Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO521.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 12KB

Date: Tue,  8 Dec 92 05:06:00
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #521
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue,  8 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 521

Today's Topics:
                             anniversary
                        Liquid Hydrogen Price
                             lunar flight
                           Orbit Question?
                     Potential uses for the DC-X
                       Science use of the Sr-71
                  Shuttle Replacement/Shuttle Costs
                       US/Sov space comparisons

    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: 7 Dec 92 22:23:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
writes:
> Lest we forget...  Twenty years ago today -- to be precise, at 0033 EST --
> the last ship left for the Moon.
> --
> "God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto >
-Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972      |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry



... And to think that some of us were only months old when that happened.  And
we will be very lucky if we see it happen again before we reach our forties.

:(  The little Cernan quote kind of got to me.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| [e-mail]   |---------------------------------|
| [e-mail]     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 23:47:57 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liquid Hydrogen Price
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>        For comparison, the book Shuttle lists the following prices of other
>propellants:

...
>N2O4                                $33.00 per gallon
>
>        Whatever the price of hydrogen is, it looks good relative to other
>propellants.  Probably the only thing cheaper on the fuel side would be RP-1
>or another hydrocarbon, or ammonia (which isn't used in any current engines).


I am quite surprised by this price.  Nitrogen dioxide is made in large
quantities in nitric acid synthesis plants (from catalytic oxidation
of ammonia).  I would have thought that tapping some of it off and
compressing would provide a ready source of nitrogen tetroxide.  Or is
that source too contaminated with nitric oxide?  Perhaps the problem
is just one of low demand, or unusual purity demanded by NASA.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Dec 92 22:14:03 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: lunar flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Simon E. Booth) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts)
writes:
> >
> >-From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
> >-Subject: Re: Lunar flight
> >-Date: 6 Dec 92 01:49:57 GMT
> >-Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
> >
> >-Except that Clinton & Co have already came out as opposed to any resumption
> >-of manned space exploration, or any preliminary steps towards it, no matter
> >-how cheap.
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> I second that.  I truly hope our space program can survive the Clinton
> administration.  Based on info I read during the campaign VP-elect Gore
> is very pro technology.  While I didn't vote for Clinton/Gore, I won't
> write off our space program yet.       Simon


I would disagree.  Gore is very pro 'environmental' technology so yes EOS will
be alive.  But read their policy statement regarding space (posted here before
the election)

*Biggest focus- Mission to planet Earth

*The only reason they mention to keep Freedom is because it creates jobs.
Whether you think Freedom will or will not generate good science, keeping it
only for the jobs is a lousy way to run a space program.

*Moon, Mars, and the Space Exploration Initiative, are mentioned as worthy
goals... when we have the money.  In other words not for a long, long time.

I seriously think that for all his technology talk, the space program will be
hurt under Clinton.  Especially if, as has happened, in the fact it gets linked
to defese simply because they both use Aerospace.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| [e-mail]   |---------------------------------|
| [e-mail]     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 00:07:13 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbit Question?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Your polar geosyncronous satellite takes out one equatorial geosynchronous
>satellite every 24 hours as it passes over the equator at 24,000 miles
>altitude.....
>
>--- Maximus 2.00

A the odds of collision are low.  big space, small satellite theory.
also,  you can really avoid the collision by putting giant fuel tanks
on it, and essentially hovering over the poles.  it's theoretical
if ridiculous.

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 00:22:35 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Potential uses for the DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

So we are spending the money to build the DC-X and flight test it.
are there any useful science missions it could conduct while up there?

I would guess that while jets and balloons can fly higher and stay longer,
only helicopters can conduct precision hovering, and they stay below
10,000 feet.

Would there be an air sampling or astronomical observations that would
want to hover around at 30,000 feet?

I am certain i could conduct some great photographs,  but would
the DC-X be useful for like aerial photometry,  or resource mapping?

the U-2 has turned out to have some great research potential, maybe the
DC-X or Y could also.

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 00:26:03 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Science use of the Sr-71
Newsgroups: sci.space

Has NASA or NOAA or some other group looked at using the Sr-71 for science
missions?  or does it lack any advantage over the U-2s.  i am sure it
is much more expensive to operate then the U-2, but i am not sure
if it has any real advantage other then speed.

Thanks.

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 20:05:22 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <arabia!hack>
Subject: Shuttle Replacement/Shuttle Costs
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
[much good, solid assemblage of facts deleted - thanks Wales!]
>   [I should note that I have not included either an amortization of
>sunk development costs, nor any Pre-planned Product Improvement
>(P^3I) Program  -- such as the ASRM or ASA.  It should also be
>noted, that with any other comparative system, that such
>improvements and or amortization must be added to their costs, in a
>fair one-to-one comparison.]

Note that a lot of the SSTO supporters are treating their R&D costs
as well as the site prep costs as sunk costs and not charging them
against the ops costs.  (This is from a set of SSX viewgraphs I read as
well as some copies of the spaceflight journal that the High Frontier
group in DC puts out).  This is not uncommon in DOD accounting for
weaposn systems costing.  The cost of R&D and initial tooling is charged
against the first unit out the assembly line.  After that, the "Flyaway
cost" is what is looked at.  From a commerical accounting view,this is
bogus, but from a year-to-year appropriations point of view, it makes a
twisted kind of sense.

>In that light, I support the DC-X program,
>and the dem/val program for the SSTO Phase 1 program.  They'll
>answer SOME of the questions that are clouding the issue.

So do I.  Allen and I differ on who should develop and manage DC-Y - I
favor Griffin's office of Exploration combined with Ames/Dryden.
However, what is important is that it get done.  It is unfortunate that
the  prime contractor is in such bad financial shape.

>I also
>support development of a NASP vehicle to answer a different set of
>questions, and the demonstration of sea-launched and large pressure-
>fed engines as well.

NASA needs to get back into development mode and away from a lot of the
silliness of the past.  Goldin seems to be trying to turn the boat in
that direction.

--
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
[e-mail] - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"You know, I think we're all Bozos on this bus."
"Detail Dress Circuits" "Belt: Above A, Below B" "Close B ClothesMode"

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

Date: 8 Dec 92 01:16:31 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: US/Sov space comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

>[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>As for Apollo... the Soviets came within a hairsbreadth of sending cosmonauts
>>around the Moon before Apollo 8, and last I heard, it's still not clear why
>>they didn't -- the hardware was ready.  They were behind on the capability
>>to make an actual lunar landing, but not that far behind.

I wrote:

>\When I see something I think is stupid I usually tell myself that either the
>/other person is insane or they know much more than I do.  My first reaction
>\to this was the former, but when I saw who wrote it I decided to assume the
>/latter.  I was under the impression that the Soviets were still blowing up
>\N-1s well into the seventies.  What am I missing?

And Phil responded with a good summary of the Zond program.

I was aware of the Zond program, though I hadn't realized it had gone quite that
far.  What I was specifically responding to was the comment that they were
"not that far behind" in the capability to land on the surface.  Maybe it's
just a matter of what one considers "not that far."  I personally consider the
Soviet lunar landing program a complete failure and I was just wondering
whether Henry had different data then I did.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
                        Ho^3     !=L

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 521
------------------------------