" have?

"No Go." I'm pretty sure that's the terminology they use when polling launch
team members for a Shuttle or unmanned booster. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy
to rummage through my video tape collection just to find that out. Maybe
next time I look at them or watch coverage of a new launch, I'll remember
to check for that.

According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, the term "go" in
this usage ("(adj.) functioning properly: being in good and ready condition
<declared all systems go>") dates from 1961.

Sure, it sounds a little strange, but it contains fewer syllables than
"spiffy" or "tubular" or "just peachy", and thus aids in more efficient
systems polls.

I consider the communications protocol that has evolved to handle time-
and safety-critical operations such as launches to be a fascinating topic.
It isn't exactly English - think of it as being a highly stylized subset
of English, probably descended from military communications protocols.
(Tango, X-ray, Niner, etc.)

John Roberts              | OK: adj [abbr. of "oll korrect", alter. of "all
[e-mail] | correct"] (1839): all right

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

Date: 10 Oct 92 04:10:48 GMT
From: Steve Collins <[e-mail]>
Subject: All systems are what? (was Re: Mars Observer Update #2 - 10/07/92)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Strange as it may seem to a grammerian, go, no-go calls are routinely
made on the MO operations net. During the countdown, the spacecraft
team systems lead polls all the SCT subsystems for their status. Each
subsystem typically responds with something like : "AACS is GO" or
"Propulsion is GO". The SCT systems lead is then polled in turn by a
guy ( or gal) called "MARS ACE" and responds: "Spacecraft Team is GO".
This process continues up the chain of command to the launch director
who formally authorizes the launch.  In the event that there was some
drastic problem, you might respond with something like: AACS is NO-GO, but
usually problems are worked and solved as you go along so, you hear
stuff like : "AACS is GO except for the high gyro temp". In a way this
is tradition from the early space program, but the formality of the
language serves to clarify communications on the net. Saying "Nine-er"
helps to distinguish "Five" from "Nine". For the most part, the
com nets are pretty clear, but people do have problems with headsets and
interference. I had the pleasure of being "on the console" during launch
at the AACS (attitude and articulation control system) position
for the Spacecraft team. The biggest problem is that you are listening to
about 5 different networks at one time and trying to pick out all the
information from all the conversations. By doing a formal GO, NO-GO poll,
you avoid people saying :"well - er - I guess AACS is pretty much ready..."
I've gotta say, after being into this space stuff since the time I
could talk, it was really a kick to be there saying "AACS is GO", and know
that there was a real spacecraft sitting on a pad at the cape pointed at
Mars, and I was "in the loop".
At liftoff, we lose telemetry from the spacecraft and most of the Spacecraft
team ran to the conference room to watch the ascent on NASA select. The
group was so proud and concerned and excited, it was like 40 people having
a baby at the same time... Then the TOS data didn't come in...
         but that's a different story,
              Steve Collins
              Mars Observer Spacecraft Team (AACS)

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

Date: 10 Oct 92 04:01:46 GMT
From: Marcos Novak <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANNOUNCING: New Graduate Program in Architecture+Art+Technology
Newsgroups: sci.space

______________________________
====================================
ANNOUNCEMENT
====================================
______________________________


ADVANCED DESIGN RESEARCH
Master of Architecture Post-Professional Program
Master of Science in Architectural Studies Program

Professor Marcos Novak, Director
[e-mail]

====================================
====================================

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

====================================
====================================


This program is for students who are interested in exploring the ways in
which advances in science, technology, theory and criticism are
extending the range of the possible in the conception, production,
execution and inhabitation of architecture. Emphasis is on pure rather
than applied research, but this is advanced primarily through empirical
and production-oriented methods, that is, through the experimentation
with, the simulation, production, and testing of works such as drawings,
models, prototypes, environments, performances, computer programs,
etc.,  as well as their documentation. The aim of the program in
Advanced Design Research is to anticipate and encourage developments
in architectural theory and practice, to advance the body of
architectural knowledge, and to produce researchers, artists, and
practitioners capable of facing the challenges of an information era.

Topics of study that students may pursue include:

    Computation and Composition;
    Music and Architecture;
    Shape Grammars and Other Formal Systems;
    Algorithmic Aesthetics;
    Art, Architecture and Technology;
    The Architecture of Cyberspace and Virtual Worlds;
    Embodied Virtuality;
    Intelligent Agents and Systems;
    Multi-Media(ted) Spaces;
    Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems in Design;
    Architecture and Artificial Life (Generative Methods);
    Architecture and Complexity;
    Advances in Architectural Visualization;
    Implications of Advances in Science and Technology;
    The Poetics of New Technologies.

====================================
Prerequisites:

Applicants are expected to have either a strong background in the arts
and documented interest and ability in the sciences, or a strong
background in the sciences and documented interest and ability in the
arts.
The prerequisites listed below are given as an indication of the kind of
preparation we are expecting They should not be seen as prohibitive
Individuals with different backgrounds in related areas are encouraged
to apply.

    ?Evidence of creative work in primary field of study
    ?Evidence of creative work in secondary field of study;
    ?Statement of intent;
    ?Letters of recommendation;
    ?Consultation;

?Students with Architecture and Architecture Theory backgrounds

3    Mathematics
3    Computer Programming
3    Physics
3    Art or Music Studio

?Students with Art, Design, and Music backgrounds

3    Mathematics or Physics
3    Computer Programming
3    History of Architecture
6    Architecture Studio

?Students with Mathematics and Science backgrounds

3    Computer Programming
6    Architecture, Art or Music Studio
3    Architecture, Art or Music History or Theory

?Students with Computer Science backgrounds

3    Architecture or Art History
3    Architecture, Art or Music Studio
3    Architecture, Art or Music Theory

====================================
Course Requirements

====================================
Option A (M.S.A.S.)

Hours     Course(s)

9        Theory of Architecture (ARC386K,L, M)
3        Research Methods and Topics Seminar (ARC 386N)
3        Music of Architecture Seminar (ARC 389 or 386M)
3        Poetics of New Technologies (ARC 389 or 386M)
6        Minor
6        Thesis (ARC 698)

30 hours

====================================
Option B (M.S.A.S.) or M. Arch. [Post-prof.])

Hours     Course(s)

6        Theory of Architecture (ARC 386 K, L or L,M or K, M)
3        Research Methods and Topics Seminar (ARC 386N)
3        Music of Architecture Seminar (ARC 389 or 386M)
3        Poetics of New Technologies (ARC 389 or 386M)
6        Advanced Design Studio (ARC 696)
3        Independent Study (ARC 389)
6        Minor
6        Thesis (ARC 698)

36 hours


====================================
====================================
For further information contact:

Graduate Studies in Architecture
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Austin, Texas, 78712-1160
Telephone:     [phone]
Fax:         [phone]

====================================
====================================

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:42:57 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>You provided an estimate of the cost which
>was totally based on unrealisticly high launch costs.

This completely cracks me up.   Actual commercial launch costs
is "unrealistically high".  What Allen wishes launch costs were
is quite real, by comparison.  :-) :-)

You are also still completely missing the point that lower
launch costs benefit every kind of space project, and do
not change the comparison of lunar mining vs. alternatives.


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]
Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat  ////////  Breathe Free: vote Libertarian

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

Date: 10 Oct 92 02:34:01 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>You provided an estimate of the cost which
>>was totally based on unrealisticly high launch costs.
>
>This completely cracks me up.   Actual commercial launch costs
>is "unrealistically high"...

I didn't realize you were already signing contracts for this venture, Nick,
so you could quote *actual* costs.  Where did the funding come from? :-)

"Actual commercial launch costs" for a few comsats a year are very different
from what "actual commercial launch costs" *would be* for the sort of project
under discussion.  As Allen pointed out, there's more than enough money there
for commercial development of a dozen new launch systems.  Put that kind of
volume business out for contract and costs *will* tumble.  Using today's cost
numbers for it is ridiculous, like estimating the materials costs for a 747
based on the prices Napoleon paid for aluminum.  (Napoleon's dinner guests
used gold tableware; *his* was aluminum, a far more expensive metal.)
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Oct 92 04:27:35 GMT
From: David Kinny <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Stephen Anderson) writes:

>Nick Haines writes:
 [...]
>> This is only one problem. The real reasons why we shouldn't `dispose'
>> of nuclear waste by sending it into space are:
>>
>> (1) it's far too expensive to do (even if we just want to leave it in
>>     a parking orbit somewhere, the launch costs are absurd),
>> (2) we may well want the waste again in the future, and it's cheaper
>>     to get to if it's on Earth,
>> (3) crazy politicians will scream blue murder because they think it'll
>>     fall on their heads. It's not worth the trouble.
>Finally, some decent reasons.  Especially that first one.  But roll on fusion
>so we don't have to worry about what to do with waste.

Why on earth do you think that fusion doesn't produce waste?
Read up on the effects of neutron bombardment.  Commercial fusion
reactors will produce substantial amounts of waste, but it won't
be in the form of spent fuel rods.

>Stephen..

..David

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 21:41:17 GMT
From: Cameron Newham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

 >
 > > This is only one problem. The real reasons why we shouldn't `dispose'
 > > of nuclear waste by sending it into space are:
 > >
 > > (1) it's far too expensive to do (even if we just want to leave it in
 > >       a parking orbit somewhere, the launch costs are absurd),
 > > (2) we may well want the waste again in the future, and it's cheaper
 > >       to get to if it's on Earth,
 > > (3) crazy politicians will scream blue murder because they think it'll
 > >       fall on their heads. It's not worth the trouble.
 > Finally, some decent reasons.  Especially that first one.  But roll on fusion
 > so we don't have to worry about what to do with waste.
 >
 >
 > Stephen..

Yes - launch costs are the main problem.  You may as well bury it in the
Earth's mantle - probably it would be more cost effective to dig a very
deep hole.  Alternativly bury it in a fault and let it get sucked down.

BTW - you mention fusion;  what is the current state of fusion power?
Has anybody had any success with a reactor ?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Cameron (The Master)    | "I find it hard to take seriously the opinion of  |
| [e-mail] |  someone who puts a Star Trek: TNG quote in their |
| [e-mail]         |  .sig"     --  Richard J. Rauser                  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:46:36 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: LunaOne: Beyond Boostrap
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Any colony needs an export, an economic reason for being.

Agreed.  At least you're a step ahead of the folks at FLO, who think
their access to government pork is endless.

>Luna One's main export would be power, generated by solar cells and beamed
>back to LEO or earth via microwaves.

As pointed out previously, this would cost $500 billion _plus_ the
operational mines, chemical plants, and solar cell factories.  The entire
mine-to-cell cycle on Earth includes millions of tons of a equipment, and
uses several tons of volatiles for every kg of solar cell produced.  In
contrast the biggest commercial investments tend to be in the $1 billion
(comsats) to $15 billion (English Channel tunnel, a private effort)
range.  The volatile extraction project comes in at $10 billion.

>Secondary exports would be refined metals
>and glasses (to build the Szabo Astro/Comet Mining fleet and something at L-5
>:), delivered by mass driver.

We only need about 20 tons of volatile-processing equipment for the first
set of missions.  Not much of a market, sorry. After that we'll likely
be getting metal regolith from near-earth-asteroids, which require
only low-power ice rockets to get to and have concentrations of metal
regolith over 10 times that on on the moon.  We'll be happy to sell you
volatiles and organics, assuming you get funded.  We'll also have
metal on sale far cheaper than you can make it.

>It would be self-sufficient in oxygen, metals production,

No way.  This requires huge tonnage of factory which you can't
afford, and even if you could the factories need ongoing inputs of
volatiles and spare parts.  Please, study your industrial processes
before you make such sweeping claims.

>It would probably be able to produce some electronics components on site
>(assuming Intel or Hitachi isn't too adverse to licensing their designs).

How are you going to get the millions of tons of fab equipment to
the moon?

>Water? A bit tougher.

Most of water's mass is oxygen, difficult to extract but at
least available on the moon.  But hydrogen makes up the largest
volume of water (check out the STS tanks, close to stochiometric).
The hydrogen has to be brought up in these huge tanks from  earth. (The
suggestion that we scrounge for solar wind particles has to be the epitomy
of desparate acts :-)  Hydrogen also leaks out after a few days so ya better
make the water fast.

>I suppose we'll have to hire Szabo Astro/Comet Mining to deliver water, or
>build our own ships (Known as MGF Mining, for arguements sake).

If you can swindle that $500 billion out of some mark, we'll be happy to
have you as a customer. :-)


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]
Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat  ////////  Breathe Free: vote Libertarian

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

Date: 9 Oct 92 15:30:52 GMT
From: Jim Bowery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Military Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space

Audit: sci.space,JBowery,2

[e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>
>ICBM's.  So the military _does_ R&D, sometimes necessary R&D, but not
>all military R&D, and especially not all military spending, is actually
>necessary.  So we should save the dough, let someone else develop it,
>on their bill.

The military generally does a good job in areas of imminent danger,
such as ICBMs and remote sensing.  That's where the real incentives
exist for the military.

In other areas, such as civilian agencies like NASA and DoE and the less
critical military areas, the incentives are primarily political --
although
good traditions can ameleorate the politics somewhat.  Astronomy is a
case in point with NASA -- although as I warned in this newsgroup just
prior to the launch of Hubble, Astronomers were in for a rude awakening
due to a departure from those traditions and an adoption of NASA's
culture.  Hopefully the privately funded Keck Telescope will help
astronomy recover some of the integrity it lost with NASA's culture.

The military generally has good traditions of discipline that keep it
from getting as far out of hand as civilian government technology
agencies -- even when operating in noncritical military areas.  The
best that can be said for such noncritical military expenditures is
that they don't produce bureaucracies with incentives to attack
technical progress the way spending on civilian government technology
does.

Yesterday I was talking to the ONR guy who pushed through funding for
the laser gyro.  He told me about his efforts to upgrade the power
plants for the surface fleet to use commercial jet turbines due to
their low maintanence load (>100man year savings per).  The Navy
technology guys just had to spend tens of millions trying to develop
special purpose turbines because of some specious technical arguments
that made those special turbines sound like more advanced technology.
Eventually, they figured out that what they really wanted was powerful
and reliable power with low operating costs including maintanence.
They finally junked the technology program and just went with DC-10
engines.

This is a good example of how the noncritical mission people in the
military may run around playing with themselves for awhile, but
they eventually come around to doing the right thing (ie: procureing
 commercially available subsystems from US industry) rather than
stretching some ridiculous technology program on for decades and
billions of dollars.  Civilian government technology agencies have no
such sense of self-restraint nor do they take kindly to outside
competition
which might force them to behave themselves.  That's why they end

up suppressing technology in proportion to their funding levels.


--
INTERNET:  [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA [phone]

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 22:13:00 GMT
From: Bob Erickson <ree@utrcv1>
Subject: NASA town meetings
Newsgroups: sci.space

The following blurb was pointed out to me from a recent Aerospace Daily:

   NASA HAS selected six cities around the U.S., including Hartford, CT, for
   town meetings in which individuals and businesses can offer their views on
   the future direction of the nations civil space and aeronautics programs.

Since I'm pro-space and in the Hartford area, I'd like to go and put in
my $.02.  Can anyone tell me what I need to do in order to attend?
Useful info includes: date/time/place, how to register (if necessary),
who to contact.

Please respond by email.  I subscribe but don't always catch all articles
before they get bagged by the system.  I'll post the info if I get any
and anyones' interested.

Thanks in advance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Erickson                                         #include <disclaimer.std>
[e-mail]
United Technologies Research Center

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

Date: 9 Oct 92 11:49:17 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re : Carl Sagan
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> "Phil G. Fraering" writes:
>\>A glance at American Men and Women of Science shows Carl Sagan with:
>/>AB - 1954, BS - 1955, MS - 1956, PhD - 1960 (Astron,Astrophys)
>\>all granted by the University of Chicago.
>/Doesn't he also have a medical degree from Stanford?
>I don't think so, but I think there's a degree from Cornell
>missing somewhere in there.

  Seems that I owe the gentleman an apology then. He's obviously
been the victim of some _very_ unkind gossip.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... [e-mail] or [e-mail]
                  voice/fax: [phone]

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

Date: 9 Oct 92 23:12:05 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telepresence
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (John Roberts) wrote:
>            The simulator displays a phantom
>   image of the robot superimposed on the delayed "real" monitoring image of
>   the robot. The phantom responds to control signals immediately -- that is,
>   without transmission delay. Its motion predicts that of the real robot.
>   After the transmission delay, the real image of the robot follows the motion
>   of the phantom image.

This sounds like it may be a bit easier to do then what I had proposed.
I'll look up the article...  We've heard of similar approaches from the
Canadians while working the displays for operation of the mobile servicing
center and the SSF arm....  They wanted to do something like this, but the
SW onboard could not provide the animation capabilities....

Andy Cohen

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

Date: Thu,  8 Oct 92 10:44:59 -0500
From: SERGEI GENNEDIEVICH KRIVOSHEEV <[e-mail]>
Subject: the development and change of the soft-and-hardwsre programms for electronic computers and microcontrollers.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.research,sci.physics,sci.med,sci.engr.chem,sci.chem,sci.astro

A private veture "BITSI" is looking for the orderers to underline
a treaty withsc group of scientists who can solve the following
problems handling electronic computers.

                                1

Complex surface manipulation on numerical control machines.Mathema-
tics aspects.
                                2

Package development for solving the problems of stamping the metal
parts.
                                3

Data base creation for microcomputers . The development of learning
programmes on foreign languages(english,italian,german,polish,rus-
sian for foreigners).Automatic control system problems-contents di-
rectories et.c.) and problems dealing with the mathphysics usage and
numerical optimization methods.
                                 4

Numerical decision of control systems that describe complex physi-
cal models, the systems of leanear algebra controls,integrated and
integroderivative equations in partial derivatives,integral calcu-
lation. The development of interactive programmes of the geophysi-
cal research interpretation.
                                 5

Calculation of response mechanisms and  structure of molecular sys-
tem with the help of quantum chemistry methods CNDO/2, MINDO/3,MNDO.
                                 6
The development and change of the soft-and-hardware programmes for
the electronic computers and microcontrollers,interactive systems
in economics andbusiness. Data base distribution on the basis of
networks, microcomputers and network software.Control system deve-
lopment and real time processing.
                                 7

Intellectual schedule creation in threedimentional space.
Robot dynamics and kinetics.


                                 8
a) Nonexplosional pyroxid(lurilpyroxid) initiators. Development
Technology. Manufacturing yield.1 ton -5-7,000 dollars.
b) Different medicines on available prices.
                                 9

The quantum electronics laboratory is looking for the partner
ti organize a joint venture.
The laboratory offers an uptodate medical laser "Yataghan - 1"
for curing eye diseases and  laser pulses energy measurers,
power lasers with electronic control.

                                10

Production association "Rubin", on the base of which the biggest
mirror for selenchur's observatory, was manufactured, offeres
its service on the manufacturing massive optical details.
P/A "Rubin" - is a unic technology, that allows to manufacture
precision mirrors, portholes and plates - high productive auto-
mation equipment, allowing to manufacture massive optical details
on the price, available to any consumer.
According to your order P/A "Rubin" manufactures:
- any form of surface (shallow, spherical, aspherical)
- diametre range 0,5 to 4 - 6 metres.
- quality lf surface on the halfsquare's deflection isn't less
than 1/10 - 1/50 wave length.
as monolithic, so as light optical elements with coefficient's
lightness 1.7 - 1.8.
P/A "Rubin" garantees:
- high quality of manufacturing yield.
- opportune fulfillment of joint duties.
on the arrangement questions of order may be appeal:

=========================================================================
 =                                                                     =
  =        $$$$$$$    $     $    $$$$$$$    $$$$$$$    $     $        =
   =       $          $     $       $       $          $     $       =
    =      $          $     $       $       $          $     $      =
     =     $$$$$$$    $   $ $       $       $          $   $ $     =
      =    $     $    $ $   $       $       $          $ $   $    =
       =   $$$$$$$    $     $       $       $$$$$$$    $     $   =
        =========================================================
         =      403300  , .     =
          =        .2  65,  ""      =
           =           : 84463 - 3-54-07, 3-57-92         =
            =               fax: 84463 - 3-53-87            =
             ===============================================

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

Date: 10 Oct 92 02:42:59 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Transportation on the Moon.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>My God, as far as we know the Moon's as dry as a bone, and we're talking
>about mining ice on it!  Even if there IS ice, how do we know there's
>going to be enough to support whatever operation is proposed?

If you know there's no ice at the lunar poles, you are one up on the
entire lunar-science community.  It's distinctly possible; see any good
technical discussion of lunar resources.  Arguments have been advanced
both pro and con, but the general consensus is that nothing short of a
suitable remote-sensing mission will settle the question.  Why do you
think flying a gamma-ray spectrometer in low lunar orbit rates such a
high priority from almost everyone interested in lunar exploration?

(How would the ice get there?  It's vapor from comet impacts on the Moon,
frozen out in the bottoms of permanently-shadowed polar craters and then
buried by impact debris.  There are some ifs and maybes, but the basic
scenario is plausible.)

As for whether there's enough to support the kind of operation proposed,
he said quite explicitly that this was handed to them as an assumption,
not as something they were charged with investigating.

>My guess is that whatever ice there was at the Lunar poles has
>been blasted to Kingdom Come.

Stop guessing and start reading some of the technical literature on the
subject.  Yes, there *are* people who claim that frozen cometary volatiles
wouldn't persist.  But not everyone who has studied the matter agrees.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 23:02:51 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: what use is Freedom?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Richard Whitmeyer) wrote:

> OK, I do have some questions,
> 1.   How come the interior appointments create the same impact on the senses
>      as my new Kenmore fridge?  I mean, were's the softness? Any wood grain?
>
> 2.   Any plans for one in polar orbit? (I'm at Vandenberg, so there 'may be'
>      some self interests in this question.)
>
> 3.   What happened to the large service bays visible on the early models?
>
> 4.   Can I too see or experience the mockups? How about my kids.
>
> 5.   How visible will this thing be from the ground?
>
> 6.   How big can it get, when the currently planned size is too crowded?
>
> 7.   What CAD software package(s) is used for design?

answer to 1....  Good question....I've asked it myself...  Just imagine how
much more it would cost with flight qualified wood grain panels?!....
Actually the colors and the offset lighting used won't be all that bad.....

2...no plans at all for polar orbit....polar orbits are VERY expensive
....just imagine the resources needed for putting all that mass into such
an extreme orbit... unless of course the components could be lifted off
from a different part of the globe.....which they can't at this time.  Pad
39 is an extremely expensive facility.... Few realize that it is one of the
most valuable resources we have.  I hear the Russian launch facility can do
polar...I really don't know tho...  They were going to put up a polar
flyer...that was work package 3 way back in the beginning of this technical
soap opera.

3.  That was pure PR and science fiction.... they would have interfered
with research and antenna clearance

4. Sure.....email me...

5. I'm told that when the sunlight hits it, the reflection will be
extreme....  I've been told that when it goes by at night it will be very
hard to miss.  I've also heard it will be visible during daylight too....

6. It's size depends upon lots of factors....as I mentioned in my first
post...one of the greatest challenges is to keep something this big stable
and on course....since it is low enough to be within reach of the
shuttle...there is atmosphere which will hit the truss and panels like a
wind on sails.... SSF will be in constant stress attempting to roll, pitch
and yaw on it's own....the gyros kick in when needed to dampen the pull and
when it goes into reboost the movement is corrected.... the larger it is,
the more mass, the more difficult it is to keep it stable...  At some point
one must balance size against power needs, weight, etc..I liked the phase B
design better in this regard...it had the trus in a position perpendicular
to the Earth's surface. However, I'm topld that it could not handle all the
facilities... I'm not too sure..

 I feel ...personnally... that the next challenge should be a VERY high
orbit capable shuttle....i.e., geosynchronous....  then we can build a real
space station...

7.  We use Unigraphics... the CAD package developed by McDonnell Douglas
and which was sold off to EDS...(GM)..

LETS KEEP THE THREAD GOING!

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:51:43 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: what use is Freedom?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Whitmeyer) writes:
>1.   How come the interior appointments create the same impact on the senses
>     as my new Kenmore fridge?  I mean, were's the softness? Any wood grain?

NASA and their contractors have no style? No, seriously, that kind of
detail can be good or bad: The guy who has to live there might _hate_
wood furnature (or whatever other nice detail was added). The idea is
to make something the astronaut could live with, without knowing anything
about the astronaut's tastes or preferences. That means bland is the
solution...

>2.   Any plans for one in polar orbit? (I'm at Vandenberg, so there 'may be'
>     some self interests in this question.)

Not any manned facillities. The Europeans have been playing with the
idea of an unmanned platform in a polar orbit, but this looks unlikely
at this point.

>3.   What happened to the large service bays visible on the early models?

Gone. They never made a final design. If the post-PMC budgets exist at
all, they might be added.

>5.   How visible will this thing be from the ground?

Very, in fact is should be visable as more than a point (e.g. as a I--I
shape.) But it will be close to the horizon in most of the United States.

>6.   How big can it get, when the currently planned size is too crowded?

The current design will house 4 at PMC and 8 at EMCC (which isn't funded
at the moment.) There is space for further expansion, but no plans
or money for this.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 305
------------------------------