Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO367.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 37KB

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 05:10:45
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #367
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 26 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 367

Today's Topics:
                                 DC-X
                               gravity
                          How to cool Venus
                          Life in the Galaxy
                             MIS-Quoting
                        More water simulations
                        Plans, absence therof
             Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
                      Space Science data formats
                    Space Station Freedom Redesign
                     SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
                 SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us
           the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
                         waste management...

    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: 24 Mar 1993 21:33:23 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

It looks really weird because....

IT'S SQUARE MAN!

Really, the thing is square....at the bottom, then tapers to circular at
the top.

Today's walk-by revealed that the upper section is now attached to the
body.  They still need to attach the top nose cone (from NASA!) and the
base shield.  A friend of mine is working the base shield and he gave me a
detailed look at his work....  The engines are recessed (in DC-X. I don't
think they will still be so in Y).  That is, the exhaust nozzels end
....inside...the skin at the base.  The base shield has oversized holes to
allow nozzle movement(not for the nozzles, they're recessed....for the
exhaust!).  Specially designed with a new heat resistant aluminum, the
covers attach to the nozzles after the base shield is attached.  These
covers coverup the oversized holes on the outside.......such a nice
design.......and so hard to describe...sorry...

The Flight Ops Command Center (the trailer) is all painted with neat SSRT,
SDI and DC-X logos.....  If the company store starts to sell patches...I'll
let ya know if I can get them...

The rollout is NEXT saturday..... I plan on being there.  I also plan to
post my recollections of the historic event here on your favorite USENET
board.....unless they throw me out for being a....groupie...

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 16:04:14 GMT
From: Bob Combs <[e-mail]>
Subject: gravity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article  [e-mail] (Jim Baker) writes:
>
>Acknowledging the fact that the earth has enough gravity
>to hold an atmosphere in place, and the moon (with about 1/6
>of earth's gravity) does not, how much gravitiy does it take
>to hold an atmosphere?  This is realizing it depends on the
>type of atmosphere, but I am looking for a general answer.
>
>Jim Baker <[e-mail]>

Isn't the presence of an atmosphere a function of
chemistry and chemical reactions, vice gravity?

--
-----------------------------------------------
Traditions are the living faith of dead people.
[e-mail]
Bob Combs

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 01:02:03 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to cool Venus
Newsgroups: sci.space

I said:

  The time to consume half the fuel is proportional to the density rho.

Clearly, I meant *inversely* proportional.

    Paul

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

Date: 25 Mar 1993 01:01:31 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life in the Galaxy
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

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

>From "Nature", Vol 362, 18 March 1993 (p. 204):

> With these twin conditions, the authors estimate the size of
>habitable zones around various types of star (fortunately, Venus and Mars
>fall outside the limits for the Sun).

why is this fortunate, somebody tell me.

--
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |        [e-mail]
   --------> shari brooks <--------      |    [e-mail]
                      The above opinions are solely my own.

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 19:42:28 GMT
From: Bob Combs <[e-mail]>
Subject: MIS-Quoting
Newsgroups: sci.space

I just hate it when someone takes an article
and divides it up into pieces and responds to
small pieces of it, *sometimes* taking what
is said out of context.


Example:


    >Original Poster Writes:
    >Blah Blah Bla

    oh yea well my daddy is bigger than your dad

    >some point later in article
    >poster makes another point

    oh yea, well, my ignorance is only
    exeeded by my lack of organizational skills.etc, etc.

Not only does this type of posting misrepresent
the original posters thoughts, it can be damn
difficult to read.

If you can't organize your thoughts and respond
intelligently in paragraph format, I'm sorry.
At least quit breaking up the postings.

Just my two cents.
--
-----------------------------------------------
Traditions are the living faith of dead people.
[e-mail]
Bob Combs

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 09:41:34 -0500 (EST)
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: More water simulations

"David B. Mckissock" <[e-mail]> writes:
>> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>> >I think water tanks and practicing on them is a great idea.

>> >You mean like space stations? Congrats Dennis, you have found a
>> >problem with Freedom construction: the tanks cannot provide a
>> >suitable simulation for the construction of Fred.

> I guess Allen's thought process is:

Actually, I was simply pointing out to Dennis the consequences of his
statement.

> "Fred is very big. Fred is
> made up of lots of big pieces. Intelsat was big. The astronauts had
> problems grabbing Intelsat. Ergo, astronauts will have problems
> assembling Fred.

If you will read what I am saying instead of what you want me to say
you will realize that isn't the case.

I'm not saying that assembly of fred won't work. I am saying that our
EVA experience isn't enough to say it can be done based only on water
tank simulations.

Note that saying we don't know if it can be done isn't the same as
saying it can't be done. Also note that NASA now accepts this as an
unknown and is scheduling more EVA to see if a problem exists.

> NASA, in its typical stupidity, does not see the
> obvious connection between big things, like Intelsat and Fred and,
> compounding our stupidness, we don't realize that you can't mimic
> the moments of inertia of large structures in water tanks."

Relax.

Again, I'm not saying it can't be done. All I am saying is that there
are classes of problems which haven't been tried in EVA and that it
is important to understand that and get experience in those areas. Assembly
of large structures in space is such an area.

Since NASA agrees with this assessment I don't see why your so upset.

> Let's walk through the on-orbit installation of the HAB.
> [simple scenario deleted]

> My my, we have a real complicated EVA procedure there, don't we?

Indeed. Kind of reminds me of the equally simple Solar Max repair.
Astronaut sticks tool into satellite, robot arm grabs it and puts it
into payload bay.

That sure sounds simple doesn't? Funny how it didn't work that way.

> When we practise the EVA's in the water tanks... We utilize
> astronauts, who HAVE ON-ORBIT EVA EXPERIENCE. Thus, we are asking
> somebody who "has been there" to gauge the acceptability of our
> suggested EVA tasks.

I understand that Intelsat didn't use the tanks. But tell me, did they
have astronauts who HAVE ON-ORBIT EVA EXPERIENCE sign off on the
procedure? If not, why not and if so, how do you explain that it
failed to go as planned? Did they sign off on Solar Max and the others?

No, I'm not an astronaut; just a lowly engineer. However when I see that
none of the satellite rescues/repairs have gone as planned or how they
should have (according to the simulations) I tend to question the
simulations. I woldn't throw out the simulations, simply understand
that there is a lot we don't understand. My solution would be to
do more EVA experiments so errors in the simulations can be identified
and quanified. NASA now seems to agree with this view.

Why do you disagree? Do you believe that no more experiments are
needed?

> Allen's answer is that the tank tests are a lousy predictor
> of the feasibility of successfully performing the EVA
> procedure on-orbit.

Please understand what I am saying before offering criticism. I have
nowhere said nor do I believe that tanks are 'a lousy predictor'. What
I said was that there are large gaps in our experience and we don't
know where those gaps are or how good our simulations work in those
gaps.

NASA accepts this view as well and it now scheduling EVA to quantify
the problems.

  Allen

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

Date: 25 Mar 1993 01:39:05 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Plans, absence therof
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

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

>He has a right to say what he wants, as a citizen.  He does not have a
>right to say what he wants, as a gov agent.  To do so is to invert the
>moral situation.  Citizens direct government, not vice-versa, in the US.
>(At least, that's how it was designed.)

Please tell me what Dennis has ever said as a govt agent.  Please show
us an example of Dennis representing himself as speaking for anyone
other than himself; specifically, show us an example of him speaking as
a govt representative presenting the govt's view.

And if you can't do this, then consider 1st amendment rights.  There are
2.2 million US citizens employed by civil service, and GAO only knows
how many govt contractors.  Will you shut them all up, and deny them their
voice, merely because their paycheques are drawn from tax money?  If
someone happens to actually agree with govt policy on an issue and you
disagree with them, does that mean they are now "govt agents" and
should shut up because your taxes pay a miniscule amount of their salary?

followups to talk.politics.space, this has no business continuing on
a sci newsgroup

BTW I am no longer working for civil service

--
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |        [e-mail]
   --------> shari brooks <--------      |    [e-mail]
                      The above opinions are solely my own.

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

Date: 24 Mar 93 15:48:02 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Newsgroups: sci.space



                 RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STARWARS DEFENSE SYSTEM

               In February 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin
          proposed to the United States and the United Nations a global
          defense shield (with "Star Wars"-type weapons) BASED ON
          RUSSIAN TECHNOLOGY.

               Some people might wonder what the "backward" Russians
          could possibly have that would be of value for the S.D.I.
          research and development program.

               The little-known TRUTH is that the Russians started
          deploying an OPERATIONAL "Star Wars" defense system in
          September 1977, and it has greatly grown and improved since
          that time.  It is a SPACE TRIAD built around CHARGED-PARTICLE
          BEAM and NEUTRON PARTICLE BEAM WEAPONS.

               In this article I will describe the Russian system as it
          developed from 1977 to 1983, and give several examples of how
          it was used during that period.  But first I will try to
          convince readers of the credibility of my main source of
          information about it.

               My main source is articles published in a weekly
          legislative newspaper, WISCONSIN REPORT (WR), of Brookfield,
          Wisconsin, (P.O. Box 45, zip 53005), written by the late Dr.
          Peter David Beter, a well-respected Washington, DC attorney,
          Doctor of Jurisprudence, and expert and consultant in
          international law, finance, and intelligence, who received
          much of his information from associates in the CIA and other
          intelligence groups of other countries who disapproved of
          many of the things happening or being planned behind the
          scenes.  They believed that at least limited public exposure
          might delay and ultimately prevent the worst of those things,
          such as NUCLEAR WAR and NATIONAL DICTATORSHIP, from taking
          place.

               Dr. Beter started appearing on local radio and TV talk
          shows, but soon found himself being BANNED from them, as a
          result of government THREATS to cancel broadcast licenses.
          So he started producing monthly one-hour cassette tapes and
          sending them to a growing list of subscribers.  From June 21,
          1975 until November 3, 1982 he recorded eighty (80) "Dr.
          Beter Audio Letters", plus eight "Audio Books", and three
          special topic tapes.  On September 1, 1977 Wisconsin Report
          started publishing transcripts of those Audio Letters.

               Based on information from his sources, Dr. Beter
          PREDICTED the bombing of the Marines in Beirut A FULL YEAR
          BEFORE IT HAPPENED, WARNING that the U.S. Pentagon and the
          Israeli Mossad were CONSPIRING TO DELIBERATELY ARRANGE IT in
          order to try to get Americans angry at the Arabs and generate
          public support for PLANNED military action against them.  He
          reported the impending assassination of Anwar Saddat of Egypt
          SIX DAYS BEFORE IT HAPPENED.  And Dr. Beter predicted what he
          called the "retirement" of Leonid Brezhnev one week before
          Brezhnev officially "died", [note that the word "retirement"
          was used for the TERMINATION OF REPLICANTS in the 1982 movie
          "Blade Runner"], and his quick replacement with Andropov
          which occurred only three days after the "death" of Brezhnev,
          to the surprise of all government and media analysts.
          Subscription application and renewal forms for Dr. Beter's
          tapes would usually say, "Subscribe to the Dr. Beter Audio
          Letter and watch the news start making sense."



          RUSSIA'S SPACE TRIAD OF STAR WARS WEAPONS

               In September 1977 the Russians started launching MANNED
          killer satellites, called "COSMOS INTERCEPTORS", armed with
          CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons, into earth orbit, (12-15-77
          WR; and Dr. Beter Audio Letter (AL) #27, Topic 1). By April
          1978 there were about THREE DOZEN of them, and they had
          FINISHED DESTROYING all American spy and early warning
          satellites, (5-18-78 WR, and AL #33, Topic 2).

               On September 27, 1977, in what Dr. Beter called "THE
          BATTLE OF THE HARVEST MOON", a Cosmos Interceptor in Earth
          orbit used a NEUTRON-PARTICLE BEAM to wipe out a secret
          American laser-beam base nearing operational status in
          Copernicus Crater on the Moon, (11-3-77 WR; and AL #26, Topic
          1).  The Russians quickly deployed their own military bases
          on the Moon, the second leg of their space triad, starting on
          October 4, 1977, with seven EXTREMELY POWERFUL charged-
          particle beam weapons BASES on the near side of the Moon and
          three support bases on the far side, (2-9-78 WR; and AL #29,
          Topic 1).

               The first test of the Moon base weapons occurred on
          November 19, 1977, ironically at about the same time as the
          release of the first "Star Wars" movie with its "death star"
          weapon.  The Russians were aiming at the eye of a cyclone
          near India.  But they miscalculated the deflection of the
          beam by the Earth's magnetic field, and the beam struck the
          ocean too close to the shore causing a TIDAL WAVE that killed
          many people, (2-9-78 WR; and AL #29, Topic 1).  A blast of
          charged-particle beams from two or more of the Russian Moon
          bases fired in quick succession would create the DESTRUCTIVE
          EFFECT OF A HYDROGEN BOMB on its target.

               The third leg of Russia's triad of space weapons is the
          "COSMOSPHERES".  The first-generation Cosmospheres were
          weapons platforms that were ELECTRO-GRAVITIC (could hover
          against gravity), ATOMIC POWERED, horizontally positioned by
          rocket thrusters, somehow invisible to radar beyond about 40
          miles (perhaps from a radar-absorbing coating), armed with
          CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons (at least a hundred times less
          powerful than those in the Moon bases), equipped with
          "PSYCHO-ENERGETIC RANGE FINDING" (PRF) which tunes in to the
          actual ATOMIC SIGNATURE of a target or object and canNOT be
          jammed, and some of them were also armed with microwave
          BRAIN-SCRAMBLING equipment.

               In late 1977 and early 1978, there was a strange rash of
          giant AIR BOOMS along the east coast of the United States and
          elsewhere.  These air booms were NEVER satisfactorily
          explained, by either the government, the scientific
          establishment, or the news media.  They could NOT be
          positively identified with any particular Super Sonic
          Transport plane (SST) or other aircraft, and indeed they were
          MUCH LOUDER than aircraft sonic booms.  The giant airbooms
          were actually caused by Russian Cosmospheres firing CHARGED-
          PARTICLE BEAMS down into the atmosphere in a DEFOCUSED MODE
          (spread out) for the purpose of announcing their presence to
          the WAR-MONGERS in the United States Pentagon, (2-9-78 WR;
          and AL #29, Topic 1).


               The main purpose of any "Star Wars" defense system is to
          protect a country against nuclear attack.  During the weekend
          of January 20, 1980, Russian Cosmospheres accomplished such a
          mission.  A NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE against Russia by the then
          BOLSHEVIK-CONTROLLED United States was being started with a
          total of 82 special secret aircraft that can sneak up to a
          country's shoreline under water, surface, change
          configuration, take off, and fly at treetop level to their
          targets.  Dr. Beter describes part of the action in his Audio
          Letter #53, recorded on January 21, 1980: "At that point the
          real action got under way, in the Caspian Sea and off
          northern Norway.  The Subcraft, with Israeli pilots, were on
          their way.  They were traveling under water on the first legs
          of their attack missions....

          "Late Saturday night, Washington time, a coded signal was
          flashed to the Subcraft to continue as planned.  By that
          time, the northern contingent of Subcraft were in the White
          Sea.  The southern contingent had reached the north end of
          the Caspian Sea.  It was already daylight, Sunday morning,
          the 20th, for the Subcraft contingents.  Their orders were to
          wait out the day under water, out of sight; then, after
          nightfall, they were to continue their steady approach to get
          close to their targets.  The Subcraft were maintaining strict
          radio silence.  They were also deep enough under water to be
          invisible from the air to either the eye or radar, yet they
          were also hugging the shoreline in water too shallow for
          Russian sonar to pick them up.  And their infrared signatures
          were negligible as the result of extensive development.  In
          short, by the standards of Western technology, they were
          undetectable.  But in AUDIO LETTER No. 42 I revealed Russia's
          master secret weapon.  It is called "Psycho-energetic Range
          Finding" or PRF.  It is unlike sonar and similar techniques.
          PRF tunes in to the actual atomic signature of a target, and
          there is no method known by which PRF can be jammed.

               "By deploying their Navy to the Arabian Sea, the
          Russians are pretending to be fooled by the Bolshevik
          distraction with the aircraft carriers.  In this way they
          encouraged the Bolsheviks to launch the Subcraft toward their
          targets.  They waited until the Subcraft were far away from
          their bases and out of sight of the Bolsheviks, who are
          directing the American first-strike operation.  But the whole
          time they were being tracked by Cosmospheres overhead using
          PRF, and shortly after 1:00 A.M. yesterday morning Eastern
          Standard Time the Cosmospheres began firing their Charged
          Particle Beam Weapons.  There were 10 Subcraft in the White
          Sea.  Each disappeared in a blinding blue white water spout
          of steam, smoke, and fire.  In the north end of the Caspian
          there were 19 Subcraft--they, too, met the same fate.", (2-7-
          80 WR; and AL #53, Topic 3).



               The 3rd-generation Russian JUMBO COSMOSPHERES were first
          deployed in April 1981, in parallel with the first U.S. Space
          Shuttle mission.  They significantly interfered with that
          MILITARY mission, in ways which were successfully covered up
          by NASA using techniques similar to those shown in the movie
          "Capricorn I", (5-7-81, 5-14-81, and 5-21-81 WR; and AL #64,
          Topics 1-3).

               Jumbo Cosmospheres are much larger than the 1st-
          generation models, and use ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION instead
          of rocket thrusters to move around.

               For about two years after Dr. Beter stopped recording
          his Audio Letters in November 1982 (because of heart
          trouble), his distributor, Audio Books, Inc., published some
          newsletters titled "NewsALERT", using information passed on
          to them by Dr. Beter or received directly from his sources.
          A special supplementary issue, dated March 26, 1984,
          describes how Russian Jumbo Cosmospheres captured two
          communication satellites right after launch from U.S. Space
          Shuttle Mission #10, found anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles
          mounted on one of them, and dumped both satellites into
          useless orbits.  NASA had fun TRYING to explain two-in-a-row
          failures of a highly reliable PAM-D satellite booster.

               Russia's offer to share their "Star Wars" defense system
          with the rest of the world might also extend to SCIENTIFIC
          SPACE EXPLORATION.  For example, the United States is
          planning to send two unmanned flyby and sample-return space
          missions to a comet.  These missions would cost BILLIONS of
          dollars, take fifteen years from now to complete, and could
          FAIL in DOZENS of ways.  A Russian Jumbo Cosmosphere could
          complete a MANNED version of such a mission in a matter of
          MONTHS, if they have not already done so, since these
          Cosmospheres can accelerate continuously.

               Note that the United States has announced a deal to
          purchase at least one SPACE REACTOR from Russia.  Now you
          know what the Russians originally developed and used them
          for.



               ALL 80 Dr. Beter Audio Letters have been digitized by
          Jon Volkoff at email address "[e-mail]" and are
          available from him or from several FTP sites where he has
          sent them.  I especially recommend Audio Letters #64, 74, 40,
          53, 54, 55, 45, 46, 47, 48, 78, 79, and 80.



               For more information, and answers to your questions,
          please consult my CITED SOURCES.



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.

                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC



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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 00:34:42 GMT
From: Ata Etemadi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Science data formats
Newsgroups: sci.space

G'Day

I am interested to know what data formats (HDF, netCDF, CDF, FITS, GIF, etc..)
people are using or are planning to use. Any comments would also be greatly
appreciated. I will make a summary and post it if there is enough response. Many
thanks in advance for your co-operation.

    best regards
        Ata <(|)>.
--
| Mail          Dr Ata Etemadi, Blackett Laboratory,                          |
|               Space and Atmospheric Physics Group,                          |
|               Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine,        |
|               Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, ENGLAND                  |
| Internet/Arpanet/Earn/Bitnet [e-mail] or [e-mail]  |
| Span                              SPVA::atae       or     MSSLC:atae        |
| UUCP/Usenet                       [e-mail]        |

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

Date: 24 Mar 1993 21:57:57 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station Freedom Redesign
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida)
wrote:
>
> So, why don't we just make SSF in the shape and design for an interplanetary
> spacecraft.  I mean why do we need to make one design for LEO and another
> for long-duration flight to Mars?  Why can't we just make the space
> station into something which could be mated to a propulsion system
> for acceleration into lunar orbit?  Then, it would  be a two-stage
> system (one stage for human habitation and science payloads and one
> stage for propulsion).  I know that there are more aspects to this
> idea...there must be, or else some other guy would have done this...
> or has this aspect been overlooked?

A good question.  My personal opinion is that SSF was to lunar/mars whatr
.....Gemini was to Apollo....
The SSF program teachs us...well..it could have taught us...(1) how to
build big and massive things in orbit, (2) how to maintain their attitude
and orbit and (3) provide a set of technologies and Off-the-shelf
components to draw upon for the next missions....  (NASA/JSC developed a
GREAT mulit-media, animated and rendered vitual lunar base using Electric
Image and Supercard on the Mac in which the lunar base used the modules and
racks we wanted to use for SSF. I think it's included on the Nautilus CDs).
 The original ideas of the truss would allow the construction of a semi,
low mass, structure from which one can build to also.....

I feel that we originally were thinking along the lines you address, but we
have been focusing "like a laser beam" on getting ...something up.....

As usual this is all....just my opinion here....

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 93 02:07:25 GMT
From: Bob Combs <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>On Mon, 22 Mar 93 19:04:14 GMT, [e-mail] (Bob Combs) said:
>>cess.digex.com (Pat) writes:>
>Bob> So are Congressmen, and other high level beauracrats.  When I was
>Bob> stationed at Beale Air Force Base working on the SR-71 as an
>Bob> electrician, There was a list of congressmen and other
>Bob> beauracrats that took a ride in the SR-71.  AT $1,000,000 a
>Bob> shot!!! The list had about 30 people on it.
>
>Then was then, now is now.  Control your resentment.  We've even put
>off the Administrator of NASA.
>
Good Luck with the Administrator!

I want to apologize if I sounded resentful.  I never
meant to take a shot at NASA or DRYDEN.
I was curious how NASA has overcome some previous
cost problems.  You certainly outlined the program
at NASA as cost effective.  I did think the
press release made the error of claiming to be
cost effective without providing any evidence of same.

And I think the public should have the opportunity for
review of government programs.  There is too little
accountability in the government in general.  Well,
I better shut-up on this or people will start flaming
me and telling me to take it to alt.gripe.government or
something.

If a per-flight cost is ever available, I would be curious.

Thanks,

Bob Combs


--
-----------------------------------------------
Traditions are the living faith of dead people.
[e-mail]
Bob Combs

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

Date: 24 Mar 1993 21:42:18 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1oo99v$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Akin) wrote:

> But I'm willing to learn, so please enlighten me. Why is it
> that an operational version of DC-X won't need
> refurbishment? It has multiple rocket engines with
> turbopumps, it goes from launch through Mach 25 and back
> through a full orbital entry, it has to do a powered pull-up
> maneuver and land vertically, why is this vehicle magic
> enough that it doesn't need refurbishment and/or checkout?
> I understand about designing for abort or mission
> continuation following a failure (like a turbopump failure)
> and I think that's a great feature that will make the system
> more resiliant, but I have yet to hear any cogent explanation
> of what makes this vehicle so much robust than any other
> launch vehicle ever developed.

Your questions are valid ones.....
I will check with the guys on the program, but in the meantime my take on
it is that one must compare apples to apples and as Henry pointed out
comparing the SSRT to that of Shuttle is a bit unfair.  Perhaps a better
comparison would be SSRT compared with the SR-71.... OK the thing doesnt go
as fast and all that, but it does require special handling with special
materials.  In this case there are many more maintaince functions per hour
of flight then there are for an MD-80, but it takes a lot of flights before
a required overhaul.... The SR-71 engines have a white hot operating
temperature....
I guess the point is that compared to a commercial aircraft we can expect
that there will be a lot of preparation for each flight. However compoared
to the other extreme the goal (which is more realistic then it was for
shuttle) will be much less than the required refurbishment of the SRBs and
the Shuttle engines...

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

Date: 25 Mar 1993 00:33:09 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <1onfp7$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>    trumpet calls and alike aside.  there has to be a sustainable
>resource base, tied to a working economy.  If there is one thing I know
>it's economics.  In the 1800's there were lots of trumpet calls
>to explore the arctic areas.  Scott died, on these trumpet calls.

I really think that power satellites will do it.  Like I said in the
post you are replying to, the work Peter Glaser has been doing can fit
that.  The construction, the materials technology, cheap launch, easier
access to space, orbital tugs, basically, an entire space-based infrastructure
will result if some country (I would hope the US!) were to devote a serious
effort to actually turning the concept of powersats into reality.

By serious effort, I mean turn it into a goal, not merely fund some research
to see what they come up with.  And this is the kind of goal, that -- once
accomplished -- will affect everyone's lives.  It will affect pollution,
and how we regard energy, it will provide jobs jobs jobs...jobs in *space*!
No matter how difficult it will be to qualify for them, they will be
far easier to get than the elite astronaut/cosmonaut positions now,
and altering that perception for the public will be a fantastic thing.
Depending on how the goal is acheived we may have as a *side effect*
a moon base and orbiting colonies.  And, since the results from the
effort can provide tangible benefits to the "common man", the public
will pay more attention to the program; the public will be more willing
to pour money into the program; the program will provide prestige in
the public eye; in short, it will enjoy enormous public support.

IMO of course.

>Unless the space community and NASA in particular pours work into
>basic living and cost reduction,  space will become the black arctic.

Like in the arctic, there is really *no* reason to do so right now.
The economic incentive just isn't there.  And even a nebulous incentive
has to be credible to the public.  Asteroid mining requires either good
telepresence, good robotics, or a large human presence; none of which
we have right now.  Ditto for moon mining or for any serious manufacturing
effort right now.  But we *do* have solar panels.  The public *sees* that;
solar energy panels are fairly commonplace, as are pictures of satellites
that are solar powered.  So your average person will not think that an
effort to get energy from space using them is something out of Star Wars.
Once the idea is sold, and built on, then the infrastructure will be there
to make the other stuff (manufacturing, mining, etc) a reality.

I know that some people here will state that the govt should stay out of
such an effort.  But it will take a lot of investment capital (in 1978
Heppenheimer in _Colonies in Space_ estimated I think $36 billion up front)
and I doubt that any private corporation would really want to sink that
much money into a speculative effort.  But that kind of money is
(unfortunate as this may be) but a drop in the annual govt budget.  And if
it is used on something whose ultimate goal is to improve everyone's standard
of living then I think it is a good use of public funds.


--
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |        [e-mail]
   --------> shari brooks <--------      |    [e-mail]
                      The above opinions are solely my own.

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

Date: 25 Mar 1993 01:23:04 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: waste management...
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>It is not practical to recycle human wastes within the mass (etc.)
>constraints of the shuttle.  The space-station people were looking at
>water recycling, including urine recycling, although that may have
>been canned as part of one of the cutbacks.

out of curiosity, are wastes dumped overboard gravitationally bound to
earth?  Do they dissociate and get blown away by the solar wind or do
they end up in the atmosphere?

--
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |        [e-mail]
   --------> shari brooks <--------      |    [e-mail]
                      The above opinions are solely my own.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 367
------------------------------